I know some of you don't like the push feed design, or the limited magazine capacity in certain calibers, however I really liked it.

[This message has been edited by Bill (edited 08-17-2001).]

whether or not push feeds and limited magazine capacity makes the difference (which I have a good idea it does) really doesn't matter if you really want to buy the gun. i happen to preferr mauser-type actions, doesn't make my guns any better than yours or me any better than you. It's just a matter of taste, if you really think that the weatherby dgr is safe in the field, use it. just understand, you're ultimately the responcible end if the gun doesn't feed, you empty the magazine on several thousand pounds of charging angry.

Best .... Nick

But a gunsmith friend told me 2 things about Wby rifles:

1. In the Mauser weatherbys chambered for 300 WM, there was a chronic problem of bolts getting set back in the receiver. He said it was b/c wby opened up those old mausers too much and they could not take the pressures of a 300 wm. Wby would gladly replace the receiver for a customer, however.

2. In the Mark V in 378 and 460, there were many feeding problems because of the magazine design. Other than feeding, he considered the Mark V a very reliable action.

I'm a desenter of pushfeeds and consider the term Weatherby and Dangerous Game Rifle an oxymoran...Sorry guys but he asked.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

From the replies and comments It seems that you must have edited your message after the original post to remove some additional information and questions that others are responding to. I am guessing that you may have stated you are 145 pounds and that the gun has a removable brake.

I love Weatherbys. All the ones I've owned have been very accurate. None have failed in the field or at the range.

In a properly assembled push-feed, I've never had a problem feeding. The Mauser extractor is certainly workable, but a price: stiffer operation, 90 degree bolt lift and less-supported case head. In the Weatherby, I find the faster and smoother bolt operation, and the greater safety of the enclosed case head, a BIG benefit in fast and positive shooting. Now that is safety factor in hunting any game.

Remember the Mauser was designed when bolt-actions were new, well over 100 years ago. Since shooters weren't familiar with the operation, a controlled-round feed was needed to insure that the round would still feed if the bolt was mis-handled.

Modern shooters grew up on bolt-actions, and manipulating them is second nature. Perhaps if someone is a goof-ball who doesn't shoot much or at all and still wants to experience a hunt for dangerous game, he is better off with a controlled feed. That guy shouldn't be hunting anyway.

For the rest of us it's a non-issue. So long as the extractor is sturdy, there is no problem. That is were I take issue with Remington and Browning and some others. Those extractors are too weak-looking for my taste. Some of the hairy-chested controlled-round feeders may be automatically associating non-controlled-round feed with a weak extractor.

It is a false assumption. If you are nostalgic go ahead and enjoy the Mauser-clones. But they make no difference in the hunting field, and I find the slower bolt movement a hinderance. Those same folks probably also believe revolvers are more reliable defensive pieces than pistols.

The issue is like 3-9x variable scopes. Back in the old days (whenever that was), variables were considered bad because they were unreliable and considered too slow to use. Well if you were raised on iron sights and then given a scope, you had a hard time getting used to them. Therefore the preference for the silly 2.5x and 4x scopes, with the 6x considered a "long-range open plains" number.

What a joke. Anyone under the age of 50 grew up on scopes and acquiring a sight picture with one is second nature, and faster than with irons. So more power is usable and 3-9x is ideal for anything but dangerous game.

What's my point? Get the Weatherby, enjoy it and slay many animals.

[This message has been edited by KuduKing (edited 08-18-2001).]

Kuduking,
The mauser action extraction system was not designed because no one know how to handle a bolt gun. It was design to provide the most positive feed and extraction possible with a bolt gun to improve the reliability of the battle rifle. The M98 was preceded by many botl action rifles (ie the Lebel, Lee, Krag, Several other Mausers, Mosin Nagant, etc). The M98 was a hands down improvement in the reliability department of feeding and extraction. That is the reason by the way that all bolt action battle rifles after the M98 adopted the Mauser system. A sniper rifle by the way is not a battle rifle.

I do not see any major issue with using a push feed action for dangerous game. The reason being, as previously mentioned, you pay the PH to do two things:
1.) Take you the place the game is.
2.) Back you up if you need it. Therefore the PH needs a large magazine capacity and preferably a CRF rifle for reliability.
Many and I mean many of the hunters who go through a PH are not skilled riflemen and therefore need good backup as they may well be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn (shooting from the inside). I am not suggesting by the way, that anyone here is a bad shot.

Just my two cents worth. For the record I hunt only with CFR rifles. This is becuase I have had issues with rapid firing of the pushers. No I did not short stroke. It is just that if you work the action while in recoil the cartridge is prone to mislocating.

Todd E

Also stated that the Weatherby has only two rounds in the magazine and one up the tube. This said by people who would most likely argue the Double is the best DGR. No matter how I do the math 3 is still more than two. True, you can reload the double a hell-of-a-lot quicker than any bolt gun, but from what I have seen you can load and shoot six rounds of out a Weatherby as quick as you can shoot and load 6 rounds out of a double. Up to 4 shots, the double wins, after than it's a dead heat, providing both shooters know what they are doing. Hell, with my single shots I can keep up with a bolt gun up to three rounds, then I tend to fall behind.

This is just one of those subjects that once you develope a preference for one, damn anyone who tells you your choice is not the ONLY choice.

Bill, if you want the rifle, go for it. You only handicap you will suffer from getting it will be in the minds of those that are too closed to admit that there might be another choice besides theirs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:
The M98 was a hands down improvement in the reliability department of feeding and extraction. That is the reason by the way that all bolt action battle rifles after the M98 adopted the Mauser system.

---

Oh really? The Mauser CRF was designed in 1892 at a time when most armies were equipped with single-shot weapons. The Germans were the better businessmen and had no export restrictions, so the Mauser gained wide acceptance, especially with those armies that had no experience with repeaters.

The Lee, Moisin and Lebel rifles of other nations were all redesigned and modified in the early 1900s and again in in the post-WWI period. The French designed a whole new rifle. Guess what they all have in common? They retained the push-feed design, despite the alleged "superiority" of the pre-existing Mauser action.

In fact, the Lee-Enfield was considered the best bolt-action battle-rifle ever designed. Battle is more dangerous than shooting any animal, yet there were no complaints of unreliabilty of the Lee-Enfield or Moisin or P14, despite that "unreliable" push-feed.

True CRF has it's own problems, like not being able to drop a round into the chamber and close the action. If you want a quick 4th shot with that Weatherby DGR, just drop a round into the action and close the bolt. It will feed just fine.

Again, you people enjoy your CRF rifles if that's what you like, but don't claim they are essential. Push-feeds are no handicap, and in fact are faster to operate, unless you are a boob that should spend more time practicing the operation of your weapon.

My point exactly. By the way, one very real reason that the Lee Enfield didn't die until NATO was that the British lacked the money and desire to retool it. This is why Pattern 14 (read mauser derivative) were made here in the States.

I would love to see a push feed rifle feed upside down. In order to do accomplish this feat the rifle has to disprove Mr Newton's Law of Gravity. There is nothing holding the cartridge in the action therefore gravity attracts it to the ground! I have owned many push feed rifles and I know how they work!!

AGAIN MY ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL POST... IF THE WEATHERBY IS YOUR DESIRE BY ALL MEANS BUY IT AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT THIS *$@#.

To the poster who had a PH and himself empty magazines into a charging buffalo. I would recommend in the future shot it in the head. No brain no charge...peroid!

Todd E

I did what you suggested and my 458 Win Mag (post 64 Win) and my 416 Remington (M700 Rem) both dropped the cartridge. Working the bolt really fast I was able to jam the cartridge between the breech cone and the bolt.

If your rifles do what you are suggesting you should contact the National Academy of Science and let them know that you have disproven Newton's Law of Gravity.

By they way, both of these rifles will jam in the same manner described above if you work the action while under/recovering from recoil.

Let me explain this to you since it seems obvious you have never done this.
1.) You fire the rifle.
2.) Immediately after the round fires you move you hand up and open the bolt. While this is going on your shoulder is moving backwards and the rifle's muzzle is climbing toward the sky (this would be recoil)
3.) You work the action while you pull the rifle back down out of recoil with your off hand (that would be the hand not on the bolt).
4.) Now the rifle is reloaded and returned to battery so that you can fire a follow-up shot.

If you are any good, with a big bore, you should be able to accomplish this feat in about 1.5 seconds or less. This can be very difficult with a big rifle (500 Jeffery, 505 Gibbs, 585 Nyati, etc). During this exercise the push feed rifles tend to jam because the inertia of the cartridge opposed the loading of the cartridge (this follows Mr. Netwon's Third Law an object im motion wants to follow that motion unless acted upon by an external force). The external force is not there with a push feed action. The external force is there with the extraction claw on the mauser type action.

That being said. The push feed action is perfectly suitable for dangerous game. One must realize however that it will not provide the optimum rate of fire. By the way, this is not a significant issue with the old push action battle rifles for several reasons.

I know what I am saying is true for two reasons.
1.) Been there done that. This means I have hunted dangerous game!
2.) The LAWS OF PHYSICS are on my side!!

1.) Recoil was much lower.
2.) The cartridge was shorter (less leverage)
3.) The bullet had less mass (less inertia)
4.) The extractor on many of these actions was on top of the bolt therefore providing some resistance to the cartridge flipping out of the action.

I also will not get into the mentality of some of the nations toward the survivability of their troops when it comes to the selection of arms. This mentality helps created the desire to retain the push feed action instead of retooling for something better. Personally I would rather have a Garand than a Mauser on the battle field any day.

Todd E

Perhaps, George Hoffman can confirm this?

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

Even so, in my estimate the Mauser 98 (numerous patterns, both old & new) and Winchester Model 70 controlled-feed actions are superior designs. Properly adjusted and reworked by a quality riflesmith who truly understands these actions and can refine them to get the very most out of them, there's no other system out there that combines practicality, quality, or absolute reliability nearly as well as these do.

For me, a performance-oriented custom job based on a Mauser 98 or Winchester Model 70 action, complete with a properly-designed classic-style stock represents the zenith of function and reliability. There's nothing I'd rather hunt with or trust my life to on any hunt anywhere in the world.

AD

Also, I shoot bolt 458, 416 Rigby and 338, all of which recoil substantially, and in none, I repeat NONE of these rifles, do I end up the muzzle "climbing toward the sky (this would be recoil)." You claim you have hunted dangerous game, well, bully for you. That has nothing to do with the fact that apparently my rifles fit me better than yours do and do not climb toward the sky. Sure, they come back, and rise up some, but I have never had one climb so high as to need to be pulled back down, they do that on their own while I am working the bolt. I would wager that while I have not hunted dangerous game that I have shot big bore rifles at least as much as you have, maybe more. I know how to use them, and in spite of your snide remark "since it seems obvious you have never done this" I would put my skills up against yours or anyone else's when it comes the handling of big bore rifles. That said, I will not be drawn in any further into your childish way of thinking "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" and "nobody can have any different experience than myself." I said "Maybe not all PF will do it", but you resort to snide innuendo. You made the comment "I would love to see a push feed rifle feed upside down." I guess you don't believe anything you haven't seen and/or you don't have that much experience with different push feeds. If I had a digital recorder you would see it, but you most likely would say it was faked. I admit, my experience with PF is limited to those mentioned and a few more (but I never tested them), the rest of my rifles are CF, but these particular PF feed as reliably as the CF whether you want to belive it or not. Go ahead and live in your world where you are king and only you have the right to state a fact as only you interpret it. Like I said, bully for you.

No the physical laws are not misapplied.

How are your cartridges started in the chamber before they exit the magazine? I am afraid that even the M700 has a forward receiver ring in which the bolt lugs lock. This receiver ring by the way is inbetween the magazine and the chamber. The push feed rifle allows the cartrige to tip up or side ways and come into contact with the lug raceways or the breech cone (both are before the chamber) and you jam the action as the cartridge is wedged between the bolt and the interference encountered in the receiver ring. Your rifles will do this also! They must by design.

Curious also, as to what push feed action you have chambered in 416 Rigby or is this one of your CRF rifles? The muzzle of your rifles lifts up under recoil that is all I meant by climbs for the sky. You must pull it back down again to reacquire the target for the follow-up shot. By the way the rifles you mentioned are not what I consider to be heavy kickers. I suggest you try the 500 A-Square, Jeffery or 505 Gibbs loaded hot. These rifles will push you back considerably more than the Rigby or 458 Win Mag and the muzzle rise is considerable if the stock is designed for the express sight use. Although my rifles are set up with Classic American style stock which have minimal drop at comb. This does reduce the muzzle rise.

JUST FOR THE RECORD. I AM NOT ANTI PUSH FEED. IT IS JUST IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE LIMITATIONS OF THEMSELVES AND THERE FIREARMS WHEN THEY PURSUE ANYTHING THAT CAN "BITE BACK". TO DO ANYTHING ELSE PLACES THEMSELVES AND OTHER IN POTENTIAL DANGER!

I also will no longer pursue this thread as I have nothing else to say. If some people want to believe the impossible is true so be it.

Todd E

http://www.angelfire.com/gu/biggbore/index.html

[This message has been edited by Big Bore (edited 08-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Big Bore (edited 08-19-2001).]

Kent

Follow this please: Most sporting Mauser types are actually "PF's" until the cartridge pops up about halfway across the follower, by design, becoming "CFA's" only AFTER this, let's call it an acquisition, occurs.
In the detachable magazine rifles I have seen, the magazine release point is actually further forward than is the point of cartridge acquisition in the CRF rifle.
In reality, there is truly little to choose between them, from "controlled feed" perspective, as neither design controls the feeding cartridge full range. I have the utmost regard for the Browning design and I am not the slightest bit embarrassed in saying so.

It is based on my actual field experiences and records kept.
I have seen more failures with pushfeeds than with control feeds by a considerable number, so based on that I will continue down this same road....If anyone wants to do otherwise I would bet dollars to donuts, sooner or later they change their mind because good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment...

There are three kinds of folks, the ones that learn by reading, thoes that learn from observation, and the rest who have to touch the fire to see if its hot and shoot pushfeed rifles.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Nick

I intentionally stated in the original post that I was well aware of certain shooters lack of praise for the Mark V and the pushfeed design.

"I'm a desenter of pushfeeds and consider the term Weatherby and Dangerous Game Rifle an oxymoran...Sorry guys but he asked.

------------------
Ray Atkinson"

And Ray, I never asked.

[This message has been edited by Bill (edited 08-20-2001).]

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:

It is based on my actual field experiences and records kept.
I have seen more failures with pushfeeds than with control feeds by a considerable number....

---

The cloud of BS in this post is so overwhelming as to require a hazmat suit while reading it.

The experience of the US military over the past 20 years or so with the push-feed Remington in their current sniper system is that the weapon works very well and is reliable in conditions far more severe and stressful than any hunting situation. The failure rate due to extraction/chambering is so low as to be unremarkable.

The widespread use of push-feeds in the military, in both bolt and automatic actions, should settle the issue. I think the intelligent reader will recognize the advantages of push-feed actions in modern rifles, and not be swayed by the bias and limited experience of particular hunters or "guides".

this is caused by being excited, trying to gain a fraction of a second on a stage (or saving your life), and not pulling the bolt all the way to the rear.

the time pressure of competition will divuldge the difficienceis of any creation.

The push feed is at a disadvantage here as it allows for short storkes that the controlled feed does not.

In defence of the Remington, so many people use them that they are more at risk.

the Rmeington trigger is not easily adjusted or maintained.

Also, the Remington requires special tools to disassembel the bolt for cleaning.

this from a guy who shoots 400-500 rounds a week in his bolt gun.

Andy