quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
I'd rather trust my own judgement. The fact that Seyfried and Hagel used Remington 700-based rifles in the face of dangerous game means nothing to me. They weren't the first to do so, and they won't be the last. Quite a few gunwriters over the years have waxed ecstatic over rifles that I'd personally rather not use.

For any sort of big game hunting, I'll take a rifle with a Mauser-style controlled-feed action for my own personal use. I have not found a single logical reason to select a push-feed action instead of a controlled-feed action, especially for dangerous game purposes.

AD

---

I agree, 100% Well said Allen!

[ 10-10-2003, 18:00: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:

How many of us have personally had a Remington 700 extractor fail after breaking in the rifle with a hundred or so rounds ?

Hammer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:
Once again from the Ross Seyfried article in the September 1999 Rifle ....

The success and reliability of either depends solely on how well it is made and tuned. Actually the Remington/Sako style extractors are a bit more foolproof. That is, they require less sophistication on the part of the gunmaker to cause them to work perfectly.

Generally a Remington extractor works right out of the box.... If they survive the first box of shells, they usually last almost forever. Because they do not get involved in the feeding and chambering process, there is little that can go wrong.

The Mauser claw, controlled-feed system is certainly a wonderful device. There are one or two traps built into this system that will bite you if given the chance. First, the claw that controls the feeding out of the magazine must have perfect geometry, size, and tension. When they are not correct they either blow the cartridge out in front of the bolt or bind it as it tries to make the corner into the chamber. Further, it is very important the claw be able to cam itself over the round that has inadvertently found its way into the chamber in front of the extractor. If the extractor is set up with zero clearance so it cannot possibly leave a case in the chamber without tearing the rim away (this is common when makers search for perfectly reliable extraction), it is equally impossible for it to get over one that got into the chamber in front of the bolt.

These are what I call catastrophic failures in the field. You have a round mashed into the chamber, the bolt will not close nor do you have any means to remove it. It is one of those untidy situations when you must say, "Please, Mr Charging Lion, wait while I get a cleaning rod."

Hammer

---

That couldn't have been better written if it was written by Remington themselves.

There is a margin of error in everthing that you do in life. This will always be the case as long as Mr. Murphy is alive and kicking.

Remington makes a nice product. I didn't say great. Just nice. With their feeding and extraction design along with their trigger/safety design, they just have a much greater margin for error than I am comfortable with.

Both of my rifles that I took to Africa were CRF. Eventhough that was their design, it wasn't good enough. I checked the feeding of each and every round that I took. If it didn't feed 100%, it didn't go. I also took great pains to make sure the guns didn't fire unless I pulled the trigger. So the safeties and triggers were thoroughly tested.

Beyond that, I relied on common sense and safe gun handling proceedures. It makes life a lot easier when you can eliminate problems and you only have to concentrate on a couple of items. Personally, I don't want to concern myself with feeding and extraction issues along with misfires. Thus, I have made certain choices.

Unfortunately for Remington, they don't fit into my plans. Except, of course, for the Remington Model 30-S that I picked up a few months ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:


#1
Do the sentiments about non-Mauser extractors extend to the Browning A-bolt, Weatherby Mark V, and recent Sakos ?

#2
Would that limit the currently produced dangerous game rifles to Winchester, Dakota, Ruger, and CZ ? Would that eliminate consideration of all other action types such as lever, single-shot, or double rifles ?

#3
How strongly held are the beliefs concerning the necessity of the Mauser extractor ?

Hammer

---

#1 Yes it does, I would not hunt dangerous game with any pushfeed rifle regardless who made it!

#2 That about covers it for the boltaction rifles! As to the double rifle I would rather have a good double rifl than any bolt rifle, regardles of make or action!

#3 The EXTRACTOR is only one part of a CRF system! The 700 fitted with a Mauser extractor would still be a push feed, and as such not suited for hunting dangerous game!

As Allen says there is not one reason to make a pushfeed rifle except to cut cost of manufacture. This system was NOT done to improve the Mauser system, but to cut cost, and increase the company's bottom line! The PF system is not the only bad thing about the K-Mart mentality of Remington, they are thrown together,by workers who are not gun people, and care nothing for quality control, only PAY DAY. At least of the other PF rifles you name, the SAKO is at least assembled with some pride!

Regardless no push feed rifle is suitable for use on dangerous game, no matter who makes them! If, however, the PF was all that was available, then I could understand one buying it, but when you have a choice, Well that's a different bag of shot!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:
But there are things which are make-or-break issues. I would never ride an English saddle. Would ride bareback first. John Wayne's saddles always had horns (except the calvary movies). So will mine.

Is the Mauser extractor a make-or-break issue ?

Hammer[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:
The reduced cost of using a push-feed system instead of a controlled-feed system is an interesting argument. It might have been true fifty years ago.

Ruger uses a controlled-feed system and their rifles underprice Remingtons, Sakos, Brownings, and Weatherbys who used push-feed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KurtC:
Going in harm's way with a firearm made by the lowest bidder will give you an uneasy feeling that depreciates the thrill of the hunt.

You will feel much better carrying a firearm that was designed to work more reliably with each modification. Instead of one that was concieved by removing features deemed uneccessary by a bean counter.

I can still remember looking for the extractor on my first Remington. I thought I had gotten an unfinished rifle, until someone pointed out the fact that it doesn't really have one in the tangible sense. It relies on the policy of "wishful thinking" to extract a cartridge, which may or may not work when you need it to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrlexma:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KurtC:
Going in harm's way with a firearm made by the lowest bidder will give you an uneasy feeling that depreciates the thrill of the hunt.

You will feel much better carrying a firearm that was designed to work more reliably with each modification. Instead of one that was concieved by removing features deemed uneccessary by a bean counter.

I can still remember looking for the extractor on my first Remington. I thought I had gotten an unfinished rifle, until someone pointed out the fact that it doesn't really have one in the tangible sense. It relies on the policy of "wishful thinking" to extract a cartridge, which may or may not work when you need it to.

---

KurtC has said it all and well.

---