What's so great about CRF?

26 August 2001, 19:09

<sure-shot>

AnneK,

I own both types of actions but I don't own the CRFs(Win 70 Classic) for just that reason. I favor the Win 70 for it's trigger,claw extractor and the beautiful McMillan Supergrade stock that is available.

It is my opinion that the die-hard CRF fans got caught up in Winchester's marketing hype when it reintroduced the Pre-64 action back in the late 80's. This was due to the intoduction of CNC, CAD machinery which allowed Winchester to build CRF actions on a cost effective basis. It's kind of strange the old timers always revered the Pre-64s for it's mauser like qualities but they never mentioned CRF or how you could get killed if you lacked it. Jack O Conner refered to the Weatherby VI as a mauser- like action in the Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns.

Now for all you CRF-only fans correct me if I'm wrong!

sure-shot

26 August 2001, 19:12

<sure-shot>

AnneK,

Now for all you CRF-only fans correct me if I'm misinformed!

sure-shot

26 August 2001, 19:15

Ray, Alaska

I bet we will start arguing about this one again, but perhaps we all can learn from all the arguments.

I prefer CRF, and will never buy a non-CRF rifle hunting rifle, but I haven't thought about my reasons why I just like CRF. I bet that if some of the guys who hunt Africa and dangerous game could answer your question we could learn even more.

26 August 2001, 20:08

sure shot wrote...

quote:
I own both types of actions but I don't own the CRFs(Win 70 Classic) for just that reason. I favor the Win 70 for it's trigger,claw extractor and the beautiful McMillan Supergrade stock that is available.

Man, that's one confusing paragraph!

quote:
I own both types of actions but I don't own the CRFs(Win 70 Classic) for just that reason.

What reason are you talking about? What actions are you refering too? You state you own both kinds, then say you don't own the CRF's. What are you talking about?

Anyhow Annek,

My question has to be "why not Controlled Round Feed"? I don't see why someone would prefer to just shove a cartridge till it pops out of the magazine, and up into the chamber (push feed). When there's another system (CRF) which actually grips the cartridge about halfway through the proccess, guides it into the chamber, and will also positively remove and eject that cartridge if you choose not to fully chamber it.

This arguement usually extends past the CRF issue, into other facets of rifle action design. That's when it gets fun!

Say, are you the same Anne who sent me some 416 Taylor data? If so, I just added it to my webpage.

Thanks!

------------------
Brian
The 416 Taylor WebPage!

27 August 2001, 02:32

<ssleefl>

Try running from a (****) and loading a round in your 700 and you will answer your own question

27 August 2001, 02:44

Robert D. Lyons

I own and shoot both types. I have Springfields and Mausers, Remingtons and Savages, plus military style push feeds. I like both styles and am comfortable shooting both. From the dangerous game argument, the CRF seems to be for those, who under pressure, cannot properly operate their rifle's action. My push feeds work like they are supposed to when I am shooting non-dangerous game and they don't suddenly quit working when I am shooting at dangerous game. The rifle doesn't know what type of animal it being used to shoot.

27 August 2001, 03:27

<500 AHR>

Anne

I believe that you have received your answer regarding the difference between the workings of the CRF and PF.

The CRF allows for additional cartridge control peroid that is it. The rest of the arguing going on is something else entirely.

If you are comfortable with and like your PF rifle use it. For me however using a PF action on dangerous game is kinda like driving your car without your seat belt fastened. Most likely it will not matter, but if it does you (or your next of kin) will wish you had done it.

Todd E

27 August 2001, 04:09

<sure-shot>

BW, forgive me for the confusing paragraph. The point I was trying to get across is the CRF feature of the current Win 70s(Classic) was not important to me when I purchased this action. I chose this fine action for it's other qualities in which I stated. In my opinion(in which I may be incorrect)all this CRF nonsense was brought about by Winchester's advertising since the late 80's. None of the older gun books I've read mention the CRF factor. Perhaps someone has read about it somewhere in an older publication and would care to comment.

sure-shot

27 August 2001, 05:10

<500 AHR>

Sure Shot,

YOu chose the M70 not for it's CRF function just the trigger, the McMillan stock and the claw extractor. The claw extractor is a major part of it being a CRF. Therefore, you did actually chose this rifle for its CRF capability even if you chose to say otherwise.

For you information, the CRF feature of the orignal M70 (pre64) and the mauser and it derivatives have to the best of my knowledge always been considered a great benefit. I do not make this statement based off of some magazines recommendations, but off of what I was told as a boy by my father and other hunters. These guys by the way did not read those idiotic magazines.

Just to fire some of the rest of you guys up on a totally unrelated subject. My father hunted elk for years with a M94 30-30. I beleve most magazines would simply say that is impossible.

IMHO it is just too bad that people believe all the BS written in these magazines. Most of it is nothing more than a paid advertisement it has always been that way and it will always been that way. I started hunting with a M96 sporterized Krag Jorgenson when I was a boy. It will kill elk to amazingly enough. I being the power hungry type however got myseld a 30-06 when I was 15.

Todd E

27 August 2001, 16:26

<Gary Rihn>

quote:
Originally posted by Ray, Alaska:
I bet we will start arguing about this one again, but perhaps we all can learn from all the arguments.

I doubt it!

27 August 2001, 16:27

<Gary Rihn>

quote:
Originally posted by Robert D. Lyons:
From the dangerous game argument, the CRF seems to be for those, who under pressure, cannot properly operate their rifle's action. My push feeds work like they are supposed to when I am shooting non-dangerous game and they don't suddenly quit working when I am shooting at dangerous game.

Well said....

27 August 2001, 16:30

<Gary Rihn>

quote:
Originally posted by Todd E:
For me however using a PF action on dangerous game is kinda like driving your car without your seat belt fastened.

Somehow it always goes back to "dangerous game". I still maintain that 98% of hunters will never, ever, see something in the field that can eat them.

27 August 2001, 17:02

sure-shot,

Okay, it's clear as mud now.

Naw, I honestly understand now, just had me going for awhile.

About the statement earlier...

quote:
the CRF seems to be for those, who under pressure, cannot properly operate their rifle's action.

Once again we see a statement of opinion, or even worse, conjecture. Not a statement of which is a better feeding system, or why a push-feed is superior to CRF. Just an attack on the "opposition"?

Again, I would ask...

"Why not have the cartridge held securely by the bolt during the chambering process"?

------------------
Brian
The 416 Taylor WebPage!

27 August 2001, 18:44

AnneK

OK, so let me ask another question since I'm not up on all latest happenings with all this. Do any/some of the CRF actions NOT let you put a round in the chamber by opening the bolt and putting a shell in with your hand? I can understand why you'd want to control the round better while you're loading it, but do the mechanics of doing that restrict your option to manually put in a round?
Regarding the "dangerous animal" theory, while I've never killed a brownie, I have backed away very slowly from several. Sure I worry about something getting jammed, but I worry about it before and after, not right at that particular moment!!!

(BW, yes, I'm the same AnneK.)

28 August 2001, 02:01

<500 AHR>

I guess my point was missed about the seat belt. Basically, you never need a seat belt until it is too late to put it on.

Anyway, hunt with whatever you want. Dangerous game is not only lions, tiger and bears oh my. White tails have killed people also.
Anyway, in truth to the average hunter the push feed is probably superior because it is so much simplier. Remarks made about reloading one round at a time come to mind. The CRF can fight you here. Although I would hate to be whatever if you are putting 4, 5, 6 or more rounds into it. The other poitn is if you need that many shots perhaps you should practice more or sight in the rifle (no bore sighting at the gunshot does not mean the weapons is sighted in and ready to go).

I use the CRF because it is the best most reliable weapons for how I hunt. By the way if you want lots of magazine capacity and ease of reloading how about a M1A with two 30 round magazines taped together. That would give you 60 shots to kill whatever you are trying to hit with.

Todd E

28 August 2001, 03:47

<Paul Machmeier>

I have used Rem 700 PF to hunt dangerous game without incident, but that doesn't mean that it is the best choice, even if you get away with it. No way would I hunt buffalo without Win 70 CRF, and as a bonus these rifles have the side mounted three position safety. This to me is the absolute best system when hunting in heavy riverine or deep grass.
One comment, several posts lately stated that one of the CRF negatives is that a round cannot be inserted in the chamber directly and close the bolt without running it through the magazine. Never thought about it before but that is exactly what I do on all my range shooting, on both the 375 and 416. Now both rifles are of recent manufacture, less than 5 years. Does this make a difference??

28 August 2001, 03:57

Robert D. Lyons

If a hunter has to shoot an animal 4, 5 or 6 times, it doesn't make a difference if it was shot by a push feed or a controlled round feed rifle.

I mostly hunt with a scoped M1A and a 5 round magazine. Usually a one round kill, sometimes a second bullet is needed. My M1A is a push feed. It is very accurate and although it has had 3,318 rounds through it, it has never jammed or otherwise failed to work when I squeezed the trigger. I feel safe using it to hunt whatever a .308 is capable of killing.

Pretty much everything that is posted is someone's opinion. If someone feels safer hunting whitetail deer or other animals with a crf rifle, that is their opinion and that is fine, but it is not a fact that they are safer, unless you have a study showing different. It is my opinion that either style is as good as the other, and of course my opinion is not a fact either.

28 August 2001, 06:17

Longbob

Anne, on all of my Winchesters and Rugers you can drop a round in and close the bolt. It is no different than the push feeds that I own also (Weatherbys and one Remington).

28 August 2001, 06:21

Longbob

Oh, I forgot to answer your original question. The reason for CRF is because that is all the Winchester Supergrade comes in!

28 August 2001, 18:47

AnneK

Thanks for the answers from those of you who did so. Several other replies implied that since I might want to put another round in the chamber when the magazine was already full that I must need a lot of shots to kill some little bambi-size critter.
Well, I've never used 5 or 6 shots to kill anything. Most of my kills have been one shot, but my moose in '90 was a couple of shots, and I can think of least 2 caribou and one Sitka deer that were more than one shot also. I don't go on safaris, I've never been on a guided hunt of any sort, I don't read all the fancy gun magazines, I just hunt around here where I live.
I know even some fairly macho and experienced guys that like to have plenty of firepower when they're in thick alders in brown bear country. The implication that nobody in this country needs to use 5 or 6 rounds must have been made by someone who's never had a run-in with a brownie, or if they did, they had a guide right behind them. I don't know about where any of you live, but I have a moose in my front yard right now, and a set of brown bear tracks going past my water well. I'll take my extra round, thank you.

29 August 2001, 09:55

Hi Anne,

Curiousity got the better of me, and I had to go try my Winchester M70 Classic rifle out. The one my 416 Taylor is built on.

Yes, it did feed a cartridge that was just layed into the chamber. I could feel the extractor snap over the rim.

Your question about this feature on CRF actions, was the one weakness I thought about when this topic came up. I asked for reasons "why not CRF?", but your thought about feeding the round directly into the chamber was the only honest response. And now, at least in many modern CRF actions, that's not an issue. It has something to do with modern manafactures beveling the extractor, which allows it to "snap" over the rim. Apparently, this was not always the case.

Darn! That leaves no good reasons, for NOT going with CRF! Sure, there are plenty of reasons folks like push-feeds, and that's fine. But at least in this discussion, I heard no negative facts on CRF.

------------------
Brian
The 416 Taylor WebPage!

29 August 2001, 03:14

<Ol' Sarge>

Well, the only reason I can think of to not go with CRF is Remington doesn't make one.

I suppose most of ya'll CRF fans think that's the reason ya don't go with Remingtons.

------------------
To be old and wise.....first you have to be young and stupid!

01 September 2001, 05:09

MacD37

All I can say is some people can't be swayed by facts! It is foolish to try, but just for laughs there is an old German saying that describes people who will not listen, "VEE GETS TOO SOON OLT, UND TOO LATE SHMART"

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

01 September 2001, 07:22

<Chris Long>

I posted this on another thread but I'll repeat it here:

The Springfield M1903, a Mauser 98 variant, had a magazine cut-off which was just a bolt stop that enabled reliable ejection of empty 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.

Although this was an unnecessary hold over from the Krag design, it worked well enough. I've also reliably single fed my M1917 Enfield and a commercial '98 Mauser built in the early '20s. All of these rifles were made over 80 years ago with no problems in any case.

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.