quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
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.

Heym
Winchester makes left hand M70 with the claw extractor, they feed like butter and work flawlessly, at least all my right handers do!

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
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 ...

How would you clasify the M77 Hawkeye?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustavo:
How would you clasify the M77 Hawkeye?

Except for shorter magazine box length, the M77 Hawkeye is exactly like a new Winchester M70:

CRF & PF, no CRE, MF ejector.

Controlled-Round Feed plus PushFeed (CRF + PF).
Not Controlled-Round extractor (non-CRE)
Massive, Fixed Ejector/BoltStop (MFE/BS)


Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustavo:
How would you clasify the M77 Hawkeye?

Except for shorter magazine box length, the M77 Hawkeye is exactly like a new Winchester M70:

CRF & PF, no CRE, MF ejector.

Controlled-Round Feed plus PushFeed (CRF + PF).
Not Controlled-Round extractor (non-CRE)
Massive, Fixed Ejector/BoltStop (MFE/BS)


Rip ...

RIP, can you care to elaborate more on the CRE? I don't get it right.

Tyros just arriving in the Big-Bore leagues seem to prefer PFs.

Maybe they think a PF gets them into the game cheaper than a CRF (?).

You may be onto something with the MF concept, RIP. I'm happy to say the extractor on my old Sako L61R has never let me down, though push-feed it is.

I love my CZ 550 in 500 Jeffery. It's had some work done on it, but it's balanced perfectly for me now, works flawlessly and shoots one hole groups at 100 yards if I do my part. That being said, I have a late 60s vintage Rem 700 BDL in 270 Win that I bought new. It's still amazingly accurate, has never malfunctioned with many thousands of rounds through it and killed close to a hundred medium to large game ranging from javelina, to deer to elk plus 7 black bears. My youngest son got his first elk with it about 5 years ago. I can attest that the newer 700s are junk compared to the rifle I bought 50 years ago with a Redfield scope on it for $300.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
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.

zastava is making his commercial mauser action m70 in left hand action. got one in 458 win mag, 9.3x62, 30-06 and 270 win.

even if not mauser ruger 77 or hawkeye were made in left hand action.

like you i had a sr20 and no more.

Being in the hunting business and on many extended trips involving DG to one degree or another, I have seen quite a number of failures with push feeds than with control feeds, Enough to convience me to always use a double rifle or a Mauser or mod. 70..I like push feeds for varmints cuz I can kick a charging rabbit! Ive never had a control feed rifle fail and all mine get tricked out as time allows..I lost the largest elk Ive ever seen because I was chasing him at a dead run and tried to load my old Ruger 77, the round fell out unknown to me until I got the shot at 40 yards and "click" the worse sound Ive ever heard, and one jump and I never saw him again, he went to Alaska via Canada sure as the world..

It does happen, don't think it doesn't, it'll getcha killed cuz you were stupid cuz, its the little mistakes the get us, its like using too short a fuse on dynamite to save a buck or two.

But to each his own, and hope that never changes.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustavo:
RIP, can you care to elaborate more on the CRE? I don't get it right.

Gustavo,
It is just a matter of the extractor tongue being beveled on the leading side on a Mauser M98, with a matching bevel of the undercut in the bolt.
The extractor tongue rides in that undercut on the side of the bolt head.

Here are the three little paragraphs at the bottom of page 12 of Otteson, leading up to page 13 with illustration as before:

"A long, massive, hardened and tempered spring-steel extractor is mounted along the outside of the bolt.The claw is strong and wide, gripping almost one-fourth of the case rim. Its shape also holds the cartridge up once engaged to prevent double-loading jams, thus accomplishing a function for which Mauser had previously developed special bolt-face plunger arrangements (U.S. Patent 476,290 issued June 7, 1892).
"A collar, affixed to the underside by a dovetail joint, holds the extractor inward, while allowing it to rotate freely. The extractor body is given a slight bow after machining so that spring tension holds it tight against the bolt.
"The right raceway locks the extractor from turning as the bolt opens, permitting a smooth and efficient extraction. The claw doesn't rub or cut the cartridge rim during bolt lift, and extraction force acts as a straight pull. A tongue working in a narrow groove just forward of the locking lugs anchors the extractor axially. Both the tongue and groove are undercut so that resistance draws the extractor claw inward to prevent slipping off a stuck case."
(end of page 12, continue on page 13)
Page 13:


So the extractor tongue is beveled and its mating groove on the side of the bolt head is undercut to fit that bevel in a one-sided dovetail of sorts.
When the bolt is moved rearward, it forces the extractor inward toward the center of the bolt.
And, any traction force on the extractor claw, caused by the rim of a sticky case as the bolt starts moving rearward,
will also tend to force the extractor inward to grip the case more positively.

That is the only real functional difference between the Mauser M98 and the Ruger Hawkeye.
The Ruger Hawkeye can Push Feed as well as CRF also,
but the Mauser M98 can be modified to do this also, with only a little reshaping of claw where it meets the case in feeding.
That reshaped Mauser claw extractor is still going to retain the CRE.
Ditto the Mauser M98 versus the Winchester M70, and other Non-Controlled-Round-Extraction actions that still have CRF from the big, beautiful claw extractors.
With CRF & non-CRE the extractor tongue is parallel-sided and so is the groove it rides in, with no undercut to force/cam the extractor inward during extraction.

Like I said, not a bad flaw, as long as the Ejector is an MF-er, a massive, fixed ejector,
and there is no TP (Tiny Plunger) Ejector cluttering the bolt face.

The Ruger Hawkeye has a faithful copy of the Mauser M98 MF-er, a combination ejector and bolt stop, Massive and Fixed.

Rip ...

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.

A much better way to ask the question is, has the push feed action ever displayed special traits that caused a failure to feed properly.

The answer to that question will reveal which is the most reliable. The question has nothing to do with if it saved the day, but which is most likely to save the day if need be!

My opinion is so that I will not hunt dangerous game with a push feed rifle.
...................................................................Opinions vary!

Keeping your rifle clean, out of the mud and ice, so that it functions as it should, is as important as knowing how to operate it.
Pf/crf - the animals dead as long as you know what your doing imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Dead Eye:
Keeping your rifle clean, out of the mud and ice, so that it functions as it should, is as important as knowing how to operate it.
Pf/crf - the animals dead as long as you know what your doing imo.

Yep, clean that TP ejector after every shot, or get an MF ejector.

Rip ...

quote:

Originally posted by Dead Eye:
Keeping your rifle clean, out of the mud and ice, so that it functions as it should, is as important as knowing how to operate it.
Pf/crf - the animals dead as long as you know what your doing imo.

I think you are correct as long as one is not in close quarters with something closing on you fast with the intent being to kill you. That fact alone causes one to do all sorts of things he wouldn't do if making a quick shot to avoid a deer or elk getting away. Many times in the case of close encounters with very dangerous animals one is far more apt to "double clutch" so to speak, without even pulling the trigger!

We had a young man back a few years who was on his first Mule deer hunt in New Mexico. He had a Mod 94 win 30-30 lever action that he was deadly with on the firing range. We jumped a big muley buck out from under a bluff about 100 yards away. The buck ran along the other slope of the canyon. The kid emptied the little 94 and the buck ran around the end of the canyon out of sight. The young man asked, "did I hit him?" to witch he was told, I doubt it, since you never shot at him! The guy had dumped 7 loaded rounds out of the lever gun without ever pulling the trigger even once. He couldn't believe it till he was shown all his rounds on the ground still loaded.

Can you imagine what he would have done if that had been a grizzly bear charging him, or if he was using a bolt rifle while being charged by an African lion, or cape buffalo?
When your very life is in the mix the safest rifle you can have is the one that does things for you that still work when you make mistakes. Think about having to run a short distance to get a clear SECOND SHOT that the first didn't end things working the bolt on a push-feed where the bolt doesn't have control of the round, and bounces out of the rifle being jostled and then closing the bolt on an empty chamber. The NAME "CONTROLED FEED" means the bolt has control of the cartridge before the round is released from the magazine. That is the very small difference between the PF, and the CRF. THE KEY WORD IS CONTROL
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Choose what ever floats your canoe! Ill take the CRF bolt, or a double rifle every time!
................................ ....

I agree with trying to keep the moving parts clean.
But, also recall seeing more than once, the plunger ejectors causing issue with brass shavings. The plunger ejector is probably my biggest bitch with push-feed types and hybrids. This may have been the individual rifles' issues, and lack of keeping the spring/plunger area clean of gunk. Those experience have stuck in my mind for decades.
As to feeding, I did have a Remington 78 Sportman 243 and some old Ruger PF's that would feed from any angle, including upside down, with practice and speed.
I much prefer CRF types, that I can feed at any speed, particularly slow speed. The slow speed feeding is where I have seen issues with some CRF's, which took took some polishing/tweaking time.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

... We had a young man back a few years who was on his first Mule deer hunt in New Mexico. He had a Mod 94 win 30-30 lever action that he was deadly with on the firing range. We jumped a big muley buck out from under a bluff about 100 yards away. The buck ran along the other slope of the canyon. The kid emptied the little 94 and the buck ran around the end of the canyon out of sight. The young man asked, "did I hit him?" to witch he was told, I doubt it, since you never shot at him! The guy had dumped 7 loaded rounds out of the lever gun without ever pulling the trigger even once. He couldn't believe it till he was shown all his rounds on the ground still loaded...

This reminds me of a muzzle-loader found on an American Civil War battle ground that had IIRC 23 loads in the barrel. Considering matters like these and African shortstroke, where it's legal a good, clean self-loader may well be the most reliable magazine rifle.

The double rifle is even better, of course, but dirt or bad memory may even cause a problem there.

My dear old father bought himself a db shotgun at 14 and, having worn it loose over 40 years (and being a farmer), then got himself a Mossberg bolt action. About 15 years after that I got him a nice AyA SLE but it was too late to go back. Though he could still hit the ducks, I don't recall him ever remembering to pull the second trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Gustavo,
It is just a matter of the extractor tongue being beveled on the leading side on a Mauser M98, with a matching bevel of the undercut in the bolt.
The extractor tongue rides in that undercut on the side of the bolt head.

The Ruger Hawkeye has a faithful copy of the Mauser M98 MF-er, a combination ejector and bolt stop, Massive and Fixed.

Rip ...

RIP, thanks a lot for clarifying this to me

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.

Not for me personally, but a PH I hunted ellie with told me that two months earlier he had a misfire on a charging cow elephant. He turned to run (the ellie was within 20 feet of him) and the ellie got a tusk under his cartridge belt and lifted him off the ground.

The belt broke and he tumbled down between the front legs of the ellie whom was trying to smash him.

Lying on his back he managed to chamber another round and fire straight up into the underside of the elephant's chin, killing the elephant immediately with a brain shot!

Fortunately the elephant collapsed on her knees and did not crush him.

Would he have survived without CRF? My guess is no.

BH63

:PS to my first post on this subject!

Lately many of the CRF actions have plunger ejector buttons that slide in a recess in the bolt body by spring pressure. Some here have already discounted the reliability of the CRF actions because of the this feature failing to eject a spend brass, and that is a true assessment! ON this subject I have to agree with those who do not trust that so-called CRF action over a push feed action. IMO. I do not consider a spring powered plunger ejector rifle to be a true CRF action, and no better than a pushfeed action.

Again IMO, only a CRF action with a fixed ejector like the true MAUSER action is a true CRF action. Only an action that has positive control of not only the control of the cartridge being removed from the magazine before it is released from the magazine and chambered but also has the reliable ejection of that cartridge case after being fired with a fixed ejector that doesn't depend on a spring to work, is a true CRF action.

.............Opinions vary and that is the right of everyone, my opinion is a true CONTROL FEED, AND EJECTION ACTION is about as reliable as man can make it!

I would prefer CRF if:

1) Ammo as in brass/rim/groove quality was spot on.

2) Either a bottle neck calibre or if like a 458 then a pointy Barnes X type bullet.

But for me the two best have been the in line feed PF and the SMLE.

This is based on chasing roos and pigs in the back of a WWII Jeep or those early Suzuki 4 WDs.

THE CRFs I hve used the most were the M17 in 30/06 and M17s reabarrel to 270. Back in the 60s we would get lots of shit brass and some Euro stuff (hirtenberg) from memory would fuck the M17s because of rim/groove problems.

CRFs with too little extractor tension are a pain when operating things slowly, they drop the case out of the bolt.

As a side note chasing roos and pigs like we did the 30/30 is poor as far too hard to reload while bouncing around.

We mainly used a locally made straight line loading tool and would often have protruding primers and than can stuff CRF.

The other thing when chasing roos/pigs like we did the brass gets real bad treatment in the back or the Jeep/Suzuki and burrs on the case rim stuff CRF.

If my life depended on the rifle and I had to use ammo I was given them my choice would be either an in line feed push feed or the SMLE.

But one thing for sure and that is a CRF is a much nicer looking thing to watch working and just goes hand in hand with the 375 H&H.

I guess my point is there is "no best" as the conditions are so important.

On Australia's biggest gun forum you nearly bet 100% that a thread on feeding problems will be a CRF. A couple of things though. Being in Australia these blokes will fire literally hundreds more shots in the field than Americans and also the PFs are generally Sako, Mark V Wby, Sauer and Blaser so a lot more expensive then the CRFs.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike McGuire:
I would prefer CRF if:

1) Ammo as in brass/rim/groove quality was spot on.

2) Either a bottle neck calibre or if like a 458 then a pointy Barnes X type bullet.

But for me the two best have been the in line feed PF and the SMLE.

This is based on chasing roos and pigs in the back of a WWII Jeep or those early Suzuki 4 WDs.

THE CRFs I hve used the most were the M17 in 30/06 and M17s reabarrel to 270. Back in the 60s we would get lots of shit brass and some Euro stuff (hirtenberg) from memory would fuck the M17s because of rim/groove problems.

CRFs with too little extractor tension are a pain when operating things slowly, they drop the case out of the bolt.

As a side note chasing roos and pigs like we did the 30/30 is poor as far too hard to reload while bouncing around.

We mainly used a locally made straight line loading tool and would often have protruding primers and than can stuff CRF.

The other thing when chasing roos/pigs like we did the brass gets real bad treatment in the back or the Jeep/Suzuki and burrs on the case rim stuff CRF.

If my life depended on the rifle and I had to use ammo I was given them my choice would be either an in line feed push feed or the SMLE.

But one thing for sure and that is a CRF is a much nicer looking thing to watch working and just goes hand in hand with the 375 H&H.

I guess my point is there is "no best" as the conditions are so important.

On Australia's biggest gun forum you nearly bet 100% that a thread on feeding problems will be a CRF. A couple of things though. Being in Australia these blokes will fire literally hundreds more shots in the field than Americans and also the PFs are generally Sako, Mark V Wby, Sauer and Blaser so a lot more expensive then the CRFs.

Mike, I agree with you on using any rifle while bouncing around in a jeep. However I have not found hunting dangerous game to be done from the back of a traveling jeep, in fact, I'd say trying to shoot and reload while riding around the out back in the jeep would more dangerous than standing face to face with a wounded cape buffalo while he is charging.

The jeep is the problem not the rifle! A push-feed like the Remington 700 or most other PF rifles today are all balled in the same wad, and none of them are as reliable as a true Mauser rifle that is in true working order.

About the only place where shooting dangerous game from the hunting car is common in Africa or North America is RSA's behind a fence hunting or any game in Game ranches in the USA and Canada.

I suppose one should choose what ever type rifle he wants, but I, as I have already stated, will not hunt dangerous game with any bolt rifle that is not a proper CRF, or a double rifle. Others may do as it suits!

...................................................................... Mac

Thanks for the comments reLeft hand controlled round feed actions. Challenge is that I am in the UK. And the few companies that import rifles don’t bother with left handed stuff - there is no market you understand. Doing one off imports from US is a nonstarter given the cost of US Export licences.

Very good discussion. I agree with everyone. Glad CrazyHorseConsulting and ISS are not on this thread to call someone “stupid”.

I have used both in a variety of guns. I have had PH’s with both. The various PH’s when asked prefer to use a double or Mauser. They often had a push feed of some sort or a C Z due to cost.

I have had a jam with a push feed when the polymer tip on a round broke off and stuck me. I had a round I could not eject on a CZ when I really needed to eject. That one is a mystery as the gun feed every round just fine before I started shooting. The PH followed up and likely kept me from getting scratched.

So, for me, I really don’t care. I will continue to use my HS Precision .375 and my other CRF guns. What I do know however is tell the PH to shoot if I hesitate on the second shot. I want him firing if I hesitate. This irks some but I have had great success and the PH has been happy to oblige.

I had one PH say he would not shoot and I asked why he carried a gun then? He got my point. I put the first round into the animal, and if fail to follow up quick, he better be shooting!!!

If I die on the veldt, the snows of Kilamanjaro, or the Sonora desert, just this side of the North Pole, or anywhere in between or betwixt in this world with a large animal on top of my carcass. You will find a control feed rifle clutched in my swollen hands but it will not be jammed, but loaded and ready to fire and a note stating, I missed the first shot, was too slow on the second..This is my guarantee...

Two newly introduced actions with Controlled Round Feed / Extraction / Ejection are:

Bighorn actions:
https://bighornarms.com/actions/
Explanation of their actions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSM3CYOcGgI

Mausingfield actions:
http://www.americanrifle.com/p...ngfield-bolt-action/
Explanation of their actions: see their Video section (NB headache warning!)

They both have the advantage of interchangeable bolt-heads (for eg building trainer rifles in smaller calibres).

quote:

Originally posted by PD999:
Two newly introduced actions with Controlled Round Feed / Extraction / Ejection are:

Bighorn actions:
https://bighornarms.com/actions/
Explanation of their actions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSM3CYOcGgI

Mausingfield actions:
http://www.americanrifle.com/p...ngfield-bolt-action/
Explanation of their actions: see their Video section (NB headache warning!)

They both have the advantage of interchangeable bolt-heads (for eg building trainer rifles in smaller calibres).

The BIGHORN action is a true CRF action, and has the fixed ejector that is the same as the one on the true Mauser CRF, and is a far cry above the so-called CRF action with a spring charged ejector pin. That spring actuated ejector pin makes that action very little better than and push-feed action.

Of course the BIGHORN action has some very good features for the owner who wants interchangeable barrels and different chamberings with different size cartridge cases and head diameters. Many other features are available with this new action, and would be a perfect action to build a very well designed dangerous game bolt rifle.

Even a well tuned Military Mauser 98 action is, in my opinion, far better that any push feed action for use on dangerous game.

The film offered here from BIGHORN is a very good visual to show the fixed ejector that exactly like the ejector in the Mauser, being far superior to the spring loaded plunger ejector on most of the new SO-CALLED CRF actions, or any push-feed action for use on dangerous game.

......................................................................

The Bighorn has the advantage over the Mausingfield in having a .223 Rem bolt-head option, allowing for a true trainer rifle: cheaper practice, reduced recoil.

What's the opinion on Ruger Scout actions (same as in Ruger Hawkeye / Hawkeye African / Guide Gun rifles)? Are they true Mausers, or just modified CRFs?

https://ruger.com/products/scoutRifle/models.html

I have never hunted dangerous game, but I have had three extractor breakages with reminton 700 and several failures to extract with winchester push feeds (two different guns), but in 60 years of hunting I have never had a failure of any kind with a CRF winchester 70 or a browning safari CRF or a husqvrana FN 98 . Based on my limited sample of one I would definitely prefer a CRF action if hunting dangerous game

I recently had a 338/06 built on a Dumolin Herstal Mauser action. While adjusting my full length sizing die last night I had no trouble feeding empty cases from the magazine. Very slick.
I varmint hunt with Remington 700's and target shoot with Savages. I've had numerous failures to feed, extract with them. A feeding jam with a 700 cost me a good elk several years ago. Never again. The 700 was bargain priced when I bought it, although most of my hunting guns have been Mausers for the last 40 years. They will ALL be Mausers, or CRF Winchesters from now on.

Do the Big Horn & Mausingfield actions feed from a detachable magazine?
Maybe I am looking at them wrong, but both those actions seem to have a covered port that makes top loading impossible. I don't think I would want to hunt DG with an action I couldn't load from the top; CRF or not.

The Mausingfield is also $1600,00.
My Dumoulin Herstal (same company that made the FN Supreme) will load from the top, feed a single shell that's been push fed, has a nice adjustable trigger, WW style 3-position safety, hinged floorplate and currently available for less than $400.00 Bolt manipulation is smooth and I'm sure that with a little use it will get very slick.I think Sarco is selling them.
I haven't had a chance to finish my load work-up but everything so far has been 1 moa or slightly less. Which is really all I need from a hunting rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by adamhunter:
Do the Big Horn & Mausingfield actions feed from a detachable magazine?
Maybe I am looking at them wrong, but both those actions seem to have a covered port that makes top loading impossible. I don't think I would want to hunt DG with an action I couldn't load from the top; CRF or not.

I have to agree with you on the closed top on the BIGHORN action. Do you think it would be detrimental to the actions integrity to machine the top open enough to facilitate top loading?

Everything else is top drawer. Did it state how many cartridges the removable magazine holds? Four down and one in the chamber would be very good. All my 375 H&H rifle are 3 down and one in the chamber.
....................................................................

Tyros use PFs ...

Serious hunters not wanting to be hooked by the horns of the Buff or the Rhino, or not wanting their sensitive nads clawed or nibbled upon by the fanged cats, always choose CRF - that's as in CRF all day every day and twice on Sunday ... unless said hunter be some sort of anti-Sunday-hunting baptist.

Just sayin'

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by adamhunter:

Do the Big Horn & Mausingfield actions feed from a detachable magazine?

... BIGHORN action. Did it state how many cartridges the removable magazine holds?

Apologies for throwing the Bighorn and Mausingfield actions into this thread; they were designed for the .308Win and .300WM class of cartridges (nothing larger so far), and I was initially interested in them for other purposes (Precision Rifle type competitions).

Their small ejection ports enhance action stiffness and thus accuracy; they work with Accuracy International detachable magazines, and hold 10 .308Win cartridges.

I agree that as a basis for a DG bolt gun, an open-top Mauser action would be preferable for the 375+ size cartridges; but I thought it was interesting that the 'accuracy crowd' were now finally incorporating some desirable features from 100+ years old designs!

The Bighorn reminds me of a Savage CRF with interchangeable bolt heads, OR A BLASER, in that regard.

The Bighorn is definitely not CRE, and the CRF is weak, but it does have an MF-ejector.

The Mausingfield action is excellent regarding the true CRF with big, beautiful, claw (BBC) extractor with true undercut tongue (TUT) for CRE.
And it may have a superior attachment of that BBC to the bolt body than a standard M98!
But bolt body is not solid/one-piece, the bolt head is separate LIKE ON A BLASER?
It has an excellent MF-ejector.

Both new actions are indeed too tacticool for big game sport hunting use:
The Bighohum Action
and
The Mousingfiddler Action,
both would be good for target and varmint use.

The Ruger Gunsite Scout?
Same as Hawkeye reply to Gustavo above:

CRF by BBC
Non-CRE: No TUT
Push Feeder
MF-Ejector

Altogether excellent for a hunting rifle, just like an M70 Winchester.

I am AC/DC in this regard:

AC: True Mauser or CZ 550 Magnum
versus
DC: Ruger M77 Hawkeye or Winchester M70 Pre-'64-Type

For comparison, the True M98 Mauser or CZ 550 Magnum:

CRF by BBC
CRE by TUT
NO PF unless modified or "Mauser Pinched"
MF-Ejector: The gold standard MF-er.

Rip ...

"LBJ took the IRT down to 4th Street USA ..."

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
"LBJ took the IRT down to 4th Street USA ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMoSf8_TyZc


Rip ...

Wish I'd pasted that, RIP.

Believe it or not I remember the '60s, too, if only because I was tied to the mast with hay band, given only beer and whiskey to alter my consciousness.

Rip,

What do you classify the Sako AIII's "Safari Grade" rifles?

I see mentioned from time to time that someone had their Remington bolt face replaced with the "Sako style Ejector".

quote:

Originally posted by lrich:
Rip,

What do you classify the Sako AIII's "Safari Grade" rifles?

I see mentioned from time to time that someone had their Remington bolt face replaced with the "Sako style Ejector".

I gave up on Sako "Socko" rifles after ownership of one in .25-06 about 1990. Impressive finish and smoothness for a pest rifle,
but I knew in my heart that there are better actions for the big stuff.
The old integral bases and rings were neat too, but they ruined that with the current Rube Goldberg affairs.

Here is an interesting bit about upgrading a Rem 700 with a Sako extractor:

http://singleactions.proboards...nchrest-rifle?page=5

"Remington extractors – 722s, 700s, and 40Xs graced the line for decades so these were widespread. Be that as it may, I’m no fan of the Remington “burr”. They work and have yanked some of the biggest magnums but in my opinion they’re thin. No custom action maker who fabricates bolts uses them. In addition, the most common extractor upgrade is the Sako-swap on 700s. My aversion to these began in 1997 with the very rare 7mm STW BDL. I shot one round, regained my hearing from the brake, and extracted air. The clip rode right over the rim. I knocked the brass out and tried another. Same result. Mic’ing proved correct base thickness and diameter. So back to the factory it went, returning 30 days later. Remington’s findings: “Extractor and bolt face checked out. Chamber was polished to remove roughness. The gun functioned in test firing”. It extracted better but still failed 5 – 10% of the time. If a coarse chamber causes the extractor to flop I want no part of that design. My 700 now sports a Sako."



"In benchrest, most exposed lug actions use Sakos. Positioned at a lug edge, they take one milled slot and two drilled holes. Here’s the diagram:"



"Sako extractors offer positive pull, smooth ride on and off the rim, and are straightforward to install. My only rub is they consume bolt body and require a pivot hole that approaches the firing pin. But none of that has ever been shown to degrade accuracy.

Sako extractor parts:"




Love the MF-er Controlled Ejectors on the Sakos that do not have a TP-er Noncontrolled Ejector, like on this PF-only Sako AIII Finnbear:



Sako AIII Finnbear >>> Sako 75 >>> Sako 85 >>> Sako A7:



http://www.sporting-rifle.com/reviews/sako-a7-review/

"The bolt has been taken from the 75, with three sturdy lugs and classic Sako extractor. The ejector, however, is a spring plunger taken from the T3. The bolt face differs from the upgrade seen on the 85, which now offers a semi-controlled feed by opening up one edge of the face. With the A7, it is totally enclosed. The bolt release is also the same, but the shroud has frustratingly been adopted from the Tikka. This flimsy plastic component is one of the first things Tikka owners are keen to replace."

Did you catch that "semi-contolled feed" description?
There is no CFR by BBC.
There is no CRE by TUT.
They are all PF-ers plus some are semi-CRF-ers.
But the Ejector is a Controlled MF-er if there is no Noncontrolled TP-er ejector sticking out of the bolt face!

Here is a picture of the Sako 75/I-V Controlled MF-er Ejector part from Brownells, it works as a bolt stop too, slot in the bottom of the bolt face:



The Sako extractor is tiny compared to a BBC Extractor.

So if the tiny, rotating extractor on a Sako shaves any brass, that MF-er will not stop working,
as long as the non-TUT-non-CRE extraction by the non-BBC-semi-CRF extractor delivers the case rearward so the MF-ing-Controlled Ejector can do its thing.

That is why I prefer a Mauser 98, a CZ 550 Magnum, a Winchester M70-Classic-style, Ruger M77 Hawkeye, Dakota M76, or MRC M1999,
over the Sako.
But those Sakos are slick, and I do like the Tikka T3X for a .22-250 with 1:8" fast-twist.

Rip ...