If you would like to be educated on a whole new level about the merits of the CRF claw extractor please follow this link.

http://www.tecomate.com/conten.../claw_extractors_101

D'Arcy Echols is arguably one of the most knowledgable persons alive today when it comes to the finer points of rifle building and he definitely goes the extra mile to get things just right. He has written a few articles, all well worth reading, on the Tecomate web site.

Enjoy!

According to some older gunsmiths I know, the modification of the claw extractor, necessary to allow one to single feed a round into the barrel rather than from the magazine as designed, greatly compromised the integrity of modern CRF actions.

PF models are fine on plainsgame, deer and elk I suppose, however I lost the biggest bull elk I have seen because of a PF rifle allowing a round to fall out without me knowing it as I was running, and my gun went snap!! No more the PF for me when hunting seriously..

I have a Rem 722 in .308 and I like it, but I much much prefer a control feed rifle inasmuch as it hangs on the the round as you lope to the top of a hill to finish what you started or what is escaping..In a PF its so damn easy for the round to fall out under such circumstances and other circumstances and I have seen this happen many times..

Most control feed rifles will not allow you to drop one in the barrel and close the action unless its modified and that modification weakens the extractor and can make it override and jam up the gun..

The fact is and, contrary to some, its easier to push a round in the mag than drop it in the barrel when your in a hurry, you still have to close the bolt anyway..I dont' know who decided that droping one in the tube was the best or easiest way, but they certainly have not been in stress situation when doing so and in fact its just another hand me down statement by somebody that scribed what he really didn't know, and it became excepted by many as fact, another old wives tail...

I have seen guy fumble around trying to drop a round down the barrel more than a few times and in the meantime someone else had the forethought to shoot the animal for them or it got away. To push one round down in a magazine is about the simplest function I can imagine unless one cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.

Recon this is my pet Peeve???

great!!!the debate continues.....and will for some time!

As to me.....I'll take a push feed any day and every day over a CRF rifle and yes....I do own both!

I'm a handloader and I want the bolt face fully supported.....the claw does me no good that I've ever seen.

quote:

The fact is and, contrary to some, its easier to push a round in the mag than drop it in the barrel when your in a hurry, you still have to close the bolt anyway..I dont' know who decided that droping one in the tube was the best or easiest way, but they certainly have not been in stress situation when doing so and in fact its just another hand me down statement by somebody that scribed what he really didn't know, and it became excepted by many as fact, another old wives tail...

And then you have Paul "Kambada" Grobler who has shot elephant on control in the thousands. He said if it wasnt for useing BSA push feed .458's and dropping one in the spout, he would have been killed numerous times in the middle of a whole herd charge.
Terry Irwin, another of the great controll hunters ended up with a custom M.S. in .458. He had trouble with even mausers jumping the feed rails and jamming from the way he racked the bolt. When at Westly-Richards, they said " not with our guns" and he proceded to do just that.
Differant strokes for differant folkes is all.

Accuracy builders never use CRF actions. As Vapo said above, the base of the cartridge had uneven support and pressures...one more variable to overcome in the quest for a one-holer :-)

Many forget that all of Paul Mauser's first rifle designs utilized push feed actions. He designed the CRF action to overcome the problems that 'non-professional soldiers' created with their push feed rifles when in 'life and death' situations.

I would propose that many African 1st time hunters would fall into a similar category as the 'non-professional soldier' in Paul Mauser's day...basically if the individual can screw up a follow up shot during a DG charge their is a high percentage chance that they will. Unfortunately issues with 'box store' rifle purchased by this 1st time African hunter (regardless of push feed or CRF) will also likely rise its ugly head at this critical moment. Although it may have been recommended that this 1st time African hunter to send their 'box store' rifle to a competent DG gunsmith to assure the rifle is up to the task, most often they'll perceive the several hundred dollar expenditure to be 'to costly' even though they're paying many thousands of dollars for their hunt.

My recommendation - unless the rifle to be used has been proven to be trouble free in a DG hunt scenario - is to spend the several hundred dollars to have a competent DG gunsmith to assure your rifle works properly and that unreliable parts are replaced with reliable parts.

Regarding accuracy of push feed vs CRF actions - most 'accuracy builders' typically use custom actions built with very tight tolerances rather than use a mass produced action (with its greater tolerances) taken from a mass produced rifle. So when discussing 'accuracy builders' its not really an 'apple to apples' discussion. That said, utilizing the same action and stock accuracy tweaks used for push feed rifles will generally turn a CRF rifle into a MOA, or less, accurate hunting rifle. When this CRF rifle is also a DG rifle it now comes down to whether the shooter can accurately shoot an accurate heavy recoiling rifle to the accuracy the rifle can demonstrate.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
...., however I lost the biggest bull elk I have seen because of a PF rifle allowing a round to fall out without me knowing it as I was running, and my gun went snap!!

I've been shooting Remington 700s all my life and wouldn't have anything else, because I deserve the very best. I've never had a cartridge, live or empty, leave the rifle unless I intended it to do so. Perhaps you need some rifle lessons?

Scojac,
Good on ya, but I'm older than you by a bunch and bet dollars to donuts I can outshoot ya!

No bet. But I've also never heard "click" when I pull the trigger on a 700 unless I'm dry firing to practice.

Best wishes and good shooting. (A bad day with a CRF is better than a good day in the office!!!!)

PF actions are cheaper and faster to build than CRFs period. It was a cost cutting measure that worked good enough to hunt with, but "good enough" is not enough sometimes.

I prefer CRF bolt rifles for hunting. I also want M70 type three position wing safeties on them.

To me CRF is superior machinery. That it looks better to my mechanics eye.

Of course PF guns have some advantages.

I hunt because I want to with what I want to.

quote:

Originally posted by scojac:
No bet. But I've also never heard "click" when I pull the trigger on a 700 unless I'm dry firing to practice.

Best wishes and good shooting. (A bad day with a CRF is better than a good day in the office!!!!)

I have never had a M-700 misfire either, but I have seen, and had, a number of them fail to extract fired rounds. I have also seen CRF rifles bobble the feeding but it was usually due to either operator error or rifles that had been rebarreled in a different caliber than the magazine box was designed for.

I had an extracter break on a pre 64 M70 and bind the rifle up. Had to pull the barrel to keep from causeing damage.
Anyone who thinks a CRF gun is fool proof, is,well, a fool.
The rock I was shooting at didnt get away if you were wondering.

I've jammed both the PF and CRF action. They are both just manually operated machines and, as such, both can fail. Sometimes that failure is a result of human error, other times it is a result of the machine. As long as that action feeds a round when you need it, then it is performing and most hunters wouldn't thin twice about it. I think where this debate came about is hunters have had their PF action jamb on them at some point or another during a hunt, the PF action is the easiest to blame, and thus the CRF action is concluded as the obvious solution to their problem.

What I do believe the CRF offers to some, myself included, is a psychological improvement. Be it a placebo or actual, if the CRF action makes you a confident hunter because you're more confident in your equipment, then that is the better action.

What I am curious about is if Paul Mauser's design for the M98 had been a push feed, would that action still be the hallowed action it is today? Obviously it has gained a reputation and remains highly regarded for a reason.

Love my PF Weatherbys, but a 700? not on a dare.

The Remington 700 ( in modern times) is the most copied action there is. Why? Because it this tubular action with full case head support is capable of producing the finest accuracy and its cost effective!

Don't see any Winchester, CZ or Mausers in serious accuracy competition......

The extractor is less than the CRF but in 40 years of Remingtons I have broken ONE, in about 15 years of CRFs I have had two fail....

Go figger!

I like 'em all but when accuracy is the deal? A Remington or Remington clone IS the deal.

And I would never be worried about a Remington on a DG hunt.


.

I guess the PF vs CRF question always brings out different opinions and experiences. An agreement on which one is universally superior is no where in sight.

What I find most interesting in the article D'Arcy wrote is the fact that a claw extractor is nothing more than a complicated PF system if it is not correctly tuned. Only when properly adjusted is it 100% reliable. How many CRF guns out there have been to "the Doctor" and been sorted out?

The really good thing about this debate is that we do not have to agree. You chose what you like and do not need to ask permission/blessing from any one else.

If I wanted to shoot competition, I guess a Remington might work. But frankly, glued on bolt handles, fail on fire safeties that don't even lock the bolt, flimsy, sheet metal extractors isn't my idea of a reliable hunting rifle. And speaking of hunting, how much better accuracy do I need than this (from one of those inaccurate Model 70s in 375 H&H, softs & solids..FOUR SHOTS...right out of the box):



I have a few more pics of other Model 70 targets in different calibers but I have a feeling I'm wasting my time...

OK one more; that's three shots pre-64 in 300 H&H with my handloads, 180gr TTXs:

I was at the mud bogs last weekend and a chevrolet won the entire event. I was also at the Nascar track and, again, a chevrolet won. Now today I saw a ford on the side of the road and, guess what, it was broken down waiting for a tow. So, yes, the debate is finally over, chevys are better than fords.

quote:

. So, yes, the debate is finally over, chevys are better than fords.

You can thank Obama for that! Plus, I think he is taking credit for inventing the CRF too.

I am no expert, but I do own and shoot guns and I have been doing this since I was 9. This is completely personal speculation - I recently read an article by Jack Lott on the 425 Westley Richards round in an old Gun Digest issue, and he says that the reason for the rebated rim and the magazine design and clips used to ensure proper feeding by that firm for this round, was in order to enable loading their rifles with charger clips. If an open sighted rifle or one with a forward mounted scope were used (a point raised in a discussion on this subject on the Nitroexpress Forums) then an empty rifle could be loaded with five rounds in the magazine in the same time that it takes to load one round into the spout. This would offer a considerable increase in firepower compared to single loading after a rifles becomes empty. While charger clips would be impossible to use in rifles with rear mounted scopes as is popular these days, the old military system seems beautifully thought out. You would have the reliability of a CRF rifle with charger clip loading along with the ability to load five rounds very fast into your rifle. Perhaps, this is an idea that will make a comeback, in case someone who hunts extensively finds merit to it.

Again, I am no expert. That said, Jack Lott, who certainly was one, seemed to like this aspect of the 425 W-R's design a lot in the article in question.

Good hunting!

I own both.
I like both.
I shoot both.
I've never had an AD or failure to extract or failure to feed with either.
Go figure.
Must be 50+ years of good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:


Don't see any Winchester, CZ or Mausers in serious accuracy competition......

Very true -- and you likewise see very few M-700's or bench rest rifles in the hands of a PH or guide who has to wrinkle a wounded beast out of the pucker brush.

Trying to make one tool do everything is a fool's errand.

I side with Phil on this one. Remington did not design the PF system to be a superior crisis weapon. It was cheaper to build, and let them undercut Winchester on price.

I have CRF actions by choice, since that puts me behind an old model 70 or a Mauser actioned bolt gun. I shot hunter class benchrest for a number of years. A Kostanich built 700 with a synthetic stock was de'rigeur.

I prefer, if I have to pay the smith; fine walnut and rust blued steel.

This excellent thread provides, among other things, any number of good reasons to hunt with a BAR. The 30.06 is particulsrly desirable.

Good hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:


Don't see any Winchester, CZ or Mausers in serious accuracy competition......

Very true -- and you likewise see very few M-700's or bench rest rifles in the hands of a PH or guide who has to wrinkle a wounded beast out of the pucker brush.

Trying to make one tool do everything is a fool's errand.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
The Remington 700 ( in modern times) is the most copied action there is. Why? Because it this tubular action with full case head support is capable of producing the finest accuracy and its cost effective!

Don't see any Winchester, CZ or Mausers in serious accuracy competition......

The extractor is less than the CRF but in 40 years of Remingtons I have broken ONE, in about 15 years of CRFs I have had two fail....

Go figger!

I like 'em all but when accuracy is the deal? A Remington or Remington clone IS the deal.

And I would never be worried about a Remington on a DG hunt.


.

The M-70 are a Mauser can be just as accurate in fact David Tubbs used a controlled feed M-70 to dominate high power rifle shooting before he started producing his own action.

Th M-700 action is round and easier to chuck-up in a lay but and easier for a smith to work with nothing more

This 5 shot group was shot at 300 yards with a Mark XX mauser action

I had a 700 then I grew up and wanted a nicer non over-the-counter rifle. IMO Remington products are poorly built these days. They are no where near the quality they once were.

Excellent article and true in every detail. 98% of the rifles I build are PF, but then not very many people hunt "dangerous" game with a 22 to 30 caliber centerfires. I like the 98 Mauser and have a few for personal rifles and get orders for something on a 98 now and then(they need to be tuned for proper feeding). Just as D'Arcy finds it necessary to tune a CF, I find it is worth the time to tune a Remington. Brass is always a wild card and I encourage the purchase of a lifetime supply from the same lot if possible, even for a coyote rifle. Not much fear of charging, but the chance of a double or triple is a similar adrenalin rush.

Phil,
I think we heard this same conversation about 50 years ago, then 40, then 30, then 20, then 10, then yesterday, and every couple of weeks inbetween!!

I still prefer CFR rifles, specifically Mausers, but I hold no grudge against anyone using a PF...I have a few PF, one a Rem 722 308, another my favoriet Rem 722 in 222 Rem and then there is my Rem 600 that all my kids and grandkids began their big game hunting careers on. All my DGR are Control feed or doubles..there is a place for most things..

Interestingly enough, this topic was addressed in the June/July 2013 issue of Outdoor Life, by a chap name of Bryce Towsley, whoever he is.

If you have the magazine, it's at the bottom of p.42.

I can try to scan and reproduce the commentary--it's really just a sidebar--but the jist of it is that the author tested a number of different rifles, CRFs and PFs, and only had one malfunction--with a CRF. Happened twice, while running the action upside down.

Scientific proof? Hardly. But an interesting observation, and one that might make PF owners a little less ashamed of their rifles.

BTW, my DG rifle is a Steyr Model S (no longer offered) in 458 Win Mag that killed a Cape buffalo and some larger plains game in Zimbabwe, but I guess I'd better sell it or load it down for deer or squirrels, as it is a [gasp!] worthless PUSH FEED!

Bryce Towsley, the Remington shill? got it.

The guy that shot all the elephants with a .256 Mannlicher was a shill for whom?

BTW the only broken extractor I have had was a 98/09 Mauser and the only broken firing pin - a much more serious problem - was also a Mauser.

Well I'd venture a guess and it wasn't for Remington...

It wasn't a M70 or 98 Mauser either...

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Well I'd venture a guess and it wasn't for Remington...

I can lay to rest one bone of contention, that being "the problem"of single loading a CRF. You do not need to modify the extractor even if you drop one in the chamber. Try this. Drop the round in the chamber and as you are closing the bolt reach around the action body and place the finger tips of your right hand on the middle of the extractor and squeeze. The extractor will flex out and slip smoothly over the rim. Will not damage the extractor. Apparently as I have been told, I think by Martin Hagn or Ralf Martini, all German infantry men were trained in this maneuver as part of basic rifle training.Give it a go and forget about "modifying" you claw . I agree with a previous poster in that, I think{can't be proven},Remington's major underlyling focus was to make something to mass produce on the cheapest scale and undercut the competition. Go figure, two milled mortices on round bar stock compared to many on a mauser or mod 70 action. Also no ejection box and a miniscule extractor with an ejector spring from a ball point pen. When your producing units by the thousands,the bean counters in the head office win every time.As for accuracy, I'll concede to the push feeds superiority based on its success in matches,but you don't have to poke em in the eye at 500 yds when hunting. If so I would be sorely deplete of game in my 70 years experience. By the same toked one should also give credit to the hunting field record and the almost unanimous choice of CRFs by the pros who have to sort things out in the jess with the sick and resentful.

The following is a good example of the accuracy CRF rifles can deliver BB cartridges:
Excerpts taken from Cutting Edge Bullets: 49-Bore/.500-Caliber/.338LM Improved of 2010 ... 12.7x68Magnum – Page 7:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...043/m/5931027531/p/7

Here is the cartridge and bullet:

quote:

quote:

Oh no! I could never do that!
(Involuntarily crossing legs and placing hands over crotch.)
My Winchester M70 in 49-10 must keep with the 24" barrel length ...
It loves those 430-grain CEB MTH bullets so well as it is.
I would not dare mess with it!

Shot off the hood of a car in a cow pasture:





Two excellent "longrifles" chambered for 12.7 X 68mm Magnum/49-10 by Rusty McGee, Kentucky Longrifles, of the common .50 cal, modernized:

quote:

As a reminder, here’s the relating information and targets:
Rifle No. 1:
Make/Weight/LOP: Winchester M70, 9#-3 oz. dry weight, 14.5”
Barrel: PAC-NOR No. 6 sporter contour, 1:12” twist, 8-lands/grooves, 0.785" diameter at 24" muzzle
Scope/Sight Height: 2.5-8X Leupold @ 11.4 oz, 1.50" (1.96”??? not sure as it wasn’t stated)
Rings/Bases: Leupold QRW steel rings & steel bases @ 16.0 oz.
Altitude/Weather: 300ft. alt., 75F, 29.53"Hg, 78% RH
Bullet: 430gr .500 CEB MTH copper HP spitzer
Bullet Length: 1.349"
COAL/Loading/Velocity: 3.583”, 100.0 grains of H322 powder, 2662.0 fps @ 15ft from muzzle, QL computed 58737 psi
Sighted POI/ Target Impact: +3.0” @ 100yds and -4.9” @ 300yds (center of grouping)
Group Size: 1.569” (center of grouping)

and
Rifle No. 2:
Make/Weight/LOP: BRNO ZKK 602, 9#-6 oz. dry weight, 13.5” (requires a LimbSaver slip-on pad to get 14.5" LOP)
Barrel: PAC-NOR No. 6 sporter contour, 1:12” twist, 8-lands/grooves, 0.785" diameter at 24" muzzle
Scope/Sight Height: 2.5-8X Leupold @ 11.4 oz, 1.50"
Rings/Bases: Standard CZ rings + homemade QD levers @ 6.7 oz.
Altitude/Weather: 300ft. alt., 80F @ 3PM, 29.53"Hg, 55% RH (I check the weather for this one)
Bullet: 360gr .500 Talon Tipped CEB ESP Raptor brass bullet (350gr W350 bullet + 10gr W Talon tip)
Bullet Length: 1.482" (with tip installed)
COAL/Loading/Velocity: 3.602”, 95.0 grains H4198, 2903.0 fps at 15ft from the muzzle, QL computed 63042 psi
Sighted POI/ Target Impact: +0.5” @ 100yd and -9.25” @ 300yd (center of grouping)
Group Size: 1.069” (center of grouping)

[IMG]

Not sure that a PF similar weight hunting rifle - chambered for the same cartridge - could deliver any better accuracy...

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
It wasn't a M70 or 98 Mauser either...

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Well I'd venture a guess and it wasn't for Remington...

BTW, Pondoro's "go to" rifle was not the 256 Manlicher either, but let's say it was (so as not to make you feel too bad), with it he didn't have to worry about a safety that could fail or even lock the bolt that comes unglued on ocassion (no Super Glue back then either), or a flimsy, sheet metal extractor with a horrible reputation for failing. No thanks, I'll take a Model 70 with the picture-demonstrated "horrible" accuracy over a 700 any day...

Are you saying that he did not post an excellent record with a 256 Mannlicher?

BTW want to show me the super glue on a bolt?
Perhaps you can point that out to me so I can glue my broken 98 parts - One extractor and one firing pin.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
It wasn't a M70 or 98 Mauser either...

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Well I'd venture a guess and it wasn't for Remington...

BTW, Pondoro's "go to" rifle was not the 256 Manlicher either, but let's say it was (so as not to make you feel too bad), with it he didn't have to worry about a safety that could fail or even lock the bolt that comes unglued on ocassion (no Super Glue back then either), or a flimsy, sheet metal extractor with a horrible reputation for failing. No thanks, I'll take a Model 70 with the picture-demonstrated "horrible" accuracy over a 700 any day...