quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

Mike, The military uses new ammo and those of us who hunt dangerous game are anal about our ammo but your experiences add another completely different set of circumstances to the issue. If you are using sub-standard ammo then I can see where a PF action might work best.

In the 1960s in Australia a lot of us used M17s rebarreled to 270. We had Hirtenber ammo (and thus brass) and Norma and Winchester. Extractor groove diameter differences, fucked the M17. You go from one extreme to the other, that is, one lot of ammo won't slide under the extractor and with the other the case drops out of the extractor unless you pulled the bolt back real fast. No problem with the Sako 270 Finnbear rifles.

Under all conditions where a lot shooting will be done I would bet on the PF and doubly so if an in line feed.

I am just pointing out that CRF supporters should qualify.. if ammo/brass is OK and the rifle is been properly checked and tested etc..

in Australia we probably get the "export" mode;s When Winchester reintroduced the CRF Classis heaps of the 300 Winchesters would leave the fired case on the follower. That will give you some double feed Winchester Australia got a lot of extractors in but did not always work because of rin/groove dimensions of brass.

As a side note if you want to try in line PF V stagger feed CRF try a Wby Mark V in 416 with 400 grain Hornadys loaded backwards Vs a CZ in 416 Rigby.

But if I was getting a top end 375 H&H made I would get CRF, just looks right, looks good as you feed rounds. An in line PF looks terrible but as you would already know that system will feed stuff that a stagger feed CRF would choke on.

Best regards.

I agree that if I had no choice in the matter other than which PF rifle I would use and was required to use a PF action on dangerous game, my choice would be a Sauer which is an IN-LINE feed and in my opinion is the most reliable PF ever made.

However I take exception to the cause of the problem you were having with your CRF rifle being a design flaw but was an ammo problem. No rifle type will work consistantly with improper ammo!

To top this off again IMO, anyone who goes into the field with dangerous game without every hedge against enjury, is simply not right in the brain pan.
The first priority should be haveing a rifle that operates as designed, and ammo that is not only accurate, but uses a proper bullet for the animal one is hunting, and ammo that works in the rifle. Any time I'm going to hunt I run every round through my rifle before it leaves my home. It feeds and fits or it is replaced with some that does!

.............I've now enjoyed about as much of this thread as I can stand! Good hunting Gentlemen!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
In the 1960s in Australia a lot of us used M17s rebarreled to 270. We had Hirtenber ammo (and thus brass) and Norma and Winchester. Extractor groove diameter differences, fucked the M17. You go from one extreme to the other, that is, one lot of ammo won't slide under the extractor and with the other the case drops out of the extractor unless you pulled the bolt back real fast.No problem with the Sako 270 Finnbear rifles.
Under all conditions where a lot shooting will be done I would bet on the PF and doubly so if an in line feed.

I am just pointing out that CRF supporters should qualify.. if ammo/brass is OK and the rifle is been properly checked and tested etc..

in Australia we probably get the "export" mode;s When Winchester reintroduced the CRF Classis heaps of the 300 Winchesters would leave the fired case on the follower. That will give you some double feed Winchester Australia got a lot of extractors in but did not always work because of rin/groove dimensions of brass.

As a side note if you want to try in line PF V stagger feed CRF try a Wby Mark V in 416 with 400 grain Hornadys loaded backwards Vs a CZ in 416 Rigby.

But if I was getting a top end 375 H&H made I would get CRF, just looks right, looks good as you feed rounds. An in line PF looks terrible but as you would already know that system will feed stuff that a stagger feed CRF would choke on.

Best regards.

Mike, Now imagine, a person brings their highly prized top end .375hh CRF to Africa,..ones tried & tested ammo gets lost somehow somewhere,.. ones forced into a lucky dip situation, having to use whatever they can buy,begg,borrow or steal,..and it dont function, like your M17 experience.
Always Good to have an more reliable budget priced PF AV-Sako Safari.375HH as an Back Up Rifle......

I was once forced to use RWS 7x57, and I experienced an extractor groove dia. issue like you speak of.

By the way, ever seen an orig. FN Sako Safari?...

quote:

Originally posted:

"When they are forced to consider CQB or multiple shots they prefer semi-auto rifles - where the CRF and PF arguments are irrelevant.

I agree. There are also situations in which snipers prefer semi-autos even at long range, and even if they are "push-feed".

One of the techniques which used to be taught to snipers when we had M-14 based sniping rifles was "bracketing fire".

Where the target is in an area and at a distance where the target may be moving even just a little bit, frequently, with little notice, and/or where winds are constantly shifting, it is sometimes very handy for a sniper to fire double taps or even triple taps from a semi-auto rifle such as one of the M-14 based sniper rifles.

The first shot is aimed at the target, the second one or two are aimed incrementally up wind in 1/2 body-width increments.

Human reaction times and bullet flight times being what they are, the target doesn't have time to duck even if he hears the first shot and it misses him. That doesn't mean the second or third one will get him for sure either, but the chances certainly increase for that to happen.

Then of course, there are the classic closer range situations where the best sniper rifle is a dependable semi-auto of larger than 5.56 chambering. One of those situations is when a sniper is in a hide at a known river crossing and a squad or more of enemy soldiers is making a crossing, often at night. A good sniper with a semi auto and a night vision sight can kill most or all of them, where with a bolt action he will likely kill only a couple or three, and then draw a hell of a fusilade of return fire and quite possibly lose his own life.

It is also worth noting that most victims of snipers are NOT shot at long range. Nor is it important to hit them in the heart or the head.

At the ranges most sniper victims are killed, a high powered, highly adjustable scope is not only not required, it may be a drawback. A scope with just two or three elevation settings indicated with heavy ball indents (so one can feel them rather than have to see them, and so one can easily find exactly which setting he is on in the heat of battle) is often best used.

In those situations the normal trajectory of a full power battle round will allow a scope with just a few settings to put the bullet on the target victim quite simply. Whether it hits him in the head or the lower abdomen, or anywhere between, is not critical. Speed often IS critical.

I learned all this the hard way. So did my best military buddy who fairly recently passed away of a heart attack. He was the CO of a company of U.S. Army Special Forces in "The Nam" and agreed 100% based on his own experiences deploying and using snipers.

All this "one round - one kill" stuff sounds romantic as hell, but building rifles for super accuracy at 1,000 or more yards is often a waste of battlefield resource money and may mislead both the snipers and/or their commanders as to their best deployment. For killing people at long distance in the majority of battlefield situations, various kinds of artillery, drones, and manned close-support air strikes are often more efficient and more effective.

Sniping is just like hunting at the bottom line. There is no such thing as an "all around rifle". What works best depends on the circumstance, what one is facing, and who/what is avalable to do the job.

Sniper equipment will vary in dollar value & capability according to requirements, but ultimately to the permissable budgets of the respective departments. from lowest to highest it goes in this order;

-Law enforcement
-Military-general
-Miltary -special forces
-Government high level covert intell operative groups.
-Private-Civil contracted operators; who have access to the highest budgets and most advanced equipment via extremely wealthy corporations and individuals, who are not bound by budget restrictions/justifications/scrutinisations that various gov. departments are. They can throw their money around anyway they want.
To give you an idea, High level .50BMg equipment will fire custom Tellurium rounds produced to the required spec requested by the individual rifle operator, easily costing $150 and up,per round, depending whats required.
An aquantance of mine who was an Civil operator, often had open check books to get best equipment possible, no questions asked.
Just the custom mods to his Barret .50cal were several times what a Barret cost. Same story with the highly advanced custom optical & ranging systems employed. Know of any police or gov./Mil. department that would spend $100K on such a device for each rifle?

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Sniper equipment will vary in dollar value & capability according to requirements, but ultimately to the permissable budgets of the respective departments. from lowest to highest it goes in this order;

-Law enforcement
-Military-general
-Miltary -special forces
-Government high level covert intell operative groups.
-Private-Civil contracted operators; who have access to the highest budgets and most advanced equipment via extremely wealthy corporations and individuals, who are not bound by budget restrictions/justifications/scrutinisations that various gov. departments are. They can throw their money around anyway they want.
To give you an idea, High level .50BMg equipment will fire custom Tellurium rounds produced to the required spec requested by the individual rifle operator, easily costing $150 and up,per round, depending whats required.
An aquantance of mine who was an Civil operator, often had open check books to get best equipment possible, no questions asked.
Just the custom mods to his Barret .50cal were several times what a Barret cost. Same story with the highly advanced custom optical & ranging systems employed. Know of any police or gov./Mil. department that would spend $100K on such a device for each rifle?

Was that super-vaporware 50 BMG pushfeed or CRF ..?? Hilarious.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

I do know the AK guide who was mauled due to short stroking his 416 and over the years have seen others hunters who have also "short sttime.

When did that happen? Could you PM me further details, as well as name. Thanks.