Just to stir the pot this morning...

Here are pics of feeding in a classic CRF

No control of the round and the bolt is 1/2 closed



Case head under extractor at 3/4 of the way thru bolt travel. Prior to this point, there is no difference between a PF and a CRF.

I personally have never been in a hurry to "change my mind" 3/4 of the way thru the bolt cycle.

Note the extractor does not "grab the case" as so often stated. The case releases from the magazine and slips under the extractor.



Now observe a push feed...

Case is now fully released from the magazine at essentially the same spot and note how far the case is into the chamber area. Where else can it go but all the way in?

Case is now fully clear of the rails.



Mark on case showing everything forward of the line is inside the chamber area.



I think we should call it CRCYM for Controlled Round if you Change Your Mind.

Facts in the form of pictures! Excellent. Any chance of a slow motion video?

Blasphemy... must be photoshopped

A push feed action is far more likely to survive a "reloading error" than a CFR action.....for that reason it's (at least in my eyes) a better action.

Sorry Brice - video is beyond my capability

Mike, PLEASE don't tell me you'd take a Push Feeder to Africa! The Impala are going to laugh at you!



As an aside, I've had, on rare occasion, exactly that kind of CRF jam in my Montana 1999. If I am really aggressive cycling the bolt and it does that, it will bend the case and render that round completely unloadable. The only fast fix is to dump the bottom floor plate and spill the rounds on the floor and then reload.

I've figured out that it will happen if I ever so slightly short-stroke the rifle. I've got to make sure that the bolt goes 100% full stroke to avoid this. Call it a training thing.

Push Feed! Harumph!

Not at all useful on anything used on dangerous game. Like cock on closing!

Except, of course, we Brits used push feed and cock on closing on the wold's most successful battle rifle the SMLE and the No4 for three quarters of a century. On what actually is the real true "dangerous game"...

One wonders how well the venerable Mauser 98K would have managed, as, just, did the SMLE and the No4 against the early self-loading rifles in 1944/45 and in the Korean War.

I thought the primary design advantage of the Mauser extractor was in positive extraction.

I have never had a failure to extract or feed with my push feeds that have been hunting with me for 40+ years. Never owned a CRF. Yeah, I have gotten some grief, but from only one of the PH's I hunted DG with.

I am always amused at this (at times emotional) controversy. I have seen far more malfunctions with a CRF action than I have ever seen with a push feed. Most were operator caused malfunctions. Mike Dettorre's "what I have learned on AR" #6-7 pretty well summarize my experiences and thoughts on the CRF vs. PF debate.

Of course at the end of the day, facts can never be allowed to influence "reality". Whatever you like or want, practice with it and practice a lot. No amount of money, quoting writers or emotional arguments can replace training/practice.

Always interesting discussion between CRF and PFs. I own both but the value of the CRF is over rated IMHO.

Years ago with a 338 WM Browning Abolt, I loaded the magazine and cycled the action at varying speeds laying on my back on the floor and contorted the action in as many ways as possible to simulate a worst case scenario. I don't recall any failures to feed during this drill and I cycled a lot of rounds, loading and reloading the magazine.

A few years later with a Winchester Model 70 Super Express in 375, I successfully jammed up the action three times in a row simply by short stroking the bolt. The standing ejector simply deposits the spent or loaded round in the action while the next round is feeding. I'll admit, this would be difficult to do under a real scenario as I would be more inclined to yank the bolt fully to the rear than to short stroke it but I proved to myself mechanically it can be done.

I prefer the push feeds myself.

So are CRFs better tasting or less filling?

FWIW in over forty years of experience with the No4 and the SMLE I cannot recall any failure to feed or malfunction with correct Mk VII ball ammunition in a correctly charged magazine.

Now fail to feed with blank cartridges used on military training exercises...heck...you got more fail to feed than you got flaw free feeding!

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Push Feed! Harumph!
we Brits used push feed and cock on closing on the wold's most successful battle rifle the SMLE and the No4 for three quarters of a century.

In the SMLE design rounds feed directly from the magazine up under the extractor, which means it works like any other CRF.
Which is one reason it is one of the best battle rifles ever developed.
It also has the simplist and most fool proof ejector.

I have both winchester and remington. The reason I prefer CRF is because in shooting from the shoulder with the remingtons I have to push harder to force the extractor over the rim of the cartridge. Throws me off target more than the CRF winchesters. I have had 3 reminton xtractors break, and no winchesters . But with winchester push feeds i have had two which would not extract reliably, but the guns are excellent in all other aspects. I agree with the points made on they not controlled feed all the way.

quote:

6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle.

7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions

6. The Remington M-40s are completely reworked by armorers INCLUDING replacing the factory installed cheap, sheet metal extractor, the bolt handle is pinned to keep the factory brazed handle from falling off.

7. It is irrelevant. combat and hunting dangerous game are two completely different scenarios and the PF on the weapons mentioned is to facilitate automatic fire.

There is a reason as to why there's an entire cottage industry with the sole purpose of "enhancing" the 700, to include shortcomings with a glued on bolt handle, fail on fire safety that doesn't even lock the bolt, cheaply made sheet metal extractor. The Remington 700 was designed to cut costs of production and nothing more, but they are wonderful if you like to just punch holes in paper as a hobby.

There, how's that for stirring the pot.

quote:

There, how's that for stirring the pot.

I'd say you did a pretty good job, Jorge.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:

quote:

There, how's that for stirring the pot.

I'd say you did a pretty good job, Jorge.

Been bothering me for quite a while now, and BTW, your post about EXTRACTION is spot on and I hunt with PF rifles all the time, just not 700s...

Sounds like the push feeders are out in numbers on the internet today..

I lost a great elk because of a push feed, I was running and trying to chamber a round as I ran, it fell out and I closed the action thinking it was ready to fire, jumped the bull and click and he was gone..

I have seen more failures with push feeds than with control feed guns..

Bottom line is you have a choice, I believe in control feed on DGRs, have no problem with them on other game other than why would I choose a push feed over a CFR in the first place, as I see the push feed as another cheap production gimmick!

To each his own, I have all Mausers, Winchesters, and modified Rugers 77s,

And push feed Lever actions in Sav. 99 and Win lever persuasion, but that's whole nuther ball game.

Jorge,

I can only tell you what I was personally told by a former active duty marine who is generally a very knowledgeable source which is...

USMC sniper armorers DO NOT replace the extractors on M40 rifles and DO NOT weld/pin the bolt handles.

They do "blue print" the actions but that has nothing to do with extraction and feeding.

I also believe they tac weld the mag box to the receiver as a matter of convenience so it stays attached to the action.

Perhaps someone knows a current Marine sniper or armorer and we can resolve this.

On my one and only African "animal shooting vacation".....I hope this pleases the AR elitist crowd.......state the "facts" said Saeed

I took my old junk ass push feed Remington 700 ADL

I would take it again.....even on a "real" AR elite approved type safari

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:


I have seen more failures with push feeds than with control feed guns..

Were they mostly Human failures /or/ mechanical failures?

I only own 2 PF actions, both custom target 700 rifles, both are single fed, so essentially they can ONLY be used as a push feed.
The only time I have ever jammed a rifle was with a 700 action in 22-250, we were spotlighting, I half chambered a round but the animal took off, I retracted the bolt but didn't notice the shell had not ejected, when anither animal was spotted, I cycled the bolt, got halfway and the bolt was locked up solid.
Had to fix the problem back at the house.
The reason this happened was due to me being a CRF user with limited use of PF actions, I still have to think about turning the bolt down on a round to extract when using my 700's, it doesn't come naturally to me, I'm used to the cartridge being held by the extractor.

Cheers.

Well now here is an interesting thread...

No mention of a changed extractor, no mention of pinning a the bolt handle.

Rifle was built at Quantico this year to M40A3 specs

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6...ing_at_Quantico.html

On a properly functioning CRF rifle the case rim should slide into or be enveloped by the extractor and be captured at the point of departure from the magazine well and remain so until ejection. There are CRF rifles and there are CRF rifles. Meaning there are lots of cheap imitations or not properly timed actions. Displaying a non properly functioning action as the one above is not a fair assesment, a point to ridicule or make even.
We all are different in thought, skill, experience and pocket size. I personally love to hunt and love guns especially rifles. If all I had available to me was a single shot or spear, I would go hunt and not look back. But given a choice I would pick one quality CRF Mauser over a thousand others.
Hunting with a PF rifled action rifle in Africa, does not qualify it to be as equal. Many hunt with single shots and continue to do so with no problem BECAUSE you ALWAYS have a back up P.H. covering your back in case anything goes wrong. It does not mean it is the best system or the responsible thing to do.
You can get away with using a sling shot if the law allows. Just make sure to wear large diapers and make sure your PH is not on heart medicine. Kidding aside, it is what you feel comfortable with and what you have at the time.

As per M40A1, Years ago, I was an 8541 MOS. I will give the uninhibited version on the system.
Mcmillan stock... totally indestructable and dependable only fault was poor stock design. It was very uncomfortable to be on it in the prone. They eventually changed dimensions until the A5 and things were greatly improved.
Bill Atkinson's barrel was a tank, accurate and also indestructable. The rifle was front heavy and only shootable in supportable positions.
John J Unertl 10x scope out of the small custom shop in PA. was also very robust, accurate, dependable with consistent tracking and recoil management. Optics were excellent for that time period.
Weaver bases and rings nothing exotic. They were also tanks, and dependable.
Lake City Match ammo was the norm with no problems, usually 173gr. later varying slightly.

Lastly the heart of the post, the 700 action.
After the Armorers did their magic they were capable of great accuracy. The armorers did not attend a three year gunsmithing program at Trinidad or a similar college. But attended the military gunsmithing abbreviated version in time and the rest on the job training with mission specific training. The 700 was a straight forward subject. Equal effort on other actions would have resulted in the same output in accuracy.
Here is what I observed on numerous occasions and what made my mind up on the action and its brothers.
When in hot environment, you close the bolt on a live round with or without safety on without engaging the trigger and a round goes off when you least expect it. Is that an action you want to stake your life on. Target indicator.....
The safety was not positive meaning, it can change positions loosely and you always had to be on the alert. When in full stalk mode you have more pressing things to pay attention to. The bolt not locking closed and always checking to make sure it is not unseated and out of battery. Constantly babying it. Not an issue with three position safeties on my Win. and 98's. They do make an aftermarket version for the 700 and should be used.
Extraction, When in a hot environment, no matter what cautious measures you take, the ammo will heat up from the sun or through conduction. Resulting in spiked pressures and inevitable need for case stickings. More than a few, the mechanical Murphy's law takes effect and the sticking resulting in extra pressure to extract. The extractor takes the easy way out. Either splitting or deforming the case rim enough to let the extractor escape with a dud round in the chamber and rifle unoperable, or the extractor bending or breaking. We used to have a tool standard issue supplied to us for that scenario. A round tube about 5" long with a couple of cuts designed to help extract the case. It is a total embarrassment in design and faith in the system. When you are low on the totem pole and politicians in cahoots with lobiests making decisions with cost and profit in mind you understand their decisions clearally. Why would they issue such an extractor if they had faith in it. Don't you know the 700 walks on water. I wish I had a picture of it to display it. I have never had an issue with a Sako AV extractor.
Propensity to double feed is greater in a PF action period.
I have seen the purchase order on the M40A1 when it first came out for the total cost in parts including scope minus labor for the great sum of $405.00 That's right, that will help you understand the whole picture. Things are always about cost and the Core was not swimming in money but hand me downs from other branches, granted things have changed, at least I hope so. They did not supply the best rifle or best action that Remington has marketed so well to their financial benefit. But to the quality of training and the men behind it. They made the rifle.
If you hunt with partners or a back up, hunt with whatever suits you. If you hunt alone and in dangerous territory, wouldn't you want to hunt with a tool that gives you even a 1% better chance of surviving, seeing your family and living another day be worth it. It is always your call, make the decision that you can live with and be content. No belittling needed.
Be aware as this started out as entertainment. There are novices that read these posts looking for guidance. What is written in jest could be taken seriously leading to bad outcomes.

Action not dependable

MLFGUNS,

From what of the two pictures do you draw your conclusions.

Pic 1 of the CRF - the rear end of the cartridge is still in the magazine being ushed. Impossible for it to be under the extractor

Pic 2 of the CRF - cartridge out of the rails and under the extractor

What of the two pics leads to the claim of a missed timed CRF?

The "anti-push feeders" seem to equate "push feed" and "Remington 700", and all of their antipathy regarding push fed actions is directed at perceived weaknesses particular to the Remington 700.

Yes, the older Remington 700's had a notoriously unreliable trigger/safety, proven so in multiple courts of law, and its extraction system is one of the weaker ones found in bolt rifles. And maybe its bolt handle can be broken off through ultra-abusive treatment. And recent production is quite shoddily built. But none of these issues has the least bit to do with its push-feed bolt.

Both CRF and Push-feed have their stronger and weaker points. But pointing out unrelated weaknesses in the Remington 700 as evidence against push-feeds is like saying that the backward operating safety on CZ's makes CRF rifles hazardous, or that the low stock comb on old Model 70's makes the recoil of CRF's worse.

CZ's...backward safety...I missed a with a BRNO ZKK 600 deer because of that. The rifle was already on safe so I made the motion thumbed the safety forward to take the shot....noted that it was already "off safe" as it was forward already and pulled the trigger.

Rifle didn't fire. As of course it wasn't "off safe" at all but in fact with the safety forward "on safe".

However a kind friend gave me this advice.

When you use a BRNO or a CZ think of it as if it a Winchester 94. Or any other external hammer rifle that takes your fancy...maybe an old Rolling Block or somesuch.

But the reasoning is the same...to train your mind to this...

In that you PULL BACK the safety to "cock" the action just as you pull back the hammer on a Winchester 94 or a Rolling Block.

quote:

In the SMLE design rounds feed directly from the magazine up under the extractor, which means it works like any other CRF

That's interesting view 458WIN as I always read the American "Guns & Ammo" that would alwyas say that the SMLE and No4 were "push feed".

But I do accept that yes it does work as you say. I don't and can't dispute that. I've used them for forty years now. It does function as you say.

But always bowed to the wisdom of those who said that by definition as it didn't grip the round from the very first moment of pushing the bolt forward that it wasn't a true CRF per se according to their "pro-Mauser mantra".

It may just be coincidence, but all the rifles I like the best are crf. Good enough for me.

I have a CZ Safari and the safety is not backwards, it is on the 22 though. I also hunt mostly with PF rifles, mostly Weatherbys and hell, I even own one (and that is enough) 700, a bull barreled 22-250 with a laminate thumb hole stock, we call the "Rail Gun" as it just comes out and stays on our front deck in PA to rid our valley of groundhogs. That said, I NEVER touch the safety and I just can't fathom a non-locking bolt in a rifle. Bottom line is my two original statements were accurate and on point...and obviously stirred the pot..

All the game I have shot with ether one has died.

quote:

Originally posted by mlfguns:

The safety was not positive meaning, it can change positions loosely and you always had to be on the alert. When in full stalk mode you have more pressing things to pay attention to. The bolt not locking closed and always checking to make sure it is not unseated and out of battery. Constantly babying it. Not an issue with three position safeties on my Win. and 98's.

Even the side sliding safeties on the Interarms and FN commercial Mausers will lock the bolt when on SAFE.

just for kicks I went through my rifles (bolt) and the only two that I could not jam up fiddling around short stroking were my old sedgley and the R93 blaser. The sedgley does pick up the case much earlier than mikes photo, just as the shoulder dissapears. The blaser is good until you tip it upside down, aim up hill and pull the bolt back mid stroke at which point the case falls out if you have it at the right angle. Model 71 348 win seems to be the most fail safe and fastest feeding rifle of them all for three shots or more

It's been awhile since I read the book and various articles regarding the rational behind Paul Mauser's development of the Mauser action with the CRF extractor so this'll be from recollection.

Anyway, Paul's first military bolt action magazine feed rifle designs were push feed. What Paul identified was that the "typical (not career) soldier" had a tendency to short stroke the bolt action rifle during combat conditions. This was not during clambering the 1st round loading from the magazine, it was after having fired one or more rounds and the short stroke occurred with a fired round against the bolt face.

When the rifle was short stroked during combat conditions typically both the fired case and the fresh round would get jammed in the action during the forward stroke of the bolt rendering the rifle unusable as the bolt also locked up. Beating of the bolt handle to unlock the action was required occasionally followed by ramming the cleaning rod down the barrel to dislodge the jammed cartridges.

Paul Mauser's solution to this scenario was to incorporate the CRF extractor into the action. With the CRF extractor holds the cartridge case against the bolt face during chambering and through the bolt cycling process until kicked out by the ejector. Short stroke the CRF action during combat conditions and the only thing that occurred was the chambering of a fired cartridge case followed by a click when the trigger was pulled. A quick full cycling of the bolt cleared the spent case and chambered a live round.

For clarity, the fired case held against the boltface by the CRF extractor prevents a live round from being feed from the magazine which eliminated the potential of a spent case and a live round being jammed together as the bolt slammed them towards the chamber.

Oh, and looking at the PF photo, the cartridge rim is neither against the bolt face nor is it retained by the extractor until the bolt fully closes which forces the extractor to slip over the rim of the chambered cartridge. Not much different than edropping a round in the chamber and fully closing the bolt - this also forces the extractor to slip over the rim of the chambered cartridge.

As I'm typing this on my iPhone I do hope it makes sense... (Edited 9/14 on my iPad)

Picture 1 does not show the case rim period. It is a totally dark shadow. The front of the extractor appears to have surpassed the case rim where it should be and is climbing forward on the case.

MLFGuns,

I think your answer to my question provides goods context for the rest of your post.

Thanks,

I would be interested to see what the toe of the extractor claw looks like in Mike's photo as the image looks exactly the same, as do the case scratches, as my Mauser 404 was when I first got it. To be fair it had just been converted from the smaller 10.75x68 cartridge to the larger headed 404 but was an absolute pig to feed cartridges from the magazine. Careful observation of the feed showed the case head was not popping up under the extractor claw until way too late and cases were scratching badly as they climbed out of the mag.

A simple stoning of the extractor claw toe cure this completely allowing the case head to come up behind the claw smoothly and early and the cartridge lining up to the chamber.

Just for info, this gun feeds flawessly.