This is one more inquisitive question from a learning hack. From what I have learned here and in a number of gun journals, controlled round feeding in bolt action rifles is a very important feature. I find it strange, therefore, that the world's armies still use push-feed sniper rifles instead of CRF ones. The US Marines use the Remington 700, the British, Swedes etc use the Accuracy International rifles....

Could any of the experienced members explain why/how this happened? I thought the world's best armies would take specoial pains to give their soldiers the best that they coulod provide them.

Thanks in advance for all replies.

I have no experience in the world of snipers, but I can hazard a guess or two to answer your question.

First of all, the controlled feed was originally designed to stop infantrymen, at times of extreme stress or fear, from working the bolt excessively and causing serious jams with more than one round floating around on top of the magazine.

Similarly, the hunter of dangerous game cannot afford to double stroke the bolt and cause a jam while trying to stop a charging beast.

However, these are not issues of concern for the sniper who will be loathe to fire more than one shot at a time for fear of giving away his position so the danger of double stroking his weapon is not present. It would also be reasonable to state that most snipers are far more highly trained that the average infantryman and so will be far more familiar with their weapons and, again, not likely to make such a fundamental error. In addition, most sniper teams carry assualt weapons, in addition to their sniper weapons, and if they need to engage a target repeatedly then they will probably revert to the assualt weapon.

Finally, I have spent some time working in the weapons procurement area and, from experience, can state that the final choice of weapons is not always the best choice. There are many other considerations which are forced upon the acquisitions staff and which often force them to a final decision which may not be the best solution, and the two most demanding, of these considerations, are the size of the acquisition budget and political interference in the selection process.

[ 01-12-2003, 17:36: Message edited by: BwanaBob ]

My guess would be less exposed moving parts. Also I've been told the push feed bolt is a "stronger" design (could just be a matter of opinion though) As far as actual experince, I like CRF, it gives the rifle a classic look but in all my years of hunting with push feed rifles, I've never had a round jam or short stroke.

Mehul K,

BawanaBob is correct. In combat time is critical, you may need to feed loose rounds, therefore you would need a weapon that would allow you to pick up a round, throw it in and slam the bolt closed.

Regards,

Malm

CRF was designed in a time of trench warfare and close combat. Snipers of the day used accurized versions of standard rifles.
Today's logistical capabilities have changed warfare considirably. As CRF has not been a necessity since the advent of the automatic rifle, it isn't a requirement in today's snipers rifles. Accuracy, speed and simplicity are the most important factors.
Modern interdiction tactics do not usually employ a sniper in a situation where he would have to rely on his rifle as a close combat weapon. Those units that do will issue a more suitable rifle. In the Rangers our snipers carried accurized m14's with Leatherwood scopes.

[ 01-12-2003, 22:21: Message edited by: KurtC ]

American Rifleman had an article some time back about the new marine sniper rifle. It is a Remington 700 action and barrel (I think). Probably special order. Seems like the stock is special also. The bottem metal is replaced with all steel. You can probably order the some thing from Brownells. I don't remember the scope mount brand or type, but the 6x42 mount screws are replaced by 8x40 screws. It has a bipod with the equipment. I think it is permanently installed. It is equiped with a special steel tube Unertl scope. You can buy the same one for $2500. I can't remember the reticle, but I think it is some kind of reticle with range marks. Don't remember the power. The marine armorers do a lot of work on the rifles before they go to the field. Probably replace the recoil lug with one that is truly parallel on both sides. I think the whole package weighs 17 pounds. They use special Lake City ammo. 168 grain bullet at 2600fps. Will not testify in court on this, as it is based on my aging memory.

The U.S. Marine Corps has been using the Remington M700 since Vietnam. The Marine Corps armorers who work on the M40-M40A3 rifles are specially trained to build the weapon from the action up. They do their own barreling, bedding, tuning of the action and trigger modifications. While the weapon has undergone some changes since it's conception in the 1960's, the heart of the system remains still the venerable Remington 700 action.

Having been a Marine Corps armorer and having handled the early weapons of 1969 vintage and having built some recent A3 models, I would have to say that the continued existence of these weapons are a testament to their design.

KurtC, there have been recorded instances where scout sniper teams have had to flee for their lives and in doing so have had to use their snipers rifle as a defensive weapon, and because the possibility of this has always existed, then by design, the weapon must be able to randomly feed ammo without failure. The simplicity and ruggedness of the Remington 700 action gives them this ability.

Malm

A sniper's rifle is a standoff weapon. They carry pistols for close combat and if employed as a sniper/spotter team the spotter carries an M16. However, the sniper's first line of defense is cover and concealment.

Comparing a sniper rifle to a DGR rifle is like comparing a varmint rifle to a lever action carbine. Stopping a charging elephant or buffalo at 10 yards or closer bears no similarity to military sniping in terms of proximity or exposure.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I always learn so much when I post here!

Good shooting!

Just learned that Norway and Finland use CRF sniper rifles, Norway a Kongsberg design on the Mauser action and Finland the Dakota Longbow model in 338 lapua. Not that this alters anything that the experts have said so far - just thought I'd post this.

Thanks, everyone who replied, once again.

I served as an Army Light Infantry Scout Platoon Leader for a few years. I was lucky enough to graduate from Scout/Sniper school and then train and deploy Scout/Snipers. We used the M24 SWS, which is a long action 700 with blackend ss barrel with a HS precision stock with adjustable butt plate, and m3 fixed 10x luepold with mil-dot retical. The barrel has dove tails for installing fixed sights which are kept in the rifle case. Action screws are hex nuts and you pack around a torch wrench at 10 pounds for breaking down for cleaning and reinstalling. I could take down the rifle including the scope left in the rings but off the barrel and reinstall without having to adjust zero. Not all the rifles could do it. The Army had a contract for all maintaince with Remington. We kept our log book and sent the rifle in for rebarrelling I think every 5000 rounds. In my sniper class we had two (non Army) snipers with their own rifles. One was a custom job built on a winchester CRF. That man probibly would have graduated #1 in the class if his rifle was not constantly giving him problems (mostly with his custom trigger which was not winchester). The M24's where alway being used by different sniper student, and really quite abused. But the remingtons kept working. After that course I bought my first mdl 700.
When your laying in the prone after your shot and you crack the action open, then place your index finger on the locking lug and pull the bolt back by the locking lug. The spent match case flips up and rest like a cigarette between the index finger and the middle finger. Then you slowly drop it down your tucked in shirt, then slowly close the bolt on another round. That's "sniper send it."
Often in battles the snipers will end up in over watch much like a police sharp shooter. Their are case where the scout/sniper has killed a half dozon machine gunners in a row that kept jumping behind the gun when their comrades fall. The sniper saved the battle. One of my instructors told me he fired a couple hundered rounds in a day while in battle in Vietnam. Not exactly one shot one kill, but still very effective.

While we are at it that is bashing Winchester and Mauser actioned rifles and extoling the virtues of the 700 remwhatever, where are the 45-70 lever action boys and their version of the ultimate sniper rifle?
lb404

You know I had almost talked myself into a new mdl70 featherwieght in 270 win. The Army and Jirens don't have the little lock crap on their bolt shrouds.

Do the French still have the Musketteers? They would have some experience. At running.

I've owned and shot a lot of rounds thru both CRF and push feed rifles and never had any problems with either. Either make can and will jam one way or the other now and again.

To me, any advantage of a CRF rifle for the average soldier might be a matter of experience. Under certain conditions, you can get in a hell of a mess with a push feed rifle IF you aren't experienced and familiar enough with this action that working it is second nature to you.

My point is given a shooter WITH this level of familiarity on push feed rifles, it doesn't make a flip which type of action the shooter has.

Now take my opinion and a $1.50 and you can get yourself a cup of coffee in most restaurants.

Ksduckhunter,

The Soviets use a semi-automatic rifle, the Dragunov, and this has been very popular even with insurgents fighting my country's army in Kashmir. I saw a 9mm hunting version of that rifle in Russia long ago - the Medved - but didn't get to shoot it. I hgear that has been discontinued because of slow civilian sales, but the Dragunov still sells well to other countries.

Pecos,

Thanks for the opinion and if it's a cup of coffee or a drink, you're most welcome. The only bad thing is that you would have to travell to India to join me for it!

45-70 lever action sniper rifles my ass,everyone knows it`s ONE shot One kill,not a tube full,I think you meant to say 45-70 single shot shooters!!!the way the big cast bullets penetrate you could change to "one shot 3 or 4 (in line)kills.see ya.jmho

I must say, that in 10 years experience as a combat arms officer -Cavalry-(1983-1993), I have never heard of the term Scout/Sniper in any context in the Army. (Marines, yes) And I've never heard of an officer attending the sniper school...(he said he was a platoon leader).
The Scout Platoon, as its found in a Light Infantry Battalion, has two primary tactical missions. Sniping isn't one of them. Typically, snipers are found at the Infantry Company level. And when a lieutenant starts shooting sniper rifles I guarantee he isn't leading his Scout Platoon...which is what he's paid to do. Which is also why they don't send officers to sniper school.
Now its been a while since I've seen a Light Infantry Battalion TOE. But when I worked with the 101st Airborne and 18th Abn Corps in Desert Storm that's the way things were organized.
Like I said earlier, a sniper who has to rely on his weapon to defend himself at close range is a sniper who has done a VERY bad job. Who cares if they have CRF or don't? What in the world does that have to do with a DGR rifle?

To ksduckhunter the Brits and Israeli's have more combat experience.
Mark

What does CRF vs. push feed have to do with "amphibious assault, jungle warfare, and large scale naval operations"?

Seems to me that more and more of these posts degenerate into rantings from want-to-be cowboys/soldiers. This forum used to be for shooting topics; not paramilitary crap.

Hey Cav Nimrod,
Your right officers do not act as snipers. There was on other Lt and a Cpt at my course. Officers train and deploy. Ever hear of a LIGHT Infantry Scout Platoon. Probably not because cav is "death before dismount". In a Light Scout Platoon of 18 their are only 3 sniper slots at E5 level. Who the hell trains them up before their courses, who deployes them after they return. The Jirens don't even have a scout platoon leader, the S2 does the deploying.
"DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT" Don't try to call BS on me unless you have a clue first.

I'm sorry about the last post. I got to thinking about it and I should have gone about it much differently. I had a E6 that worked for me that came from the Cav, including 4 years at NTC as opfor. Their use of snipers is much different. I'm sorry. There was a push at the start of Bosnia to train the officers that where in charge of the Scout Platoons. The Scouts (including their 3 sniper teams had been greatly misapplied in Desert Storm. Remember the Cav Scouts in Bradleys firing up the T72's. Anyhow there was even a special course for the S2's on how to use their scout/snipers. And being an officer at my course we really got the heads up on proper deploying and sustained training. I've been out a while but the FM is 7-92.

The "puch feed" is stronger, more inherintly accurate and a "CRF" has no feeding adavantage over it.

Guys, listen up to Rouge 6, from what he has posted, I will bet money he is the real deal!
I deal with and talk to LE and military snipers almost every day and very, very few wish for a "CRF" action. There is just no need for it in that aplication.

Officers can and do take the Benning sniper school. As was explained, officers sometimes do need to be trained as such for further training and deployment of the troops.

Finnland BTW uses the Sako TRG 42 chambered in .338 Lapua magnum, not the Dakota Longbow.

FWIW
Celt

By the way, in regards to an early post. The new Marine M40A3 rifles use a Schneider barrel, not a Remington. Gary Schneider makes extremely good barrels and just wanted to give credit where credit is do. I do think that the use of Remington actions by so many snipers somewhat puts to bed the theories about the supposed unreliabilties of Remington extractors.

The Marine M40 and Army M24 only share the same action. Stock, scope, barrel, fixed sights are all different. I know that Remington had the contract to replace the Army barrels, they could be any make I don't know. I know that Douglas Barrels where really popular. Any Marine sct/snp I've worked with or talked to was very quick to mention they are different guns. I believe the Marine's used winchester actions in the 70's, which where push feeds. I remember a trainer (not a buyer) tell me the Army went with the Rem because so many target shooter built guns on them and the percieved accuracy.
Although they are nice guns and they shoot, alot of you already have nicer target/varmint rifles. Its really about fieldcraft. American sct/snp love the fact that east blocks use the Dragunov because a nice shinny spent case goes flying after each shot, or at least bumps the shooters vail.

Celt wrote:

quote:

---

The "puch feed" is stronger, more inherintly accurate

---

Am I missing somthing here. What exactly makes a push feed more INHERINTLY accurate?
I am asking as I have never heard this, and it doenst make any sense to me.

If you take two rifles exactly the same, except one is CF and the other is PF (I know, I know, lots of other differences will be there..just run with me for a sec), and shoot them EXACLTY the same way, EVERYTHING THE SAME! ( I think you all get it), What would make, a Push Feed more accurate...? Or would it be?

Thanks,
JAG

Am I missing somthing here. What exactly makes a push feed more INHERINTLY accurate?

Jag,

It isn't, period... Common conception is all it is based on who used them and that's it. People like to follow a leader. There's less of them than followers by far too.

I like Remingtons too but anything a 700 will do a 70 will easily do better, including "push" ammo, both can use more work from the begining though.

Celt,

I have a press pack from Dakota which they sent me some years ago when I was working on an article and one thing that was very clear was that they were supplying the Longbow to the Finnish army in 338 Lapua. I still have the pack and can scan and send you a copy of the relevant section if you like. Perhaps the Finns use the TRG 41 since it is made in their own country as well, but if I remember right, I had read articles in SOF and some other magazine which spoke of the removable magazine falling out after some use. Of course this was not a problem that could not be corrected, but at that time I was wondering why the Finns bought an American sniper rifle and this seemed as valid a reason to me as any. Just my 2c - I am not an expert in any way and what information I have on this is still with me in the press pack in my archives.

[/qb][/QUOTE]The British can't hold a candle to the US in accumulated combat experience in the 20th and 21st centuries, particularly after 1945.
.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Ksduckhunter, you may find this link enlightening.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/

Regards

Deerdogs beat me to it

From memory:-

Korea
Suez
Malaya
Borneo
Mau Mau
Aden
Northern Ireland (ongoing)
Falklands
Gulf
Bosnia

More wars, more troops (with the exception of Vietnam) Don't worry your turn will come when your Empire dissolves as all Empires inevitably do

There is only one bolt action rifle that was able to emulate automatic fire to the extent that the attacking troops thought they were attacking machine guns - that was the SMLE 303 in August/Sept 1914. In actual fact the Battalion allocation of machine guns was one.

The Enfield is not CRF! Trained rate of fire is 20rounds per minute, try doing that with a Mauser!

1894 you forgot Palestine, Liberia and the SAS in Oman
Mark

the reason why the "push" feed is generally, or technically capable of a higher degree of accuracy is that they are stiffer due less of a cut out to accomodate the big extractor.
They also handle gasses better and support more of the case.

This is an age old argument stirred up by gun writers and is really sensless to go on about, as everyone has thier own opinion, educated and uneducated.

I personally wont even argue about it anymore. It is not woth the time and bandwidth.

The Finns may have tried out the LongBow at one time, but at current, from a reliable source it is my understanding that they are using the TRG-42.

If interested, I will look into it and find out more info on it.

Celt

Hey Celt, wasnt arguing, just asking. So dont get hostile.
I had never heard anyone make that claim outloud and never heard the reasons behind it. I guess a new thread is in order.. This one is getting off track I think.

JAG

Jag,
Didnt mean to sound hostile. That is the trouble with typing on the computer. Tone of voice cannot be heard.

If we are talking about accuracy and groups that may be smaller by 10ths of inches, I believe the stiffer action will be more accurate. I feel that is why the BR guys use as stiff an action as they can get. Outside of the custom BR actions, the 700 action is used most often.

I am in no way saying that a M-70 cannot be an accurate rifle, because I have built rifles on M-70 actions that shot very good.

Anyways, No offense meant

Celt