This is the type of situation I personally hope a CRF would prevent even if you are somewhat pre-occupied while working the bolt.

short stroke failure

I don't know from experience but I was told that the preference for controlled round feed in a dangerous game rifle had more to do with the reliability of the extractor than with an ability to fire upside down or while being shaken. The CRF rifle extractor grips the case head with more metal and is therefore capable of extracting a stuck or otherwise reluctant case from the chamber, I was told. Can't get a new one in there without removing the old one, it was pointed out. Looking at the "thumbnail" extractor on my old M70 and then at the beefy extractory on my new M77 .375HH, I would have to agree.

No preference for me. I've only had one failure to extract, leaving a case in the chamber and it was with a CRF due to an old military round. Anything mechanical can fail so just shoot enough to gain your confidence thru practicing in field like conditions prior to going hunting. Make your choice, then live with it.

I should ignore all this but it begins to border on the absurd.



A push feed is more likely not to feed, more likely to jam, more likely to fail to extract.



A CRF is more likely to save the day. I had a round jam against the front receiver ring with a CFR once, but since the bolt/extractor had ahold of the cartridge, I just pulled the bolt back and flipped it out, and fed another round.



It ain't no friggin' mystery.

Well, the only problem I have every had with any rifle is a CRF (my current M70) that pops a live cartridge right out of the mag.

As for the extractor, read a little of Jim Carmichel. He has a good explanation on why the dinky little little PF extractors are actually stronger than CRF claw extractors.

Jorge, I do like your reasoning - PHs know DGRs. By the same reasoning, competition shooters know what makes an accurate rifle, and you won't find a CRF on those shooting grounds.

AZW: Yes, I definetly do think the "accuracy" crowd does prefer the push feed, although I don't know why, as I don't buy into the "push feed is more accurate philosophy." CRFs have won more long range competitions (like Wimbledon for instance) than any action. I do remember reading the Carmichael piece--and not agreeing with it. As one poster alluded to, most of the breakages at the annual PH training, those little extractors break a lot more, moreover, the CRF extractor "grabs' a much larger section of the rim than a PF does so that logic escapes me. Having said all of that, I would not hesitate to use a well-crafted push feed for any kind of hunting, but I have to go with the pro's recommendation and that is the CRF. jorge

Folks tend to mis-interpret things.



The old saying has nothing to do with push-feeds being upside down. It refers to the 98 Mauser being designed to function at any angle, under any circumstances (for military purposes). Someone interpreted this to mean that push-feeds won't work as such. They are wrong.



The biggest problem with push-feeds is that they can be double fed with the barrel pointing down . Point the barrel downwards and start feeding a round. Then pull the bolt back and let gravity drop the round into the chamber. Now push the bolt forward and strip another cartridge from the mag. If you don't think this can happen, try it while running, sweating and pissing your pants.



The reason push-feeds are more accurate is strictly coincidence. The same cost-cutting that did away with the claw extractor is the very same cost-cutting that made the bottom of the receiver round and easier to bed into a stock.



As for extraction, the 98 gets its power from the fact that it is self locking. The harder you pull rearwards, the more it grips the rim. Anything shy of this a sham on the consumer, claw or not. I put the 98 and CZ in one category, and everything else in another.