I'm familiar with the perceived advantages of controlled feed in dangerous game rifles. I'm asking though if you have actually witnessed a real life situation where it "saved the day" in a manner of speaking, or made a tangible difference?

In other words, in all hunts that you've attended or done, did the special traits of a controlled feed ever come into play?

Thanks.

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian564:
I'm familiar with the perceived advantages of controlled feed in dangerous game rifles. I'm asking though if you have actually witnessed a real life situation where it "saved the day" in a manner of speaking, or made a tangible difference?

In other words, in all hunts that you've attended or done, did the special traits of a controlled feed ever come into play?

Thanks.

Yes, many times so far. Not implying any dangerous situation but troubled times with feeding or extraction. Some issues that a non-CRF wouldn't resolve at all putting down any chance to continue the hunt.

OF course, that alone does not imply a non-CRF cannot be used to hunt, which is obvioulsy a wrong and false notion.

But... if maximum confidence is important to you, mechanically speaking a CRF is your fail safe.

But... if maximum confidence is important to you, mechanically speaking a CRF is your fail safe.[/QUOTE] +1

No. But I've had some problems,with mausers extractors......

.

Having experienced and witnessed many real life problems with push feed, bolt action rifles and never having seen nor experienced them with a CRF rifle I continue to put my faith in CRF rifles!

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Having experienced and witnessed many real life problems with push feed, bolt action rifles and never having seen nor experienced them with a CRF rifle I continue to put my faith in CRF rifles!

Same feeling here.

Please do tell what sort of issues did you witness with push feed. That's the point of me asking; real life events instead of theoretical scenarios I read elsewhere. Thanks

The only issue that I have had with any pushfeed was after shooting, I pulled the bolt back and ejected the empty case. On my next shot the gun went click. I opened the bolt and there was no cartridge in the chamber. Apparently I had short stroked it at the first shot, just pulling the bolt back far enough to eject the empty case but not far enough to get the bolt back over the rim of next round in the magazine.

I've done it a couple of times with Remingtons and Savages.

I have both, of course. I think it's about the individual rifle personally.

My go to is a Bill Wiseman .416 on his action. It's push feed. The only feeding issues I've ever had are when I short stroked it and push feed or controlled feed wouldn't matter then. dYw

See push feed problems when it was time to be shooting, not straightening out a circus in your action. Haven’t had an issue with any of my CRF’s
Short stroke a push feed after you’ve picked up a shell and you’ve got a jam. Short stroke a CRF and you just eject good ammo on the ground.

Brian,

To answer your question NO but I have short stroked a Mod 700 and if I had not hammered the animal on the first shot I might have had a problem before I could clear the jam.

If you're pursuing something that could bite you your just better off with CRF.

Mark

I've hunted extensively with both and guided thousands of people with both over the last 30 years. If you're really worried about operator error being an issue then a CRF might have an edge. But if you know how to use your rifle - and don't choke in the heat of the moment - the action type doesn't make much difference.

I have seen some real messes with CRF's that were never set up properly and were miserable to use. If they're built right they're a thing of beauty.

Some people don't care, but on a stalk I always load out of my pocket rather than out of the magazine. That's not always easy to do with a CRF.

Learn how to properly use a bolt action and you won't have a problem. Having said that, I prefer controlled feed.

Dave

Because hunting DG with a PF rifle, especially a Remington 700 or a Weatherby does not make you gay. But it does make you look gay.

That’s the reason.

I have had problems with both, including close buffalo. PF fail to extract but then some are loaded hot; CF broken extractor and not feeding. If you ve run out of bullets, easier to add another round with PF but I had my .505 Gibbs modified so I can add one on top. As much as I love my bolts, and Although I did not think I would be convinced, but for close up to DG there is a lot to be said for a double, at least for buffalo. If it's more of a distance a scoped bolt is hard to beat.

I have never had an issue while hunting with either, but that is because I make sure the rifle is sorted
out before taking it hunting. At the range I have had lots of issues with PFs, all Rem 700s. I have had failure to feed, failure to extract, and a broken extractor. I think the M-70 PF is probably more reliable than the Remmy, but like many here I have to MUCH prefer CRF for hunting rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Having experienced and witnessed many real life problems with push feed, bolt action rifles and never having seen nor experienced them with a CRF rifle I continue to put my faith in CRF rifles!

Same here. I've had numerous feeding jams with Remington 700's. Non with Mausers or CRF Model 70.s.

I have never personally seen any pushfeed malfunction.
Human error is a separate matter all together and you can't blame a persons "f-up" on controlled or pushfeed people can screw up almost anything.
I own many controlled feed actions and a few pushfeeds. One of the smoothest and most reliable over tens of thousands of rounds is a pushfeed M70 Win in 30/06 (I'm on a new barrel)
This rifle has never had a hitch, ever, so there is no way I could say controlled round action is any better.
I think the difference or potential for problems is mostly between the ears.
Many talk a lot about the advantages of crf by citing human error and you can't fix that with a CRF...

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
I have never personally seen any pushfeed malfunction.
Human error is a separate matter all together and you can't blame a persons "f-up" on controlled or pushfeed people can screw up almost anything.
I own many controlled feed actions and a few pushfeeds. One of the smoothest and most reliable over tens of thousands of rounds is a pushfeed M70 Win in 30/06 (I'm on a new barrel)
This rifle has never had a hitch, ever, so there is no way I could say controlled round action is any better.
I think the difference or potential for problems is mostly between the ears.
Many talk a lot about the advantages of crf by citing human error and you can't fix that with a CRF...

I think the beauty of a CRF is it's more idiot proof than a PF. The most memorable jams Ive seen were with a short action M700 in 7mm-08.

Over the past 20+ years of DG hunting I have purchased new DG caliber bolt rifles from most of the major US makers, including Browning, Remington, Ruger and Winchester. The Rem and Win were both Custom Shop rifles while the Ruger RSM was selected for me at the personal direction of Bill Ruger.

All except the Browning (375H&H), required work to make them operationally sound for DG hunting. I would not have taken any of these rifles "off the shelf" to Africa without extensive range time during which I ran tests of their operational performance. It was during these tests that the short comings presented themselves.

After trips back to the manufacturers - in some cases multiple trips - and personal work to correct the deficiencies, all went to Africa in pursuit of DG and performed flawlessly, taking all of the Dangerous 7 without incident, including multiple Buff and Ele.

I can say that the Winchester required fewer corrections than either the Ruger or the Remington.

Note: Short stroking is an operator error, not an issue with the rifle.

The simple fact that the early Mauser military rifles were push feed and, due to multiple reports from combat soldiers, they modified their actions to CRF pretty well sums up the debate.

But as numerous folks have pointed out, so long as you continue to work your rifle correctly, especially under the stress of trying keeping yourself alive, push feed rifles work just fine.

I've had problems with both and it seems to me that the jamb with a CRF rifle was worse that any jamb I've ever had with a push feed action.
Could be just me.

The problem I faced is when I tried to eject carefully to keep down noise. That is when I have had jams in the field - once with a push feed 243 in Mod 700 Remington and another with CRF Kimber in 7mm08.

The same issue happens in the range when trying to save the brass carefully.

I still have the worse model 70 Winchester control feed ever made .I had to rebuild that rifle to make it ever work.It's scope mounts holes were drill crooked ,the so called stainless finish flaked off and the gun wouldn't feed any kind of bullets at All .I had to replace everything including the bolt magazine trigger guard and then.polish the heck out if it to it feed at All .I tried to get Winchester to give me another rifle it was so bad .I fixed it up and used Burris signature zee rings with.the maximum offset .It would pop out cartridges of the magazine and dump then out of the bottom without warning .It was a 338 win mag stainless with a boss on it .I was so disappointed in that control feed Winchester I.didn't buy another instill I got my 416 rem mag model 70 super grade express rifle I shot it and a piece of the bolt blew off so much.for the good old Winchesters.
I.have hunted with a old tang safety Ruger 77 tang rifle hunted with it 33 years ever a single problem after over 2000 shots .If I.ever make a custom 416 Ruger it will be an old tang safety rifle that I trust with the push feed which is way smoother to me !

I dont think it is very fair to compare a 700.00 out of the box Remington to a CRF that has been worked on by AHR. I think a fairer comparison would be an out of the box Win/Ruger/Kimber to out of the box Sako/browning/howa.

I would bet that if I sunk a thousand dollars into having a gunsmith work a Remington over, it would function flawlessly.

CRF v. PF - for shooting squirrels and deer, and maybe Moose, it doesn't matter.

Use a Push-Feed if it'll get you a smile from the priest at church.

If you're hunting dangerous game in Alaska or Africa, a CRF means you won't get clawed, stomped, horn-stabbed, mauled, or eaten.

Neither your guide, nor your PH, nor his trackers or assistants, nor your fellow hunters, wants to endure having to hear you scream like a little 'beeatch' because your rifle malf-ed and you got bit.

Get a CRF. You can thank us later.

My brother missed an opportunity on a buck of a lifetime thanks to buck fever and a Ruger Model 77. Had it jammed up so bad it took my Dad five minutes to get it straightened out.

A lot has been written / pontificated / debated about the subject of the CRF.

On a point of order:

Paul Mauser designed his bolt not so much for controlled feed but for controlled extraction The controlled feed was a function of the primary purpose of controlled extraction.

The action and rifle was primarily a weapon of war and the issue was not feeding but extraction when chambers were often dirty, rusty muddy and ammo had a propensity to blow primers !

At issue was stuck cases and the ability of the bolt with its extractor to extract the case without the extractor slipping over the rim.

The blown primer issue was a big deal and he dealt with gas escape and diversion in event of a ruptured case / primer.

Mauser's extractor was wide, engaged deep in the groove and did so over a broad area of the circumference of the rim. This was purpose designed ! It was made purposely so that it would not slip over the case as it was pushed into battery or extracted.

This virtue was seen as positive for the application it was invented for.

Others that followed or tried to emulate this feature made the "mistake" of allowing the extractor to slip over the rim so that a case could be fed without it being seated in the magazine. So in effect a push feed and controlled extraction.

If the differences were substantial, we wouldn't be having this discussion as we all would have settled on the same action type. The differences are subtle and problems infrequent, so human nature is to assume we must be correct in our thinking. But that gets people killed by avalanches, since they've made the same decision dozens of previous times without problems.

Any rifle that may save your bacon needs to be well-used, well-maintained, and thoroughly tested with the planned ammunition. I had a Rem 700 .308 where the extractor was shaving tiny bits of brass, and those brass bits got into the ejector channel and bound the plunger. Not good. Replacing that tiny extractor solved that problem, but it doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling of confidence.

As the gentleman just above me aptly points out, the 1898 Mauser was designed to deal with mud, temperature extremes, and crappy ammo. Most of us endeavor to avoid these problems when hunting so our rifles seldom have problems. But the 98 Mauser sure isn't the only solution given the plethora of reliable military semiautomatic designs. Those are all push-feed actions. But strong, reliable extraction remains critical.

If you fool with PRS or similar rifle competitions where you shoot from bizarre positions, another advantage of CRF is that you can shoot and chamber a round even with the rifle tipped onto its starboard side. Harder to accomplish reliably with a bolt action push-feed.

Don Heath's essay on this is worth reading:
http://tinyurl.com/y72nhcm4

I too have had problems with Rem M700 extractors shaving brass which clogged up the spring-loaded plunger ejector: Stoppage of ejection.
That was prior to 1990 when I lost interest in Push-Feed and plunger ejectors.

Here is why all the Me-Too actions are not Mauser M98s:
They lack the Controlled-Round Extraction (CRE) of a true M98.
Even the Mauser M98 can have the front face and edge of it's extractor claw re-shaped to make it a Push Feed (PF) in addition to a Controlled-Round Feed (CRF) action.

The greatest distinction is in the presence or absence of that CRE.
One Me-Too action that does have CRE is the CZ 550 Magnum.
The CZ 550 Magnum and the standard Mauser M98 are same in being both CRF AND CRE.
The CZ copies the M98 in these two features.

Stuart Otteson book: THE BOLT ACTION RIFLE

Excerpt of page 13 for book review purposes, see both pages 12 and 13 which illustrate and explain the CRF&CRE mechanism of the true M98.
The extractor tongue undercut feature causes the extractor to be pulled inward, toward centerline of the bolt,
when the bolt is pulled backward while a cartridge rim is in its grasp.
This makes the extractor grip the cartridge more tightly/positively during extraction.



Book review: Excellent book. If you don't own it, get one, and get Volume 2 also while you are at it.








Rip ..

quote:

Originally posted by Pegleg:
I've had problems with both and it seems to me that the jamb with a CRF rifle was worse that any jamb I've ever had with a push feed action.
Could be just me.

Notwithstanding that the Zimbabwe professional hunter trainers have found real problems with push feed, the only real jam I've ever had was with a Mauser 98.

I was using factory .30-06 ammo in a sporterized FN Mauser but for some reason the cartridge wasn't moving forward. So I bumped the handle with the palm of my hand and then pushed the bolt home. Bad move! Bumping the bolt knocked the round ahead of the extractor, which was quite tight and would not snap over the rim. Closing the bolt jammed the case in the chamber and I can't recall now how I got it out. I understand bumping the bullet with a cleaning rod is not recommended.

I filmed a hunt for a guy in Mozambique and the Client had a Remington 375H&H. Wow, what a peice of s$@t! fed poorly and failed to eject on a number of critical instances costing big time.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by Pegleg:
I've had problems with both and it seems to me that the jamb with a CRF rifle was worse that any jamb I've ever had with a push feed action.
Could be just me.

Notwithstanding that the Zimbabwe professional hunter trainers have found real problems with push feed, the only real jam I've ever had was with a Mauser 98.

I was using factory .30-06 ammo in a sporterized FN Mauser but for some reason the cartridge wasn't moving forward. So I bumped the handle with the palm of my hand and then pushed the bolt home. Bad move! Bumping the bolt knocked the round ahead of the extractor, which was quite tight and would not snap over the rim. Closing the bolt jammed the case in the chamber and I can't recall now how I got it out. I understand bumping the bullet with a cleaning rod is not recommended.

IF you make the mistake of puching a case ahead of the claw you can have issues.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
The simple fact that the early Mauser military rifles were push feed and, due to multiple reports from combat soldiers, they modified their actions to CRF pretty well sums up the debate.

But as numerous folks have pointed out, so long as you continue to work your rifle correctly, especially under the stress of trying keeping yourself alive, push feed rifles work just fine.

I believe that all military rifles today are push feed.

I have witnessed a few failures with both CRF and PF rifles in the field. Very few of these failures could be directly related to either system rather they were caused by operator error. In every instance but the one stated below I was looking through the binocs or the spotting scope and wasn't aware of how the wheels began falling off but rapidly became aware of the train wreck as the animal in front of me was sometimes waving goodbye usually with a back shoulder swinging like a pendulum. I can say clearing all of those jams took very little time to correct but did create some momentary drama.

I was personally hunting in Saskatchewan one year with a 700. We were doing some drives that required getting in and out of the guides truck which had an internal heat bloom of a south pacific island. It had snowed heavily the night before and every bush and tree was covered with snow and the outside temp was now in the teens. To comply with the laws all guns had to be cased while in the truck going from one block of trees to the next to set up a drive. My rifle was covered with condensation the second time it was pulled from the case and as I walked towards where I was supposed to take a stand snow fell from the branches all around me and on the rifle. At the place I was supposed to block I pulled my handkerchief from a pocket to wipe off as much as the now freezing moisture as I could. You can say all you want to about how this could have been prevented but trust me at the time I could not think of a thing, in retro spec a bore snake would have saved my bacon that day. As soon as the drivers came through we saddled up in the truck again. Frozen rifles now being slid back into wet warm cases, just great.

On the 4th and very last push of that day a heavy horned mature buck came plowing through the snow out of a wood lot doing his best to escape the scene. As he ran directly towards me I eased off the safety and raised the rifle to port of arms. This was going to a locker shot I said to myself, at perhaps 30 yards he saw me raise the rifle to my shoulder and veered just slightly before he really poured on the coal. Even today I can still see the flying snow whenever he landed and coiled up for another jump. The duplex shown black and bold on the leading edge of his shoulder as I pressed the trigger.

The rifle never went off, without any hesitation I tried to eject that round thinking I had a dud. The bolt wouldn't move and the buck disappeared into the willow swamp behind me. Puzzled would be a good way to described how I felt at that moment.

It took a couple of very hard blows on the underside of bolt handle to finally get the boot to rotate out of battery and I can remember seeing ice fall out of the front ring as I hammered on the bolt handle. I gave the bolt one last heavy bump to the rear to try and clear the chamber and the extractor tore through the case rim. Out came the bolt but the 7mm mag round was still stuck solid in the chamber.

The guide that had jumped and followed the buck arrived on the scene with a "what the fuck" look on his face when he saw where the buck had changed course. The walk back to the truck was a quite one. A couple times he murmured "sure looked big from an ass end view ". The other guide and hunter listened to my tale of whoa as I dug my flashlight out of my kit in the truck. I could not see dimple on the stuck case from the firing pin so even the firing pin had frozen solid within the bolt. I was pretty sure the round was as safe as it could be at that time. We didn't have a cleaning rod with us and the guide was afraid if we cased the rifle with the loaded round still in the chamber he could be cited by the DNR if we got stopped. We were a long way from the paved road so I sat up front with the muzzle point towards the ceiling and the breech area as close to the heater vent as I could get it. About 10 miles down the round I heard the now unfrozen round hit the rear of the action and then felt it bounce off my boot. We stopped the rig and I cased the 700. Later on the evening I pulled the barreled action out of the stock and the bole sleeve and firing pin assembly out of the bolt body. Everything was completely water logged.

I kept that loaded round for years. A perfect grove was pulled through the case rim. Would this have happened with a claw extractor I'm not at all sure but I do not think so do to the greater surface area covered by the claw extractor. This was a unique situation under a set of very unique environmental circumstances.

Anything can fail but I never gone into the field on a serious big game hunt with another 700, once bitten twice shy.

D'Arcy,
Thanks for that tale of woe about the Remington extractor. That is some dramatic emphasis of why not to use it for any serious hunting, aye!
Besides ripping through the rim in the extreme situation you illustrated, it can plug up the ejector with the minor brass chips it creates routinely.
The Remington M700 is not a serious hunting rifle.

The Massive Fixed (MF) Ejector of a Mauser M98, is another great insurance policy against the effects of Tiny Plunger (TP) Ejector Syndrome.
TP ejectors are for crap shoots only.
Make my ejector an MF-er anyday.

I never thought about what kind of ejectors are on all the PushFeed military weapons,
but an MF-er certainly makes a PF-er more reliable.

Rip ...

As a lefty, CRF left handed rifles are very rare. I use a left handed Heym SR20. It is a well built rifle, but I short stroked it a couple of times when still unfamiliar with it. It loads and feeds well, but I have that nagging doubt. It also has a plunger ejector, and again it does n't through case clear.

I do have a right handed Mauser actioned 7x57, and really does feed and eject nicely.Now if I could find a left handed mauser actioned CRF rifle I would love it.

Rip I'm not sure my one singular experience should really determine anything other than given the right circumstances anything can go south, but nowadays give me a Mod-70 everytime.

My wife and I were fortunate to have hunted with Alan Lowe before his untimely death. Alan apparently did a lot of elephant hunting and culling, I don't know the exact numbers but my impression was he had plenty of ele's under his belt. His rifle of choice, you're going to love this, was a Rem 700 chambered for the lowly 458 Winchester. The reason he liked it is because it fed better than anything he ever owned, was very light weight and he could drop a round into the breech and shut the bolt while back peddling without having to look at what he was doing, those were essentially his very words. He also liked the factory Rem 500gr solids for the job, "Killed the biggest of bulls without a hitch".

I wasn't about to argue the point as it worked for him. I still know nothing about Elephants.

D'Arcy,

Alan Lowe using a .458 Win.Mag. M700 Remington for elephant culling?
That is more amazing than Harry Selby and Finn Aagaard relying on PushFeed M70 .458 Win.Mags. as much as they did.
All these strange occurrences have in common the Mighty .458 Win.Mag. cartridge, which works pretty good in about any situation.

The CRF M70 has a Massive Fixed ejector&boltstop also. A real MF-er as good as an M98! No TP ejector there!
And I like my M98 Mausers to be modified for M70-style Push Feed in addition to their primaryCRF.

I figure that the CR-Extraction feature is not as important as the claw extractor's size compared to the tiny, inset "ring" extractors.
As long as the action has the claw and is an MF-er, and can PF as well as CRF, I am happy.
That means either a Pre-'64 or new Classic-style M70, or a modified-to-PF M98,
or Dakota, or Ruger Hawkeye, or modified-to-PF CZ 550, or MRC M1999 ... am I forgetting anything?
I am pretty easy.
Make mine a Winchester M70 CRF+PF/NonCRE/MF-er too.

Rip