There is much talk about how controlled feed is a great advatage and for some people, an absolute need. I have hunted with Rugers and Remingtons, personally I like the Rem. better because I think that safety operation is a more important factor and is easier on the Rem. The controlled feed has never been an issue for me in the field or on the range; to the extent that I would readily hunt dangerous game with the push feed Rem. because I am more comfortable with the guns. What do you all think.

the great advantage of the controlled feed is the large claw extractor. probably more important in a D.G. hunt that otherwise. also the ability to use the magazine to load the gun at weird angles

For hunting big game IMO there's absolutely nothing at all wrong with push feed rifles and for varmint rounds it's preferable.

DG might have a different argument but I've not been there so can't comment.

For rounds such as the .30-06 and less gimme a pushfeed M-70 anyday.

I've been following Feed Failures on the Gun Smith Board since mid December. I'd noticed a pattern last year but didn't go back week by week to search them out. It was interesting to note that some of these problems are actually created by people altering the rifles. Also interesting to note the long series of Feed Problems with the WSM cartridges is not being mentioned now, perhaps they finally got that corrected:

M70 CRF 18Dec05 https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/833106783

M70 CRF (modified?) 19Dec05
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/286102883

M70 Classic 21Dec05 https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/433106983

M70 PF 21Dec05 https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/747106983

M70 Stainless Classic – trying to feed 4 from the magazine.
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/549103734

M700 BDL – Converted to AI
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/915108834

This last Link is to an interesting aspect of the "new" M70s Extractors. Gixxer provides a Link in his first post that takes you to the first broken Extractor and if I remember correctly Griz had another one break on him further down in my Link below. Of interest to me was what caused them to break and how they broke. There are a good number of places you can get "better than factory" Extractors for the M70.

2 – M70s – Extractors breaking off
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/374101734

M700 Extraction Problem 9Mar06
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/739103244

Most any properly functioning PF will feed in most any position when operated at a normal to fast speed.

The largest claw is not the most important feature of a CRF action (after all, the tang Safety 77s had claws, but were PFs). The main advantage of a CRF is that it prevents short stroking, which P. P. Mauser had determined was a primary tendency among rifle users in stressful situations (like war and dangerous game hunting).

However, I think it is fair to say that a lot of factory CRF could benefit from some feed tweaking (and perhaps an extra stout ejector spring). But once this is done by a skilled smith, a CRF (model 70 - my preference) is my first choice for any serious hunting...

PF extractors are generally fine. I've had one 700 extractor break, but it had just started its 4th barrel, so I think that was fair service on its part. I've hammered PF actions opens and they have always pulled the case just fine. Besides, extraction problems as usually associated excess pressure and/or dirty chamber - so being prudent in these two matters will prevent most all extraction problems...

BTW, HC, the

M70 PF 21Dec05 https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/747106983

is my post, and it was concerning failure to feed of a PUSHFEED model 70...

Hey 9.3x62, That is why I had it written as "M70 PF 21Dec05".

My intent was not to condem "any particular" action type, since the links show there are PF issues too. Also intended to show it is not only Win experiencing complaints by having the Rem links included.

Just reporting what I've seen since December on the Gun Smith Board.

Best of luck with your rifles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 9.3x62:

...The largest claw is not the most important feature of a CRF action..... (after all, the tang Safety 77s had claws, but were PFs). The main advantage of a CRF is that it prevents short stroking, which P. P. Mauser had determined was a primary tendency among rifle users in stressful situations (like war and dangerous game hunting).

...Besides, extraction problems as usually associated excess pressure and/or dirty chamber - so being prudent in these two matters will prevent most all extraction problems...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a post right now in Gunsmithing where the guys 700 is leaving the case in the chamber. To me,that makes the large claw of a CRF M70 /M98 rather significant. I much prefer that the rim of the case fail first,rather than the extractor failing to grab the case.

How many DG PH do you know that use PF rifles?

I dont believe they use CRF just to reminece about some bygone African era, or to impress the Client with their MagnumMAuser. Most are very grounded practicle people that have the K.I.S.S. principle. Reliability and absolute minimal failure is of utmost importance.
Short stroking is humane error, extractor not grabbing is a design issue, much more critical in DG hunting.
Sure I would grab a 700 to save someones life if that was all I had on Hand,but it would be far from my choice if intentionally persuing DG.

quote:

How many DG PH do you know that use PF rifles?

One, I guess. I hunted with a fella in the RSA who relied on Remington M700 rifles in 375 and 416 without complaint, embarassment, dismemberment, or fatality. That said, I understand he's switched to a Merkel double in 470 these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey 9.3x62, That is why I had it written as "M70 PF 21Dec05".

My intent was not to condem "any particular" action type, since the links show there are PF issues too. Also intended to show it is not only Win experiencing complaints by having the Rem links included.

Fair enough. Just wanted to make that clear...

quote:

There is a post right now in Gunsmithing where the guys 700 is leaving the case in the chamber. To me,that makes the large claw of a CRF M70 /M98 rather significant. I much prefer that the rim of the case fail first,rather than the extractor failing to grab the case.

Never said they don't fail, and you'll also note from my post that I PREFER CRF type actions myelf for hunting. However, the hyper-paranoia that some feel (not pointing a finger at you) about the "worthless" 700 extractor is quite a bit over the top...

quote:

Short stroking is humane error, extractor not grabbing is a design issue, much more critical in DG hunting.

Well, if Mauser just wanted a claw extractor, he could have easily designed a PF with just such a feature (Ruger later did). The REAL mainstay of CRF highground is the short-stroke prevention. Human error is FAR more likely to be the issue in a tense situation that anything else. Mauser studied this stuff very carefully (that is soldier behavior under fire), which is why he went out of his way to incorporate control feed in the first place. Also, don't think that 77-70-Mauser style extractors don't fail or break, as they most certainly can and do...

quote:

Sure I would grab a 700 to save someones life if that was all I had on Hand,but it would be far from my choice if intentionally persuing DG.

Agreed. As I've already stated.

I think that CRF and the short stroke issue was more of a problem when people didn't practice shooting as much as today. In reality, the only thing that CRF will prevent is removing a round from the magazine without ejecting the one on the claw. That could be a life saver. If one were to plan for a DG hunt, practicing stroking the bolt back HARD fully ejecting the round and then pushing the bolt back smartly will be of far better value than any feature a rifle could offer.

For further proof, not one modern automatic arm has a claw extractor, you would think that would be a plus where a double feed could lead to a CATO. Further, with the exception of the FN, I can't think of a sniper rifle used by any military that has a claw. I can feed any of my remingtons and or sako's from the upside down prone position.

That being said, claws do have some good points. Best of which is the ability to quietly chamber a round without having to pop the extractor over the rim of the cartridge. The other is the ability to eject a cartridge quietly.

And for the record, I own and shoot as many winchesters as I do any other brand, but I don't believe CRF is their major advantage.

John

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:
I think that CRF and the short stroke issue was more of a problem when people didn't practice shooting as much as today.

Practice may help. But Mauser's idea still holds. He studied the behavior of the trained (plenty of practice shooting) soldier who was going into battle. Mauser saw one important fact: practice shooting targets is NOT the same as shooting people (or dangerous game) in close quarters. He thus built a rifle to function in the heat of battle, that would head off the unexpected human error that arises in fast and stressful firing.

quote:

Mauser saw one important fact: practice shooting targets is NOT the same as shooting people (or dangerous game) in close quarters.

Practicing shooting is more than just pulling the trigger. Modern military doctrine (going back to the days of Gen George Washington) has always drilled in loading and unloading firearms. I would never want to hunt any type of dangerous game with someone, no matter what rifle they had, if they haven't had adequate training/practice. Again, no rifle feature can overcome lack of skill, only minimize it.

The majority of Mauser's design features were necessitated by the limited machining capabilities of the day. No longer a necessity are the third locking lug and the firing pin lock (when the bolt is in the open position). The big C block is overkill on modern actions as well. Truthfully, there isn't anything wrong with the Mauser design; however, the need to burn anything non-Mauser is greatly exagerated.

As for people and dangerous game, I would use a win 70 for dangerous game, not because of enhanced feeding, rather I feel more confident leaving a round in the chamber with a firing pin block safety, and the ability to cycle the action quietly might help me avoid detection while in thick brush. As for people, most modern military bolts are relegated to sniper duty and are push feed design. The US miltary uses a Remington design for their rifle, there is no claw extractor, no Sako extractor, no C block, no third lucking lug, and no problems.

John

PS food for thought, why is the modern Mauser design M-03 absent the claw?

quote:

Truthfully, there isn't anything wrong with the Mauser design; however, the need to burn anything non-Mauser is greatly exagerated.

I agree. The PFs are generally fully capable in the vast majority of hunting siutations. Competing CRFS are fine too... my preference is for the model 70...

quote:

As for people and dangerous game, I would use a win 70 for dangerous game, not because of enhanced feeding, rather I feel more confident leaving a round in the chamber with a firing pin block safety, and the ability to cycle the action quietly might help me avoid detection while in thick brush.

Agreed on the 3-pos safety - I'm a big fan. Though, in truth, if a tang safety (or even a 700 safety) was as safe, I would actually prefer them. The on-or-off feature is nicer, in theory.

I also prefer the 70 trigger - a fine trigger (unenclosed) trigger design that won't freeze or gum up near as easily as nearly any other design.

I am not sure that the silent feed is only a CRF boon, I regularly hunt (non dangerous game)with 722s (with aftermarket barrels and sklicked up actions) that feed quite quietly.

Still, the ability to avoid a short stroke is what puts my mind at ease. I don't worry about the things I can train for, etc. I worry about that instant where my training may or may not be enough. No amount of training can simulate a hunter's reaction to a close quarters charge by DG. Moreover, other than being a PH, it is tricky to get a lot of *real* practice of this type...

quote:

As for people, most modern military bolts are relegated to sniper duty and are push feed design. The US miltary uses a Remington design for their rifle, there is no claw extractor, no Sako extractor, no C block, no third lucking lug, and no problems.

Well, I agree with you here. However, there is a large crown that insists this is a financial move on the military's part, and that in fact snipers would prefer something else. I am surprised one hasn't chimed in here yet...

No one would deny that miltary sniping falls into the category of "dangerous game". Nor do I pretend to be an expert in military sniping. However, it seems to me that the danger in military sniping is a different sort of danger than that encountered while hunting cape buffalo. I don't know if an immediate close quarter charge upon firing the first shot is normally expected while military sniping. A mortar attack might be a more reasonable expected response, in which case the CRF vs PF debate is moot. In the unusual case of a close quarter charge, the spotter is generally available with something more appropriate than a bolt action rifle.

But what do I know! I am merely an armchair adventurer when in comes to dangerouse game in either context!

quote:

Originally posted by Wooly ESS:
No one would deny that miltary sniping falls into the category of "dangerous game". Nor do I pretend to be an expert in military sniping. However, it seems to me that the danger in military sniping is a different sort of danger than that encountered while hunting cape buffalo. I don't know if an immediate close quarter charge upon firing the first shot is normally expected while military sniping. A mortar attack might be a more reasonable expected response, in which case the CRF vs PF debate is moot. In the unusual case of a close quarter charge, the spotter is generally available with something more appropriate than a bolt action rifle.

But what do I know! I am merely an armchair adventurer when in comes to dangerouse game in either context!

I would think that in either case your chances for survival depend on how well you trained, and how quickly you fall back to your training. The mantra is this, if you heard the bullet pass by, there is nothing to worry about! Truth be told, animals charging are rare except for hippos, elephant, and wounded buffalo, leopards, and oh yeah, pissed off hungry lions. Wheteher shooting at irate gunmen or nasty little critters, only one mantra has been truly effective, aim well, hit hard, fire once.

John

I believe your point on being well trained is well taken, for any kind of dangerous game.

I can't get through a 100 rounds of skeet with a pump shotgun without double shucking or short shucking at least once. I need all the help I can get from my equipment.