Sako's are very bad and unsafe. Everyone who has one should contact me and I will give them $250.00 to take it to a safe place. I am doing this as a public service.
JCN

Any time a case is tight in the chamber then the push feed will appy a twisting action. Recent Rem 700 30/06 bolt faces clearly demonstrate that because the bolt will rotate and leave the extractor behind!!! as the extractor is not rivoted.

If you really want to see CRF in all its glory then see how they go with shit brass as is often the case in Australia. If that case rim can't slide up between the extractor and bolt face then......

CRF extractor and case dimensions are also vital for CRF. For example, the early M70 Stainless rifles in magnum calibres that came to Australia had a very high percentage of them that would leave the case sitting on the follower. Winchester Australia had a lot of new extractors on hand.

In my opinion CRF is like other things that are German....over engineered and dependent on things being right.

I can assure you that a 303 SMLE will eat up any Mauser when chasing roos etc and if any older Australian shooters read this they will agree. Actually the 303 is the worst offender of all as it uses rimmed cases in the bolt action

Mike

I disagree Mike . The extractor where it contacts the case rim is smooth . The rim is smooth . There is no way for either to get any purchase (that amounts to anything) on one another unless the rim/case head sees a considerable expansion one way or another . Snap a case into the boltface of your favorite push feed and see for yourself ; it will spin freely in the bolt face .

This "twisting force" bullshit is put forth by the M-700 fans to defend their baby , and I think there is something to it , again, in the case of a severe overload that swells up the cartridge head . But think about it , even in that case , your now favorite Weatherbys with their outside-the-boltface mounted hook type extractors won't get the same 'twisting results" as the bolt face mounted M-700 extractor .

And speaking of over engineering , what about your Mark V with it's three rows of nine bolt lugs ? Over-engineering at it's finest . I reckon then you should chuck the Weatherbys and make up a custom Lee-Enfield for chasing roos..........(grin) I also think that German may have designed many of the extractors now on use in push feeds .


500 grains........again , the bolt face is smooth . The face of the extractor and the head of the cartridge case is smooth . Whatever friction there is that results from closing the bolt is very minimal . The friction that exits just before snaping the extracor over the rim is negated by the friction between the cartridge case and the chamber as the extractor pushes against it as the bolt is closed . There would be little to no friction between bolt face and cartridge after snaping over the extractor , as there is several thousands clearance in a properly headspaced chamber with properly sized ammunitrion . It's all a moot point anyway unless you figure a M-98 or a M-70 is somehow deficient in chambering a cartridge compared to a push feed ?

sds, you originally stated there is no twisting force applied. That is inaccurate. You now state that such force is negligible. I agree it is a small force, but as the coefficient of friction between the boltface and the case and between the extractor and the rim are not ZERO, there is such a force.

This should not be interpreted as a defense of push feed actions, because in general I think they are undesirable.

Mike,

Quote:

---

If you really want to see CRF in all its glory then see how they go with shit brass as is often the case in Australia. If that case rim can't slide up between the extractor and bolt face then......

CRF extractor and case dimensions are also vital for CRF. For example, the early M70 Stainless rifles in magnum calibres that came to Australia had a very high percentage of them that would leave the case sitting on the follower. Winchester Australia had a lot of new extractors on hand.

---

I thought that is what I said.

You show a true understanding of the CRF rifle as Herr Mauser created it.

The others, show their ignorance.

The CRF is a system comprised of the rifle action, the cartridge, and the shooter. It is less sensitive to the shooter than a PF, but FAR FAR MORE sensitive to the cartridge. Simple fact, sorry if the truth hurts some of you guys.

ASS_CLOWN

(love to help ol' Mike out in his trolling efforts )

sdgunslinger

I would not disagree with you on the Weatherby. However, and at least from my point of view, the rifle/calibre package is more important than whether it is CRF or PF.

Many people on this site make these wild statements "you must get the M70 in 375 and not the Sako etc". The facts are that the M70 in 375 as a CRF has been no where near as reliable as the older PF M70s. The large majority of threads that refer to feeding problems on this site invariably are on CRFs.

There are just too many other factors that override the CRF Vs PF. For example, a CZ or Ruger in 416 Rigby and loaded with very blunt bullets can never equal the reliability of of Weatherby at getting the cartridge from the magazine into the chamber. But of course in this case the Wby has the in line magazine and no requirement for the case rim to slip up between the bolt face and extractor. I have never seen one of then but I would be prepared to bet that the Rem 700 Africna Big Game rifle in 375 or 416 Rem would beat any other 375 for feeding and because of the in line magazine.

Mike

Mike: Being an avid Weatherby fan, your last statement regarding the feeding reliability of a Weatherby to a CRF is pure nonsense. I own a considerable number of both Mod 70s and Weatherbys, including custom shop versions from both marques and a push feed just doesn't play in the same league. Ever wonder as to why the overwhelming majority of professional hunters and accomplished sport hunters prefer the CRF over the PF? jorge

jorge

I did specify the in line feed that is applicable to the 378 based calibres.

Mike

Mac,

While I agree that the PF was designed solely to make more $ for the manufacturer, I will disagree that you can get a CRF for the same money. The Win M-70 classic, and Ruger M-77 MkII are control feed in principle only. As they come from the factory, the magazine rails are not correctly finished to be CRF in function.

I'd venture to say there are a handful of gunsmiths that know how to make a true CRF rifle, and those guns are going to be in the $3-5k range. That said, they will undoubtedly be vastly superior to the factory offerings.

The one item that hasn't been addressed, and which I think is one of the biggest benefits of the CRF actions has to do with the bolt mounted striker block safety, and the ability to field strip the bolt w/o tools.

Make mine a mauser 98

I know this is starting to get off topic, but I wonder if it isn't something that should be of interest to the original poster. between the different action designs, be it PF or CRF, there is also the gas escape/containment designs that vary from one to the other. Although nobody wants to think about case failures, overloads, blowups whatever, they are a possibility.

In this regard, besides the Montana 1999 are there any other non-mauser copys that do the job as well as the mauser does?

And how do you guys feel about the statement that the thumb cutout on the original military mausers also helps by letting escaping gas and debris out on the left side wall before hitting the bridge? (not my statement, read it in a magazine touting the benefits of the military mausers).

Red

MacD37

The CRF has a solid ejector that is attached solidly to the action body, where the PF has a spring loaded plunger that is easily frozen by crud, dust,and ice so it many times doesn't work at all.

A spring loaded ejector is not a product of PF, ever heard of Sakos

The only reason to build a rifle with PF action is to improve the bottom line of the manufacturer, not to benefit the buyer!....Certainly, Push feed was not an improvement of anything above profit for the maker!

It is interesting to note that if we took various standard factory rifles that people will own on the Forum it is in fact the PFs that are the most expensive, that is the Weatherby and Sako and Sauer and Blaser.

In my opinion those who say reliable feeding/extraction can only be achieved with CRF are about far off the graph as those who insist that a super accurate rifle must be done off a Rem 700 action.

Mike

From my limited experience out of the box push feed rifles are as reliable as out of the box CRF rifles. Nearly every CRF rifle I've owned needed to be fiddled with to work as well as I thought it should. A quality push feed seems to work at a decent level out of the box and not much can be done to improve on it.

Paul,

I think the introduction of PF is about the same reason as Winchester reintroducing their CRF....potential sales. PF was all about gun blow ups and the CRF had its promotion.

The M70 CRFs in Australia have had plenty of reliability problems. The issue is the extractror dimensions, especially on the magnums, plus Australians shooting a lot and using beat up shit brass. Extractor groove dimensions and extractor dimensions and no bent up case rims are essential for CRF to work nicely.

I think it is reasonable to say that if you have a perfectly set up CRF and a perfecty set up PF and both with perfect ammo, then as you down grade the rifle and ammo the PF will remain reliable much further down the ladder.

But if I was getting a high grade 375 H&H or 416 Rigby (or 9.3 X 62 etc) then I would only have CRF. But I would not want a 30/378 or 7mm Ultra on the Mauser style action and only because of how like things to match up.

Mike

I agree with 500 grs., the Montana is second rate compared to the ones he mentioned...

I don't believe you can beat a Mod. 98 Mauser..but a pre 64 Win. and a CZ tie for second..they all require tweeking to one degree or another, whatever it takes...

Hey Mike
I'm not so sure I buy this notion that a CRF has to have such perfect ammo ; more so than a push feed . That m-98 type extractor is just a piece of heavy spring and has quite a bit of flexibility in dealing with somewhat differing rim dimentions in my view.

A push feed extractor is also going to have to moderately match up with your rim dimentions to work properly .

I have run some pretty ratty , beat up brass thru a couple of M-98 s with no problems.

I also have a hard time believing you are working with worse brass in today's Australia compared with brass the Germans had back in the 1890 s . Mauser dreamed up the large claw in part to deal with the poor quality ammunition of his day .

But the rim has to slide up between the extractor and bolt face. If I bend a rim closed on one side a push feed will chamber it.

If all else was equal then I would prefer a CRF but not because of reliability but because you can push the bolt forward on a round and don't have to close the bolt (and hence have the gun in a "loaded" situation) to pull the round. PF can be annoying with that in the spotlight.

By the way, the action that wil kill them all for strong extraction is the Wichita Mini Bench action. The bolt face is a shell holder

Have you still got that M70 PF 375 H&H.

Mike

Mike, if you bend the rim closed on a cartridge, damage beyond said bent rim will be inflicted as mere byproduct of such abuse.

Chuck

Now Mike , just how many rims on cartridges have you seen bent completely closed ? It takes quite a blow to bend the heavy rim that much , or maybe run your truck over it , in which case I believe that catridge would unusable in any sort of firearm . At least Mauser and the German army , along
with the US army , and more than a few other militarys , world wide , were not overly concerned with bent closed catridge rims , or why did they adopt the CRF claw extractor ?

Yes , I still have the push feed .375 . I'm not a zealot on the issue . I really don't believe the push feeds are nearly as bad as some of these boys make them out to be , and I don't believe the CRF s are as bad as you are making out here . I don't think you believe your own arguements here , I think you are just trolling for some CRF addicts(grin)

The push feed M-70 is now a .375 Weatherby . When you have a 1958 caddillac looking stock , you might as well have the cartridge to go with it , right ?

Also picked up a Whitworth .375 . I really like the M-70 better . I think the Whitworth action is really too short for the H&H cartridge .

sdgunslinger,

Now Mike , just how many rims on cartridges have you seen bent completely closed ? It takes quite a blow to bend the heavy rim that much , or maybe run your truck over it , in which case I believe that catridge would unusable in any sort of firearm . At least Mauser and the German army , along
with the US army , and more than a few other militarys , world wide , were not overly concerned with bent closed catridge rims , or why did they adopt the CRF claw extractor ?

You have obviously not seen ammo full length sized by hammering a case into a die. Have you seen case rims after the person has tried to full length size by using a G Clamp? That is how we did it and that is how many still do it....by that time chambering is getting difficult By the way, a 303 wil feed, chamber and extract while a Mauser dies.

Yes , I still have the push feed .375 . I'm not a zealot on the issue . I really don't believe the push feeds are nearly as bad as some of these boys make them out to be , and I don't believe the CRF s are as bad as you are making out here . I don't think you believe your own arguements here , I think you are just trolling for some CRF addicts(grin)

I have not said CRF is bad. In fact I have said I prefer CRF is all else is equal. What I object to is the blanket statement...CRF is good and PF is bad. That is sheer bullshit.

The push feed M-70 is now a .375 Weatherby . When you have a 1958 caddillac looking stock , you might as well have the cartridge to go with it , right ?

Agree. That was the period when Wby stocks were being copied. Interesting that Wby just maintained the distance between the bore and the centre of the butt of the English rifles and then added the cheek piece for scope use.

Also picked up a Whitworth .375 . I really like the M-70 better . I think the Whitworth action is really too short for the H&H cartridge .

I have never seen a Whitworth.

Mike

"You have obviously not seen ammo full length sized by hammering a case into a die. Have you seen case rims after the person has tried to full length size by using a G Clamp? That is how we did it and that is how many still do it....by that time chambering is getting difficult By the way, a 303 wil feed, chamber and extract while a Mauser dies."



Nope , I reckon I have not seen cases rendered unusable by such a primitive process . But it is obvious that if a little care is taken , using the hammer or a C clamp would not result in squeezing the rim shut . Ever used a Lee Loader ? It's not much different than what you describe and the cases will still work in any gun . And again , if damage to cases is such an issue , why did so many militaries adopt the mauser and it's copies ?



You are cheating in that you keep bringing up the Lee Enfield , which due to the large chamber and headpsace , will accept half a five gallon bucket of horse manure , along with a cartridge in the chamber , and still fire. No other push feed would take such shit(grin)



The Whitworth is just a Mark X M-98 action opened up to the front , identical to a FN 375. The ejection port looks identical length to a M-98 . The magazine box appears to be the same dimentions as a M-98 also , they cut out the front and lengthened it with a sheet metal loop riveted on . There is a small groove at the top center of the front reciever ring , apparently to facilitate dropping in a loaded round .

"Nope , I reckon I have not seen cases rendered unusable by such a primitive process . But it is obvious that if a little care is taken , using the hammer or a C clamp would not result in squeezing the rim shut . Ever used a Lee Loader ? It's not much different than what you describe and the cases will still work in any gun . And again , if damage to cases is such an issue , why did so many militaries adopt the mauser and it's copies ?"

Lee Loader only neck sizes. Different deal. Totally different.

What the military do is one thing. I am only giving you my views from my perspective. But I might add that one gov't copying another gov't does not mean a good endorsement.

You are cheating in that you keep bringing up the Lee Enfield , which due to the large chamber and headpsace , will accept half a five gallon bucket of horse manure , along with a cartridge in the chamber , and still fire. No other push feed would take such shit(grin)

So rimmed cases and push feed? The reason I bring up the SMLE is that as I have already said on this thread other things will override whether the rifle is CRF or PF. But the botton line is that CRF needs good dimensions between etractor hook length and extracror groove diameter otherwise the case will not slip up between the extractor and bolt face or alternatively the case or cartridge will be left sitting on the magazine follower, unless the bolt is pulled back real quick.

The Whitworth is just a Mark X M-98 action opened up to the front , identical to a FN 375. The ejection port looks identical length to a M-98 . The magazine box appears to be the same dimentions as a M-98 also , they cut out the front and lengthened it with a sheet metal loop riveted on . There is a small groove at the top center of the front reciever ring , apparently to facilitate dropping in a loaded round .

Understand.

Mike

sdgunslinger

Have you seen this thread. You might wnat to add something.....Mike

http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=717243&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1

Gentlemen,

You might find this thread of interest.

Push feed extractor failure

From page 59 of Jim Carmichael's "Book of the Rifle".

Today�s Rifle-How Good?

Let�s look at extractors another way. When a traditional Mauser-type extractor lets go and fails to pull a stuck case out of the chamber, it�s usually because it springs outward and slips over the case rim. Of course, this seldom happens, but I�ve experienced it several times with virtually every existing action type having an external leaf-type extractor. Fortunately, this never happened at a critical time. It always occurred when I had faulty ammo or when I was fooling around with some overly hot handloads at the test bench. By comparision, the Remington 700 extractor and similar systems can�t easily override the cartridge rim. Being supported by the steel wall formed by the countersink, it can�t spring away from the case. The Remington extractor doesn�t need to be any stronger because it is supported by the tremendous strength of the bolt itself. Because the extractor can�t back over the case rim, it has no choice but to hang on.
Tiring of all the amateur complaints they were getting about their miniature extractor, some engineers at Remington Arms concocted an empirical tug-of-war test between a standard Model 98 Mauser extractor and their Model 700. A steel rod was lathe-turned to cartridge diameter, with rims turned on each end. These rims were fitted into each bolt under the extractor in the way a cartridge rim fits. The bolts were fixtured into a giant laboratory instrument used to measure tensile strength. In a simple tug of war, the machine ran the pressure on each extractor up to hundreds and then thousands of pounds. Even the steel rod connecting the two extractor systems began to stretch, but then the Mauser extractor let go. The Remington extractor was victorious.
I didn�t witness the test, but I did see movies of the event, and it was certainly impressive. While it left no doubt about the strength of the Remington system, the test may have been somewhat misleading. Had a brass rather than a steel rod connected the two bolts, the softer brass rim probably would have been torn away. Since the Remington extractor claw grasps less brass than the Mauser system, the rim in the Remington bolt might have failed first. In any event, there is no reason to doubt the strength of the Remington system. My own experience with Remington rifles bears this out because I�ve never had a failure. I have, however, had cases stuck so tight that I couldn�t open the bolt; even after pounding on the bolt handle, the extractor did not let go.

Great first post...
It's interesting to see what the weak link in each system is.

thanks

By comparision, the Remington 700 extractor and similar systems can�t easily override the cartridge rim. Being supported by the steel wall formed by the countersink, it can�t spring away from the case. The Remington extractor doesn�t need to be any stronger because it is supported by the tremendous strength of the bolt itself. Because the extractor can�t back over the case rim, it has no choice but to hang on.

That is 100% inaccurate. The Rem 700 bolt has a recess for the extractor to move into so it can override the rim of the case when chambering.

Mike

CRAP!
I even went to amazon.com to check the reviews of this book ... I'm begining to think the only way to find the "truth" is to buy the gun and check it out for myself...
Not a "worst case scenario" if you know what I mean

You can read reviews all day long but it won't change thw Remington bolt face

You don't have to buy a Rem 700. Just pull one of the shelf of your friendly gun shop and then with a match, a pen or whathever, you will be able to push the extractor up into the recess. And while you are at the gun shop have a look at Sako and Weatherby and how the extractor is designed to ride over the case rim.

If the recess in the bolt counterbore for the Rem 700 was not there then you could not close bolt. Well.....you could close the bolt if you did not mind shearing off part of the case rim.

Against the article.....the CRF extractor is the only one where the action could be made to achieve what the article speaks about because the extractor does not need to ride over the rim for chambering.

The article is pure bullshit...distilled and refined

Mike

Not only wrong about the Remington extractor , the guy first claims that the Mauser extractor slips over the rim at times, and in the next paragraph , claims that it held well enough to stretch a heavy steel rod . That all seems a wee bit inconsistent.......then there is the claim that the Remington extractor is supported by the whole bolt. In fact , it is only supported by the bolt head recess , the lips of which are not overly thick.....

In fact , it is only supported by the bolt head recess , the lips of which are not overly thick.....



The recess supports nothing....it is just a space where the extractor can move to....as it goes over the rim.



The main difference between Rem 700 and other push feeds is the amount of catridge head that sticks out of the chamber. Almost frightening with Norma belted brass.



But to come back to the article that was posted....the CRF is the only one that can do what article describes.....which is the opposite of the article



Mike

The groove in the bolt face "lip" holds the extractor in place , along with maybe a rivet , so it could be said the lip of the bolt face recess "supports" the extractor . Also , when under the pull of extraction , the part that is doing the pulling is the thin metal of the groove which holds the extractor . In the case of a big overload , the rim/case head could swell up and stick tight in the bolt face recess with the extractor stuck tight in between . Then also you might say the bolt face recess is "supporting" the extractor .



Then when you hammer the bolt open , you get your famous twisting force on the case(grin)



Not to worry about the amount of cartridge you got hanging out of the chamber , the "three rings of steel" is there to save ya (grin)

The groove in the bolt face "lip" holds the extractor in place , along with maybe a rivet , so it could be said the lip of the bolt face recess "supports" the extractor .

But not in the context of the article. The article is referring to the extractor as being something that can't slip over the case rim because the bolt counterbore has it surrounded..... and that is pure bullshit.

The rivot stops the rotating bolt from leaving the extractor behind...as happens with the non rivoted 30/06s ...and because the rotating bolt tries to rotate the case via the extractor and with a a load that is a bit high in pressure the extractor bites into the case.

Mike

sdgunslinger

The thing never seems to get mentioned is the primary extraction.

The narrow locking lugs on the M70 (PF or CRF) and M98 allow for very good primary extraction. If the bolt opens, then the case is extracted.

Weatherby with the 3/9 lugs is poor on primary extraction. Although in the "real" world the Weatherby does OK because it is well made and invariably is using Weatherby brass so not too much of the primary extraction is wasted by taking up the gap between the case rim and extractor.

Rem 700 with its wide locking lugs and frequently misplaced bolt handle has poor primary extraction. I suspect that the combination of modern soft brass, poor primary extraction, parallel case...is behing the 416 Remington problems that are spoken of.

Mike

Perhaps a bit more explanation is in order to impart whatever understanding of technical matters can be gained from the written word. There are some elements on the way to this understanding that need to be considered from the outset:

-Feeding and extraction cause two different behaviors of the Remington extractor.
-The rearward angle of the extractor plays a role in the different forces exerted in feeding and extraction.
-There is space to allow the extractor to slip up (outward) and over the cartridge case rim at bolt closing.
-There is no space in front of the extractor. It is flat against its countersink in the bolt nose when extracting.

When the rearward angle of the extractor contacts the case rim at bolt�s closing, the angle and the space underneath the extractor enable it to ride up and snap over the back of the case rim as the bolt closes. However once over the case rim, the angle remains the same so the extractor is angled back against the front of the case rim.

When extraction begins, the force (with respects to Luke Skywalker) becomes a straight pull on the extractor which seats it against its solid, flat countersink in the nose of the bolt, and this is Carmichael�s point. There are simply no forces in play to push it outward into the space that allows it to back off and snap over the rim. As he said, there is nothing for the extractor to do but sit there until the case is extracted or the rim is pulled through. It�s kinda like a Chinese finger prison - it just gets tighter as more extraction force is applied.

It is pretty obvious that the strength of the Remington system in not in the extractor, but in the strength of the bolt as Carmichael says. The extractor could not by itself come anywhere near supporting the abuse that he describes. My take from his comments is that both the Mauser and Remington extraction systems are quite strong and will do their extraction duties very well even though they work quite differently. It would have been enlightening to see how a Sako-type extractor would have performed in this example. The extremes withstood in the test are not likely to be encountered in the field and are testament that either system will work in the real world. Check �em out and take your pick.

By the way, I ain� shillin� Carmichael�s book. I just picked it up off a bargain table some years ago and found it to have pretty good unbiased information. In addition to being a rifle guy and shootist, Jim Carmichael is an engineer so he writes from a pretty unemotional point of view.

There are simply no forces in play to push it outward into the space that allows it to back off and snap over the rim. As he said, there is nothing for the extractor to do but sit there until the case is extracted or the rim is pulled through. It�s kinda like a Chinese finger prison - it just gets tighter as more extraction force is applied.

That would be valid if case rims were perfect but they are not and especially after the case has been used a few times. Actually, the CRF extractor would always be better because it does not wear the case rim as does the PF type extractor.

The other thing which will contribute to a "not so perfect world" is that the extractor will be able to tilt to a certain degree.

Having said that, to me Carmichael's article is flawed because he does clearly state that the extractor can't slide over the case rim because of the surrounding bolt face counterbore and that is simply not true.

Mike