I would like to hear from everyone that has seen or experienced personally feeding problems with a Belted Magnum. Remember only your OWN experiences count, not stories you have heard or been told by someone. Lawdog

I have seen feeding problems with both belted and non-belted cartridges alike, and quite frankly don't know if it was the belt or lack thereof that caused the problem.



I have found that feeding itself is apparently a subjective activity. I have witnessed rifles that wouldn't feed while the owner of said offending rifle adamantly stated on the spot that these cartridges were leeping into the chamber like some sort of greased pickle, and would continue to do so come Hell or high water. Bill Leeper and I discussed this very topic at length a couple of evenings ago and basically came to the same "shake your head" conclusion. I guess love is blind, and possibly even stupid.



Back to the topic, the best feeding rifles I have ever personally handled where chambered for belted cartridges........



Chuck

I bought my first belted magnum in 1968, a .338Win.Mag. Pre-64 Mod. 70 Alaskan, unfired, from a retired dealer. It was and is my most treasured possession and works like a charm.

In the years since then, I have owned 26 belted magnums and the only problem I have EVER had was with a pushfeed M-77 Ruger which the gunsmith had not correctly adjusted the cartridge follower on after jeweling same.



This is all bullshit and is the sort of crap spewed by guys who want others to think that they are "experts" on guns of all types. I frequently encounter these types who tell me that I am wrong about this and about my preference for CRF rifles in isolated, wilderness conditions. I am in my 47th year of shooting and have now owned exactly 125 firearms, mostly high grade cf rifles. I am not an "expert", but, I know the stink of bullshit when I smell it.



It seems to me that ANYONE would double check the feeding of his rifle-cartridge combo BEFORE he goes hunting, but, then, I think about contemporary North America and I wonder, boy, do I wonder.

I had a Model 70 416 Rem that would not feed. A single round from the mag was fine but if you loaded more than one the bolt would slam to a stop about 1/3 of the way forward and only feed if you jerked it back and forth a bit.

I have a M70 (new pre-64 CRF) in 338 Win Mag that gave me feeding problems. Working the bolt vigorously, I got jams. After a round had jammed, I could look and see where the neck had been deformed/ dented by catching on something.



I started with the hypothesis that the neck was catching on the recess for the belt, due to a weak follower spring. Replacing the follower spring did indeed solve the problem, and I haven't had any jams since. Not sure if my hypothesis was correct, but it led me in the right direction.



Washougal Chris

Actually, all the original, tang safety M-77s were pushfeed, although they had the Mauser-style large, side extractor. Then Ruger announced the Magnum Mk. II which was their first CRF along with the MK.II regular calibers, which was pushfeed at first, then was modified into a CRF and remains one today.

For a period of time, well known riflemaker Butch Searcy would redo M-77 PFs into CRFs in his original shop in, I think, Alabama(?). I had a pair of .338s which I was going to have done, but, then an opportunity came to re-purchase my original P-64, which I had sold to finance college; this led to a severe bout of Mod. 70 mania, a very debilitating form of gunaholism.

Anyway, that's the story on the M-77, I've owned several of them, but, they ain't Mod. 70s!

The only feeding problems I've ever seen with belted magnums came from inept gunsmithing preceedures. These feeding problems were mechanical in nature, and not related to the fact that the case was belted.



The worst was a 1909 Argentine that was converted to .338 Win. Mag. The metalsmith who did the work did not replace the magazine box with a box and follower that were properly dimensioned for belted magnums. Instead, he left the original 7.65 Argentine box and follower in place. His feeding solution was to open the feedrails, alter the feed ramp, etc.



When you opened the action of this rifle the fron of the original 7.65 follower jutted up into the bolt raceway. You could barely shove three cartridges down into the magazine, and if you worked the action fast, all the cartridges would eject out of the loading port and once when you opened the bolt!



That's what can happen when idiots try to covert Mausers and not follow Paul Mauser's original formula for proper feeding.........



AD

That has also been exactly my experience, over 40 yrs. of gun ownership. There is a post on Mausers, in "Gunsmithing" by Alf, that sums up superbly my feeling on these issues. If, you wish to have a rifle built, use an action originally designed for that class of cartridges and save yourself a hell of a lot of grief by doing so.

I once had a .338 built by a school teacher in my home town who fancies himself a master gunsmith; he actually once told me that he was the equal of Al Beisen and Dale Goens. He had hogged out the feed rails on a P-14 action so that the cartridges popped out just as Allen describes and also used a Springfield mag box to "lighten" the rifle.........

I was young and we learn from experience, that is the only way to really gain knowledge about guns, IMO. I sold the rifle to a local cop who just had to have it and although I pointed out the fact that it was effectively a 3 shot .338, he was thrilled to own it, each to his own.

I can honestly say that, having owned and tried almost every type of rifle available and being a hardcore .338 Win fan for hunting and .375H&H fan for work, I have found CRF Mod. 70s and the Dakota 76 to be the best over-all actions in terms of feeding belted magnums. There are some very expensive actions which I have tried, which I honestly would not own as a gift, because, where I hunt, Grizzly attacks are a fact of life and I want the most reliable tool possible if this happens to me.

Lawdog Gary,



I have owned and hunted with 7mm mags, 300 Win mags, 338 Win mags, and 375 H&H mags and had NO feeding problems with any of them. I had a 416 Taylor, a 416 Rem and a 458 Win that fed flawlessly but didn't hunt with them. The only belted cartridge I couldn't get reliable feeding from was my 458 Lott. I have no doubt that it would have fed properly with more work but once I don't trust a particular rifle and it's cartridge, I don't putz around with them too much more. My understanding is that the Lott sometimes takes quite a bit of work to get it to feed properly and I wasn't willing to put any more time and $ into this rifle--a quirk of mine.

All the belted magnum rifles I've ever owned were Winchester (CRF & PF) and Browning (PF). All have feed superbly. The only rifle I've ever owned I couldn't get to feed right was a Remington 700 SA that I had barreled in a .257WSM wildcat.



Terry

Reliability in feeding is much more related to design and construction of the rifle than it is to belted or non-belted. I'd much rather have a properly tuned belted case gun than a improperly made non-belted one.
Cases in point are my 2 Ruger RSM's, a 458 Lott and a 416 Rigby. The belted case Lott feeds OK (but not as smoothly as it should because it has an improperly dimensioned magazine box). The non-belted Rigby won't feed factory ammo because of various small problems. Again feeding from OK to not OK is due to the manufacturing quality of the gun more than the design of the case.
All things being equal a non-belted case will feed better, but other variables usually jump in front......................DJ

.

Converting from cartridge A to cartridge B is an endeavour often wrought with pain and unexpected pitfalls. I had problems just converting a M70 in .300 Win mag to a long mag box (no cartridge change involved), there were some parts (ejector?) that needed changing as well. Naturally we did not find out before experiencing the problem in the field. I also tried to get a .270 Win to feed out of a long box (orginally designed for magnums), and that did not work very well either. Follower and mag box had to be modified. Even though you think, "Ah, cartridge A is based on cartridge B, so this conversion should be a no-brainer", reality often hits with a vengeance.

- mike

No problems feeding my 7 mag. But then it's a Ruger #1.

And no problems with overall cartridge length either.

I just came back from being chased out of the mountains by the first real snowstorm of the year, the Whitetails win again! One does not muck about with snowstorms on high logging roads when driving alone in a 2wd. Corolla......or, one may become a permanent feature of the landscape.

Anyway, ALL of the Mod. 70s I have owned and currently possess have been P-64s, of those, three were .375H&H, 3 were .300 H&H, five were .338 Win. Mag.; the one that I used in bitter cold and blowing snow from 05:30-11:30 this morning is a .264 Win. Mag. I have never experiened the problem which Brad describes and I tried it.

I have also owned and used the Ruger Mk. II-Mag., the Brno ZKK-602 and an early Browning FN Safari Grade in .375H&H. NONE of these rifles would feed as smoothly as my Mod. 70s. I have known about the feeding problems with the "Classic" Mod. 70s and belted mags for a few years and was going to point out exactly what Allen did, this has bugger-all to do with the belt and everything to do with poor workmanship and low price.

After many years of dicking around with various rifles and working in isolated, wilderness areas, usually alone, I finally got smart and paid a substantial price for some P-64s, NOT because of their "cult" status which interests me not at all, but, because they work so well.

It is a sad fact of contemporary existence that many people want something for nothing and thus will not pay the cost of having a rifle properly built, finished and tuned at the factory....this is why most of my rifles are from the late '40s and the '50s, and they cost me a lot of coin. I am NOT wealthy, so, I had to sacrifice other things to buy the guns I need. Such is life, either you pay the piper or he won't play a tune.

If, I were going to have a "Classic" Mod. 70, I would have a working custom built on a donnor action, or, I would have it very thoroughly tuned by a good smith.

Assuming the rifles were correctly made then a belted case always has the potential for a more reliable feeding and extraction cycle than does a rimless and for a simple reason.

A belted case can be made (or resized) so that it has far more clearance between the shoulder of the case and the chamber. In short, the belted case does not have to be as tight a fit in the chamber for and reliable operation.

Mike

I have a newer Mod 70 CRF in 7mm RM that feeds correctly from the right side and as a pushfeed from the left. I'm not a gunsmith and would like to know what needs to be done to fix it. Nate

I have to strongly disagree with the assesment that a rifle needs to cost a lot to be reliable. Ive never had a feeding problem that I wasnt able to correct myself. Gunsmiths are people too. Not gods. Some are just better at certian things than others. But I wouldnt confuse their pricing with the quality of their work either. There are rip offs in the business and there are some damn good smiths that dont require a 2nd mortgage to employ.



Getting what you pay for holds true most of the time, but educating oneself and shoping around can go a long way as well.

My magnum ownership has consisted of exactly 2 guns, one M70 in 7mmRM and one M77 MKII in .300WM, after a few hundred rounds through each off of a bench and in the field on deer, caribou, moose, and black bear, I've never had a single problem. When push came to shove with an angry 400 pound black bear, my factory .300 fed perfectly on the follow-up and put the hurt on him in a big way. Saved my life, so to speak. They might not be pretty, but I appreciate the fact that I can use them as bats if I find myself out of ammo...

Of the beltless magnums I've fired, one in particular stands out, a Savage in .270WSM, the owner is very particular about his guns and had brought it to an absolutely fantastic smith for blueprinting and just cleaning it up in general, removing burrs and casting flash, adjusting the trigger, rebedding the action, etc. It shoots remarkably well and I think if I should find myself owning another magnum in the future (as I own none currently), I would really consider buying factory and then getting it properly tuned, belted or beltless won't matter much to me.

This is true, of course, but, I don't think that the original point vis a vis "cost" was that any or all rifles must cost a lot. For example, I will not own a "name" British rifle ( and I have done) because I think that they are over-priced for what you get and famous names, reputations and labels mean jackshit to me.

I understood Allen meant and I did mean that contemporary factory rifles are simply not "de-bugged" at the time of manufacture as this would increase the "price point" to beyond where marketing studies and experience has taught the manufacturers a given rifle model will sell. This is the case with many chattels and quality is not the selling point that one would think that it would be, a sorry state of affairs when one considers the American-Czech-Belgian-Swedish rifles of fifty years ago.

Gunsmiths are certainly human, but, some are more interested in and capable at certain kinds of guns than others. Obviously, a D'Arcy Echols has built the kind of reputation that enables him to charge a decent dollar for his work; any of us would do so as well, if we could. Again, there are gunmakers who are far more expensive with far less reason to be and some of these makers are world famous among the "jet-set" and those who attempt to emulate them, you know, the one's who own imitation Rolex watches and so forth.

Another aspect of this is what you do with your guns, in my case a serious, flawless DGR was a very important tool and although one almost NEVER needs a gun in the B.C. wilderness and it is a p.i.t.a. to pack around all day, when you do need it, you REALLY need it. Here is not the place to attempt to save a few bucks by using something not quite perfect, it's better to cut down on your beer intake to accomplish that laudable end.

As it now stands, I would choose an unmodified, factory chambered .375H&H or .338Win Mag. in a P-64 Mod. 70 for serious work in Grizzly country. I have done so for 36 yrs. and have never had a single malfunction in one of these rifles, even when soaking wet and covered with mud. My second choice would be a 9.3x62, using a good Mauser 98 action or a .35Whelen in a factory '06 crf action such as the FN. I have seen too many home "gunsmithed" rifles go tits up in the bush to ever trust one, but, each to his own.

Belted or non belted, the feeding of a rifle is the result of proper smithing, nothing more, nothing less...

I have several belted magnums, a 416 Rem, a 375 H&H, and my old 300 H&H, they have NEVER failed, not one time and they have been used and shot a lot...

The old tried and true field proven 375 H&H has been around for more than a hundred years and its still the favorite gun in Africa, and Mauser is running strong. If it were less than the best, it would have died many years past.

Belt bashing is nothing more than repeating what some have read by some gun pundunt that had shit for brains, and those "some" still pass this on as fact, but they know not from experience...

Ray, exactly!