"Occasionally the pangs of hunger will cause some writer to emerge from his miserable cave, dust the cobwebs from his rusty old typewriter, and peck out a story on why a bolt action rifle with the claw-type, Mauser-style extractor is to be preferred for hunting dangerous game. Somewhere in those 2000 words he seldom fails to point out that anyone that goes forth to hunt larde and truculent beasts with a rifle with the so-called "push-feed" style of bolt and its tiny extractor is laying his life on the line and is playing with less than a full deck of cards to boot. I personally consider such an opinion to be so much baloney, and anytime I read rubbish like that I am stricken by acute indigestion. I also wonder just how much hunting expierence the author of the article actually has.
While it is possibly true that Peter Paul Mauser's extractor is a bit stronger, I find the style of extractor used in rifles such as the Remington Model 700, Weatherby Mark V, Post-64 WInchester Model 70, and Sako Model 75 to be more than adequate. This assumes those rifles are correctly prepared for hard use in the field, are properly maintained, and good ammo is used. Many African professional hunters as well those who guide hunters in search of game such as brown bear in other parts of the world agree with my opinion. Theirs is hazardous business, and they cannot afford for the rifles they use for backing up wealthy clients on potentially dangerous game such as Cape Buffalo, African Lion, and grizzly bear to be anything less than 100 percent reliable when the chips are down. I still occasionally see a professional hunter or guide toting a Mauser or a Pre-64 Model 70, but the great majority of those guys use the same Remington Model 700's, Winchester model 70's, Weatherby Mark V's, and Sakos you and I buy at our local gun shops. Maybe it is because they don't have time to read articles in gun magazines. Or maybe it is because those rifles work and they are happy with them. (Layne Simpson, Rifles and Cartridges for Large Game Chapter 9 "Medicine for Dangerous Game".)

In many cases the PH is shooting whatever rifle he could get or was given to him as a gift, irrespective of whether it is a PF or CRF. There are few gun nuts among the current crowd.

Considering their severe life of dust and abuse it is a wonder half of them go off when they are called upon.

I have always thought a well tested rifle of whatever design was superior to an out of the box CRF. If you have a favorite and it works, you trust it and it is second nature to use. That is the best choice for you.

I agree with Will! The PHs, and North American
guides,in most cases, are not as well up on the machanics of a rifle, as they are on the game they are hunting. Just like most police, and soldiers, they are poor people to ask what rifle is best! They know what is in their hands, or what was given them, and if it goes bang, and hits something they aimed at, it is fine! That is, till it isn't fine, and gets them into trouble. Even then, they rarely know the reason the thing didn't work properly.

Everyone always talks about the MAUSER TYPE EXTRACTOR, and that is important, but the extractor isn't what makes an action CRF. The extractor is only one part of the CRF system.The key word here is "CONTROL", not EXTRACTOR!

Even if a Mauser extractor was fitted to a PF action, it still wouldn't be a CRF action!

A well tuned rifle is the only rifle one should take into the weeds with dangerous game. So,with that thought in mind, a well tuned PF rifle is still inferior to a well tuned CRF!

Opinions vary, as someone's tag line says, but opinion doesn't change physics! The PF will always have it's drawbacks, and the CRF Mauser will always be superior, and that is not opinion, but fact!

Layne Simpson is among the most knowledgeable gun guy's ever and highly respected in the industry. Having said that it is also true that all the "fumble feeds" are simply an attempt to produce an action more cheaply and to a lower price point. Wby. started out with Mauser actions, as did Sako, and Rem. simply wanted an action that would allow them to sell cheaper than Win. 70s.
I own use and enjoy 3 700s all were accurate out of the box, as is the Sako 270 and 2 A Bolts, but all these exist because the mauser crf action requires extensive and expensive machining steps. Browning said as much when they discontinued the Safari Grade in the 70s. They also tried a cheaper variant called the Supreme prior to giving up. Then Ruger came up with investment casting as their way to make something similar but cheaper.
For Africa crf is all I use M70, Dakota, or browning Safari. My dream is an Oberndorf magnum Mauser in 416 Rigby with a densely grained piece of walnut set up in the English style. It might not be better than a m700 in 416Rem. but while I'm waiting for my next African adventure maybe I can figure out a way to make it happen.

Anyone with a comment or observation on the absence of a claw extractor or controlled feed on the ultimate dangerous game rifle, the M16?
Regards,
Inyati

quote:

Wby. started out with Mauser actions, as did Sako,

Adrian, I've had a lot of Sako's in my hands over the years and do not remember ever seeing a CRF one. Have I missed something?

Many early Sako rifles were made on the FN Supreme 300 action.

CRF actions are basically flawed because they require a higher degree of quaity control to function and they are also far more dependent on case rim and extractor groove dimensions.

Anyone with a comment or observation on the absence of a claw extractor or controlled feed on the ultimate dangerous game rifle, the M16?
Regards,
Inyati

A bit difficult to have an auto as CRF as the bolt closes too quickly. The CRF needs the case rim to slide under an extractor and do it from an angle.

Mike

fwiw,
i just watched one of those shooting competion shows last week where the competitors were using bolt action rifles, all of which appeared to be rem 700 actioned, and one of the competitors had a shell to fly out upon exctraction, flip over backwards and land back in the loading trough whereupon the shooter closed the bolt on it tying up his rifle......

CRF will work..........

Ask D'Arcy Echols, H&H or Purdey.

But for rough conditions.......heap of shit.

303 SMLE, Wby Mark V etc

Mike

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Brian

Perhaps I was a bit too circumspect. For nearly fifty years a rifle without controlled feed or a claw has been successfully used in repeatedly desperate circumstances. Are either really necessary or even desireable?
Inyati

quote:

Originally posted by WbyPower:
CRF will work..........

Ask D'Arcy Echols, H&H or Purdey.

But for rough conditions.......heap of shit.

303 SMLE, Wby Mark V etc

Mike

I'm taking a Mod 700 to Zim and Mozambique this year and expect it will work as well as any other pushfeed or CRF rifle I've prevoisly taken. I honestly don't see the BFD.

Mark

Since I own both and knowing that the US military, UK and other "warring" parties have chosen against CRF tells me that it's whatever you want to use scenario. In other words, push feeds are not a "second choice" only category. 2 leggers are way more dangerous than any 4 legged beasts!

Oh, and low price (read Remington 700) is not a selection criteria given the fact that Accuracy International is now considered the ultimate precision marksman (read Sniper) weapon on the market...It is by far the most expensive bolt action ever fielded by a "legitimate" force (read: US, UK, NZ, AUS)

So, It really is a 6 or 1/2 the other deal.

JW

Many push feeds are fine, some controlled feeds are a heap. I have seen both that do not work!

Also, as Will noted, most PH's particularly the younger guys starting out use whatever is available. On the PH exams in Zim, at least half the rifles used in the shooting test will give trouble. (I'll make the same observation about 1911 style pistols used in IPSC matches).

the frequently encoutered problems here are-

Extractors breaking on Rem 700's in .416 Rem calibre. Yes, there have been occasional bolt handle trouble, and the rem action is slower to reload the magazine than many, but these are rare faults.

Weatherby ammo trying up the bolt- this applies only to the hotter months (like when the PH exam takes place). The .460 is a popular round ammongst PH's who invarably download slightly to give 2400-2550fps.

Interarms/CZ/ etc safety is inadvertanly applied when manipulating the bolt.

others- Older weatherby's and well used Mark X's sometimes go off when the safety is disengauged. They need to be checked regularly- we had an AD at the range on the last shooting exam with a Mark X (very nearly a nasty accident)

Ruger .416 Rigby's- Often fail to eject the spent case

Many PH's shoot very little. Ammo is too expensive or difficult to get and the recoil too great. You get the odd exception, but 20 rounds slow fire practice during a year is probably alot for the average PH in Africa. Reloading is illegal in most african countries or componants difficult to obtain. EG - In Harare the only .416 Rigby ammo available is federal and is US$28 a bang. Bearing in mind what a PH earns...there is unlikely to be much practice at those prices.

In September 2006 I was in Matetsi on a ten-day Cape buffalo and plains game hunt. I used a .470 NE double for the buff and a Remington Custom Shop ABG in .375 H&H for the eland, kudu, waterbuck, zebra, warthog, and impala.

When I shot a zebra on day five, 90% of the extractor sheared off.

We looked at the bolt and my PH (Darren Ellerman) said "Where's your bloody extractor?".

The kudu and warthog were taken on days six and seven with just enough left of the extractor to pull the shell out far enough that I could grab it with my finger nail. I suppose it was another incentive to make a good first shot.

First thing I did when I returned to the States was sell/trade every Remington in the gun safe for a Heym, a couple of Mausers, and several Rugers and Winchesters.

I'm sure Remington extractor failures are not all that common, but for me personally I will never own another Remington unless it's a nice Model 1903. I will say this, it was a damn accurate rifle. But there are plenty of other alternatives out there and I'll never take that chance again.

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
In September 2006 I was in Matetsi on a ten-day Cape buffalo and plains game hunt. I used a .470 NE double for the buff and a Remington Custom Shop ABG in .375 H&H for the eland, kudu, waterbuck, zebra, warthog, and impala.

When I shot a zebra on day five, 90% of the extractor sheared off.

We looked at the bolt and my PH (Darren Ellerman) said "Where's your bloody extractor?".

The kudu and warthog were taken on days six and seven with just enough left of the extractor to pull the shell out far enough that I could grab it with my finger nail. I suppose it was another incentive to make a good first shot.

First thing I did when I returned to the States was sell/trade every Remington in the gun safe for a Heym, a couple of Mausers, and several Rugers and Winchesters.

I'm sure Remington extractor failures are not all that common, but for me personally I will never own another Remington unless it's a nice Model 1903. I will say this, it was a damn accurate rifle. But there are plenty of other alternatives out there and I'll never take that chance again.

You could put a Sako style extractor on the remingtons.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:

You could put a Sako style extractor on the remingtons.

That would make extraction a bit more reliable, but it would still be a pushfeed, with a better extractor!

Push feed people always talk about the "CLAW EXTRACTOR" when discribing a CRF action! The Sako extractor is a better extractor, but the KEY WORD is CONTROL, not extractor. Even if you installed a real Mauser extractor on a Rem 700, it would still be a pushfeed action, and still would not have control of the rounds till the bolt was closed, and the handle turned down. The CRF action has control of the round before it even pops free of the magazine!

As far as any action being able to malfunction, that is true, but the pushfeed is far more likely to malfunction that a CRF, both being well tuned, the only condition any rifle should be in, before it is taken into the weeds with a bite back!

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

That would make extraction a bit more reliable, but it would still be a pushfeed, with a better extractor!

Couple of minor thoughts.

He had problems with the extractor not the feed.
He had a double for things that bite although I guess Zebra could bite?

I have the impression there are more complaints on AR about CRF's, and the more complicated something is I wouldn't be supprised.

So, assuming you CAN get a good smith to work it over, is he going to throw enough dust in to simulate Africa? Is he going to try every case/projectile that one may be using or stuck with. (pun)

One PH test I read about, the CR feeds WERE the ones jamming the most. (Brno/CZ .458 Lott)
IE. not every country or person has access to a good smith.

Mac, your in luck. I saw a CRF .22 RF advertised the other day. (In case your attacked by a rabid squirrel, I guess.)

Would I be game (pun) to use my PF in Africa on DG,
not a chance, on my own. With a good PH to back me up, you bet.

You can avoid all this silly discussion with a double rifle.


Dutch


Just sittin' in the gutter sluggin rats.

Then we can argue about extractors or ejectors

Mac,

You can tune your CRF until the cows come home BUT the CRF is very dependent on the dimensions and condition of the case rim and extractor groove. YES, for the handful of rounds you take to Africa you can check each one. Try that when chasing roos or pigs and shooting from the vehichle and reloading the cases you found in the back of truck for the next days shooting or the night's shooting.

The bottom line is that a CRF needs to be "more right" to function. See Big Bores and Gunsmithing forums

Mike

TRUE control of the round is achieved with a vertical stack in line feed. You can turn the rifle upside down and swing from the cartridge like a monkey on the branch of a tree

quote:

Originally posted by WbyPower:
Mac,

You can tune your CRF until the cows come home BUT the CRF is very dependent on the dimensions and condition of the case rim and extractor groove. YES, for the handful of rounds you take to Africa you can check each one. Try that when chasing roos or pigs and shooting from the vehichle and reloading the cases you found in the back of truck for the next days shooting or the night's shooting.

The bottom line is that a CRF needs to be "more right" to function. See Big Bores and Gunsmithing forums

Mike

TRUE control of the round is achieved with a vertical stack in line feed. You can turn the rifle upside down and swing from the cartridge like a monkey on the branch of a tree

Mike,

I've often wondered why the really cheap, readily available rifles are CRF, ie: Ruger's and CZ's?

Whereas the good factory rifles such as Blaser, Sauer, HS-Precision and Weatherby are more expensive and are push feeds

Is it, because those companies have figured out they don't want their customer service and warranty departments log jammed?

quote:

Originally posted by Blair338/378:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by: WbyPower

Mike,

I've often wondered why the really cheap, readily available rifles are CRF, ie: Ruger's and CZ's?

Whereas the good factory rifles such as Blaser, Sauer, HS-Precision and Weatherby are more expensive and are push feeds

Is it, because those companies have figured out they don't want their customer service and warranty departments log jammed?

I assume you are addressing me, but my name is MAC, not Mike, if so!

No, that isn't it,because of any percieved warranty! It is that the people who buy them don't know better!

The pushfeed action was not brought out because it was better, it was brought out because it was cheaper to make, and it improved the companie's bottom line, nothing more!

MacD37,

No Mac, the post was actually addressed to Mike McGuire aka Wby Power.

But;

If what you say is true about reducing costs, then why do companies such as Blaser, Weatherby etc, continue on with push feeds? Those rifles are much more expensive than Rooger and CZ?

What do you think of Mike's argument that CRF are very dependant on brass qulity control for reliable functioning, more so than an in line push feed such as an HS-Precision?

Regards,

Blair Calvin

This argument will of course continue as long as there are people and there will be NO winner. It does make me wonder though why the Armed forces use a Rem 700 as their sniper rifle. I can't think of a set of hunting conditions that could be much more adverse nor a quarry that could be and is more dangerous. There will probably be pages of discourse refuting the Armed forces wisdom in choosing the Rem 700 but that does not change the fact that they did and it is being used successfully.

I have two Sako long action Model 75's, and both are clearly push feed rifles. They feed just fine UNLESS in a rush I fail to retract the bolt completely to the stop before sending it back forward. That case rim MUST be allowed to pop up in front of the bolt face as with any rifle. I notice that the Sako web-site advertises the new Model 85 as a CRF. There is no further information on the action other than that description. I've not actually seen one yet, so can someone who has seen one provide us some info on it? Is the action really different than the Model 75 and how so?
Gary

quote:

Considering their severe life of dust and abuse it is a wonder half of them go off when they are called upon.

Scan the boards on the number of guys that have problems with CRF's and pushfeeds.

How many threads are started just on this site alone about finding a good CRF gunsmith for feeding problems.

All the PF problems seem to be second hand and perpetuated by the CRF elitist. They are real, but so are CRF problems.

Every DGR needs to be gone through by a competent gunsmith IMO. Regardless of action type.

quote:

CRF will work..........

Ask D'Arcy Echols, H&H or Purdey.

Those makers are not a financial option for 99.99% of the people who go hunting.

There is a big difference between a sniper rifle and a dangerous game rifle. I believe it was Elmer Keith who said "game is not dangerous if it is far away". A dangerous game rifle need not be the most accurate possible (unlike a sniper rifle.) It must however be the most reliable rifle possible regardless of dust, mud, high/low temperature, etc. It must feed and extract with 100% reliability and it must be a large enough caliber to put down your charging quarry at close range. I vote for a CRF mauser type action which has been smoothed to feed as slick as possible with the claw extracter filed so as to be able to snap over the rim if you need drop in a the fourth round on the run rather than be only able to feed from the magazine.

More thoughts.

I can't imagine Mac rolling around the back of an Aussie ute shoot, so that doesn't count.

I annoy Mac often to see if I've pumped him for every arguement he has for Doubles or CRF.

Boddington's son in law apparently "broke" a CRF. Boddington gives the nod to the CRF, but not by much.

The Americans tend to think, " I want the BEST.
If it's not the best, it's junk."

The latest CZ is a PF. CZ said the GERMANS demanded a smoother feeding rifle than the CRF.
(I don't know if smooth and CZ go togeather, but maybe after years of dust or something.

I still think the dangers of annoying dangerous game is such that CRF or PF is well down the list. Knowing the problems of each will negate most of the problems of either.

Anyway let's keep at Mac, he eventually explained to me the correct use and benifits of the double, and I'm really obstinate.

Good on you Mac.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
More thoughts.

I can't imagine Mac rolling around the back of an Aussie ute shoot, so that doesn't count.

I annoy Mac often to see if I've pumped him for every arguement he has for Doubles or CRF.

Boddington's son in law apparently "broke" a CRF. Boddington gives the nod to the CRF, but not by much.

The Americans tend to think, " I want the BEST.
If it's not the best, it's junk."

The latest CZ is a PF. CZ said the GERMANS demanded a smoother feeding rifle than the CRF.
(I don't know if smooth and CZ go togeather, but maybe after years of dust or something.

I still think the dangers of annoying dangerous game is such that CRF or PF is well down the list. Knowing the problems of each will negate most of the problems of either.

Anyway let's keep at Mac, he eventually explained to me the correct use and benifits of the double, and I'm really obstinate.

Good on you Mac.

quote:

I can't imagine Mac rolling around the back of an Aussie ute shoot, so that doesn't count.

JAL,

That os OK as we can take him out in an ex speedway 350 sedan...he can use his double

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
This argument will of course continue as long as there are people and there will be NO winner. It does make me wonder though why the Armed forces use a Rem 700 as their sniper rifle. I can't think of a set of hunting conditions that could be much more adverse nor a quarry that could be and is more dangerous. There will probably be pages of discourse refuting the Armed forces wisdom in choosing the Rem 700 but that does not change the fact that they did and it is being used successfully.

quote:

Posted by goshoot

There is a big difference between a sniper rifle and a dangerous game rifle. I believe it was Elmer Keith who said "game is not dangerous if it is far away". A dangerous game rifle need not be the most accurate possible (unlike a sniper rifle.) It must however be the most reliable rifle possible regardless of dust, mud, high/low temperature, etc. It must feed and extract with 100% reliability and it must be a large enough caliber to put down your charging quarry at close range. I vote for a CRF mauser type action which has been smoothed to feed as slick as possible with the claw extracter filed so as to be able to snap over the rim if you need drop in a the fourth round on the run rather than be only able to feed from the magazine.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

Though a human with a rifle of any type is far more dangerous that any game animal, it is because of his brain, more than because of his weapon. The weapon simply gives him the ability to take you on at longer range.

A sniper rifle, is to be used one shot at a time from deep concealment,when your target is totally unaware of your existance, and from long range, and is unaware of your position if you miss.

This type rifle is not used in general firefights, where the drill is to fill the air with bullets as in laying down a barrage, of bullets, in hopes some or all the enemy will either be killed, or wounded, while keep their colective heads down,so you can advance, while they are overwhelmed.

The PF, or CRF, makes no difference in a sniper rifle, and the only thing needed is long range accuracy. A benchrest rifle would do the same thing, but I don't think even a PF fan, or a smart sniper, would go into the weeds with a target rifle in hand, with a cape buffalo, who is pissed off because a leak in his gut made by a bad shot,read SNIPER RIFLE!

I can guarintee you, given the option, a sniper that is cought in a street fight,with a fireteam, or in any general close in firefight, would far rather have a full auto,M16 with lots of ammo, than any PF bolt rifle. A full auto rifle is not legal for hunting anyplace I'm aware of.

quote:

Originally posted by WbyPower:

quote:

I can't imagine Mac rolling around the back of an Aussie ute shoot, so that doesn't count.

JAL,

That os OK as we can take him out in an ex speedway 350 sedan...he can use his double

Mike

quote:

posted by JAL

I can't imagine Mac rolling around the back of an Aussie ute shoot, so that doesn't count.

I annoy Mac often to see if I've pumped him for every arguement he has for Doubles or CRF.

JAL,You don't annoy me in the least, in fact I look forward to your posts!

However, in regard to my needing a plush car to hunt from, you are so wrong, I like to hunt any way it can be done!

To make things very clear, I was born almost 71 yrs ago,on a cattle spread, where the house was heated by a wood stove, and lighted by oil lamps. I never rode in a new car till I was 12 yrs old, and it belonged to another rancher.

I've probably hunted with every type rifle, shotgun, and pistol ever made,from Muzzleloader to full auto war weapons, and bounced around in the back of a pick-up,Tank, halftrack, or Jeep as much as anyone here, and not just in Korea's below zero , and above 100 degrees timpratures, and dust,as well a few miles in the North end of OZ, chaseing Water Buffalo, and night shooting of Roos, and dingos. I can guarintee you, of all the weapons to fail me a full 80 % were PF bolt rifles, and I own some of those today, but they are not used for DGRs, I can assure you! When you see a PF rifle chambered for a dangerous game cartridge, you are looking at a mistake!

quote:

I can guarintee you, of all the weapons to fail me a full 80 % were PF bolt rifles,

Mac,

That could mean you owned 1000 PF rifes and 8 failed and owned 2 CRF and both failed.

quote:

Originally posted by WbyPower:

quote:

I can guarintee you, of all the weapons to fail me a full 80 % were PF bolt rifles,

Mac,

That could mean you owned 1000 PF rifes and 8 failed and owned 2 CRF and both failed.

You're right, it could mean that, but it doesn't! I've never had a CRF rifle to fail me even once! I've had hang fires, and total missfires in all rifles, but that was the ammo, not the rifle! The guns other than PF bolt, that I've had fail, were all shotguns,mostly simiautos, other than a couple of simiauto pistols! BYE

Yer well some people just can't handle PF's.
They double shuffle, short stroke, run with the action open, reload with a 50 deg. slope to the starboard side, try reloading while under cape buffalo, etc. etc. Some people you just can't help.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
Yer well some people just can't handle PF's.
They double shuffle, short stroke, run with the action open, reload with a 50 deg. slope to the starboard side, try reloading while under cape buffalo, etc. etc. Some people you just can't help.

Yes you can help them, just give them a CRF rifle and be done with the nonsense!