The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores Elmer Keith highly recommended Big Bores with Push Feed.Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
Nor does he mention prefering CRF. Selby used a post64 PF m70 .458 win for something like 8 yrs. . http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043&m=9561097831 | |||
|
one of us |
And Karamojo Bell used a 6.5mm for elephant Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
So what your getting at is that the more common less competent types[than those two exceptionally capable individuals above], need bigger bores and CRF to make up for what they lack? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Trax It makes sense now that you are a fan of Noam Chomsky. You never refute anything-you deflect with a differnt question and ignore the obvious conclusions from the answers you get. SSR | |||
|
Moderator |
just to clear this misconception -when the gas system breaks (and it does) on an m16 or ak, it is now a pushfeed bolt gun, aint it? no, phil, it doesn't mean that, in the least.. that is your stipulation to give a lecture to prove you stipulation. i reject these circular arguements. 1 - now you are saying pushfeeds are more accurate than all other choices. 2:there hasn't been a close combat bolt gun designed in what, 60 or is it 70 years now? those are all semi/full auto pushfeeds which are pushfeeds no, it doesn't. in fact, you reinforce the position.. when the stucco hits the fan, they prefer PUSHFEEDS. and, yes, it matters.. its a pushfed when you reload the mag (ah, yep) and its a pushfeed at any rate of fire, unless jammed,. and it a push feed when extracting. that YOU don't like thinking it matters isn't relevent. that they are pushfeeds does. that's the POINT... when the gas system breaks (and it does) on an m16 or ak, it is now a pushfeed bolt gun, aint it?
opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| Moderator |
funny.. THE name in 50 bmg caliber military sniper rifles.. semi or bolt, uses a pushfeed. every US military new sniper rifle are pushfeeds every US semi/full auto rifle and machin gun are pushfeeds as well as pistols ... and EVERY pump or auto shotgun are pushfed phil, frankly, persons focused on FEEDING don't understand the design. once feeding is done and proper, it can be largly considered to work. we see far more complaints about CRFs not feeding properly than we do pushfeeds, full stop. what mauser designed was an EXTRACTOR that allowed stuck/dirty/tranished cases to be fire in dirty/rusty/muddy chambers AND THE CASE BE EXTRACTED. this is where all but one factory CRF is superior to pushfeeds. they will nearly always extract. the exception is the ruger 77 mkii, which can do either, out of the box. if a pushfeed can feed at 800 RPM, and a crf offers better feeding, why are there NO crf semis? opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
is it possible mmodern military rfiles use PF designs because they are all semi/full auto rifles? The CRF seems to have been designed for bolt use only or am I wrong? | |||
|
One of Us |
Harry finnished his career with a push 458 win _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
_____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
Guys, Are you intentionally missing the point ? The fact that one or two competent folks used PF rifles or small bores on elephants does not "prove" anything. Sure it can be done but does that make it the best way? The CRF vrs PF argument pertains to bolt rifles. Not machineguns or semi-auto rifles and pistols. There is no doubt that push feed actions are simplier and in many cases more rugged. Paul Mauser knew all this and his first designes used push feed actions. But under stress people do not always work like a machine and Mauser's CRF M-98 was his final improvement FOR A BOLT ACTION BATTLE RIFLE. If you have the confidence that you will be unaffected by stress when facing certain death, and be able to work your rifle as it is intended, then use whatever type you want. They all work fine within their design parameters. Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have owned and used plenty of both and for many years, my strong preference has been for Mausers, P-64 Mod. 70s, classic Brnos and FN CRF rifles as well as Mannlicher-Schoenauers. I started, as did so many Canucks, with a Lee-Enfield, but, it never was the rifle that my others were/are. Each to his own, but, there is one simple point here that many seem to be deliberately ignoring and that is that Phil is not only a Vietnam combat vet, but, he is justly considered among the very top professional hunters in today's world and I consider him one of the few REAL experts on truely dangerous game, and Alaskan and BC Coastal Grizzlies certainly deserve that title. Sooooooo, while not meaning to offend anyone else, what he has to say always carries a lot of weight with me. I recently had an original Brno-ZG-47, my pick as THE BEST production bolt rifle ever made, in factory 9.3x62, customized slightly, with a Satterlee safety and Micky "Hill Country" stock; I now choose this as my "go to" rifle for hunting alone in BC, given our rapidly increasing Grizzly population and increased number of attacks. I was gratified to see that Phil is now often using a 9.3x62 CRF rifle at work and this certainly makes me feel good about my choice. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Who's talking about agenda? What does ammo sensitivity have to do with CRF/PF? I thought this discussion was about the inherent reliability of the various rifle types (PF vs CRF). A friend of mine who was a police sniper (and military too, I think, but doesn't talk much about that) said the first goal of a sniper rifle was to hit the same spot every time. In his experience, he said that the Remington 700 series was the most reliable at that goal. He also said the Garand wasn't worth crap for precision shooting. Given the selection parameters for a sniper rifle, his department chose Rem 700's. This same guy said that if he had to get in a firefight, he would rather have the Garand than any other rifle. The point of this is that a Rem 700 is meeting the design parameters that they chose for a sniper rifle in the Army, or where ever. It doesn't mean that PF is more reliable than CRF, it means that the 700 hits what its aimed at better than anything else in the design spec range that the government used at the time. A governmental choice of an item is dependent on what the parameters of making the choice are. Somehow I think that absolute reliability was not the first choice in a sniper rifle. Now, I personally would rather use a CRF action (Dakota in my case) for DG than a Remington 700 or other PF rifle that I have personally used. Is it possible I am being a snob? Sure. Is it possible that there are PF Remington 700's as reliable as my rifles? Absolutely. Have I shot a PF rifle that was reliable for me? Yes. Do I care if someone else (including my PH) uses a PF rifle? Heck no, if they feel that its up to the task. So Jeffe of the no agenda, what is my agenda here? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Another reiteration of a classic Troll thread. Maybe we should start another 45-70 thread, or Blaser S2 thread ..... the CRAPFAD action was discussed here last time this item came up on the agenda. Its solves all all your problems.  | |||
|
one of us |
Absolutely! In 1965 the whole gun world had gone absolutely bonkers with dumb things lit Remingtons "THREE RINGS OF STRENGTH", Winchester had followed with changing the Mod 70 to a pushfeed, and Sako had always been a pushfeed. The HUSKYs were also push feed. Hell in 1965 with Remington's lead the gun makers all furthered the myth that Push feed was a better feeding system, when it only improved the maker's bottom line, not because it was better. The American gun buyers bought the myth hook line and sinker, because the gun writers had nothing else new to write about! In 1965 the only real rifles were built on Mil-surp Mauser, or Pre 64 Win actions, because the rifles that were new at that time were piss poor PF junk, just like the same brands are today! Keith was not the only one reporting on those pushfeed rifles, they all did, because nothing else was being made to report on from the gun makers! ....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1 DRSS Charter member "If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982 Hands of Old Elmer Keith  | |||
|
| One of Us |
if one happens to be adversely affected by stress when facing certain death, then,as previously stated by Jeff... -an short stroked CRF is about as useful as an short stroked PF. -the main advantage of the CRF/Mauser design is its strong extraction capability. neither CRF or PF will save one from ones own incompetence. One also needs a much more competent smith to get an DGR mauser to feed reliably. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Frankly my dear I just don't give a damn.... I just want to get back to Africa. I'd happily go with a damn muzzle loader if those TSA goons would let me get on the plane with the components. Selous was just happy as can be with his 461 Gibbs with lead bullets with a little tin (hardened). It's coming up on two years now since I have smelled the air of Africa or seen a sunset there. two years since I have had that feeling awe that comes with being too close to an Elephant or the elation that comes with seeing the dark area in the thick bush that you know can only be a buffalo,cow , bull , who knows till you get really close. Push feed, controlled feed.... who gives a shit??? I just want to be there gun in hand... If you own a gun and you are not a member of the NRA and other pro 2nd amendment organizations then YOU are part of the problem. | |||
|
One of Us |
Amen, Brother! Rusty We Band of Brothers! DRSS, NRA & SCI Life Member "I am rejoiced at my fate. Do not be uneasy about me, for I am with my friends." ----- David Crockett in his last letter (to his children), January 9th, 1836 "I will never forsake Texas and her cause. I am her son." ----- Jose Antonio Navarro, from Mexican Prison in 1841 "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson Declaration of Arbroath April 6, 1320-“. . .It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.” | |||
|
| One of Us |
I've had a Win-70 CRF fail to extract. If the work is executed correctly there is no advantage in reliability in either PF or CRF. If the work is executed incorrectly then both are doomed to failure. PF and CRF will not always feed flat point solids without work to the feed rails. I once believed the BS that CRF was better, but have since been educated and realize that ain't so. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| one of us |
So what I have learned on this thread is that obviously Paul Mauser didn't know what he was doing as a designer. And neither did all those other designers who came up with POS designs like the SMLE, 1903 Spfld, 1917 Enfield, Pre 64 M-70, CZ, Ruger M-77, etc,etc. And the vast majority of professional hunters over the past cnetury would have been better served with a PF rifle. Unlike Paul Mauser however it looks like Winston Churchill was right. "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened" Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
| one of us |
Trax, the problem here is you and Jeff do not understand what is meant by the phrase "SHORT SHIFT". The definition of SHORT SHIFT is: This a phenomenon caused by getting into a big HURRY, when trying to get off the next shot before being gored. This has nothing to do with an extraction failure, but a failure to chamber the next round, and inadvertently pulling the bolt back then forward stripping off a second round with the first one not chambered, or chambered but with the bolt handle not turned down with a push feed rifle. In that scenario what you have is one in the chamber or in the loading port with a second round being stripped off the magazine. This is what is meant by short shifting. If this same scenario is done with a control feed rifle, the rifle takes care of this mishap! This is because the CRF action cannot strip a second round off the magazine till the first one is fired and/or ejected. The cartridge coming off the magazine in a CRF action is forced under the extractor BEFORE it is free of the magazine, and another round cannot be stripped off with that cartridge still in control by the bolt. This is not the case with a push feed action, because the cartridge is not controlled by the bolt till the round is chambered and the bolt handle turned down! Then and only then does the extractor forced over the cartridge rim. If the bolt is withdrawn before turning the handle down because of stress, pulled back it will strip another round off the magazine. Now you have two rounds in the loading port vying for only one chamber. If this happen with a push feed the next thing you will see is stars when that buffalo hits you. I'm, in no way, trying to tell you or anyone else what to do or what rifle action to use, that is your choice. However I think that choice needs to be made with all the facts, not just what you THINK are the facts. For some reason everyone who professes to know what the difference between the CRF, and PF think the difference is the size of the extractor, and even if both had the same size extractor the PF would still not be able to utilize the extractor till the cartridge is chambered, and the bolt handle turned down before withdrawing the bolt. With the CRF the same situation the first cartridge would be ejected before another round can be stripped off the magazine. The issue isn't the extractor, but when the extractor takes CONTROL OF THE CARTRIDGE! ....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1 DRSS Charter member "If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982 Hands of Old Elmer Keith | |||
|
| Moderator |
Mac, I love you -- and i fully understand what short stroking is.. and it can, and has, been done in mausers ... it can release but not catch the first round, resulting in "porpusing" of the round ... seen it happen .. see it happen, even in pristine milsurp guns .. an idiot at the helm can ruin anything. guy pulls the bolt all the way back.. studders the push, pulls back, round aint under the extractor yet, and now @#$@#$@#$@# a round is not under control until it slips under the extractor ... its a pushfeed until that point, and we all know this. this is why some mausers will not feed for CRAP when worked slowly.. and some model 70s.. yes, they haven't been blessed by a great gunsmith... yet it CAN happen another example fire a round in a mauser, don't pull it hard enough to eject in ONE motion, try to feed the next one.. notify next of kin.. .. same thing happens in a remington, btw CRF means extraction .. and if an idiot is driving it, extraction become moot. of course, bad ammo/chamber/idiot driving can rip a rim off, resulting in a really bad situation. no gun design is idiot proof .. the design is more or less fixed, but idiots are pretty ingenious opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| Moderator |
the ruger 77 mkII really is the best of both worlds.. DESIGNEd to ride over a rim, if tossed into the rails.. feeds CRF otherwise, but can work as a PF if that what you want... and has the huge extractor surface to pull it out. opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
1- The Mauser is a good design, but definately not the end all be all that the "kool aid" drinks promote it to be 2- Oh the list of Mauser copies that infringed on the Mauser design 3- That's the same arguement that the Double rifle proponents used for decades 4- Got a mirror, Phil _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Heffer, you're always on the phone with various man-o-factuhruhs, what's the story on the big Rooguh ...?? Gone from their site. | |||
|
| Moderator |
its gone now .. first info was techincal error .. its on the gone list there, now ... damn shame .. nice action opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Didn't they make a few in .505? makes me think I should nab one for a future project. What's the box ID? | |||
|
| Moderator |
JWP, just using yours as basis, rather than clouding.. i agree with you 100% agreed - great design .. though not the end of design silly quip on the patent infringments .. the springfield infringed on the STRIPPER clip, as mauser didn't patent the turnbolt non-rotating extractor..POD designs, Phil.. are you drinking decaf or something. If the mauser was the better design, why has dem der POSes always won EVERY saidto event? if doubles are the superior battle rifle, .. well, thats too obvious
opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| Moderator |
nope .. jim duble(sp) rebored some and made boxes .. opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| Moderator |
btw, shrimp, a heffer (heifer) is a small female cow ...  opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Nuthin' slips by ole Jeffer ... BTB - I like bein' a midget, at least I can fit in a car and don't need a 18" LOP.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mauser Patents used on the 1903 Springfield 467180 , Shell Extractor 20 cents per arm 477671, Shell Extractor & Collar 5cents per each arm. 482376, Clips, (called cartridge holder for magazine guns) 50 cents per thousand clips 527869, Oct, 1894 , Magazine 25 Cents per each arm. 547932, Clip (called cartridge pack) 50 cents per thousand clips. 547933, Safety, covered by 590271 _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
ROYALTIES FOR THE USE AND MANUFACTURE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. The payment by the United States of a royalty for the right to manufacture and use patented articles after the expiration of the term of the patent is not authorized. The War Department is not authorized to enter into a contract for the payment by the United States of a royalty for the prior use and manufacture of patented devices, such prior use being in the nature of a tort for which the United States is not liable. (Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of War, February 28, 1905.) By your reference, dated February 21, 1905, of a .communication of the Chief or Ordnance dated February- 17, 1905, you request my decision of the questions therein presented. Omitting paragraphs 5 and 6, the communication is as follows: "1. I have the honor to inclose herewith proposed articles of agreement between the United States and Messrs. VonLengerke & Detmold, of New York, providing for procuring from them the right to manufacture and use a breech-loading magazine arm, certain features of which are covered by United States letters patent owned by them, on the payment of a license fee therefor. "2. The appropriations which it is believed authorize the proposed contract are as follows: Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the national armories (Stats, at Large, vol. 32, p. 942) $1,700,000 Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the national armories (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, p. 275) 1,700,000 "These appropriations are available until exhausted, not exceeding two years. (Stats, at Large, vol. 25, p. 833.) " ' Hereafter all moneys arising from disposition authorized by law and regulation of serviceable ordnance and ordnance stores shall constitute one fund on the books of the Treasury Department, which shall bo available to replace ordnance and ordnance stores throughout the fiscal year in which the disposition was effected and throughout the following year.' (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, p. 276.) "3. The letters patent enumerated and referred to in the proposed contract were originally taken out by Mr. Paul Mauser, but articles of assignment have been furnished by the Patent Office showing that Messrs. Von Lengerke & Detmold are the owners and are also entitled to all rights and claims which may have arisen under them prior to the transfer to them. "4. The contract provides for a license fee of $200,000, payable at the rate of 50 cents per arm manufactured, but it is provided in the contract that in case the Government shall manufacture a less number of arms than 400,000 the license fee will be correspondingly reduced, but that for all arms manufactured in excess of 400,000 no license fee will be paid. It is possible, but not probable, that payments of the license fee might extend beyond the date of expiration of the patents. ******* "7. The contract also provides that in case all the arms for which the license fee will be paid can not be manufactured under the present appropriations, the United States shall have the right to renew the agreement under the same terms and conditions. "8. The contract also provides that the contracting parties shall pay all judgments against the United States on account of any suits or claims which may be made by any persons for infringement of their patents in the manufacture and use of the breech-loading arm and cartridge clip, as covered by the letters patent recited in the contract. "9. A bond will be required from the contracting parties in the sum of $50,000 to insure the pa3rment of such judgments should any arise. *' 10. A decision is requested as to whether or not this Department can enter into such a contract to bind the United States. If there are any features in the contract which are not lawful. it is requested that the decision cover such modifications as may be necessary, so that this Department may be enabled to manufacture the magazine arm under the letters patent enumerated and referred to." From this communication it appears that your Department contemplates manufacturing for the use of the United States, under authority of the appropriations specified therein, breech- loading magazine arms containing certain improved devices for which letters patent have been granted and are still in force, and are now owned by Messrs. Von Lengerke & Det- mold, and that you propose to enter into a contract with them by which, in consideration of a license to the United States to manufacture and'use said improved devices, the United States will agree to pay the said owners of said letters" patent as compensation for said license a royalty of 50 cents on each arm manufactured, not to exceed in the aggregate $200,000. If the said owners of the said letters patent have thereunder the exclusive right to manufacture, use, and sell the improved devices to be used in the arms to be manufactured and used by the United States, I am of opinion that, under the appropriations specified, you are authorized to enter into a contract with them for the purpose specified, and to provide therein for the payment of reasonable compensation for said license. But there is one feature of the proposed contract that is not free from doubt. If the contract provided for the payment of a royalty for the manufacture and use of improved devices for which one letters patent only had been granted, I do not think you would be authorized to provide therein for the payment of the royalty for the manufacture and use of the devices after the expiration of the term of the patent. In the case presented seven distinct letters patent are specified, which were granted on six different dates. It is presumed that each letters patent was granted for a term of the same length, beginning on the date when granted. The terms of six of the letters patent 'frill therefore expire at different times. The improved devices for which the several letters patent were granted may also have different values. If. under this state of facts, the royalty which it is proposed to pay is the aggregate value of all the improved devices for which the seven letters patent were granted, I do not think the terms of the contract submitted would authorize the payment of the full amount of the royalty after the expiration of the term of one or more of the letters patent, and in such case the terms of the contract do not provide what amount of royalty should then be paid. It may be, however, that in fixing the amount of the royalty allowance was made for the differences in the time of expiration of the terms of the letters patent and for the difference in the value of the improved devices, and that the amount agreed upon is deemed appropriate compensation to be paid for the manufacture and use of the improved devices during the varying terms of the several patents until the expiration of the term of the patent of latest date. If,so, I think this intention should be made clear in the terms of the contract. There is another feature of the proposed contract which requires particular consideration. In paragraph 5 of the communication of the Chief of Ordnance he says: " 5. The contract also provides for making payment of the license fee for all arms manufactured subsequent to March l*i. 1904. The reason for the insertion of this date in the contract is that on that date this Department addressed a letter to the AVaffenfabrik Mauser, the owners of the letters patent described and referred to before the transfer was made to Messrs. Von Lengerke & Detmold, in which letter reference was made to the making of an agreement providing for the payment of royalties in case any of the features of the magazine arm no*v being manufactured by the Government was covered by any of the letters patent owned by the Wafl'enfabrik Mauser." The letter to the Waffenfabrik Mauser, to which he refers, is as follows: "1. As an examination would seem to indicate that some of the features of the cartridge slip recently adopted for the United States Armv mav be covered bv vour United States letters patent Nos. -402605, 482376, and 547932. it is requested that your attorney in this country call at this office for the purpose of determining what, if any. of its features are eovered by your patents, and if .so, to arrive at an agreement as to the royalties which should be paid therefor." In paragraph 6 the Chief of Ordnance further says: "6. It is the understanding of this Department that the writing of this letter constitutes an implied contract under which a license fee may he paid the owners of the letters patent enumerated and referred to, and the proposed contract accordingly makes provision for this payment. A copy of the letter referred to is inclosed." I do not concur with the Chief of Ordnance in the opinion that the letter to the Waffenfabrik Mauser, referred to by him, constitutes an implied contract for the payment of a royalty for the manufacture and use of the improved devices for which the letters patent mentioned therein were granted. This letter suggests that some of the features of the "cartridge clip" which had been " recently adopted" for the Army ''may be covered" by those patents. It does not indicate whether any of the cartridge slips had been manufactured or not. It then requests that an attorney of the Waffenfabrik Mauser call for the purpose of investigating the question of infringement, and, if it should be 'found that there was, ''to arrive at an agreement as to the royalties which should be paid therefor.'1' The letter and the facts presented leave in doubt the question whether the proposed agreement for compensation had reference to cartridge clips which had been manufactured or were to be manufactured. In the former case no compensation would be authorized, for the infringement would be in the uuture of a tort, for which the Government would not be liable. In the case of Russell v. United States (182 U. S., 535), which was a case of the infringement of a patent by the manufacture and use by the United States of the Krag- Jorgensen rifle, the Supreme Court said: "If petitioners have suffered injury it has l>een through the infringement of their patent, not by a breach of contract, and for the redress of an infringement the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. This doctrine may be technical. If the United States was a person, on the facts of this record, * * * it could be sued as on an implied contract, but it is the prerogative of a sovereign not to be sued at all without its consent or upon such causes of action as it chooses. It has not chosen to be sued in an action sounding in tort. * * *" Until an agreement has been entered into for compensating an owner of a patent for the manufacture and use of any device for which such patent has been granted the manufacture and use thereof is an infringement, and if the infringement is by the United States compensation can not be recovered for the injury. I am therefore of opinion that you are not authorized to to enter into a contract to pay royalty for the prior manufacture and use by the United States of any of the devices referred to. http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15846 _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
Exactly!!! DRSS | |||
|
| one of us |
Folks seem to be either avoiding or intentially missing that point. I don't claim to be an expert on handguns but doesn't the 1911 basically work that way as well? Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
One of Us |
Oh but you forgot the "but it handles gas better..........." BS you always hear. Be careful before you get attacked by the swarm of disciples. But I do agree. They really ain't the best thing since sliced bread. I prefer Pre War Mod 70s. Again, if it doesn't feed it ain't worth shit. That is why the best hunting rifles are made by guys like Echols, Sisk, Holehan et al, because these guys actually hunt, they place the emphasis on the workings of an action, ie on the inside not the outside. Total reliabilty. Any push feed from those guys is far and above better than a CRF from other makers. I've had push feeds built by guild guys where the bolt completely slid over the cartridge and CRFs that didn't feed from the left rail. But they really looked right nice n' purty. There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Stripper clip was "invented" by Mannlicher ... as were many other features we're still using on bolt guns. | |||
|
| one of us |
Jeffe, I was assuming that in both cases we were starting with both type actions fully feed ready! Any type of rifle can be not properly prepared to feed it’s ammo. However, with a Mauser action that is properly prepped before being used for hunting dangerous game then it CANNOT strip a round off the magazine without it going under the extractor. If it does, then the idiot is the gun smith who prepared the rifle because it is not functioning correctly. Also it cannot strip another round off the magazine if it already has one on the bolt till the one on the bolt is ejected. What you describe is a gun smith problem not a design, or shooter problem.
What you state about the Ruger mkII is true, but even a mil-surp action barreled, and chambered for hunting dangerous game, it should have already been made to feed properly, and modified for the extractor to allow single cartridge loading without have to be placed in the magazine. All my big bore bolt rifles are so configured. With a push feed rifle, no matter what you do it will always be a push feed and is prone to the idiot factor under pressure. Of course we can always fix both types drawbacks, by simply using a well made double rifle! ………………………………………………………  ....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1 DRSS Charter member "If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982 Hands of Old Elmer Keith | |||
|
| one of us |
Or a single shot - but wait - they are CRF too Anyone who claims the 30-06 is ineffective has either not tried one, or is unwittingly commenting on their own marksmanship Phil Shoemaker Alaska Master guide FAA Master pilot NRA Benefactor www.grizzlyskinsofalaska.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
MacD37 Yes someone in a panic may not fully close a PF bolt on a round,then attempt to chamber another round, despite not yet having fired the previous round, Its also possible for someone in panic to not fully withdraw a CRF bolt to permitt ejection,then attempt to chamber another round. a person can short stroke at either end of the bolt cycle, No? one might ask,... why would one attempt to chamber another round in his CRF if the previous round has not ejected? probably for the same reason... someone would attempt to chamber another round in his PF, despite not fully closing the bolt on the previous round/not firing it at the charging buffalo. No rifle design can fully overcome human incompetence. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores Elmer Keith highly recommended Big Bores with Push Feed.
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |