I know the reason for the CRF actions that the dangerous game hunters use but is there anyone that has ever been saved because of this type of action? For the life of me I can't seem to make my push feed action fail. Upside down , right side up , working from an angle I just can't make it fail. Is it a general rule that you live by or is it just hype? I can see benifits to both style of actions. Own both styles and just don't see the real world difference where one might save your live because of it's design.

Every time a CRF or PF works during a charge, it has saved one or more lives.

Every time a CRF or PF fails during a charge, it puts one or more lives at risk.

George

Zeke,

I guess every one has to ask this question at least once during their time on AR.

George

quote:

Every time a CRF works during a charge, it has saved one or more lives.

Every time a CRF or PF fails during a charge, it puts one or more lives at risk.

George, is the following statement also true?

"Every time a CRF or PF works during a charge, it has saved one or more lives."

quote:

For the life of me I can't seem to make my push feed action fail. Upside down , right side up , working from an angle I just can't make it fail

My 30'06 M700 worked fine with 220 gr roundnose softs over the course of several months of preparation for Africa. Shot great, fed like grease on glass, I couldn't make it fail. Once I got to Africa the softnoses stopped on the edge of the chamber every time I worked the bolt for the second shot. I'll presume the cone-breech, controlled feed actions of my 1903 and M70 would not have let me down in the same way.

I've had simular problems with heavy for calibre bullets hanging up on the flat end of a Remington barell.
I won't buy Remingtons now.
I've just got my hands on a BRNO, CRF and a cone lead into the chamber as it should be.

nordrseta- Thank you for your response. That is real world stuff you are talking about. i know that some of the questions on this forum are redundant but I thought I structured my question about real world stuff not crap like "If it worked it could have saved your life and if it didn't work you could put your life in danger."------------ No shit Sherlock!

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
Zeke,

I guess every one has to ask this question at least once during their time on AR.

George

Nope, I've been here almost 3.5 years and I've never asked it and never will.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:
Zeke,

I guess every one has to ask this question at least once during their time on AR.

George

Nope, I've been here almost 3.5 years and I've never asked it and never will.

Hogwash! You're just lulling us into a false sense of security!

nordrseta,

I was editing my post while you were quoting me.

George

quote:

I'll presume the cone-breech, controlled feed actions of my 1903 and M70 would not have let me down in the same way.

Not necessarily, the M70 CRF cone breech is good, but the extractor cut offers a nice long "edge" to catch a round nosed bullet on, particularly when feeding from the left side. This could arise if the base of the mag spring moved (which most can) or because of some other minor fluctuation in how the ammo was loaded into the mag. CRF is generally more sensitve to proper mag loading, which is why I'd have a CRF expert (like a Dennis Olsen or Mark Penrod) go over a CRF before taking it anywhere near DG or even on a distant (and hence expensive) trip for non-dangerous game...

A lot of factory "CRF" (77, 70, CZ) have very poorly tuned mag-to-extractor exhanges, which warrant attention before using on DG...

BTW, the main advantage of CRF (as per Mauser's design) was the inability to short-stroke (and hence double feed) the action. Mauser noted this was a problem among soldiers in tense situations (hence the analogy to DG hunting). So your PF feeding success is a bit beside the point when considering the advantage of CRF...

I won't have to ask, because someone else always does... and I always read it because I am hoping to hear a few real experiences amongst all the opinions. I have a few years experiences with a couple of Kimber CRF rifles and after a trip back to the factory for feeding issues, both seem to work fine. I have used the same Remmy 700 for 33 years now and after many thousands of rounds it has never yet failed to feed. When I had it rebuilt as a custom .300 10 years ago I had the action hard chromed, and ever since it has been as slick as rubbing wet ice cubes together.

quote:

... both styles and just don't see the real world difference...

Have you ever shot doubles (or triples) trap or sheet with a pump shotgun (say an 870)? If so, you've likely experienced a jam that resulted from trying to cyle the action as fast as possible. If you've had this happen (which most everyone has, I would conjecture) you had a "real world" PF failure - a short stroking of the action that led to a double feed, and hence a jam.

Same idea applies to PF rifles.

CRF rifles are SPECIFCALLY DESIGNED to avoid short-stroke-based feeding failures during those fast fire (e.g. charging lion) moments. Whereas it DOES NOT MATTER how well a PF feeds, it simply is NOT DESIGNED to avoid a short-stroke double feed.

P.P. Mauser studied this and realized that the short-stroke (human error) was a "real world" problem on the "real world" battlefield under stressful firing conditions; hence he incorporated CRF into his actions. Dangerous game hunters ever since have realized their similar plight, and continue to appreciate the CRF.

quote:

Originally posted by nordrseta:
My 30'06 M700 worked fine with 220 gr roundnose softs over the course of several months of preparation for Africa. Shot great, fed like grease on glass, I couldn't make it fail. Once I got to Africa the softnoses stopped on the edge of the chamber every time I worked the bolt for the second shot. I'll presume the cone-breech, controlled feed actions of my 1903 and M70 would not have let me down in the same way.

Now, that sounds strange. Why would it fail just because of entering Africa? Climate and bad bedding, causing the stock to warp?

quote:

Originally posted by Bent Fossdal:

quote:

Once I got to Africa the softnoses stopped on the edge of the chamber every time I worked the bolt for the second shot.

Now, that sounds strange. Why would it fail just because of entering Africa? Climate and bad bedding, causing the stock to warp?

No, it wasn't the H-S Precision stock warping. I think my Gunsite rifle courses kicked in and my bolt flick got quicker when I was shooting for blood. My M700 works fine with spitzers; I just don't feed it roundnose bullets anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3x62:
.P. Mauser studied this and realized that the short-stroke (human error) was a "real world" problem on the "real world" battlefield under stressful firing conditions; hence he incorporated CRF into his actions.

Well now talk about selective thinking.
Now just how did the SMLE .303 (and 7.62) last so long. Not only is it a PF, but it even uses (mostly) rimmed cases. Who won the war anyway?

I only know what I've read mostly, but I've read a fair bit, and on AR I've read where someone claimed that Many mausers picked up during the war (II) were in fact jammed up.

I've just finished reading a John Taylor book, which is admittedly a bit dated, and he wouldn't have a bar of German arms or ammo, the English mausers were presumably "refined" by the makers. He wasn't fussed with "magazines" at all for DG, and would probably dump on any mass produced bolt action that wasn't worked over properly.
The point being for today is that CRF s don't stop feeding problems just by being CRF. Again I've read of an observer at a DG exam witnessing CRF s fail often. (for lack of expert attention.)

So it seems to me the CRF today is the better proposition, when proven reliable, but still can fail for various reasons due to human mistakes. The "reliable" PF s can work quite well if and when their problems are known and allowed for.

Perhaps a dodgy CRF with an unreliable operator is not as safe as a good PF with a cool,calm, experenced operator.

Jees, even Doubles catch people out, and often people get killed without getting a shot off out of anything.
What's best? maybe what your used to??

[QUOTE][
Well now talk about selective thinking.
Now just how did the SMLE .303 (and 7.62) last so long. Not only is it a PF, but it even uses (mostly) rimmed cases. Who won the war anyway?
QUOTE]

Since you ask, the Germans started the war, the Brits kept it going for a while,
the Americans ended the war, they used semi-automatic rifles in 30-06.
To imply that the war was won or lost due to the rifles employed is is like saying a dog won a catagory in a dog show because of the sort of collar it was wearing.
I think, and in no particular order, the air force, the navy, lend-lease, the resistance, Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery, Women in munitions factories, etc, etc, and not least the Russians all played a part in the ending of the war.
No one wins wars, everybody looses. It's a matter of unsustainable loss of men and munitions which draws conflicts to a close.
Enough of this!
Gentlemen lets get back to game rifles.
The Sporting Mauser with CRF is a fine rifle.

quote:

The point being for today is that CRF s don't stop feeding problems just by being CRF. Again I've read of an observer at a DG exam witnessing CRF s fail often. (for lack of expert attention.)

Perhaps you didn't read all of my earlier posts on this thread. For example:

"CRF is generally more sensitve to proper mag loading, which is why I'd have a CRF expert (like a Dennis Olsen or Mark Penrod) go over a CRF before taking it anywhere near DG or even on a distant (and hence expensive) trip for non-dangerous game...

A lot of factory "CRF" (77, 70, CZ) have very poorly tuned mag-to-extractor exhanges, which warrant attention before using on DG..."

quote:

So it seems to me the CRF today is the better proposition, when proven reliable, but still can fail for various reasons due to human mistakes.

Yes, and CRF is a design that seeks to minimize the panic-oriented human error in a way Mauser observed WAS in fact a problem. Can you be so well-trained such that you never short stroke a PF? Perhaps. But most of us non-PH hunters never get enough time practicing with charging elephants to see if our PF skills are sufficient. CRF offers a nice insurance policy against a commonly observed panic-reaction for those who have minimal (if any) experience in REAL panic situations.

The bottom line is that PF, no matter how finely tuned, is still a PF and cannot prevent the human error of short stroking. A finely tuned CRF WILL prevent such an error.

Finally, you have to admit, it is just plain neat watching the mag-to-extractor exchange of a finely tuned CRF in motion...

I say use what ever you want, and if it fails it's your's!

Many people have used PF rifles with no problem! The fact is, a CRF system is less likely to jam than a PF,and it cost no more to own. The CRF action is simply more "IDIOT PROOF", but anything can fail!

With that said, I see no value in useing a rifle to hunt dangerous game that isn't the best system you can get. If the price of a CRF were so far above that of a PF rifle that it was out of reach, then it becomes a matter of what you can afford, but they are accentaully the same in price. IMO, the choice is a NO-BRAINER!

On the point of asking dumb questions, there is no dumb question, if you don't know the answer. What "IS" dumb is to ask a question you don't know the answer to, then argue with the answer you get!

It is worth reading Stuart Otteson's book The Bolt Action if only to read his conclusions on what an ideal bolt action might be like. And no, he does not start with extractor choice.

If you don't have access to a copy, try having your public library get a copy on inter-library load. Copies are "out there" in library space.

The book is an engineering design analysis by the way.

jim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oldun:
[QUOTE][
Since you ask,QUOTE]

I thought that was obviously a retorical question. I'm a bad writer, but my point was that the SMLE went well for a long time. Frankly I have never seen or heard of one jamming excepting getting one rim behind the next one down. Anyway Kiwi, both systems are used extensivly for sporting, and it's the systems we are talking about.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 9.3x62:
Perhaps you didn't read all of my earlier posts on this thread. [QUOTE]


I'm sure I did, I read everything I can on the subject, and I wasn't trying to argue against you. To say a PFs is better would be on a hideing to nothing. But I don't think a PF is as useless as some make out.


[QUOTE]
Yes, and CRF is a design that seeks to minimize the panic-oriented human error in a way Mauser observed WAS in fact a problem. Can you be so well-trained such that you never short stroke a PF? Perhaps. QUOTE]


Well I guess there is lots of things can get you killed, but what I'm wondering is, just how prevelent is this short stroking busniss.
I would hazard a guess, not much. Now I'm not over bright, but the act of pulling a bolt back and then pushing it forward seems quite simple.
Now from what I've read about panic movements you generally revert (or stay) on your usual movements, hense the value of practise.

Now I'm not saying I would face a charging Ele without pooping my self or running off. I'm just saying that while I'm still there, and with my PF M70, I seriously doubt I'd double shuffle the bolt.
For one thing, it's like greased lightning and I often think maybe it didn't pickup a round as there is so little resistance.

A problem may come up more if the bolt tends to bind. I saw a video on AR with a hotshot shooting a .470 Mbogo? something, and on the last shot the bolt obviously binded a bit but i don't think the shooter tried to pull the bolt back at all, but that's where a CRF would pay for it's self for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

IMO, the choice is a NO-BRAINER!

:

Can't argue with that, all else being equal.
I think we are just sorting out the pros and cons, so every one knows to buy the CRF, AND get it worked over throughly, and get used to the weird things.

Does anyone know of a hunter that has been mauled or killed because the rifle used was a push feed and failed? This is a tough one I know but I'm interested in the findings that would have determined that the rifle failed causing the hunter to be injured. How would this have been determined other than word of mouth from the hunter himself? This was kind of what I was after for information to substantiate my arguments for the CRF type action. I would like real world experiences on this one not just theories why one is better than the other. I'm not sure but I think Saeed uses a push feed action and he appears to have killed more dangerous game than most anyone else on the forum. What say the real experts?

Although i can't speak from DG experience, I would rely on the experts for advice. Here is an actual (not mine) account of the issue at hand. I believe this was 1994.

"Family member Mike Cox, who is now stationed in Saudi Arabia, recently took advantage of geography to split down to Africa for a bit of hunting. I understand his reasons for this, but he did make what I consider to be a couple of mistakes. He decided to hunt buffalo on his first venture, and to use a borrowed piece when he got there. He also had not come to rifle school, though presumably he knew how to shoot.

His outfitter handed him a 375. Now this cartridge may be world standard and certainly has killed innumerable buffalo, but it is not a proper buffalo gun.

Mike's first shot was perfectly placed in the shoulder, but as is not uncommon, the buff took no notice of it and disappeared into thick thorn. Mike then proceeded to short-stroke his rifle and jam it up tight. The PH immediately swapped the jammed 375 for his 458. With the second shot the buff went down and the hunter proceeded to short-stroke that one. The buff then got up and Mike shot him twice more with the 375, concluding the action. The range was about 12 paces and both hunters well and truly had blood on their shoes.

Now this was very exciting, and turned out well, but it makes two points. One, work that bolt, in front of your televisor, for at least a month before you take off. And two, use enough gun for buffalo."

http://dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff2_1.html

It appears that even the PH was using PF rifles in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Pegleg:
Does anyone know of a hunter that has been mauled or killed because the rifle used was a push feed and failed? What say the real experts?

Why stop there,? I would also want to know how many had bad experences with CRF s . Then you'd have to compare to the numbers used, and then how many times it wouldn't have mattered what was being used.

Lets face it, the just mentioned "Mike's first buff shoot, that Mike if he had CRF's would have been ejecting live cartridges all over Africa. That's no way to get a second shot off.

In the never ending whizzin' contest of CRF v. PF, the problem of short stroking a PF always arises but I never hear the consequenses of short stroking a CRF. In a deliberate attempt to do so, I have locked up one of my CRF's and one of my PF's (I've yet to lock up my falling block).

Might not short stroking a CRF result in reloading an empty case, or jamming a case into the the breech face (with possible attendant mechanical consequences), either of which delayed condition might allow the offended DG in question to stomp a mudhole in the miscreant shooter's buttocks?

Please enlighten me. I own three different types of actions and I like them for their different characteristics, but I'm simply not a student of this argument.

quote:

Originally posted by rogue1:
In the never ending whizzin' contest of CRF v. PF...

I always wonder why it is a Marine reaches for an M16 and not a CRF or a PF when the going gets tough....

Matchkings anyone?

ZM

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
I always wonder why it is a Marine reaches for an M16 and not a CRF or a PF when the going gets tough....

I can tell you why! He doesn't have a choice! Now you can quite wondering!

quote:

Originally posted by Pegleg:
Does anyone know of a hunter that has been mauled or killed because the rifle used was a push feed and failed? This is a tough one I know but I'm interested in the findings that would have determined that the rifle failed causing the hunter to be injured. How would this have been determined other than word of mouth from the hunter himself?

I can tell you of one very recent mauling by a Brown Bear in Alaska. The victom was a well known Bear guide who was useing a SAKO 375 H&H. The rifle was short stroked because of trying to get off a second shot in a big hurry, and the rifle wasn't closed all the way, and bolt handle turned down, before his nearves caused him to cycle it again. The result was two rounds in the loading tray at the same time. This can't happen with a CRF because if the exact thing is done, the first round is ejected, before anuther can be picked up by the bolt! When the PF bolt was jammed forward the second time both Bullets were jammed into the chamber, jamming the rifle so tight, it took tools later to remove the two bent rounds from the rifle.

This Guide had been useing a push feed rifle for years without mishap, but it only took one time, at the wrong time. He now uses a CRF rifle. I can't remember his name, but some of the guys on the Alaskan hunting forum can tell you who he is, if you doubt this happened.

Still I say use what you want! There is no law that says you must use common sense! I simply don't see what the argument is all about. One system is better than the other, to me, it only makes sense to use the one that works the best of the two choices. Finally it "IS" a choice, If useing a Bolt rifle, mine will always be CRF if dangerous game is involved!

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:


I always wonder why it is a Marine reaches for an M16 and not a CRF or a PF when the going gets tough....

If you've never seen or experienced an M16, short stroke, you haven't been around them very much. It'll either jam the round chambering or close on an empty chamber. M16's aren't all they're cracked up to be. That's another topic though.

Okay, then why does the Marine corp and every fighting unit on the planet use a semi auto or auto for the up-close and personal, dangerous game gun? They must be reliable I reckon.

Brent

I don't want to highjack the thread, Brent. I'm just saying that the M16 short strokes too. Here is one example of M16 type:
http://www.ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=66&t=274036
Most military personell don't have a choice in the weapon they use. Many times, when they do, as in special forces, seeals or in Vietnam, they pick other weapons that are more reliable than the M16. ... The AK, HK etc.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
before his nearves caused him to cycle it again. The result was two rounds in the loading tray at the same time. This can't happen with a CRF because if the exact thing is done, the first round is ejected, before anuther can be picked up by the bolt!:

MacD37, I've read you on the African forum, so I know you are an experenced DG shooter, so I take note of what you are saying.

But. . . So far all the examples given that I can recall seem a bit stupid to me. You know,a bit like saying "if ya didn't jab the accelerator instead of the brake it wouldn't have happened.
"Experenced Guide" doesn't do much for me either, as there are many documented cases of experenced people doing stupid things.

So it seems to me that some people shouldn't be shooting anything PF or CRF , as they're likely to stuff up somewhere somehow.
Now, so far, I haven't had any trouble with PF's, the two CRF's I had were a pain in the butt and were sold off.
When I shoot big game I seem to slam the bolt back HARD, and shove it forward HARD. (No I don't have those Remington bolt handles.)

Seems simple to me, full back, full forward.
Maybe those big,long, sloppy mausers tend to bind up and ya all think, "heck if that hada been a PF it would have jammed.

So, I'm not saying your not right, I'm just wondering how many cartridges YOU have ejected by accident??

I hunted in Africa once and in Alaska since 1977. I never realized a push feed action was undesirable untill I joined this forum. Personally I think the whole debate is meaningless. As long as the rifle feeds well I could care less.

quote:

Originally posted by Brent:
Okay, then why does the Marine corp and every fighting unit on the planet use a semi auto or auto for the up-close and personal, dangerous game gun? They must be reliable I reckon.

Brent

The above quote reveals two things! One is your defnition of "dangerous game gun"! The war weapons are not designed to fight, one on one, but as a multi-man unit. The idea being to fill the airspace with bullets, hopeing to hit something, and as a unit. Even if 1/3 of the weapons jam at the same time you still have 2/3 of the unit to give you time to clear your jam, then you can back them while they clear theirs! Nobody in their right mind would try to use an M-16 to stop Cape buffalo charges. Humans are not much, once hit, Buffalo, on the other hand..........

And two, it is easy to see the author of that quote doesn't have much experience with dangerous game of any type, or combat use of simi-autos! The military uses what ever the military gives them to use, they don't have a choice, Dangerous game hunters do! There have been many war weapons that were not reliable. One that comes to mind is the M-14 of early Viet Nam. That thing spent more time field stripped than it did fireing! The M1, and M2 30 cal Carbine was reliable in opperation, but failed to stop opponants with multiple hits, just like the little 22 cal M-16 would on REAL dangerous game!

Well said, Mac. military usage and DG hunting are two entirely different disciplines. jorge

I think you "experts" live in a dream world frankly. The differences seem to be pretty mimimal so far as threat to life an limb go. The target is very close, moving fast, and likely to be fatal. Caliber is totally different of course, but the issue of a reliability of armament is no different.

As reliability goes even semiautos can be made reliable enough when a guy's life is on the line for the military. I'm pretty damn sure none of them would be reaching for a bolt action (not even a CRF), even if it were allowed. And from what I see on this website alone, CRFs seem to have one heck of a lot of reliability issues. At least as much as anything other design.

I do love to watch these debates however predictable the players may be.

Brent