When it is all said and done. Which platform is the most accurate way to go?

quote:

Originally posted by Iron Buck:
When it is all said and done. Which platform is the most accurate way to go?

Either one!! No difference due to extractor/ejector configuration!!

Every rifle is different. I have a pre-64 M-70 (CRF) that is an honest 1/2 inch rifle with handloads. That being said, most benchrest shooters do not use CRF, instead use push feed actions. If I were to build a benchrest or varmint rifle I would definitely go push feed. If you are thinking of purchasing a rifle for big game up to and including elk, either action will provide good service. Handle a few different models to see what fits you best. For dangerous game CRF is the only way to go, however with animals that large a 1/2 MOA rifle is not as necessary as reliable feeding and ejection of spent cases. All my rifles are CRF actions except one Remington KS Mountain rifle with which I took my largest whitetail to date. I plan on adding an extremely accurate varmint rig soon, either a Cooper or Remington 40X, both push feeds. Hope this helps.

As a practical matter, there isn't any difference. Not for a hunting rifle. I've owned a great many push-feeds that were wonderfully accurate, and I've owned at least as many controlled-feeds that were every bit as accurate, and I like the way CFs function better. So I'm in the CF camp, not so much from an accuracy standpoint, but from the standpoint of all other functional considerations.

The benchrest guys always ignore the fact that CF rifles have won scores and scores of over-the-course and ultra-long range high power championships over the years. For example, Model 70-based rifles have won the 1,000 yd. Wimbleton championship more than any other action. If it's accuracy is good enough for this sort of work, it's good enough for anything else.

You can blueprint a good CF action just the same as a PF action, install a great custom barrel, pillar-bed the metal to a good stock, etc. -- the basic accuracy formula.

AD

Generally speaking many benchrest guys prefer the push feed because the spring pressure the ejector button gives to the cartridge case appears to be an advantage providing more consistant ignition. A lot of those long range matches were won with M70 push feed actions.

I can't see how it could make any difference which one you choose. Accuracy is mostly in the barrel, bedding and ammunition.

I think that, when it comes to accuracy, many guys spend too much time fussing, fretting, and pole-vaulting over mouse droppings.

Many long-range matches have been won with pre-64 Model 70 actions. Jim Cloward, for example, used a rifle he made himself based on a pre-64 70 to win the Wimbleton in 1976.

I've owned scores of pre-64 Model 70s that would produce 1" groups with no alterations to the rifle at all -- just good handloads.

I also own several custom rifles based on the current Model 70 Classic action that are capable of half-inch groups with premium-bullet handloads, even my .416 Rem. and .375 H&H. No heavey-barrels, tight-necks, deep-throats, or other weird chamber dimensions. I have seven such rifles in my battery right now that will deliver that level of accuracy, and have owned others.

Quite honestly, when I hear someone profess that CRF actions just don't just it in terms of accuracy, I don't take that drivel seriously.

AD

Allen is absolutely right on this one. If you are one of those guys that picks fly shit out of pepper when you reload by weighing cases, bullets and sacrificing virgins to Vishnu, set up wind vanes down range even though it's so still bugs can't get enough head wind to fly (read bench rest loonies) then a mild case can be made for pushfeeds, after all that's what the bench rest folks prefer.

I own both PFs ( Weatherbys ) and CRFs and I honestly can't see a trend where I can say the PFs are more accurate.I think as a "whole rifle" concept CRFs offer more in terms of reliability and ease of maintennace (field stripping) than PFs. But what the hell, a pic's worth a thousand words and the target below was shot with a Model 70 (new CRF version) in 375 H&H right out of the box and with a 1.75X6 Heavy Duplex reticle just using handloads. Now I ask you do you need more than that? jorge

quote:

and pole-vaulting over mouse droppings.

You hit da nail on da head Allen!

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
set up wind vanes down range even though it's so still bugs can't get enough head wind to fly jorge

Bugs downrange!!!!!!!!!! Why didn't I think of that before???? That must contribute to "flyers", right??? That explains a lot.

Many gunsmiths simply can't "accurize" a CRF action. They can't wrap their heads around it.

Chuck

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Many gunsmiths simply can't "accurize" a CRF action. They can't wrap their heads around it.

Chuck

A very interesting possibility (probability?).

RSY

quote:

Originally posted by Iron Buck:
When it is all said and done. Which platform is the most accurate way to go?

Hey Iron Buck, Some of the posts in this thread are "accurate" for a specific time period - long, long ago. But, some of the information you are receiving doesn't really answer your question for "2005".

Typically anyone spotting a Pilgrim toting a Pre-64 M70 to a Benchrest Match today is hoping for two things:

1. The Pilgrim has brought lots and lots of dollars with him.
2. The Pilgrim really believes it is the most accurate rifle on the Range.
---

All you will get in this thread is arguing and foolishness. If you want the real answer, attend some Matches and see for yourself what is being used. There is plenty of time to visit with the folks between relays and you will quickly see a trend.

Subscribe to one of the BenchRest Rags and see what folks are using.

Then visit on the phone with folks like Dave Tooley, John Lewis and Kenny Jarrett for a few minutes. Ask them which actions they prefer to use for the very best chance of achieving top accuracy and reliability. The answer becomes real clear, very quickly this way too.

And if you are serious about accuracy, it will be difficult to find a GunSmith to provide what you want better than any of those three.

For "big game hunting" accuracy, either one.

But when you honestly look at long range varminting, and SERIOUS accuracy work, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a CRF in the crowd.

Allen points out that a lot of long range matches were won with M70's. True. But, how far back are we looking? Back in "the day", Winchester was a nuch bigger supporter of High Power type stuff, building deicated match and Across-The-Course rifles. Many shooters used them, as they were available over the counter, ready to compete. Not so nowadays. Most guys now build their match rigs. And the heavy majority choose to build on push feeds.

I own and compete (600 yard matches) with a pre-64 M70. However, I do it for one reason. My gunsmith is a M70 fanatic, knows them well, and builds an awesome rifle on those old actions. He sold me one of his personal rifles, and it competes very well thank you.

For practical accuracy, either one will work fine. But don't kid yourself. If gilt edged accuracy is your goal, ask those that shoot benchrest. I doubt you'll find a single CRF in any serious BR match. Maybe there's a reason for that....

I shoot alot of ammo and shoot bothtypes of actions. I have found that a box stock remington is amazingly accurate but have 2 win crf actions an A-bolt an old rem 721 and an old stainless rem 700 in 7mag they all shoot under 1" all day long with my hand loads. Of these rifles they are a .270 win (3).3006-s and a 7mm rem mag.for accuracy I have to give the nod th the push feeds but not in all cases but I prefer the controlled round feeding in my hands when I hunt. I also think they all have the same killing power on deer and elk sized game.

This group was fired with my Model 70 338 Classic.



The gun at the time was in a Mel Smart Acra-Bond stock, ammo was over the counter Remington 250 grain Core-Lokts. The trigger as it came from the factory was set to 6lbs.

Today the gun sits in a synthetic stock, and the trigger has been set at 3lbs. I can stack 225 Nosler Accubonds into groups like this with little effort at all. I've owned many push feeds that wouldn't shoot this good, and had a Weatherby Ultra Light that would.

Get the gun you like, I prefer CRF Model 70's and FN 98's.

My only attempt at extreme accuracy is based on a Remington 700 action and is a 223. My next project is going to be a 22-250 on a mauser action. I generally build Mauser actions because I like em and know em well but the push feeds have faster lock times and are stronger, hard to get around the first point.

I'd still like to know why the choice of pf or crf makes any differrence at all. Maybe bench resters just like to be able to drop one shell at a time in the chamber?

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
I'd still like to know why the choice of pf or crf makes any differrence at all. Maybe bench resters just like to be able to drop one shell at a time in the chamber?

In my own experience, the issue you ask about does not make a difference, the PF may be easier for target shooting but that is not related to accuracy, but function. What I have noticed is that when you get above .40 cal, the accuracy does seem to get better, bullet stability? Of course, over the years, I may have just developed better control as I also happened to go with larger calibers, a syncronicity thing but no cause and effect from the caliber.

JBabcock, your group illustrates the real truth of this entire debate.

AD

No JBabcock, your group does not. I too have M-70s that will group as well as that. However, if you take CRF (Which I use almost exclusively), and PF, as a WHOLE, the PF will tend to be more accurate. As your rifle (and mine) shows, each rifle is an individual and there are exceptions. Hot Core is absolutely correct, to which I would add- what are our military snipers using?

Theoretical accuracy rules!

It wouldn't matter how many tight groups anyone would post that were made with CRF rifles, somehow it still wouldn't be good enough.

AD

I think the perception that push-feed rifles are more accurate than CRF rifles is just that, perception, not reality. Both can be accurate. When you bring in the benchrest crowd as an example to say that push feed rifles are more accurate, that is not valid. There are many other reasons why benchrest shooters use push feeds.

A lot of this goes back the development of the Remington's M700 action. One of the primary designers of that action was a benchrest shooter. A version of the M700, the 40x action was a single shot and produced with out a magazine cutout, making the action stiffer and thus being able to better support a heavier {larger diameter and stiffer) barrel. When someone comes out with something that's consistantly wins, everyone wants one. When the 6mm PPC cartidge hit the benchrest world and started winning consistantly, it wasn't long before the previous darling, the 222 Rem, was but a distant memory. For several years, the
M700 and it's variants were the dominant action in benchrest. While the Remington actions are no longer the dominant action in benchrest, custom benchrest action that share many things in common with the Rem 700 are. Also, these custom benchrest actions are much stiffer than even the Rem 40x. Except for "Hunter" class rifles (which must have a magazine cutout), most if not all of the benchrest rifles are single shot actions with no magazine cutout for maximum stiffness.

Going back to why Benchrest shooters prefer push feeds. All of these custom actions, which are much better suited to benchrest style shooting, are push feeds. Benchrest shooters look for actions that are very stiff, precision machined, the bolt closes with very little effort and have very light (2 oz) trigger pull. Basically everything has to work as effortlessly as possible so as not to disturb the rifle on the rest. This minimizes the time to re-sight the rifle after each shot. When shooting in a match, the benchrest shooter has, I think, 7 minutes to shoot 5 rounds at the record target. There is also a sighter target which the shooter can use to check on what the wind/mirage conditions do to his bullet placement. When the shooter has a favorable condition, he will shoot his 5 record shots as fast as he can so that all his shots are fired under the same exact contitions. This is where the special features of the benchrest action come into play, minimal disturbance on the rest while operating the bolt and pulling the trigger.

Just to give you an idea of how precision these custom BR action are, a friend of mine has 3 Stolle Panda actions and he can swap barrels between the actions with out headspace problems.

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the original question theoretical in nature?

No, it wasn't.

Really?

the·o·ret·i·cal
adjective

1. based on theory: about, involving, or based on theory


2. dealing with theory: dealing with theory or speculation rather than practical applications


3. speculative: inclined to or skilled in speculative contemplation or theorizing


4. hypothetical: existing only in theory

quote:

Originally posted by allen day:

JBabcock, your group illustrates the real truth of this entire debate.

And then...

quote:

It wouldn't matter how many tight groups anyone would post that were made with CRF rifles, somehow it still wouldn't be good enough.

Yep, there it is. A single group, I've seen it with my own eyes, case closed. Not "groups", but "your 'group' ".

Of course, I'll have to be hypnotized now so that I can forget the countless groups I've seen like this shot with a push feed, but hey, here's *one* from a CRF so we can all stop arguing now.

We've ALL got our "wallet groups", and I could post plenty. But, day in and day out, no hunting rifle is going to consistently shoot like that.

quote:

Originally posted by David:
Except for "Hunter" class rifles (which must have a magazine cutout), most if not all of the benchrest rifles are single shot actions with no magazine cutout for maximum stiffness.

OK, so let's look at Hunter Class then. How many M70's, Mausers, etc compete, let alone win, in Hunter Class?

Since only push feeds are accurate, I'm going to install Remington extractors on my Mauser bolts so that I can shoot sub 1/2 MOA groups.

All this time I thought accuracy was based on the consistency of the rifle as the bullet is fired. Now I find out that the most important aspect is how the cartridge enters and exits the chamber.

To be fair- no one said only push feeds are accurate. The consensus seems to be that the push feed action is inherently more accurate than a crf action, when taken as a whole.

Allen, what matters today is what happens today. Please provide an example a little newer than 30 years ago. I am not saying they don't exist; please just use them instead of dragging the rest of us back to a point in time when the argument ceases to be relevant.

Here's another one for you Hot Core.



Accuracy was not the chief goal when I had this rifle built eigther.

Chuck

Chuck, the only problem with that rifle, is that the bolt is on the wrong side...

Nice rifle.

quote:

Yep, there it is. A single group, I've seen it with my own eyes, case closed. Not "groups", but "your 'group' ".

Of course, I'll have to be hypnotized now so that I can forget the countless groups I've seen like this shot with a push feed, but hey, here's *one* from a CRF so we can all stop arguing now.

We've ALL got our "wallet groups", and I could post plenty. But, day in and day out, no hunting rifle is going to consistently shoot like that.

Cold Bore,
I wish that my scanner was working, because I have a number of groups from that Model 70 that match that other group. It will shoot those groups day in and day out. But I have to be honest with you, I see no point in wearing out the barrel just to print groups like that. I shoot to check the zero, then hunt with it.

I also have a 270 that is chambered in an FN 98 that is very accurate. I've never reloaded for it, and probably won't. Factory ammo is so cheap that I don't see the point. It's accurate, prints little tiny groups, and that works for me.

I don't really care what anybody else shoots, if you like push feeds, that's ok by me. I shot a Remington Classic in 300 Weatherby for years, and killed lots of game with it. It wasn't really that accurate, but, it was accurate enough.

If I was a bench rest shooter, I would like the ability to just drop a round into the chamber, and then close the bolt. Less fiddlin around, as opposed to pushing the cartridge down, and then picking up the cartridge as the bolt slides forward.

I have a Howa .223 varmit rifle that I enjoy shooting at the range just for that reason, and it doesn't throw the brass 10 feet to the right of me.

Cold Bore,

You still can't compare even the Hunter Class benchrest rifles to a hunting rifle. Those actions are also custom that are just a slight modification of the single shot version. The magazine cutouts are as small as they can be under the class rules. If I remember correctly, the rifle just has to have a cutout of some sort, it doesn't have to have a magazine and follower and the shooters don't have to feed from the magazine when shooting. They still shoot single shot. These custom hunter class actions are much stiffer than any M70, M700, Mauser, etc.

JBabcock-

I believe you that your rifle is a shooter.

You could post more groups, and so could I.

I have one here in the 0's, literally, shot with a M700 in 223. Does that mean it is a sub-.1" rifle? No, because it hasn't done it since. But I *do* have that one group to show off. Do I wish I had shot it in a big money registered benchrest match? Yep! (Even though I've never shot formal benchrest, and don't plan on it, but I sure would've liked to have been doing it the day I shot that one! ) It *does* consistently shoot under half MOA, with MANY in the honest .3" range, and a few smaller. It has also fired a few larger than .5", so ON AVERAGE, where do we put it? Cetainly not in the category that a few of it's finest groups would tend to lead you.

I've shot a ton of groups in the 2's and 3's and 4's with various rifles. But *on average*, I can't count on them to do it every single time, day in and day out.

My point was that making an end-all statement, like Allen did, based on one single group, is crazy.

New than thirty years? Riflemaker and national high-power award winner, Glen Pearce of Casa Grande, AZ, who was formerly on the USAF HP team and trained in riflebuilding while in the USAF. At least though the late 1990s Glen built competition rifles, competed with, and trained other shooters with rifles based on CRF Model 70 actions. And believe me, Pearce knows how to shoot, and he knows how to build accurate rifles.

Chuck pointed this out earlier, but a lot of riflemakers simply don't know how to work with Model 70s in order to get the most out of them. A lot of shooters have never owned or have had any experience with controlled-feed rifles that were properly blueprinted, pillar-bedded -- the works. It's sort of a case of "monkey-see, monkey-do" -- follow the path of least resistance, and stick with those Remingtons, because, after all, "they're so EASY for the gunmaker to work with!" Why I should care about how "EASY" an action is for a riflemaker to work with is beyond me. I just want him to build an accurate and realiable rifle the way I want it. He's either up to the task or he isn't. Not all of them are.

Around fourteen years ago, I had a full-house 'famous maker' "beanfield rifle" in .338 Win. Mag. built on a Model 700 action, and I hunted with it quite a bit for a few years. It was truly accurate with only one bullet, the 225 gr. Hornady SP Inter-Loct, although it would shoot 250 gr. Hornady's acceptably. Feed it Noslers, or any true premium bullet and forget it.

A few years ago, I had D'Arcy Echols build a .338 Win. on a CRF Model 70 Classic action, and that rifle is far better than that iconic 'beanfield' .338 ever was, and shoots just about any good premium bullet well, all the way from 210 gr. Nosler's thu 240 gr. North Forks. Groups in the .400s" are not at all uncommon with this rifle. Any beyond accuracy, this rifle is better stocked by far, and Echols' magazine system and scope mounting system is WAY beyond the beanfield maker's capability or know-how to replicate or reproduce. But icons die hard, and as this example proves, accuracy depends on a lot more than whether the action is a push-feed or a controlled-feed.

Anyone who has ever done serious work with one of David Miller's, Glen Pearce's, or D'Arcy Echols' custom rifles based on CRF Model 70 actions knows that half-minute accuracy is simply beyond question, and rifles from these guys are used for long-range hunting year-in and year-out by some extremely dedicated and experienced riflemen and hunters.

I owned a Miller .300 Win. that produced 1/2" groups on occasion at 200 yds., and would shooting into an inch at 300 yds. I used this rifle to shoot a Coues deer across a canyon in Sonora from a makeshift prone position on the edge of a cliff at a measured (Leica Geovid) 518 yds., and this before two witnesses: Kirk Kelso, of Tuscon, AZ, and Todd Erickson of Dayton, OR. No benchrest, and no tower stand equipped with a seat and a riflerest overlooking some soybean field or timed-feeder, either........

Miller and Kelso are both expert riflemen, and both use M70-based rifles to shoot Coues deer and pronghorn at incredible distances. Kelso currently owns an Echols long-range "Legend" in .300 Weatherby that is a legit 1/4" rifle, and he's used this rifle from Arizona to Tanzania, plus he's lent it to Craig Boddington as well for use on pronghorn.

Anybody that thinks that well put-together CRF actions simply can't cut it for accuracy simply doesn't know whereof they speak, and that's the honest truth.

AD

quote:

Here's another one for you Hot Core.

Man-O-Man, that has to be the absolutely most accurate rifle in existance. Got a group in the 4s. How `bout that?!?!?!

If you head to Louisville for the Derby, let me strongly encourage you to bring the rifle, your Loads for the 4s, stuff as many dollars around the rifle inside the case as possible, a new Chevy SSR and a deed to lots and lots of acres. Might just be able to find some old(real old) guy who can't see real well and has the shakes(bad shakes) for you to take to the cleaners.

No chance at all for the old fellow to beat that kind of group, cause he no longer shoots Pre-64 M70s!! Heck, no reason to think anyone or any rifle could do better.

Where will you be staying? And when will you arrive?

Not to get off the CRF vs PF topic, but 3 shots on 1 target does NOT make a group in my opinion.

The norm, at least according to the NRA, is 5 consecutive 5 shot groups. Then average for final group size. Statistically a better predictor of accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by JBabcock:
This group was fired with my Model 70 338 Classic.

And this one was shot with my .50 sidelock Hawken muzzleloader at 100 yards using Maxiballs.
I'm sure any CRF bolt-action shoots better than this!