I think when assessing rifles whether for accuracy, function or whatever one must look at "out of the box" and "potential"
Shooters like you and I are not too concerned by "out of the box" but we are in a very small minority.
In my opinion the CRF is not necessarily the best when it comes to "out of the box".
Some years ago I use to do the range duty for a very high attendance rifle range. CRFs were the problem feeders. Many of course were conversions. Many were being used with crappy brass that had damaged rims.
That CRF extractor needs the right dimension in relation to the case's extraction groove as there are problems with too loose and too tight.
I guess if all actions were correctly set up and used with appropriate ammunition then the most reliable would be CRF in conjunction with in line feed and especially for calibres that have a chamber diameter not much larger than bullet diameter and when very blunt bulltes are used.
Mike
Posts: 7206 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
I think when assessing rifles whether for accuracy, function or whatever one must look at "out of the box" and "potential"
Shooters like you and I are not too concerned by "out of the box" but we are in a very small minority.
In my opinion the CRF is not necessarily the best when it comes to "out of the box".
Mike
Mike, we are discussing a rifle made for the hunting of dangerous game, not a deer rifle! Regardless of the type action one chooses to use it should not ba taken into the field with "BITE BACK" animals without the owner makeing every effort to make that rifle as reliable as he can. If he is unwilling to put forth the effort, and money to make the rifle worth his life, then he should stay out of the bush with lions, and Buffalo! It may be true that Allen can afford to spend a lot of money on his rifles, but that is his good fortune! I'm quite sure he's earned that level of wealth. I'm as poor as a Church mouse, and I can assure you I will not use a rifle that is not proven, or with every advantage that can be had on it, when my life is on the line! If you have a make believe life, then use a make believe dangerous game rifle. If you can afford a Weatherby, and a dangerous game safari, then you can afford a proper rifle! "OUT OF THE BOX" does not apply here, no matter who makes the rifle!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
MacD37, I believe that the VAST majority of Safari hunters know squat with regard to your manical definition of a DGR!! As a matter of fact, MOST PHs don't know or care about your manical definition of a DGR!!!! They use what they bought OFF the SHELF!!!!!!!!! If is doesn't work right they get it fixed...THAT SIMPLE! Your definition is the definition of a FANATIC GUN CRANK!!!!! Please understand that 99.99% of the world is not in that category!
quote:Originally posted by ALF: Some pushfeeds such as the older Sako's use the Mauser type ejector.
Not just the older ones, the 75 does as well. They have a spring loaded blade ejector that pops up as the bolt is nearing the end of its rearward travel. Pull the bolt back slowly and the empy case just lies on top of the magazine. Pull the bolt back smartly and the case flies right out of the rifle.
Posts: 2206 | Location: USA | Registered: 31 August 2002
I don't disagree with what you say but the reality is that not everyone is into guns like many of us.
Many would read these forums and say "well I best get the M70 instead of the Weatherby or Sako because it is CRF". They could be in for disappointment if reliable feeding is an issue.
Mike
Posts: 7206 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
quote:Originally posted by ALF: The debate on control feed vs pushfeed is as old as modern african hunting itself and quite frankly many of the arguements pro or against dont hold water.
#1 The Mauser ejector is a fixed blade that is mounted on the ejector housing that is spring mounted on the left of the rear bridge. This housing also holds or is part of the bolt stopper.
So in essence the CF action functioning is absolutely dependent on the force and speed with which the bolt is pulled back: and in order to eject the bolt also has to pulled back right to the point where it stops.
#2 The pushfeeds with plunger type ejectors (Remington and Weatherby) will eject the case when the bolt is pulled back and the case mouth edge clears the rear ring, independent of the speed or force used to pull the bolt back. This happens way before the bolt is pulled back against the bolt stop.
Some pushfeeds such as the older Sako's use the Mauser type ejector.
#3 As to the "upside down" functioning of pushfeeds. this depends on the point at which the case is released from the magazine "lips".
Most calibers in modern pushfeeds release when the bullet and part of the front of the case are already under the front bridge and in the rear part of the chamber and for pratical purposes if the bolt face is kept in the position where this happens you can shake the gun upside down and the cartridge cannot fall out..... we did this this afternoon at the range with a new Remington 350 (guide gun) and a 7mm STW in a 700 ADL.
My Sauer 202 is exactly the same.
#4 The only pushfeeds I have that will "lose" cartidges in this way are my Mannlicher Schoenauers . They release the cartridges very early in the bolting cycle, so that the cartridge actually jumps up and lies completely loose on the next case in line or the magazine follower.
Before we start to debate your post, let me forst say you are dwelling on ejection only! Ejection is only one part of CRF, and the short shift of a CRF will in fact eject the round, and the push feed will not! The key word here is "CONTROL" from the time the cartridge leaves the magazine, til it is either fired, and the case ejected, or the bolt is short shifted, and the live rounds is ejected. The only advantage a the CRF action has over the PF is, no matter whiche way you move the bolt, the cartridge is in it's control, not so with a PF action!
#1
The Mauser type fixed ejector is more reliable that a plunger type, for many reasons! Admittedly, anything can break, the fixed ejector is no exception. However a little dust will not freeze it where it will not reach the bace of the cartridge, as is does often with the plunger type. And, if the bolt was not closed all the way, and the bolt handle turned down on the PF action the cartridge will not be ejected at all, regardless what type ejector the action has, because the cartridge will be left behind.
#2 in your post! This statement is correct, "IF" the bolt has hold of the cartridge! It will not have hold of the cartridge, in the event of a short shift. The cartridge is free to go where it pleases,and if it decides to stay in the loading tray, when the bolt is pushed forward again it will strip another round off the top of the magazine. This cannot happen with a CRF, as it cannot strip anothe round off the magazine till the first is ejected, which it will do, because the bolt has control of the cartridge, or empty at all times.
#3 If a 700 action has it's right side down, on a right hand rifle, the cartridge can drop out of the ejection port as it comes loose from the magazine, by the primer end of the cartridge, if any stutter is evident in the manipulation of the bolt. If a man has been knocked down, or has fallen after the first shot has not stopped a Buffalo, he will not be the same as a man diliberately trying to prove this isn't a posibility, on a fireing range!
#4 I think you must mean a STYER Mannlicher, not a Mannlichier Schoenaure, The M-S is a CRF rifle!
Anything can malfunction but the most malfunctions are idiot born, the fact is the MAUSER is far more "IDIOT PROOF" than any PF action, that is fact. Paul Mauser was no idiot because his design has been coppied by every rifle maker, but has never been improved on! Then there are those who made bolt rifles to LOOK LIKE MAUSERS, but cut cost, by makeing them PUSH FEED!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
quote:Originally posted by Axel: MacD37, I believe that the VAST majority of Safari hunters know squat with regard to your manical definition of a DGR!! As a matter of fact, MOST PHs don't know or care about your manical definition of a DGR!!!! They use what they bought OFF the SHELF!!!!!!!!! If is doesn't work right they get it fixed...THAT SIMPLE! Your definition is the definition of a FANATIC GUN CRANK!!!!! Please understand that 99.99% of the world is not in that category!
Axel
Axel, you're most likely right about the average PH useing what ever he can get! Though these guys move a lot of money from our perspective, they, for the most part, do not get rich, and are further limited by the gun laws in their countries, so must make do! You are right as well as most,( not as you say 99.9%) of the world are not knowlegable "GUN CRANKS", an as a result, will accept a PUSH FEED rifle to hunt dangerous game, simply because they don't know any better. This is compounded by the fact that they bought their rifle because of the makers BS as to the quality of their product, and because of the way the rifle looks in the store. When the guy is called on his decision, his pride will not let him be educated.
None of you points, however, makes one bit of difference if the fact that the CRF, is more IDIOT PROOF than the PF, something one, who would hunt DG with a push feed, when he has a choice, direly needs!
AXEL, you claim to be a Machinacal engineer, yet you have trouble seeing the advantage of the CONTROL feed, over the PF system. It is a simple matter of physics, not who use them! It is fact, there are potentual hazards with the PF action, that are not present with a CRF action. I simply can't understand why one would use a PF, when CRF is available. This is, to me, the same as the phrase offered by self defense instructors, " IF YOU HAVE A $50 LIFE, BUY A $50 PISTOL, IF YOUR LIFE IS WORTH MORE,THEN BUY THE BEST YOU CAN AFFORD"! What is your life worth? I don't think, however, YOU will have to worry about Cape Buffalo, Axel, because you will have to get grown before anyone is going to let you close to a real rifle, let alone a Cape Buffalo!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
On weatherby's, I wrote to Nick Harvey, our prominent big game writer here(80-100 buffs)about taking my first bigbore, a new 460 lazermark on a cape buff hunt and he said the weatherby would be fine for the job as long as I could handle the recoil.
I'm sure he would understand the CRF versus PF argument backwards, but he picked me as a tyro getting his first and figured I would be safe enough.
Karl.
[ 06-16-2003, 21:22: Message edited by: Karl ]
Posts: 3534 | Location: various | Registered: 03 June 2000
quote:Originally posted by Karl: On weatherby's, I'm sure he would understand the CRF versus PF argument backwards, but he picked me as a tyro getting his first and figured I would be safe enough.
Karl.
I'm quite sure you will be safe enough, collect your Buffalo without incident! I'll wager, however, Ole Nick will not be useing a PF rifle! He will be your back up, in case you get into trouble, no matter what rifle you choose to hunt with.
Karl, most here seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say on this subject. All I'm saying is a PF rifle is not the best thing to use for hunting dangerous game. This in no way restricts you from doing so. CRF is far better, but neither is the equal of a good double rifle, for that purpose. It makes little difference what you, or anyone else use for a DGR, that is your buisness, but calling a turkey, an Eagle, doesn't make him fly any higher. What does your preference have to do with which system is machinecly superior? I submit Mr. Harvey, would tell you that you could use anything that was legal to hunt with, as long as you can shoot it well. It just carries the possibility that his job might be a little harder. He certainly is not going to tell you not to hunt with him, because of your choice of rifle/chambering, as long as it is legal, and maybe, not even if it weren't!
Most PHs cringe when told a client wants to use a 460 WBY, but they seldom say anything to a perspective client, especially, a first timer. That said, you should hear the talk after the client leaves the booking booth, especially if they don't know the client! I will predict he will have you do some shooting before he puts you in the field, to make sure you can shoot the 460!
I couldn't care less what anyone uses, but I simply do not consider ANY push feed bolt rifle to be a properly set up DGR, regardless of chambering!
[ 06-17-2003, 01:19: Message edited by: MacD37 ]
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
quote:Originally posted by Heritage Arms: The only true CRF is a double rifle. Aleko
This don't really make much sense, as this requires fingers to feed the cartridges, and we all know what happens to humans in times of duress - fumbling fingers, spilt cartridges. If you could eliminate human contact from the feeding process, then you might have a point here. But you can't in a Double. Which brings us back to the Mauser 98... ~~~Suluuq
A model 98 that was built by Mauser and chambered for a Mauser cartridge will function flawlessly at any speed and at any angle.
If you choose to use a cartridge with a magnum rim, belted case, larger body or length, then you alter the harmonics of the design and will most certainly invite trouble. This is why Mauser chose to make their commercial rifles only in certain calibers.
Pulling the bolt back slowly on a 98 will cause the cartridge to dislodge slightly from the bolt face as the ejector touches it. Pushing the bolt forward will move this cartridge out of the way long before the next cartridge slides up under the extractor.
The fail safe mechanism on a 98 is the thumb slot. This allows you to quickly and blindly clear the breech of any problems caused by foriegn objects, such as mud. If you choose to not have a thumb slot, you loose this ability.
Un-altered Mannlicher-Schoenauers, in their original chamberings, function identical to the 98. They do not have some of the 98's safety features and tolerances, so I would not recommend them for dangerous game. They are, however, as pure CRF as the 98.
It took 30 years of trial and error for Mauser to perfect an idiot-proof rifle, the 98. It takes an additional 3 hours to rifle-proof the idiot who will have to use it. The only requirement is that the shooter have at least one hand. Even lifting the bolt and then dropping the butt on the ground will cause an extraction and ejection.
However, if the rifle was built by someone other than Mauser, or it is chambered for a non-mauser cartridge, don't expect it to function flawlessly with out a lot careful modifications. Even 98's that claim to be perfect copies will usually have been assembled using cost-cutting procedures that do not live up to the original design. Only expect out-of-the-box reliability from an out-of -the-box Mauser .
Mauser approved cartridges for the 98 are the: 6.5x55 and 57, 7x57 and 64, .30-06, 8x57 and 60, 9x57, 9.3x57, 9.3x62, 10.75x68, 10.75x73.
I'm sure there are few others in between, such as the 7.5mm. There is also some debate as to whether the 8x64, 8x68 or 9.3x64 were ever factory approved.
With those calibers available in some of the finest production rifles ever made, one wonders where the rifle industry would be today if WWII had not occured.
Imagine still being able to order from those catalogs.
Mine tilt the same way, and as soon as I begin to push the bolt forward the case just drops out onto the bench as the next cartridge begins to go forward. Try as I may, I cannot get them to malfunction.
I would consider original Mauser chamberings to be those that Peter Paul Mauser was chambering in his rifles while he was still alive. That would be a very short list, as I believe he died during WWI.
The analyst in me would like to see metrics around the use of push feeds and control feeds in hunting scenarios before I would ever claim(loudly by some) that one was more suited for DG then the other. Frankly, I don't think anyone on this earth has gathered a large enough data set using both rifles to draw any substantiated conclusions.
Posts: 543 | Location: Belmont, MI | Registered: 19 December 2002
quote:Originally posted by GMaxson: The analyst in me would like to see metrics around the use of push feeds and control feeds in hunting scenarios before I would ever claim(loudly by some) that one was more suited for DG then the other. Frankly, I don't think anyone on this earth has gathered a large enough data set using both rifles to draw any substantiated conclusions.
I tend to think it isn't going to be made by a single person, but collectively by many, throughout history. People can't eliminate human error in times of durress, ie in a moment of fear. This is fact. We all have the potential to suffer from it. The Mauser 98 by design, properly tuned, eliminates this. Of course, the potential for mechanical failure does exist, nothing is exactly perfect. But a CRF is a step in the right direction. ~~~Suluuq
Until shown otherwise, I gather Peter Paul Mauser had already considered making his turnbolts as push-feeds a hundred years ago (its cheaper, faster to make, even back then), but he needed these battle rifles to be as fool-proof as possible (eliminating human error), which is why his are CRF. Push-feeds, based on his design, were done this way to cut costs, as I understand it (post-'64 Winchester's, for example). ~~~Suluuq
For any data collected during war time or hunting in Africa to be useful it would need to include many measurements, just some of which are shots fired, weather conditions, cleaning time frames, variances in training on the firearm, number of failures, what type of failure, ammunition load information, maker of action, condition of action, etc... I don't think such data exists. There are a huge amount of factors that can contribute to a rifle not performing properly. Pie in the sky, "I've had 200 clients shoot 200 Buffalo and this is what I think" has very little merit. There is a place for "this is what I've seen", but unless a PH is CMM Level 5 certified, it is mostly opinion and should be treated as such. This is of course my humble opinion on the matter. I just can't see people being so devoute CRF or PF and state it as fact that one is better then the other when it is not backed by solid data. We are not talking that one fails 50% of the time and the other never fails, if that was the case I'd say opinion is fair game. We are talking a very small percentages of failures, so the only way to root this out is by the collection of data.
[ 06-18-2003, 18:12: Message edited by: GMaxson ]
Posts: 543 | Location: Belmont, MI | Registered: 19 December 2002
quote:Originally posted by Karl: I wrote to Nick Harvey, our prominent big game writer here(80-100 buffs)about taking my first bigbore, a new 460 lazermark on a cape buff hunt and he said the weatherby would be fine for the job as long as I could handle the recoil.
I bought Nick Harvey's loading manual and was surprised to find that much of its data was exactly the same as data in other loading manuals that I already own and which were published prior to his.
Posts: 18352 | Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA | Registered: 20 April 2002
quote:Originally posted by GMaxson: The analyst in me would like to see metrics around the use of push feeds and control feeds in hunting scenarios before I would ever claim(loudly by some) that one was more suited for DG then the other.
I tend to think it isn't going to be made by a single person, but collectively by many, throughout history. ~~~Suluuq
Once again, the Alaskan education system has failed. The poster was asking for metrics (use a dictionary if you do not know what it means) and you are talking about anecdotal experience.
quote:Originally posted by GMaxson: The analyst in me would like to see metrics around the use of push feeds and control feeds in hunting scenarios before I would ever claim(loudly by some) that one was more suited for DG then the other.
I tend to think it isn't going to be made by a single person, but collectively by many, throughout history. ~~~Suluuq
Once again, the Alaskan education system has failed. The poster was asking for metrics (use a dictionary if you do not know what it means) and you are talking about anecdotal experience.
i sory, dan ,can you lern me wat "metrics' is? I took Maxson's post to be about "reliability". His next post bears this out. It seems as though he's not satisfied with opinion, but rather actual collection of data to prove what is being claimed by CRF/PF devotees. But, of course, I'm suffering from the "one Eskimo left behind educational system"... ~~~Suluuq
For all you girlymen who have no faith in a push-feed, why don't ya'll stand on the hundred yard line and let me cycle 1000 rounds through my weatherby, and if after the 999th one, I don't get a jam, I get to pull the trigger at 1000. Don't worry, it'll be a flesh wound, and we'll make it a 3 shot group to see if that 1.5 inch group gaurantee holds true also. Any takers??? If you need your control round feeding, you must have no confidence in your ability.
Posts: 271 | Location: ALBANY,NY,USA | Registered: 28 December 2001
quote:Originally posted by 500grains: I bought Nick Harvey's loading manual and was surprised to find that much of its data was exactly the same as data in other loading manuals that I already own and which were published prior to his.
500, I bought it also a few years ago but never really used it apart from some loads for a 375 I think. Did he state in the book the load development was all his own doing? Or is this usually assumed? I don't have the background knowledge to agree or disagree with you.
Karl.
Posts: 3534 | Location: various | Registered: 03 June 2000
quote:Originally posted by GMaxson: The analyst in me would like to see metrics around the use of push feeds and control feeds in hunting scenarios before I would ever claim(loudly by some) that one was more suited for DG then the other. Frankly, I don't think anyone on this earth has gathered a large enough data set using both rifles to draw any substantiated conclusions.
Mr. Maxon, I don't think there is enough data in the world to sattisfy you of anything, and if everyone waited for the data you want, the hunting would have to be done by their graet grand kids, by the time it was compiled. I, however, am not young enough to wait for that data, so I'll just depend on 105 years of use, with the old 98, and 53 years of that by me, that has proven to me, at least, that it is about as reliable as a bolt rifle can be made. The push feed is NOT an improvement over the origenal system, it is simply cheaper to make!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
quote:Originally posted by TRIGGERHAP2: For all you girlymen who have no faith in a push-feed, why don't ya'll stand on the hundred yard line and let me cycle 1000 rounds through my weatherby, and if after the 999th one, I don't get a jam, I get to pull the trigger at 1000. Don't worry, it'll be a flesh wound, and we'll make it a 3 shot group to see if that 1.5 inch group gaurantee holds true also. Any takers??? If you need your control round feeding, you must have no confidence in your ability.
Although I'm not in the same league as the "girlymen" you so fondly speak of (I consider myself above this), I'll say that you seem to have some confidence in your rifles. That is good for you. I too have the same feel of confidence, albiet in a CRF design. Confidence is a personal thing. Where it comes from, or what provokes it, comes from many things. Your's is not necessarily the right one, but it is right for you. Take care. ~~~Suluuq
quote:Originally posted by TRIGGERHAP2: For all you girlymen who have no faith in a push-feed, why don't ya'll stand on the hundred yard line and let me cycle 1000 rounds through my weatherby, and if after the 999th one, I don't get a jam, I get to pull the trigger at 1000. Don't worry, it'll be a flesh wound, and we'll make it a 3 shot group to see if that 1.5 inch group gaurantee holds true also. Any takers??? If you need your control round feeding, you must have no confidence in your ability.
I'd like to see that 2.5", three shot group be as consistant with someone shooting back at you, or in fact a big Cape Buffalo, closeing on you! I think you fluid working of that bolt might be a little studdering, and I don't think you would be so cock sure, as you are when shooting at paper targets, as deadly as they are!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
quote:Originally posted by TRIGGERHAP2: For all you girlymen who have no faith in a push-feed, why don't ya'll stand on the hundred yard line and let me cycle 1000 rounds through my weatherby, and if after the 999th one, I don't get a jam, I get to pull the trigger at 1000. Don't worry, it'll be a flesh wound, and we'll make it a 3 shot group to see if that 1.5 inch group gaurantee holds true also. Any takers??? If you need your control round feeding, you must have no confidence in your ability.
I'll take you up on that with one little change. I'll drive at you at 30 mph from a hundred yards away in my pickup and if you can cycle 50 rounds, without a jam, before I run over you, you can shoot at my beloved truck with the 51st. Don't worry about the 1.5" group as I will be a lot closer than 100 yards and not standing still.
Posts: 6277 | Location: Not Likely, but close. | Registered: 12 August 2002
I posted this on an Australian forum late last year, and drew many interested comments from the Weatherby fans!
"Let me quote from Don Heath, reporting on the Rifa (Zimbabwe) Professional Hunter Proficiency Exam in "African Perspectives" earlier this year, refering to the Weatherby as his "least favourite rifle"....
"We don't often see them out here, thank goodness. The one we had this year exhibited the usual Weatherby failing of going off when the safety catch was dis-engaged. Like all I've seen with this problem, they work fine on the range. It is only after they have been bounced, bumped, or jolted whilst loaded and on safe that they do this."
He adds that "Weatherby factory ammo always gives extraction problems and needs to be down-loaded for use in hot conditions. The .460 is notorious and this .416 proved no different." Apparently during the proficiency exam, he had to use a 2lb hammer to beat open the bolt of the candidate's rifle when it showed sticky extraction after the 3rd round and "finally died on number eight".
I don't wish to appear negative, I have used a mate's ported .460 and shot it very well, but I personally prefer CRF Mausers for all the reasons already given. I will acknowledge that a PF rifle can be safe and trouble-free if correctly designed and properly built, and the owner is ever-mindful of the PF/CRF implications.
I dearly love doubles for DG, but am always mindful of provoking an instant charge with the first shot, and being left to face it with what is now a single-shot rifle!
Posts: 243 | Location: Darwin, Australia | Registered: 12 April 2003
Thanks for the good report on the Weatherby DGR rifles,I hope to get one,Probably a 460.
I have not wasted my time reading most of the rest of the notes in this thread as its the my action is better than your action deal again and we all know Weatherby Makes the best Production hunting rifles so we should just leave it at that. Enjoy your day ,
Charlie.
Posts: 87 | Location: Australia | Registered: 24 August 2002
A note of interest here after browsing through some of the comments is that the well respected writer Craig Boddington does not prefer CRF for hunting in Africa. Just an observation.
Posts: 2092 | Location: Canada | Registered: 25 April 2003
quote:Originally posted by savage49494: A note of interest here after browsing through some of the comments is that the well respected writer Craig Boddington does not prefer CRF for hunting in Africa. Just an observation.
That is not true, he does prefere CRF, but he is left handed, and had little choice in REAL DGRS, with the lever on the left!
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000
MacD, I'm not trying to stir it up but I had a conversation with him seven years ago about that very subject and he does not prefer them. He will be the first to tell you that that issue is overblown. FWIW
Posts: 2092 | Location: Canada | Registered: 25 April 2003
So what it all boils down to is that none of you got the rocks to take one well placed shot at an animal, and give it a quick death. You all want to go out and shoot the big bad buffalo, but it sounds to me like you're all scared shitless. Knees knocking together, piss trickling down your leg. Better stay home Girlymen.
Posts: 271 | Location: ALBANY,NY,USA | Registered: 28 December 2001
Weatherbys are great! You can sneak up on whatever you're hunting, hold the gun sort of sideways and blind 'em with the glare, and have all kinds of time to grab your '98 Mauser do some serious shooting before they get their wits about them. Afterwards, you can use it to flash signals at your buddies to come with the truck and fetch the results...I love 'em!
Hell, they're brighter than the flames I'm gonna get for this post...
Posts: 6034 | Location: Alberta | Registered: 14 November 2002
Hey Tumbleweed, I bet you I get flamed worse than you To be honest with you guys, I have no desire to go hunt a wild cow, but if I did, I would'nt be thinking about self preservation, the way it's harped about on this site. If I did worry about getting killed by a cow that much, I guess I would'nt do it. The closest thing i've been charged by that resembles a buffalo is the farmers bull,charging me in the pasture. Hey, if you're meant to die, your gonna die. I would'nt be so narowminded as to think that a little claw on the bolt of my rifle is going to change fate and the lords will of when he wants you. Trigger Trigger
Posts: 271 | Location: ALBANY,NY,USA | Registered: 28 December 2001
![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon}
yet you have trouble seeing the advantage of the CONTROL feed, over the PF system. It is a simple matter of physics, not who use them! It is fact, there are potentual hazards with the PF action, that are not present with a CRF action. I simply can't understand why one would use a PF, when CRF is available. This is, to me, the same as the phrase offered by self defense instructors, " IF YOU HAVE A $50 LIFE, BUY A $50 PISTOL, IF YOUR LIFE IS WORTH MORE,THEN BUY THE BEST YOU CAN AFFORD"! What is your life worth? I don't think, however, YOU will have to worry about Cape Buffalo, Axel, because you will have to get grown before anyone is going to let you close to a real rifle, let alone a Cape Buffalo! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon}
![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon}
![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon}
![[Mad]](images/icons/mad.gif){kind=icon}