To those of us that use and enjoy push-feed rifles that do not have controlled-round feed (CRF);

That is, a rifle which does not have a long non-rotating claw extractor which takes control of the round as it is being feed from the magazine, but rather a rifle in which the bolt pushes the round out of the magazine and into the chamber, whereupon the extractor snaps over the rim of the cartridge;

In face of the shrill protests and claims of a few CRF true-believers, let us unite in our satisfaction with our rifles;

And tell the rest of the world how reliable and hassle-free our shooting experiences have been, even though we do not have the CRF system !

sure-shot

Just goes to prove what I have always said. Winchesters are junk!!

Kent

Let's see.......

In twenty-eight years I've owned eighty-eight Model 700's, including factory custom shop editions, famous-maker "beanfield" rifles based on Model 700 actions, etc.....

I've also owned over one-hundred Model 70's, including pre-64's, post-64's, and Model 70-based custom jobs by some of the finest custom gunmakers in the business.

All of which has led me to the firm conclusion that the Model 70 is a far superior action to the Model 700.

The Model 70's junk?

Nonsense!

AD

If you ever tried placing a cartridge directly into the chamber in a CRF which had a stiff extractor with a sharp edge, you found yourself hopelessly "Mausered", with one jammed "up the pipe" and the extractor refusing to jump over it. I can't think of a less envious situation when facing dangerous (or even trophy) game.

The Remington 700 has a very weak extractor.
The Weatherby is bulky (and very few people like the 9-lug system.)
Browning A-bolt is so-so, with aluminum floorplate and a lacking trigger.
Savage 110 is crude, but effective.

I guess if you really want an action that gives you the best combination of qualities, you'll have to go with a Sako.

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
In twenty-eight years I've owned eighty-eight Model 700's, .....

I've also owned over one-hundred Model 70's, ...

All of which has led me to the firm conclusion that the Model 70 is a far superior action to the Model 700.

---

Allen-

You've owned 88 Remingtons, only to say that Winchesters are "far superior"? Are you a slow learner , or is it maybe that those Remingtons have served you well?

"If you ever tried placing a cartridge directly into the chamber in a CRF which had a stiff extractor with a sharp edge..."

That statement got me confused. Here is the way I load my Ruger CRF: I place 3 rounds in the magazine, then if I want another round in the chamber I place a round in front the bolt, I fold my hand over the floor plate, and with my index finger I push down near the base of the new round. When I do that, the new round pushes the top round in the magazine, and the bolt is now free to travel over the lower of the two cases. The new round is now low enough to slide between the extractor and the bolt's face.

With an empty magazine, I could always push down on the magazine spring with the base of the round, just enough to allow it to slide between the extractor and the bolt's face, but the easiest way to load a CRF if from the magazine.

I only place a round in the chamber when I am ready to fire the rifle.

The only charge I ever had to stop didn't involve a cape buffalo, but an angry 300 lb boar at a few feet in 11 foot grass and mudd deep in the Argentine Pampas. At the time I was armed with a Browning Abolt, and while a 7 Rem of any sorts isn't a close range weapon, it worked without a hitch.

Having carried weapons far less relaible then bolt action rifles in total confidence on foregin soil, such as M16's, M4's and M9's, I can tell you that at no time do I feel ill equipped to handle any situation with a push feed bolt rifle.

The controlled/push feed argument reminds me of the revolver/auto debate. Yes a revolver may be more reliable in certain situations, but the semiauto in trained hands will usually be a far superior weapon.

Sometimes the old has trouble giving way to the new.

[This message has been edited by Bill (edited 08-20-2001).]

I prefer pre-64 Model 70 rifles, but I do not ridicule those who choose the Remington. Neither is perfect and both respond well to modification.

Does one have to be superior to the other? Can we not select that which we prefer as individuals without feeling the need to denigrate the other with foolish generalisations?

What exactly is the positive aspect that this thread offers to a reader?

------------------
~Holmes

"Those who appease a tiger do so in the hope that the tiger will eat them last."
-Winston Churchill

I don't think Kuduking had any malice intent worked into his post, prehaps a little bit of sarcasim at the anti-push feed crowd, all in good fun of course.

Bill

The push feed action predates the Mauser action by a number of years (although not in the M700 Remington guise). Bill, the push feed action is not something new.

The reason so many manufacturers like the push feed action (read M700 style) is that is is simple to fixture for (since it is cylinderical) ane therefore easy to machine (read reduced scrap losses).

It is also very popular among the precision shooters for the same reason. Riflesmiths find it much easier to accurize than the square bottom receiver of the Mauser and derivatives.

As I stated on the African Hunting forum the push feeds have their limitation, which should be considered when chosing a weapon for a hunt. By the way Bill, I agree with you statements 100% regarding the military weapons you identified. I have no first hand experience with the M4 or M9 but hte M16 is a piece of @#$*.

Todd E

Though the push feed design may predate the controlled feed, most of the current domestically produced and sold rifles utilise a pushfeed design (thats where I got 'new' from).

Custom rifles aside, of the major rifles brands sold in the US, only two retain the mauser type claw extractor, Ruger and Winchester, and Ruger does not have a true controlled feed.

Years ago the conrtolled feed design was much more prevelant then it was today.

It is possible to produce a cost effective semi-controlled feed action, look at Ruger.

My militay weapon comment was just another way of saying any gun will do as long as you do.

Reguards,

Bill

I have a lot of clients each year that show up with pushfeeds and I have no problem with that, it is their choice, and many have no problem.

I see no reason to rebel or unite over choice, its your gun and your money, but it is not a sound choice in my opinnion, for dangerous game.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Most of my rifles are push-feed (I'm a lefty and Winchester only started making LH actions in '98).

My most accurate rifles are push-feed (Savages and Remingtons). My most reliably functioning rifles are Winchester CRFs.

I have had all sorts of feeding problems with the push-feeds; I would not consider using a Remington or Savage on a DG hunt (Sako maybe, if that's all I had).

My usual battery for Africa is a push-feed 700FS .30-06 and a Winchester M-70 in .375.
This year, it will be an M-70 .375 and an M-70 .470 Capstick.

I think push-feeds are great for anything that doesn't bite back; for the nasty stuff, I want an M-70 with CRF.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

"but the easiest way to load a CRF is from the magazine".

My point exactly. Many CRF actions (all military Mausers and many commercial actions) refuse to chamber a round which is placed directly into loading port, and not fed through the magazine. This is a DISTINCT disadvantage when, for whatever reason, your gun is empty and you need to make one quick shot.

Not only does the round fail to chamber (or more accurately, the action refuses to close), but the round must be removed from the chamber by turning the muzzle upright and maybe bumping the butt on the ground. Sometimes it requires running a cleaning rod down the bore. Not a pretty situation when your quarry is fleeing, and a truly ugly situation when your quarry is not!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holmes:

What exactly is the positive aspect that this thread offers to a reader?

---

I offer nothing but a way to shoot the bull and stir the pot !

For the record, my favorite rilfes are Winchesters and Weatherbys, but my preferences have nothing to do with CRF. And while I don't care for the Remington sliver-of-an-extractor, I've never seen one break either.

The only rifle I've had that wouldn't feed reliably was a Winchester CRF Safari Express in .416. But not because it was CRF, but perhaps because the WInchester "craftsman" that built it was hung over and pissed off at his wife from the nite before.

The impetus for this post is the near-manical sophistry from a few vocal CRF proponents who believe that push-feed rifles are prone to jam. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Mauser CRF system has been oversold to a gullible public for the past 110 years. The fastest way to reload an empty bolt action is to drop a round into the action and close the bolt. Can't do that with true CRF, and the semi-CRF rifles with beveled extractors don't do it as well as short-throw push-feed like the Weatherby, Sako or Browning. If you have expended your entire magazine and need another bullet right now, what are you going to do, waste time filling up your entire magaine? Silly.

We don't use the 5-round stripper clips on sporting rifles that the Mauser military system was designed around. We are hunting, not fighting a war. Therefore, so long as the extrractor is RELIABLE, the CRF is not as efficient as the push-feed.

I'm not opposed to CRF rifles. I'm leaving for Africa in 2 days and bringing along 2 of them. But that's because I like the rifles, not because they are CRF. CRF doesn't matter.

As Bill said in his reply above, "any gun will do, if you do."

Let the debate rage on!

I must disagree. The Ruger MkII is a true control round feed rifle. The bolt face is recessed slightly and the claw engages the cartridge rim as the case exits the magazine. Teh Ruger MKII is essentially a mauser without a recoil lug at the front of the receiver.

My comments on the M16 are for the M16 not the new and improved versions that came about because the M16 jammed all the time in Nam. The M14 by the way is a much better battle rifle (the M16 is an assault rifle).

By the way has anyone checked out the M97 Dakota. This looks to be the ultimate compromise action. It has a cylindrical receiver for ease of manufacturing and accurizing with a large stationary mauser type extractor.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 08-20-2001).]

My friend has a dakota 97, nice gun but alot for the money. However the Beratta Mato, basicly the same gun with a floorplate instead of a blind magazine box seems to be a pretty good deal.

The M16 got a bad rap in nam because of a few beaurocratic mistakes such as a switch in propellents and failure to have a chrome lined chamber. Like many other weapon systems adoptred by the US military it was also billed as maintainence free from the begining, something that could not be further from the truth.

There are very few functional differences between the M16A1 and A2, thou bbl contours, rifling twists, sights and hand guards may vary, the operating system hasn't really changed that much aside from a differnet trigger group.

Reguards,

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill (edited 08-20-2001).]

Thanks for the input. I was under the impression that the MATO was a mauser. I have only seen one and it looked nice. The MATO is still however not cheap (the synthetic I saw as $1100.00).

Todd E

I should have been more specific in my post. The thread itself is definitely of interest and usually generates informative opinions that I value.

My beef is when the comments degrade to generalisations as, "all Winchesters are junk", or one is vastly superior to the other.

If statements such as these were indeed true, the manufacturer of such firearms would soon find their marketshare dwindling.

I think both systems have their particular pros and cons. My confidence is higher carrying a pre-64 Winchester, however, had I been weaned on Remingtons, it would be a different story.

As I have no experience hunting African dangerous game, I should probably hold my tongue in these discussions.

Regards,

------------------
~Holmes

"Those who appease a tiger do so in the hope that the tiger will eat them last."
-Winston Churchill

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray, Alaska:
Here is the way I load my Ruger CRF: I place 3 rounds in the magazine, then if I want another round in the chamber I place a round in front the bolt, I fold my hand over the floor plate, and with my index finger I push down near the base of the new round. When I do that, the new round pushes the top round in the magazine, and the bolt is now free to travel over the lower of the two cases. The new round is now low enough to slide between the extractor and the bolt's face.

With an empty magazine, I could always push down on the magazine spring with the base of the round, just enough to allow it to slide between the extractor and the bolt's face, but the easiest way to load a CRF if from the magazine.

---

Yep, THAT sounds convenient in a DG situation. (After all, the DG advantage seems to be the big selling point of CRF, even to whitetail hunters...)

As others have said, the pushfeed is a lot easier to reload rapidly if needed.

Granted however, that if you have banged away 5 times & still need to reload either style in a DG situation, it might be "game over" by then anyway!

I am sorry about my generalized statement regarding Winchesters. It is just that my friend is very vocal about how much better his pre 64 M70 is than my M700. In my defense I will say that Winchester market share has dwindle big time from their hay day of the 50 - 60's. They have been bought and sold several times to because of there lack of profitability.

I still am estatic because my Remington does something a M70 pre64 can't do.

The statements about reloading in a hurray are right on to. You just cannot reload the CF rifle in a hurry without a stripper clip.

I am sorry if all this offends the winchester guys. I guess the truth hurts.

Kent

On real MGs, the ammo is on belts, so feeding is different than on a bolt-action.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

The other stuff about the extractor breaking. Never have had a problem. What do you guys with the problems do hit them with hammers?

Kent

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kent in IA:
Holmes,

I am sorry about my generalized statement regarding Winchesters. It is just that my friend is very vocal about how much better his pre 64 M70 is than my M700. In my defense I will say that Winchester market share has dwindle big time from their hay day of the 50 - 60's. They have been bought and sold several times to because of there lack of profitability.

I still am estatic because my Remington does something a M70 pre64 can't do.

The statements about reloading in a hurray are right on to. You just cannot reload the CF rifle in a hurry without a stripper clip.

I am sorry if all this offends the winchester guys. I guess the truth hurts.

Kent

---

Hello Kent,

You and I both know your friend's Winchester is not better than your M700, simply different.

Winchester certainly does not have the huge hold on the market as it did in days of old. Many poor corporate decisions affecting construction and quality control have seen to this. Sadly, I watched my local dealer return three new M70s that were so poorly done the customers brought them back within a week or so. Remington too, has had it's fair share of problems, again, probably due to reduced quality control. Seems to be a sign of the times in many industries.

All this said, one can still go purchase a new rifle from either manufacturer and in most cases receive a good firearm. I believe the poor examples are still the exception.

Reloading a push feed requires less manipulation than reloading a controlled feed. No two ways about it. 'Tis one of the advantages of the push feed.

Whole I prefer the nostalgia and fitment that pre-64 M70s exhibit, I cannot compare my rifles to another's factory M700. Mine have all been re-stocked and slicked up by my gunsmith. Winchester does not get the credit for the final product, they simply supplied me with an excellent base upon which to build.

Take care and good shooting.

------------------
~Holmes

"Those who appease a tiger do so in the hope that the tiger will eat them last."
-Winston Churchill

Holmes, how so? I have both and I put the rounds in one at time on my Weatherbys and Winchesters. I can't tell any difference on the ease of loading one over the other.

The M249 does not always operate effectively with a magazine, its kinda a last ditch thing. The mag feed is a small steel flap that allows the use of a mag, it isn't very glamorous and lends itself to being sheared off by the bolt, something that would be really bad.

Push feed is obviously quite sucessful in regular military weapons, all of the rifles I know of use this system and I haven't ever heard of plans to make a controlled feed auto.

Proper training can overcome the limitations of your equipment, whether you have an M16 on the front lines or and bolt gun on a buffalo hunt.

I have both types of actions, I just prefer the CRF.

[This message has been edited by Ray, Alaska (edited 08-21-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:

I have a lot of clients each year that show up with pushfeeds and I have no problem with that, it is their choice, and many have no problem.

I see no reason to rebel or unite over choice, its your gun and your money, but it is not a sound choice in my opinnion, for dangerous game.

[/B]

---

I could'nt think of more rational response than Mr. Atkinson provided. I own and shoot both and concur fwiw. Regards, Matt.

The Springfield M1903, essentially a Mauser 98, had a "magazine cut-off" which was simply a bolt stop that allowed reliable ejection of empty cartridge cases but prevented the bolt from traveling far enough to the rear to pick up a round from the magazine. The idea was to hand load singles while keeping a full magazine in reserve. This system worked reliably on every Springfield I have fired.

Problems with single feeding a Mauser-type action are caused by incorrect extractor tension (perhaps the result of converting the action to a different cartridge without making all the necessary (but not obvious) adjustments) rather than a design limitation.

Chris Long