Now Lets talk with some sense here.

And Let's keep it civil.

First of all there is not a more american Symbol than Winchester, it's right up there with Coke, Ford, and Big Mac's. I chose these examples for a reason. They all do alot of business in France. You will not find a multinational American corporation of this size that dose not do alot of business with the French.
Are we going to boycott all of these products? No!
We would also have to include all companies comnnected with the Russians, Chinese, Canadiens, Mexicans, Japanese, Germans, among many others. If we Boycotted all products that contributed to these economies we would have no transportation what-so-ever, very little food, and wouldn't be able to live life as we know it.

As for the quality of new winchesters, yes, they are a little cheaper and more "mass produced" than the pre-64s. BUT, they are still the most reliable bolt action built today. They have a bulletproof if not micro- adjustable trigger system, The best safety in the world, They are the only Major maker with true controlled round feed (no, Ruger dosen't have it) and fixed ejector. Most of those in the other post complaining about the quality don't have the first hand experiance of all the comercial brands to make an educated decision.

I am a gunsmith at the only factory warranty repair shop in Alaska for Winchester, Remington, Browning among others. Alaskans use their rifles alot. We see at least ten Remingtons that have serious problems for every winchester. In the last year there have been about;
10 bolt handles that fell off
10 broken extractors
countless problems in the trigger group due to dirt, wrong oil, too much oil
stuck ejectors among others
nearly all of the ultra mags will not feed smoothly with out modification. These aren't numbers aren't exact but you get the idea.
If Steve (anoter 'smith at our shop) is on here today I'm sure he will verify this.
The extent of the Win. warranty repairs have been a few crooked front sights. I would say there are nearly equal number of Wins. and Rems. up here.

The Winchesters are not quite as accurate out of the box but are more than accurate enough for any hunter. We build many ultra-light rifles on remingtons because they can be mad lighter than a win. with less work but we also (After lightening and barreling) install a sako extractor, extra ejector, aftermarket trigger, three position safety, and totally go over the action for function. The winchesters we only install an aftermarket trigger if requested along with lightening of the rifle.

There are others as reliable out there in the same price range with nearly the same features(mostly comercial mauser desings) CZ,etc.

If I had to trust a new rifle to punch cloverleafs in paper Remington would be near the top of muy list.

If I had to trust a new rifle with my life against dangerous animals in a foul weather environment, the Winchester model 70 would be near the top of my list, Remington, Savage, and Ruger would not.

There are many companies worthy of a boycott out there for their anti-gun (AOL for those of you on your computers),anti-hunting, anti-American, anti-progress views. Take your pick, Dixie-Chicks, Cheryl Crow, Any of the thousand Hollywood idiots. Have you watched a major motion picture, ABC news with Peter Jennings or any of the others for that matter? Are you working with Microsoft software? Then you are contributing money to these problems.

Hopefully this will make people think about what they are saying when they want to Boycott a true symbol of America itself.

Thanks for your time,
God bless America
God bless our Troops

Aaron Bloomquist

How about an action that the scope screw holes don't line up, How about and action that is actually twisted, feeding problems, bolts coming off in the field, tops ground out of round, Maybe you better consult with Talley, Belk or Brockman, about your beloved M-70 Win...

I have seen so many bad Winchesters in the last year that I will not own one, and if they want to keep the good name then build the good rifles..This ain't your grandads rifle I assure you....

No, I will stay with the pre 64 and let you continue to fix the new ones...The Ruger is also a better rifle IMO, and certainly a good Mauser is hands down better than a new Winchester.....No sir, this ain't the same Winchester, and I don't work for anybody....

Mr Atkinson,
If you are implying that I have a vested interest in Winchester, you are wrong, sir. We are only a warranty center for winchester as well as Remington, Ruger, Marlin, Colt, Browning,etc, all this means is that we are the drop off point. We will make some repairs but warranties are usually sent back to the factory. We are really the only full service shop in AK.

Being as farmiliar as you are with Africa and dangerous game hunting as you are I am suprised to hear you touting Ruger. They are nothing but a push feed made to look like a controlled feed and this is not desirable in my oppinion. Rugers have a terrible factory trigger, and a far inferior safety mechanism. Most of the pins in them will fall out on a brand new gun if you shake it hard enough not to mention the disgusting, rough casting marksleft below the stock line. I have seen misaligned scope holes in the winchester as well as in nearly every other major brand other than ruger which has no holes but garbage rings provided that the screws break off in about 1 in 5 mountings. I have also heard of bolt handles coming off but have never seen, this can happen with any soldered on handle, it is very common on Remingtons. As for a twisted action, that sounds like either a fluke or dammage after the fact from some garage gunsmith. The feeding problems seem to be hitting all makers these days, this is due to new sharp shouldered magnums( U.M. and WSM) mainly they take alot more work to get them to feed properly and the factories can't ,or won't, afford the extra polishing and fitting.

I agree that there are better Mauser style actions out there right now that are finished much better than current Winchesters. Most of these are also made in "anti-american" european countries. Few of them other than very expensive or custom ones have the superior winchester trigger and safety system.

This is, basically, "your grandfather's winchester" all mechanisms are exactly the same other than the gas check on the bolt. They are actually made of better steel and out of the box are just as accurate as a pre '64. The standard for accuracy were much lower then and that's why a rifle that average 2"+ groups at 100 were touted as extremely accurate.

That being said I would also choose a pre'64 if available when building a standard length action custom simply because the maching is superior although I have also seen some very rough pre'64s too.

If I wanted it to drive tacks at 300yds, I wouldn't choose any winchester.

I assure you we deal with enough rifles that we don't have to consult with anyone on this subject. We build hundreds of custom or semi-custom guns each year on at least 8 different actions.

Ray, I don't know if you are a gunsmith at all but this is a view from someone who see hundreds of problems with guns every month, and of those hundreds I would guess that less than 1or2 per month are model 70s and most are old ones that have parts just plain worn out or have been abused. I can't think of a single malfunction in a new one in the last few months. I am a little skeptical of their new M.I.M. trigger parts but haven't seen a failure yet.

Yes, I do personally own some Winchester rifles (both pre'64 and new controlled round feed models), and prefer them, for hunting purposes. My fiance dosen't have the option of a pre'64 as she is a south paw. My favorite shooters are actually (god forbid) a sako (I must be anti-American ) and a couple of highly modified Rugers (not m-77s).

The Quality of all mass-produced products seems to be dwindling and even among these you get what you pay for.


I always appreciate a good debate among intelligent men.

Later,

Aaron

Made Ray look like a Boob on that one---very well put Aaron!!

BD

Mr. Atkinson has never replied to a post I have made questioning his statements. I wonder why?

To hear him talk, no one else knows anything about rifles.

Aaron , I agree it is some silly to consider a boyott of Winchester for political reasons . It is an American made product produced by American workers.

I have to disagree with a couple of your comments on the Rugers though . I could be wrong , but I believe the Ruger bolt is an investment casting of one piece and that handle is not about to fall off . I believe it is about the only one piece bolt available in a run-of-the-mill priced rifle . I also believe they are designed to be a true controlled round feed , although I don't doubt there are specimens too rough or screwed up to function as intended . I also have had a newer Mark II for several years that I have carried in my trucks and tractors for several years to plink varmints and it is hard to swallow the idea that parts or pins are going to fall out of it . It has seen more abuse and dirt than a normal hunting rifle would after several generations of use . It also feeds perfectly in true controlled-round-feed fashion .

Finally , while I am not anti-M-70 , I like them ; there are numerous reports of feeding problems (and not just with the new generation cartridges) , messed up scope mount holes and even reciever threads cut so crooked , the barrel ends up so far off you can never get the rifle sighted in . They definately have severe quality control problems at times......

[ 03-25-2003, 01:01: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

Aaron, the thread that you were referencting, I am sure, was relative to the he ownership of Winchester. It has been shown that the company is not owned by the French and so boycotting them is not something to even consider. I for one do not care whether you or anyone else thinks that the product is an American symbol if it is owned by the French. It also has nothing to do with whether the product is produced by Americans or produced here. The puurpose of a boycott is to impact the owners financially and for them to bring some pressure to bear on their government. You missed the point of a boycott. Yes it impacts workers who live here. The same applies for a French product that is produced in France and sold here, the sales staff is American and a boycott of those products impacts them. In the case of the French we are not talking about someone who just opposes our stand on the war, but rather a nation who is exerting considerable efforts to have other countries share their view. It has been shown that France is also has contracts with Iraq for weapons of war that will and are being used against our soldiers.

Your argument about boycotting also has nothing to do with the quality of the product either. Tell me something, if Winchester was absolutely the best rifle made anywhere and was made here and owned by businessmen in Iraq, would you buy it or would you boycott it. This is of course an exercise in boycott understanding and has nothing to do with Winchester. If your answer was yes and I expect it would be, then does the recently used argument hold up that you shouldn't boycott a product made in the US and by our citizens? Then step it down just a bit and look at the ownership of that same product being owned by citizens in a country who appears to be not only an ally of Iraq but suppliers of arms.

As an aside, I have not seen Winchester to be as bad as is painted on here and other sites but that is irrelevant.

[ 03-24-2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Customstox ]

As far as boycotts go in general I use manufacturing content as the primary reason.

For instance Winchester M 70 rifles are made in the USA and Winchester reproductions such as the M 52 are made in Japan. I am boycotting jap made guns. I would really like to have a new M 52 Sporting also but I will not due to the japs strong postition on gun control in the USA.

I cannot understand the boycott of Winchester nonsense. Having said that, I SEE NO REASON NOT TO BOYCOTT, German, Chinese, Russian, French, and Canadian products!

Hell, if it were up to me I would pull all US business out of Canada. That would be a hoot. Those self righteous Canucks would starve! Afterall, the USA finances over 90% of the Canadian economy! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Never have cared much for the leftist Canadian ideology.

Sorry guys, but Canada's crap it is a sore spot with me.

Lucs

This is the problem with lumping all Canadians into one group. Last time I looked my MLA was not Liberal, and he was in support of the U.S. military action. This is a man that I helped vote into power. Also, our Premier has sent his support to Washington, along with his disgust with our PM's decisions regarding this matter. This really should be discussed somewhere else. I don't browse the gunsmithing forum on this website to listen to someone badmouth me because of the country I live in. I'm ashamed of the federal government in this country, but if I want to listen to politics, I'll go somewhere else on this site or listen to the news.

Chuck

A few issues here guys,

SD gunslinger, Iwas refering to Winchester when I said I had heard of bolt handles falling off but had not seen them. It is true that Rugers have a 1-piece cast bolt. Rugers are not a controlled round feed, they o have a claw extractor. Many people get this confused. Controlled round feed means the extractor grabs the round before it leaves the mag box and holds it through the cycling of the action until it is ejected. The pins falling out randomly might be a little stretch but rugers of all types are known to be very loose especially with their pins. I am a fan of Ruger (other than the m-77) Just take a 10-22 out of the stock and shake it hard and you will see what I mean.

Chic,

You made my point in your first sentance. I fully undrestand the point of a boycott and the political situation of the french. Those guys flying the b-52 out of englad should kick a few out the back door "by mistake" while flying over as far as I'm concerned. As for the quality of the gun that was brought up in the original boycott post, I thought I would let those uninformed Know that they have far less (10 times at least) breakage than Remington as seen by a real gunsmith in a real shop when used by real people in real crappy conditions. As a fellow stockmaker (you are in a whole other league) I try to live by your little saying, although here in AK most guns become uguly after their first hunt.

500,

I agree with you in principal although it is not really practical for most americans. If I see two products on the shelf and one is American made of course I will go out of the way to purchase it. That being said, most of our mass produced products have ties to one of these idiot countries.

Chuck,

We know there are alot of great Canucks out there. You guys would have a cool country without Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, they make you look bad. I know many canadiens feel the same way about these places that we feel about southern California. I have Boycotted Canadien products in the past, I canceled a fishing and hunting trip the year Ontario banned spring bear hunting. I would have boycotted other products at the time but couldn't find any canadien products that I normally buy, you guys don't make much.

Later guys,
This is kinda fun

Aaron

Aaron

Believe me , I know how controlled round feed is supposed to work . The current Ruger Mark II s are designed to be CRF and my example does function in that fashion . I have to think you are confusing them with the older , pre Mark II Rugers .

Chuck, I apologize to you and your like countrymen. I fully realize that there are many good Canadians. It just seems they are in the minority. This is all I am saying.

Lucs

If I listened to every one who had a good reason to boycott one gun company or another, I would no longer be purchasing any guns. This is the desired effect of the antis. I do not agree with playing into there hands. I will continue to purchase what I like and want.

I can not believe those who sugest that gun owners would better off if Ruger, S&W, Colt, and USRAC closed their doors?

Kristofer

Aaron,
The Safari Model Ruger Mk 11 is a controled feed rifle, and you should be aware of that if you are a warranty center...

And yes,I am a gunsmith,and my custom rifles bring a pretty hefty price. If you are a warranty center for Winchester then why do you deny having a vested interrest..I have no problem with that BTW, but I do have a problem with some of the recent stuff that is coming out of the Win. factory and I will continue to prefer the pre 64 and let others use the new ones. I base this on some of the guns that Brockman, Belk and Talley have had in their shops, and a couple of guns brought to me...

Duckhunter, if I failed to answer a question you had it is because I have not seen the post, but if you will point it out I will certainly oblidge you...I don't duck issues ..

Ray you are correct, the safari models are crf and the others can be modified to be. The fact that we are a waranty center has nothing to do with a preference toward winchester. We are the only warranty center for many companies in alaska including many of winchester's competition. My point was that I have no more vested interest in win. than in rem., ruger, savage, sako, or others.
By the way I get paid by the hour, the same no matter what i'm working on. I'm just saying we see much fewer problems with Win. than with others. I will continue to agree with you about the pre64's, and disagree about ruger. I'd be curious about your oppinions about Rem., and Sako. Have you used the new Sako Safari rifle, I have not.

Good evening all,

Aaron

P.s. Ray I never did get the safari info you said you would send. (honeymoon safari)
Did you not get the e-mail with my address?

Is this a scientific study? How do you know the exact numbers of rifles of each make possessed by your customers? How can you be sure that Remington rifles aren't the most popular rifle and therefore a similar percentage of breakage would then be exaggerated?
Not to discount your observations but I would like to be able to see them in perspective.
Also, please describe the differences between Ruger "pseudo-CRF" and "real" CRF. I always thought the MK II Rugers did indeed carry a Mauser type action.

(i am full of prunes, stewed ones, on this )

jeffe

[ 03-26-2003, 04:18: Message edited by: jeffeosso ]

"The ruger (not safari) is a push feed with a big extractor."

Sorry Jeffe , you are full of prunes on that issue .

Look at the bolt face of a recent Mark II . Except for the location of the ejector slot, it is very close to a 98 mauser.

And I can empty the magazine on my Mark II by stroking the bolt a little over half way. Although , I don't doubt there are a number of them too rough or too out of spec to let the rim properly slip up under the extractor upon feeding ;it is controlled round feed alright .

jeffe, you are wrong about the Ruger Model 77 Mark II. It is most definitely a controlled round feed rifle, both in standard and magnum versions.

That some do not work as CRF is not by design, but by mistake, as they left the factory working improperly, or where screwed around with by someone who didn't know what he was doing.

A properly functioning M77 Mark II works like any other CRF rifle each and every time. I'm saying this from personal experience.

Alright guys, lets clear up this Ruger CRF thing.
Ruger claims that all of their m-77 mkII rifles have a "non-rotating, mauser-type, controlled feed extractor" this is the first time I have actually read what they call it. In most cases they are not a true controlled round feed, even if they say they are supposed to be. They do have large, positive claw extractor. The true test of a CRF is to load a round in the mag., push the bolt halfway forward and pull it back to eject. If this can be accomplished and the round is held until contacting the ejector and is then ejected it is a CRF. In most cases ruger will not do this. It may be a design flaw or it may not have been intended in the first place, I don't know.

J.W.

This is not exactly a scientific study but I have a rather good Idea of the Number of Rems. and Wins. we sell and how many people use of each up here it is rather even. We would have to have 10-20 times more Remingtons than Winchesters to account for the difference in repairs, I'm sure this is not the case. As I said previously Alaskan's beat the heck out of their guns. They are subject to glacial silt, salt air and water, constant rain, below zero temps, seal oil lube, residing in the bottom of boats for months on end, and generall bad treatment because of the shear time we spend with our rifles(9-12 months per year, every time you are outdoors).

I did not see this huge difference (closer to 2-3 to 1 than 10-20 to 1) in malfunction between brands while living in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I contribute this to the fact that most people take much better care of their rifles and use them usually only one or two weeks per year.

Remingtons are very prone to getting crap in the trigger group, ejector hole, extractor ring. You can pack a winchester with dirt and all of these systems will still work. Remingtons also have smaller flimsier parts that break or wear out, extractor, bolt handle, bolt release, safety.
Winchester has a far-superior system in all these case other than the bolt handle. I don't understand why the Rem's bolt handle falls off so much more often, they are both soldered on, but they do.

MOST of these facts are not even disputable although one could try. Winchester did execute these systems a little more cleanly before 1964 but the design is still the same.

Yes, I am a winchester fan and I believe my reasons are valid. As a gunsmith, I value reliability more than pinpoint accuracy. I can make nearly any rifle very accurate but it's tough to build extra reliability into a flawed design.

There is a reason most good proprietary (Dakota 76, Montana 99, David Miller) dangerous game hunting rifles are basically copies of Wins. or Mausers. Actually I believe miller uses winchester-built actions.

Later,

Aaron

By the way Jeremy, that's a great quote.

Look at the bolthead of my Ruger 77 MKII. If this is no CRF, I'm missing a point as it behaves exactly like my K98 :

Thankyou for that picture Andre. I suspect that any MK II that does not work in CRF fashion just needs a good polish job in the right spots , so the rim can properly slip up under extractor when feeding......

Aaron......the only design feature of the Winchester that I am suspicious of as far as mechanical reliability goes is the pivoting ejector .(this would apply to the MK II also) It seems to me there would be potential for moisture or dirt to freeze it in the down posistion and prevent it from kicking out the empties. Ever seen this happen ? How about the quality of material with the extractor ? Some folks claim it is relatively soft on the new M-70 s and if it bends , it stays bent . There are relacement extractors available made of spring steel to correct this ......

[ 03-25-2003, 17:31: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]

As some folks more knowledgable than I will atest, the CRF action is very (maybe even extremely) dependant upon correct grip on the case head, which is developed by the point of contact of the extractor on the case groove and the distance between the claw and the opposing lug on the bolt.

There are many ways to tune a CRF for reliability, but the work is best done once the case is chosen. In our experience, the M70 is more forgiving (thus easier to tune) than the Ruger M77.

An ejector should be hard, Rc 45 at least. This we learned the hard way during development and there are 2500 stainless (304) in the trash bin somewhere. The current hardened 410 stainless pieces are tough little buggers. And the slot is plenty wide (.075 to .080) to keep debris from binding the ejector which is .060 max.

17-4 makes an excellent extractor, providing it's aged correctly, which develops the best trade-off between toughness and hardness. Snapping off the lip of the claw is as bad as it yielding.

Hey guys, I decided to go through the Rugers in the shop today. Of the four guns we had in the racks (we don't sell alot of m-77s) one of them worked as designed. One of the guns that didn't work was a .416 safari! From what I can see the in the little time spent on my lunch break, the case heads are hitting the extractor befor the bolt face. This problem could easily be fixed with a little creative grinding, 5 mins. worth of work. I guess no one has complained a whole lot about this because they really didn't know how they are supposed to work.

As for the Winchester ejectors sticking I have never personally experienced this problem although I have had the bolt release stick, it was on a pre64! The small detent spring and plunger froze in place after a 40 degree rainy morning in the wisconsin deer woods turned into a 10 degree or less snowstorm. After I shot the buck and went to reload the bolt came out in my hand, luckily a second round wasn't needed. I believe the current 70s actually have a better system than the pre64s in this respect. they have a wire coil spring rather than a spring and plunger in a small whole.

I believe it would be possible to freeze the ejecctor in place, but to do this you would really have to drop it in the river on a 10 degree day to do it. The ejector has a pretty heavy spring and is under the bolt, out of the weather.

I have seen quite a few remington ejector stuck in the last year, usually rusted. Many people in alaska, especially in the bush, load their gun in the spring, throw the safety on and don't unload them until they shoot thier moose or caribou in the fall. Remingtons don't like this even if they are stainless.

I have heard that winchester is going to change the current extractor material because it is soft, I have seen one that had a bent extractor in the last year although it didn't effect the function. I'm sure it was bent by a kitchen table gunsmith and he didn't even know anything was wrong with it, it was in the shop for a broken stock. I have also seen bent extractors on mausers of different kinds and pre64's but they seem to be alot harder to bend. Even if made of soft steel any claw extractor is still much more reliable than other styles.

Hey ROD,
We have been using probably 5 winchesters a month for customs. We do alot of lightening so wouldn't want the steel bottom metal, just wondering if you would have a discout if we went without it (assuming we could use our special alluminum metal built for winchesters). We do about equal numbers of magnum (375), standard, and short action guns, do you build all three? From what I have heard you have a waiting list, how long? You have competive prices and I'm getting tired of all the take off barrels, bottom metal, and stocks laying around.
If you don't want to post prices, e-mail me bloomya@hotmail.com.

Later,

Aaron

The same thought comes to mind here that I have had everytime I read a manufacturer's description of their respective action. Shit, if you want a Mauser type action, why not just get a Mauser?

Please Ray, easy on the duck stuff.

Well it's not really a boycott. I just don't buy any of the new Rem/Rug/Win/anythig. I'm not an expert. But even I can see the difference of the Model 12 or 70 winny and anything made recently.

I like old S&W's, Colt's, Winchester's, and Sako's.

Old Ruger blackhawks and #1's!!!!

I'll stay busy looking for and buying and shooting these.

Mike

Jeffe,

I believe that is a M77 Mk1(tang safety) which is with out a doubt a push feed with a funny extractor. In fact the Mk1 bolts look like a left handed mauser bolt in a right handed action, as it has the correct shape, it is just up side down.

The M77 Mk2(3 POS safety) does have the proper shape to be a CRF action. My friends Mk2 varminter does indeed work as a CRF.

Kristofer

Yes do read the pictures in Jeffe's link. Look at the date of the magazine article. 1985 it says. Ruger went CRF in the ealy '90's when they came out with the big action, didn't they? Sean

okay... so i gave up on rugers, except the 416...

jeffe

Aaron B.,
Ruger M77's were pushfeeds with plunger ejectors and tang safeties until about 1991, IIRC.

The initial run of M77 Mark II actions (short through medium-magnum, not the Magnum action of the .375 H&H and .416 Rigby) was a push feed with a three position safety instead of the tang safety, but the plunger ejector of the old M77 was gone, changed to the Mauser like blade, and it was available in stainless and blue.

The bottom portion of the enclosed bolt face on these early Mark II M77's pushfeeds could be milled off to make it CRF. My Alaska gunsmith at the time did this for me, "losing the weak sister" he called this conversion of PF to CRF.

Within two years at most, by '92 or '93, the Mark II M77 was produced as a CRF, and has been ever since.

Of the Ruger and Winchester CRF's: neither one has the "self-locking" extractor of the Mauser M98. CZ does. Thanks to Kurt C (I think), for reminding me of that fact I had plumb forgot.

Jeffe.............the other fellows pretty well covered it .......but when Finn wrote that article he was absolutely correct......the 77 was a push feed ......but the current Mark II is CRF .

On the M-70 and M-77 not having the dovetailed extractor of a 98 Mauser.....I have to wonder if that is such a big deal......the M-70 s have lacked that feature from the beginning , and I have never heard anyone bithching about poor extraction on their pre-64 s..............not having the dovetail does have at least one advantage.......you can shove a round up the pipeand slam the bolt home in a panic situation.....

Sdgunslinger, the dove-tail on a M98 only engages when the bolt is pulled back and the extractor slides ahead slightly within the slot by a sticky cartridge. While chambering a cartridge the dove-tail piece is at the back of the slot, and is free to lift up to ride over the cartridge rim. The angle of slope on the forward face of the extractor has to sometimes be modified for it to lift over the rim of a cartridge that is inserted into the chamber manually.

Hart

Hart.....I see what you mean , and know the 98 extractor can be given a bit of bevel to ease chambering......still I have heard more than one 'smith opine the bevel is not a good idea.....they feel it weakens the claw a bit and it is best to use a 98 loaded from the magazine only.

Still , I have not heard of substantial extractor problems with the 70 or 77 . Even a push feed 77 I have had for over thirty years has never given a problem . The 70 and 77 extractors are still a large substantial part with quite a bit of stength , and if they were ever to give trouble , they are easily replacable in the field . I feel they are good designs , even if they are not 100 % Mauser........

Bill Ruger was extremely smart in the way he designed the M77 MII. If you talk to gunsmiths,that actually have experience(not just blowing smoke up peoples ass on the net) with a wide variety of bolt action rifles. You'll find that without fail,most of the issues with extractor failure that they've seen in M70's,is the result of single or free feeding rounds into the chamber. The M70 is designed to be fed from the magazine,not directly fed by hand.In doing the later,you end up stressing out the extractor,to the point in some cases of failure. Which is why some custom smiths will install spring steel extractors.

Bill Ruger having seen the problems,associated with the M70 designed the MII to feed both from the mag or by hand,directly into the chamber like you can do with push feeds. Like it or not,the MII's are controlled round feed.

I always get a good laugh out of all the supposed problems associated with Remington. There are far more remington M700's floating around then winchesters,especially since you had nearly 30 years when nobody bought winchesters. Of course you're going to have more remingtons in for repairs,there's more remingtons around and there still aren't that many problems with them.

Certain gunsmiths love to pimp out the supposed problems with the remington extractor,because there's a nice profit margin in installing sako extractors.

I've owned and shot over 100 differant M700's,721's and 722's. I've never had an extractor problem or failure of any kind. I routinely fire thousands of rounds out of remington rifles every year,over prairie dog towns. I've seen one extractor problem with a M700 and the rifle belonged to a client of the gunsmith I use. The extractor wasn't the only problem either. Half the bolt faced was blown off,from some asshole using a tablespoon instead of a powder scale to reload. My smith who is a pre 64 junky and yet doesn't recommend buying a current production M70,because of the shear number of problems he see's coming through his shop.This guy has worked as a remington factory smith,claims every case of extractor failure he has seen,has been the case of shooting hot rounds and the extractor wasn't the only thing that got fucked up.

I've also seen one bolt handle come off of a remington and was there when it happened. I was hunting antelope and ran into a guy that had been doing his own reloading. Needless to say,the guy had chambered a live round,that jammed and he couldn't extract the round. The bolt would lift,but he couldn't pull it open. His solution was to put the butt of the rifle on the ground and use the bolt handle as a step. The first time he tried it,the bolt handle held. The second time the bolt handle broke under the 250lbs of wisconsin buttfuck, that was using it as a pogo stick. Yep those remingtons are terrible.

As for the M77 MKII's not being controlled feed, that topic came up here before. I have three, all of them feed just like my FN Mauser actions. They are a .30-06, 7x57, and .416 Rigby. They will feed without closing the bolt handle, right side up, upside down, or sideways. Maybe I just came out lucky. If they push the case ahead of the extractor a bit of work would cure that quickly, I assume. They don't however have a fixed ejector like the Mauser of old Sako. After reading someone's test of African rifles where they said none of 7 Ruger Safari rifles would eject if operated quickly, I tried mine with no attempt to do anything but work the bolt as quickly as possible, worked fine. I'm sure from reading the posts the new Model CRF M70's have some quality control issues, but the vasr majority certainly work fine. I guess my main point is I haven't yet seen a Ruger that is not CRF, and I can't see a better hunting rifle for the $. I haven't tried the CZ550 yet, but have a 9.3x62 en route as we speak. If it works as expected I may have more of those.

Posted by RIP:
"The initial run of M77 Mark II actions (short through medium-magnum, not the Magnum action of the .375 H&H and .416 Rigby) was a push feed with a three position safety instead of the tang safety, but the plunger ejector of the old M77 was gone, changed to the Mauser like blade, and it was available in stainless and blue.
The bottom portion of the enclosed bolt face on these early Mark II M77's pushfeeds could be milled off to make it CRF. My Alaska gunsmith at the time did this for me, "losing the weak sister" he called this conversion of PF to CRF."

This matches my exerience, and answers a question that I have wondered about for a long time. I had to take my son's Mark II .270 to a gunsmith to have the conversion described above. At that time the gunsmith told me that the Ruger Mark II was not a controlled feed action, although I understood that it was. Now I see that my son had an early Mark II, and that was what the 'smith was referring to, while I was thinking about the newer Mark II's.