quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
but the shooter is such a hurry to fire, and get another round into the chamber, that he doesn't go home with the cartridge, but withdraws the bolt again, then goes forward with it a second time. With a PF rifle, the first cartridge will not be ejected, because the bolt doesn't have CONTROL of the first round, and when he goes forward again, he strips a second off the top of the magazine, he now has two loaded rounds in the loading tray, vying for the same chamber, not a good thing!

Big Mac is right as usual BUT, looking at the above discription, I can't see it as an action failure. I suppose people panic different ways, but my simple mind would probably NOT think that withdrawing a part closed bolt BEFORE shooting is any way to get off a quick shot.

I mean, you might as well not drive in case you turn the wheel the wrong way.

So, I have my trusty .458 M70 PF that no one wants to talk about, loaded 3 dummy rounds with one at the butt, pushed one into the chamber and then cycled another one in.

This "jam" was cleared by the amazing action of pushing the second round back into the magazine, holding it down and closing the bolt.
If a buff got me in the mean time I'd call that serves me right, and the plane might have crashed on the way over.

Now as for ScottS, the real reason Mauser had CRF was just the German frame of mind.

I just saw a two pictures in the paper here with the headline "Guess which ones are the Germans?". Similar shot of crowded beaches, one, people were all over the place (PF).

The other, people had their positions marked out with their gear in rows and columns following the shore line. (CRF).

Now me and a trusty double. Something nasty comes charging out of the bush. Two quick too quick shots don't stop the monster, two quick too quick reloads from between the fingers don't seem to want to line up with the chambers and end up on the ground. Hoy the rifle and run for the trees. Doubles no good.

I've had cases stuck in the chamber of two rifles after firing with a hot barrel.Both times the case was stuck but not the bolt.One rifle was a Steyr and the other was a Sako.The Sako extracted the cases when I forced the extraction,but the Steyr did not and the extractor broke. I would imagine in combat,unlike hunting, rifles are fired even after barrels become very hot and pressures soar.Although I have not tested a CRF with a stuck case,I think it would extract like the Sako and better.This I think is the real reason for CRF.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I would imagine,in combat rifles are fired even after barrels become very hot and pressures soaring.

Um, yer, well. You don't have to imagine. There is plenty of examples of combat rifles shooting all you want with out jamming from heat. Does SMLE ring a bell?. I've seen barrels glowing in the dark and still working.

But I'm sure some people can jam anything somehow. A mate of mine had to pull his M94 30-30 apart to get the live round out from under the bolt. If it's at all possible someone will manage. I look forward to your CFR CZ jamming.

I can only speak of my experience.The only two times I kept on firing my rifle at the range well after the barrel was hot, resulted in a cartridge jamming in the chamber.One was a 270win and the other a 7mmRM.I've shot from a hot barrel before but not WELL AFTER.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
but the shooter is such a hurry to fire, and get another round into the chamber, that he doesn't go home with the cartridge, but withdraws the bolt again, then goes forward with it a second time. With a PF rifle, the first cartridge will not be ejected, because the bolt doesn't have CONTROL of the first round, and when he goes forward again, he strips a second off the top of the magazine, he now has two loaded rounds in the loading tray, vying for the same chamber, not a good thing!

Big Mac is right as usual BUT, looking at the above discription, I can't see it as an action failure. I suppose people panic different ways, but my simple mind would probably NOT think that withdrawing a part closed bolt BEFORE shooting is any way to get off a quick shot.

I mean, you might as well not drive in case you turn the wheel the wrong way.

JAL, you missed the whole point! The shortshift is an involentary reaction, to nerves, and is done within a couple of nanoseconds,faster than the mind can catch up.

Your example of how to clear the jam caused by a shortstroke in a PF action that can cram the two loaded bullet ends into the chamber, requireing tool to remove. The CRF simply ejects the first round, and chambers the next! I saw a friend of mine who was shooting a 25-06 Remington 700 do exactly as I described, and we had to go to town, to a machine shop and borrow some tools to get the thing cleared. Both bullets, and necks of the two cartridges were jammed in the chamber so tightly, that we had to use a hammer on the end of a steel rod down the barrel to drive the two cartridges out of the chamber.

My question to you is, would you rather waste a littl time chambering the second round into the chamber, or use the rifle as a club to defend yourself, till you can get to the Bakki to clear your rifle? Sounds like an easy choice to me, but one you won't have to make by simply buying a CRF to start with!

What Cha thank, Hoss!

A military model 98 CAN double feed by short-stroking the rearward pull. However, you are talking about a 1/8" measurement that has to be hit precisely, and both cartridges will still be controlled by either the extractor or the feed rails.

The ejector does not extend forward of the cartridge rims in the magazine. It is slightly rearward, to allow use of stripper clips for loading. When the bolt is in the rearmost position, the ejector tip is flush with its supporting lugs, just ahead of the boltface. The stripper clip slides in against this, and the cartridges slide in just ahead of the clip.

Now, you can force the cartridges to the absolute rear of the magazine, so that the rims are aft of the ejector, but you have to do it with a spacer up front or some sort of vertical rails at the shoulder. This would create additional friction that might not allow the cartridges to ride upward by the follower spring.

If you are using massive cartridges whose body diameter is near the size of the bolt, or have a rebated rim, than you might be eliminating the possibility of a double feed by not allowing the boltface to contact the next rim while one is still in place.

The good news is that even if you do hit that precise mark that could allow a double feed, all you have to do is pull the bolt all the way to rear (clearing the original case) and drive it all the forward (chambering the second case).

The 98 was designed this way because battlefield feedback during the the 1890's indicated that troops under stress were often not completing the chambering process before cycling the bolt. Since it is much easier for the human arm to pull the bolt rearwards as opposed to forwards, Mauser felt that it was more important to reduce the possibility of a jam on the forward stroke rather than the rearward stroke.

As a side note, during both World Wars, on all sides, there have been numerous accounts of panic stricken troops cycling through all the cartridges in their magazine, without ever pulling the trigger. Finding 5 unfired cartidges next to the body of a young soldier was not that surprising.

quote:

Originally posted by KurtC:
A military model 98 CAN double feed by short-stroking the rearward pull. However, you are talking about a 1/8" measurement that has to be hit precisely, and both cartridges will still be controlled by either the extractor or the feed rails.

The ejector does not extend forward of the cartridge rims in the magazine. It is slightly rearward, to allow use of stripper clips for loading. When the bolt is in the rearmost position, the ejector tip is flush with its supporting lugs, just ahead of the boltface. The stripper clip slides in against this, and the cartridges slide in just ahead of the clip.

Now, you can force the cartridges to the absolute rear of the magazine, so that the rims are aft of the ejector, but you have to do it with a spacer up front or some sort of vertical rails at the shoulder. This would create additional friction that might not allow the cartridges to ride upward by the follower spring.

If you are using massive cartridges whose body diameter is near the size of the bolt, or have a rebated rim, than you might be eliminating the possibility of a double feed by not allowing the boltface to contact the next rim while one is still in place.

The good news is that even if you do hit that precise mark that could allow a double feed, all you have to do is pull the bolt all the way to rear (clearing the original case) and drive it all the forward (chambering the second case).

The 98 was designed this way because battlefield feedback during the the 1890's indicated that troops under stress were often not completing the chambering process before cycling the bolt. Since it is much easier for the human arm to pull the bolt rearwards as opposed to forwards, Mauser felt that it was more important to reduce the possibility of a jam on the forward stroke rather than the rearward stroke.

As a side note, during both World Wars, on all sides, there have been numerous accounts of panic stricken troops cycling through all the cartridges in their magazine, without ever pulling the trigger. Finding 5 unfired cartidges next to the body of a young soldier was not that surprising.

A great post that bears repeating!

So Mac, how about shortstroking like I described before? Enough to loosen the case, but not enough to eject properly? Or are you tellin me that that can not happen?

You cannot loosen the case on a 98. The extractor puts so much force on the rim that the slightest touch of the ejector will cause even a loaded cartridge to clear the action.

However, if a bubbasmith has modified the extractor, anything is possible.

Of interest is the fact that while a Mannlicher-Schoenauer is one of slickest CRF actions in existance, the claw extractor does not extend down the lenth of the bolt like a 98. Touching the ejector will loosen the case from the boltface, without tossing it clear of the action. No system is perfect.

I love these "discussions"


Phil

JAL,

If the SMLE is so great why did the UK develop the Pattern 14 to replace it (never did due to cost and timing issues)?

How much cordite loaded 303 have you shot?

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:
So Mac, how about shortstroking like I described before? Enough to loosen the case, but not enough to eject properly? Or are you tellin me that that can not happen?

No I'm not telling you it can't happen, but I don't think in a sittuation where a man would be in a great hurry to get another round in the rifle, that he would simply ease the bolt to the rear. Certainly if he did, then your thing could happen,and I'm saying the other scenario is far more likely. It is the one that gets people into trouble with PF rifles! Nothing is 100% reliable, or beyond happening, Murphy's law guarintees that!

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
JAL,

If the SMLE is so great why did the UK develop the Pattern 14 to replace it (never did due to cost and timing issues)?

How much cordite loaded 303 have you shot?

I'm no devotee of the Lee-Enfield but...what bald revisionist history! Not even a little bit true. In fact, you have it almost backwards.

The P-13 was not designed for the .303. It was designed around a new cartridge due to a vicious circle of "what ifs" - mostly that the Mauser pattern and cartridge MIGHT prove to be a superior battle rifle in the event of a major European war, and which concerns had nothing to do with feeding. The P-13 was adopted in it's original form in 1913, and did not become the P-14 until WWI forced an emergency redesign to chamber the .303 cartridge.

Concurrent with the wild goose chase that led to the P14 design, as a stopgap measure the British Army changed it's training doctrine to take advantage of the Lee-Enfield's advantages over the Mauser - magazine capacity and rapid reloadability - which were of the greatest value in rapid fire, and that's what they trained. This proved to be it's long suit in combat service, and never would have worked had feeding/extraction/ejection issues with glowing-hot rifles and Cordite ammunition ever developed.

There had been no opportunity to yet test this in combat when the P13 was adopted, but WWI came along before the machinery to produce it was ready. Much to the shock of the proponents of the P13 in the British military, Mons and other early battles quickly proved the Lee-Enfield so definitively superior to the Mauser as a battle rifle that the British suddenly didn't WANT the P-13/14, and would have dropped the project entirely had it not been for another issue.

The problem was numbers - they clearly didn't have enough Lee-Enfields to meet war needs, nor did they think it possible to produce enough domestically to meet the need quickly enough. Had the war ended quickly, neither the P14 nor the US M1917 would ever have been produced. Retaining domestic production capacity for the Lee-Enfield, they shipped the P14 machinery to Winchester and Remington in the US.

The irony of the whole P13/14/M1917 story is that, while the US issued more M1917s than Springfields to it's frontline troops (due to our own woefully inadequate stocks of M1903s), Britain never issued the P14 to their frontline troops. In the event, they were able to produce enough new Lee-Enfields (and recycle enough battlefield recoveries) to keep the frontline units supplied, and preferred to issue the inferior P14 to Home Guard and other backwaters where serious fighting was less likely. The same was done in WWII.

Simply put, the British considered the P14 to be a bad mistake that was identified just in the nick of time.
---------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

400 Nitro Express,

Thank you very much for history lesson. I stand corrected!! As I said earlier the CRF is a total POS and should be outlawed!

Something else I have learned on this thread is that the CRF design is easier and less costly to manufacture! I didn't know that either.

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
Something else I have learned on this thread is that the CRF design is easier and less costly to manufacture! I didn't know that either.

One of the reasons that the British didn't think they could produce enough Lee-Enfields in WWI was that it was more difficult, slower, and more expensive to produce than the P-14.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
400 Nitro Express,

Thank you very much for history lesson. I stand corrected!! As I said earlier the CRF is a total POS and should be outlawed!

Something else I have learned on this thread is that the CRF design is easier and less costly to manufacture! I didn't know that either.

Scott, the reason the PF came about in the first place was it was CHEAPER, and FASTER to make, not because it was superior. In sporting rifles, the only improvement the PF generates, over the CRF action, is the larger BOTTOM LINE for the manufacture. They are much cheaper to make, and can be made almost intiely by CNC robotics.

TOTAL BUNCH OF BS...ON BOTH SIDES

This is a mechanical device, devised by ignorance for nothing more than the old profit motive and NEITHER ACTION IS PERFECT, by any means, but they are useful and I will keep all my CRF's AND PF's, each for their unique properties.

This X VS X topic keeps me laughing almost continuouly, although I have learned some "history by edict" in the process, true or not remains questionable. Reading the somewhat childish renditions of arguments, in many cases, reminds me of the need for educational institutions.

One observation I have made is all my Rem 700's will drop the cartridge out of the chamber and off the rails onto the ground, in my face, or up my nose, depending, if I have the rifle pointed up and leaned backwards and the bolt is pushed up past the point of the rails holding the cartridge and the bolt is pulled back again. Short stroking, pissing in your pants, mindlessness, fu**ing up, or whatever you want to call it. Doing the same doesn't cause any kind of problem with my CRF's. The round either stays hooked to the boltface or is kicked off by the ejector, and yes I can work at getting my mausers or mauser clones to jam. I can also blow the engines, transmissions, differentials, etc., in any of my truck's, MC's, boat's, or lawn mowers for that matter, if I don't have my brain in gear. That doesn't mean I would rather ride a burro to work, although the burro would get me there.

This topic has turned into nothing but a di** waving, testosterone laced, friday night at the bar, whiskey fumed, brain addled, wannabe, arm chair, who's going to the Super Bowl, bug eyed, screaming contest...don'cha think???

You shoot what you want, I'll shoot what I want because I don't really care if you live or die and I'm sure you feel the same. If you want to use a PF and your PH lets you, neither of you has a very high level of self preservation. I will hang with my CRF's where there might be a problem and my PF's for the smaller stuff and enjoy the He** out of both.

Enjoy

FOOBAR, If a little sarcastic, and a little self absorbed, still a very good post, and if you get rid of all the BS in it, makes absolute sense!

This has always been my contention, that if only used for non-dangerous game,and a few of the safety problems are taken care of with one brand, and model, there is nothing wrong with a PF system! However, when used for things that bite back, they stay home with the rest of the deer & coyote rifles. I have several mod 700s, and one 788 that belonged to my late father, but my serious big game rifles are all CRF, or double rifles, Period! Like you, I enjoy them all,but only in their proper place.

Mac,

quote:

Posted 18 August 2007 19:20 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by ScottS:
400 Nitro Express,

Thank you very much for history lesson. I stand corrected!! As I said earlier the CRF is a total POS and should be outlawed!

Something else I have learned on this thread is that the CRF design is easier and less costly to manufacture! I didn't know that either.



jumping jumping jumping

Scott, the reason the PF came about in the first place was it was CHEAPER, and FASTER to make, not because it was superior. In sporting rifles, the only improvement the PF generates, over the CRF action, is the larger BOTTOM LINE for the manufacture. They are much cheaper to make, and can be made almost intiely by CNC robotics. Big Grin

No sh!t. Now I am really confused ... NOT!

FOOBAR,

I concur and well said.

As to production cost Remington did that with the round receiver, 3 piece bolt and non integral recoil lug.

The Rem 700 and of course the Wby Mark V were also at a period of time where "rifle blowup" was the big topic and the case head being enclosed in the bolt was all the go. Actions such as the Wby and Rem took that one stage further by having the bolt nose enclosed within the barrel.

As to rifle pricing if we consider the factory rifles most commonly encountered such as the CZ, Ruger, Wby, Sauer, Blaser, HS Precision it is the PFs that are at the expensive end of the market and the CRF are at the bottom of the market.

A staggerd feed CRF can never equal a vertical stack centre line feed PF for reliability of chambering the round and doubly so with cartridges where the bullet diameter is not much smaller than the rear of the chamber and the problem is even greater when blunt or flat nose bullets are used.

The CRF will always be more dependent on case rim/extractor groove dimensions and condition. The CRF is also far more dependent on the extractor being right.

The CRF is fundamentally flawed because its design requires things to be "more right".

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by WbyPower:
As to rifle pricing if we consider the factory rifles most commonly encountered such as the CZ, Ruger, Wby, Sauer, Blaser, HS Precision it is the PFs that are at the expensive end of the market and the CRF are at the bottom of the market.
Mike

It's strange how the Wby is an odd bird in the US yet is very popular down under. It's like David Hasselhoff being odd as a singer in the US yet being the number 1 pop artist and a singing sensation in Germany.

Both the Sauer and Blaser are odd men out here too being no way near common. But, the Sauer's most expensive rifle is actually their M-98 which starts around $12,000 to $15,000 IIRC.

I've seen a few tactical HS Precision rifles in use but never a single HS Precision big game rifle in the field. I'm sure they're out there somewhere but not common.

The 700 is about the most common PF I see and I do believe there is a law somewhere that every household in the US must have at least one.

As to your price analogy, I see no validity in it. Common factory rifles all sell pretty much in the same range of prices for what they are regardless being a PF or CRF. A bottom end 700 will be close to a bottom end Ruger, etc. Semi-customs up the price a bit and customs run the gamut.

quote:

Originally posted by WbyPower:
The CRF is fundamentally flawed because its design requires things to be "more right".
Mike

Any rifle taken into the field which must be relied upon should be "more right" than box stock. Such rifles should be well vetted. Such a proofed CRF is not fundamentally flawed and will feed just as slick and reliable as anything out there including a single stacked odd ball Wby push feed that shoots a powder can sized cartridge. I take that back, better.

GVA

quote:

That doesn't mean I would rather ride a burro to work, although the burro would get me there.

You do make me laugh Dr. RIP!

I've decided to skip the CRF, PF, & CRAPFAD and get one of these.......I think it's a PF!

quote:

Originally posted by KurtC:
As a side note, during both World Wars, on all sides, there have been numerous accounts of panic stricken troops cycling through all the cartridges in their magazine, without ever pulling the trigger. Finding 5 unfired cartidges next to the body of a young soldier was not that surprising.

MacD37, Where you think I've missed your point, is just I don't like to admit I'm wrong.

But, you have missed mine. My point with CRF/PF is as is so well put in the quote above.
It's no use you just picking on one possible error some dork (um human) may make and assume they can't make another.
So what is the outcome if a um human shucks all his ammo out with the famous CRF ejection system, and in the mean time gets whacked by said buffalo??

Now with your "need tools to unjam two carts in the chamber"?? Cripes, I thought we were talking about my .458 that no one wants to talk about. The round and flat nose big fat bullets WILL NOT jam up past a cartridge already chambered.

Now lets keep real here, my .458 PF won't jam unless -I- make it.

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
JAL,

If the SMLE is so great why did the UK develop the Pattern 14 to replace it (never did due to cost and timing issues)?

How much cordite loaded 303 have you shot?

First part wonderfully answered by 400 Nitro Express, but I might add, you expect me to explain the minds of bureaucrats and Col. Blimps??

Second part, what ever your point, nearly always, either mil rounds or mil rounds pulled with a soft point inserted over cordite. Somewhere between 15 and 16 I started to load some powder can't remember 4740 or something.

Didn't use a threeO much after that, got a Commercial FN mauser 300 H+H. & 4x81 Pecar scope.

Now don't tell me it was a damn CRF? (I didn't know about such things when I was young and innocent.)

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

You do make me laugh Dr. RIP!

I don't think that was Dr Rip, that's just a photo of one of his patients.

It's strange how the Wby is an odd bird in the US yet is very popular down under.

GVA,

Perhaps it is because we kill more animals in one day than the average American kills in a life time

Any rifle taken into the field which must be relied upon should be "more right" than box stock. Such rifles should be well vetted.

Agree. But a CRF needs to be "more right" and to be "more right" the CRF demands more from the cartridge case dimensions and condition. Even a D'Arcy Echols rifle will fail with a case rim that is too big in diameter or too small or a case rim with a burr on it.

Good design means that things will still work when conditions are not good. CRF is good for Africa or American big game shooting because only a few shots will be used and the ammunition, few in number, can be checked.

Even your own military uses PF for auto and sniper rifles.

Compare a military Mauser and 303 SMLE for chasing roos and pigs and see whick works the best.

The bottom line is that CRF requires a case rim to slide under the extractor and do it at an angle. When high volume shooting, whether it be varmints in America, shooting in Australia or military shooting then the PF rules the day.

Mike

quote:

between 15 and 16 I started to load some powder can't remember 4740 or something.

JAL,

It was 4740. I think 4740 was the powder that Canada used in the 303. 4740 was also used for Riverbrand and Super in 303/25 factory ammo.

4740 and 4831 were distributed by Keith Herron and the 1 pound tins had a label which was an advertisement for Super Simplex reloading gear.

Mike

JAL,

What was your experience with cordite then, was it a satisfactory powder?

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
Mac,


No sh!t. Now I am really confused ... NOT!

quote:

by ScottS
FOOBAR,

I concur and well said.

Scott, you really are confused, arn't you?

Son, IMO,you were born confused, and never recovered! FOOBAR, is saying the same thing I am, but with some sarcasm installed, that you took too literaly! He is for CRF on dangerous game, and Push feeds where it doesn't matter, but you disagree with me, and concur with FOOBAR! Amazing! BYE!

I don’t care what type of rifle you use you should practice. You should set up some kind of compation with some friends. Just going to the range is great for testing ammo and zero. The pressure you feel in a match situation is as close as you can get to a hunting situation. There is a world of difference in just banging away at some targets and having the range officer step up behind you with a timer in his hand and say “shooter readyâ€.
Bill

/

Alf,

I agree with you 100% that the SMLE is far from ideal as the basis for a sporting rifle.

But for rapid fire and reliability it wins and that is basically because it is a rear locker.

It is true that chasing pigs and roos is not DG hunting (except for hidden stumps and falling arse over head in the back of the truck ) but it will and does test any rifle.

Mike

Although this subject gets a rerun at different times I do think the threads are of value.

Most of the posters involved have all been shooting for a long time and with a wide variety of rifles and conditions and none of us are likley to change the others view point. However, I think readers of such threads with less experience probably get value fom the various arguments put forward.

Mike

I have never short stroked a CFR, therefore I can chew gum and walk at the same time.

Anything made by man can flaw, however a good CFR is as dependable as a rifle can get, including a double rifle, I am a fan of both..

I have no use for a push feed rifle..I have seen too many loaded rounds fall out of them over the years and heard that horrible "snap".

To each his own however.

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
JAL,

What was your experience with cordite then, was it a satisfactory powder?

Mate, I wouldn't really know anything except it went bang. Sure, it wasn't even powder or granules, but sticks of spaggetti like stuff.
But again with the wars, it worked for a long time, and the only problems I've heard of was that it was a bit hot and tended to wear barrels, but we never noticed it.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

Sadly bringing the SMLE into the arguement pro or against the PF/CRF debate is a weak choice as the SMLE was / is inferior to and outmoded by Mr Mausers design.

ALF, Maybe so. I think all we are trying to say is that the SMLE, worked, worked well, for a long time.

quote:

when the British Sporting gun trade chose of free will a action system to build their classic big game rifles on they chose Mauser,

Maybe so again. Not to say it was a better battle rifle, but I'm sure it is bigger and stronger for African cartridges. I don't know that CRF had much to do with it. Just a bonus perhaps.

quote:

still it is the choice action when DG rifles are discussed and built and no matter how we argue that fact remains

Well yes, but; You are determined to forget the many other actions used for DG , most of which perform quite well as PF's, including Weatherby's. And the new CZ 555 is a PF, asked for by the Germans, (how's that for a laugh) and how soon before it is used in Africa?

quote:

As to the chasing or roo's, marsupial mice and other nefrariuos feral domestics, they hardly qualify as DG,

ALF, when your right your right, But; Here, we say that when we use the SMLE as much as we have, (and no one used to look after them) we have a vague idea just how dependable they were.
To my memory about 100% reliable. And we wern't just on Safari for a couple of weeks, many of us lived in the bush and the SMLE went everywhere.

quote:

even the use of a shot out smellie.

Now that's a dirty journalists trick. So a SMLE has to be shot-out, and all Mausers are pristine?

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I have no use for a push feed rifle..I have seen too many loaded rounds fall out of them over the years and heard that horrible "snap".

Ray; "THEY" are the people that can't walk and chew gum at the same time, or they wern't capable with their rifle, etc. Just like the people drive thru their garage wall with an automatic, instead of reversing out. (Not at all a fault of the gearbox type).

I'm starting to think a lot of the trouble with CRF long Mausers (and people do have a fair bit of trouble with them) is with that horrible long wobbly and binding bolt they short shuck it and then think "gee just as well I havent got that slick PF M70 that JAL has", not realising that it cycles like butter on glass and it wouldn't have happened.

Alf

M17s and Mausers were used in Australia for conversion to calibres such as 270. The P14 was used for conversion to 303/25 and 303/25 Improved so full pressure loads could be used.

When used as issued the SMLE shits on the others. Not just speed of fire but the rear locking SMLE does not jam up. The smallest bit of dirt will and does fuck up a front locking action.....Whether it be Wby, Mauser, M70 Etc., anything in the front of the action will bring all to a stop.

And don't forget that it does not matter how good D'Arcy Echols, David Miller, H&H or even Purdey makes a CRF the case rim dimensions AND CONDITION can stop all with CRF.

There is no question that the CRF is the best looking action when worked in the lounge room. Because they are shit but look good when worked they are a gunsmith's dream.

If I was having a top end 375 H&H made it would be a CRF and I would even get the shitty Mauser receiver instead of the M70. BUT...that would not mean I think the rifle would be better than the HS Precision with PF In Line feed.

If I was having a top end rifle in 375 RUM made then the H&W action would be a "no no"

The point I am trying to make is that we need to distiguish between what we like and what works best.

To me the SMLE is a terrible looking gun and no matter what is done that can't be changed. However, if you used M17s, P14s and shot roos and pigs in the 1000s in 1960s you would know that the SMLE was way ahead.

In the 1960s military calibres were illegal in New South Wales unless you belonged to a military rifle club. Hnence we had 303/25, 270 Winchester and 7.7 X 54. The latter was a slightly shortened 303 that would not chamber the 303.

Of course the SMLE was a poor choice for reloading. Rifles made on the M17 and Mauser were the cheap option compared to factory rifles such as the Rem, Sako and PF M70.

If you think CRF is all wonderful then contact Winchester Australia on the change back to M70 CRF. The most common problem was when the bolt was pulled back slowly and the the round or case was left on the follower. The other problem is with cheap and shitty Chinese ammo.

As I said earlier, even a D'Arcy Echols rifle will fuck up with crappy case dimensions.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by ScottS:
JAL,

What was your experience with cordite then, was it a satisfactory powder?

The only reloading we did with cordite was to pull the 174 grain 303 bullet, neck the case to 270 and seat the 100 grain 270 bullet on top of the cordite charge.

Mike