I have recently acquired a newer gently used MKII Ruger with the three position safety and the "CRF" action

I have found something interesting. It might be CRF on the surface, but is it really CRF in function? Since I have seen this "situation" with mine I decided to look at a few more(at the local Gun Shop) to see if they infact work the same or is there something wrong with mine? Maybe some tweaking or adjustment was needed?

Every single one I looked at worked the same, which now leads me to believe that they are some kind of hybrid PF-CRF action. Here is the reason, which you should check and verify with your Ruger MKII's. With a full magazine and the bolt closed. Open the bolt and slide it back. A shell pops up with the top of the case rim against the very bottom edge of the bolt face. From here about 50% of the forward movement is 100% push feed. The bolt face has no connection to the rim. Only about the last 1/2"-3/4" before the shell is completely in the chamber does the rim slide up enough to go under the claw.

If you were to close the bolt 1/2 way and then re-open it, the shell lays there just exactly as any push feed will. When you cycle the action with the muzzle down, the shell being fed drops straight into the chamber every time. This was on every one I looked at too, not just a fluke condition that mine has.

So I tried 5 Model 70 Winchesters and 4 worked flawlessly everytime. They held the shell 100% from the instant of departure from the magazine to the bolt face. One a Pre64 .270 would sometimes drop a shell into the chamber like the Ruger did. Another Mauser action was also flawless and a friend did this with a CZ who had the shells fall into the chamber only once or twice, in 25 cycles of five shells, and then only with very slow deliberate cycles.

I think those that have this happen at random are correctable adjustments. However I'm not at all convinced that the Ruger can actually be called a CRF rifle from what I have now seen. It's a great hell for stout design that chould be a CRF. It's got all the parts and the right idea. However there is just something missing where a true CRF rifle is concerned.

If you have not noticed this then give it a try. If you have noticed this and figured out how to fix it please share the info. With Winchester gone for now........how long? The Ruger seemed like a good foundation to build on, now I'm not so sure.

I noticed it too.

Thanks for the info! I had never ever noticed that before with my .458 Lott. Good knowledge to have especially in regards to any potential feeding and safety issues with the big bores in relation to use with dangerous game. I too, would be interested in any more information on it. Maybe we could get someone from Ruger to explain it here on AR. Anyone out there?

I have some of these, some especially my 7x57 work the way you describe. My .416 works in a perfect CRF fashion, as do my FN's. My CZ if worked very slowly does exactly what you describe as well, but only from the left side of the magazine, the right side CRF's 100 %. Given a choice, I'd worry more about the Rigby not CRF than the 7x57 of course. Probably there is a bit more care taken in the RSM's since they cost 2-3 times as much. It CRF perfectly and positively at any speed cycled, even very slow.

JJ,

I grabbed a RSM 375, a mkII 338, a CZ550 375 and a M70 416. All feed and function flawlessly. I drew the bolts fully back to the stops and measured that distance. I then slowly fed from the magazine w/ the muzzles pointed straight down. All above rifles fully grabbed (the rounds snapped up into the bolt face under the claw extractors) and controlled the cartridge heads when the rounds cleared the magazine/feed rails. I measured this distance. All fully controlled the cartridge the remainder of bolt travel until the bolt was closed.

Here it goes:

RSM 375 - has approximately 5 inches of bolt travel. Cartridge clears feed rail/follower lip after approx 2.5" of travel and is fully controlled the remainder of approx 2.5" tavel.

mkII 338 - has approx 4.5" of bolt travel. Cartridge clears after approx 2" travel and is fully controlled the remainder of approx 2.5" travel.

CZ550 375 - has approx approx 5" bolt travel and feeds near identical to the RSM.

M70 416 - has approx 4.75" bolt travel. Cartridge clears after approx 1.5" to 1.75" (depending on side of mag box) and is fully controlled the last 3" to 3.25" of travel.

I have a few additional Rugers, Winchesters and a near perfect JP Sauer Mauser I'll check later for comparison.

There must be some amount of cartridge travel before the bolt/claw can grab hold as this is the only way to hold the rounds in the mag box.
It is my opinion that if the cartridge head doesn't fully snap up into the bolt face under the extractor claw when the cartridge clears the follower lip/feed rail, then something is amiss. It could be something as simple as a burr or the extractor being adjusted w/ too much tension.

Gary

On my Ruger 7x57, I believe the magazine box is the problem. The top of the box is probably 1/4 inch below the rails, on the .416 it is right against them. The cartridge doesn't come up under the extractor, just pushes ahead until it's less than an inch from closing the bolt. If I tilt the muzzle down on it and work the bolt slow, the cartridge will fall into the chamber on its own.

After a quick review of the Ruger literature, I don't find any claims by Ruger that their guns are "CRF". They look like they should be but unless Ruger makes that specific claim it's hard to fault them.

Gary, I'm glad to hear your Ruger is feeding as a true CRF. I know Ruger has all the parts are there to do this properly. You're the very first person to have a Ruger that will keep full control that I have spoken to. Since this came to light for me I have looked over about a dozen now, none have the case slide up under the claw well in advance of the chamber. It's my opinion, I'm not a gunsmith mind you! That the spring, or the feed plate do not drive the rear end of the shell under the claw deliberately. Rather the shell just slides up in front of the bolt face. Being pushed nearly the entire way to the chamber, until the rear of the shell is ramped up by the chamber at which point the shell and the bolt get connected.

Maybe with a longer COAL the rear gets ramped up sooner with the greater length? It would be interesting now to see if cases like 30/06, 270, don't work properly but cases like 300HH or 375HH will? Maybe it's all about the length of the shell and how the angles force the rear of the case up under the claw?

JJ,

I cannot say for sure what any of the rifles I listed did when they came out of the box new as I don't recall. All of mine were deburred/polished and the claw extractors were tuned for proper tension. Only the CZ had the follower modified to any major extent. I see no difference between my Winchesters and Rugers other than my Winchesters appear to drive the cartridge up faster at a greater angle than the Rugers that drive them up as far but at a slower angle.

I see nothing but the angles of the follower, follower lip, rails and feed ramp that drives the cartridge up out of the mag box. As long as there are no burrs, rough spots and or too much tension on the claw extractor; I see no reason why the case head should not snap (on all of mine they SNAP in place like a magnet) no different then any other CRF action when the cartridge clears.

quote:

Originally posted by DC300:
After a quick review of the Ruger literature, I don't find any claims by Ruger that their guns are "CRF". They look like they should be but unless Ruger makes that specific claim it's hard to fault them.

From Ruger's site:

** One-piece bolt that has proven to be one of the strongest on the market, standing up over the years to such magnum cartridges as the 375 H&H, 416 Rigby, and 458 Lott.

** Non-rotating, Mauser-type controlled-feed extractor, the most positive case extraction system ever invented, and a fixed blade-type ejector that positively ejects the empty cases as the bolt is moved fully rearward

JJ,

Pull the bolt on your offending Ruger and test to see how smoothly a new cartridge case head slips in place under the extractor by hand. If it is too tight and hard to push in place, you may have found your culprit. Factory tolerances and non-polished surfaces due to production line assembly may make it hit or miss for one to be spot-on out of the box. If you do not know how, I'm sure you can find directions over the net on how to remove/replace and flex the extractor to adjust for proper tension. Polishing any rough surfaces should be easy.

I totally agree. Ruger is a counterfit CRF rifle. A poor example of Mauser theory.

I have a RSM in 416 Rigby and it feeds flawlessly, case head snaps into the claw feeding from either side of the magazine, feeding fast or slow doesn't make any difference.

After a 'tune-up' by a competent smith including feed ramp polishing and chamber mouth chamfering my 416 Rigby RSM MK2 is the most bullet proof rifle I have and controls the cartridge as soon as it 'pops up'. I am fond of my Winchester and my CZ but the Ruger takes it for smoothness and 'torture-tested' reliability.The Ruger went to Zim for ele last year.

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:

quote:

Originally posted by DC300:
After a quick review of the Ruger literature, I don't find any claims by Ruger that their guns are "CRF". They look like they should be but unless Ruger makes that specific claim it's hard to fault them.

From Ruger's site:

** One-piece bolt that has proven to be one of the strongest on the market, standing up over the years to such magnum cartridges as the 375 H&H, 416 Rigby, and 458 Lott.

** Non-rotating, Mauser-type controlled-feed extractor, the most positive case extraction system ever invented, and a fixed blade-type ejector that positively ejects the empty cases as the bolt is moved fully rearward

Notice it is worded so that the emphasis is on extraction, not feeding.

I posted something about this in the gunsmith forum (I think) for general information. I have 4 model 70's and one Ruger markII. The ruger doesn't feed CRF at all, but does give very positive extraction.

Three of the model 70's function as well as my FN mauser. However my 308 compact classic will CRF from the right side of the magazine but not the left. My compact 7mm-08 works flawlessly.

This puzzled me for a long time, but really didn
make me much difference because the hogs shot with it didn't seem to mind.

The 308 is a lot newer than the 7mm-08 by serial number. I bought the 7mm-08 new maybe 10 years ago, and I bought the 308 last year in a pawn shop. Anyway I got to trying figure out what was going on with the 308. I noticed a cutout at the top of the magazine box on the 308
and on the left side. This causes the round to jump out of the magazine too early on the left side. I am wondering if they just put a 300 WSM short action on the 308 or they are just using a universal short action.

Frankly, I like the mark II. If one modifies a mauser to allow slip over, one frequently finds the same issue..

now, here's why you like your ruger 77 mkII...

fill you mag all the way

slide the bolt 1/3 the way forward

drop another round in

cycle the bolt (it might require a BUMP to slip over) and wow, you have a very easy top loader.

of course the CRF, dual square bridges, easy feeding, and onepiece bolt aren't bad either

sure, it's not a model 70... nor the cost of one

jeffe

Does it really matter if part of the bolt stroke occurs before the extractor grabs the rim ? The Rugers I am familiar with have a narrowed portion of the feed rails towards the back of about 1/3 to half of the magazine length . This makes it impossible for the cartridge rim to jump up into the extractor immediately , but it also makes it highly unlikely you will get cartridges popping up out of the magazine and flopping around loose like alot of mis-tuned bolt guns do .

Seems to me the purpose of CRF is to prevent double loading ,and to prevent cartridges from falling out of the loading port if you are working the action at an odd posistion , and as long as the base of the cartridge has not cleared the magazine before it snaps into the extractor , double loading is not going to happen and the action is doing it's job . The cartridge is still under "control" every step of the way........

I would only be concerned if it feeds well. How it does it is immaterial to me. About a year ago I read an article online about a group of PH's who were doing some type of shooting contest over in Africa. The results of the contest are a little fuzzy in my mind but the end result was the Ruger 77 was the top action pick as far as function and feeding was concerned.

heh, ya'll keep talkign ruger mkII 's down... keep the rpice down for us making em!!
jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Does it really matter if part of the bolt stroke occurs before the extractor grabs the rim ? The Rugers I am familiar with have a narrowed portion of the feed rails towards the back of about 1/3 to half of the magazine length . This makes it impossible for the cartridge rim to jump up into the extractor immediately , but it also makes it highly unlikely you will get cartridges popping up out of the magazine and flopping around loose like alot of mis-tuned bolt guns do .

Seems to me the purpose of CRF is to prevent double loading ,and to prevent cartridges from falling out of the loading port if you are working the action at an odd posistion , and as long as the base of the cartridge has not cleared the magazine before it snaps into the extractor , double loading is not going to happen and the action is doing it's job . The cartridge is still under "control" every step of the way........

Not trying to start a big CRF vs PF thing here...but on the topic of working the action in odd positions, I can cycle any of my PF 700’s in any position, and at any speed, and have never once been able to get a round to fall out of the receiver or fail to chamber. I’ve even tried shaking and bouncing the rifle around while doing it and still can’t get a round to fall out.

I guess a guy could do it if he started the bolt forward and then pulled it back right after the round cleared the rails...and turned the rifle sideways and shook it real hard...but what shooting situation would put you in a position where you would do that accidentally?

One of the benefits of the PF's and those CRF's which are modified, is the ability to fumble a round into the chamber and close the bolt. This would come in handy if something were charging you and all your ammo were at your feet. Of course it wouldn't hurt to learn how to swing a rifle either.

Rick

For a guy not trying to start anything , you might well succeed here(grin)

Really , I don't think there is a hell of alot to it myself , but reliable cycling of the action upside down , sideways , and so forth is often put forward as a major advantage of CRF by it's die hard advocates.

What I like about many CRF actions is the large , stoutly made parts , like the extractor. Seems to me worrying about the instant the bolt picks up the rim is alot of nitpickin' for little gain......

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
Rick

For a guy not trying to start anything , you might well succeed here(grin)

Really , I don't think there is a hell of alot to it myself , but reliable cycling of the action upside down , sideways , and so forth is often put forward as a major advantage of CRF by it's die hard advocates.

What I like about many CRF actions is the large , stoutly made parts , like the extractor. Seems to me worrying about the instant the bolt picks up the rim is alot of nitpickin' for little gain......

There are legitimate reasons for preferring the Mauser style feeding/extraction system but I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that one of those reasons is to keep rounds from falling out of the receiver due to the position the rifle is in when you work the bolt. Utterly ridiculous!

here's at least one advantage to fully support the case head.....something not done by "so called" CRF bolts...

here's the PF bolt.....


and here's a CRF bolt.....



this after firing a .308 in a .25-06 chamber....or so it says.

Vapo, vapo, vapo... The bottom picture is a Savage 116 in .375 Ultra. It IS a PF action.

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
Vapo, vapo, vapo... The bottom picture is a Savage 116 in .375 Ultra. It IS a PF action.

Too funny! Vapo posted something similar the other day about how the CRF would disassmeble itself and a PF would not. And what's this about a fully supported casehead? It is not something that only PF's have. In fact, the Rem 700 supports less of the casehead than a Mauser does. The so called "safety breech" Mausers actually support more of the casehead than any other action I am familiar with. Not that I know them all by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
Vapo, vapo, vapo... The bottom picture is a Savage 116 in .375 Ultra. It IS a PF action.

Too funny! Vapo posted something similar the other day about how the CRF would disassmeble itself and a PF would not. And what's this about a fully supported casehead? It is not something that only PF's have. In fact, the Rem 700 supports less of the casehead than a Mauser does. The so called "safety breech" Mausers actually support more of the casehead than any other action I am familiar with. Not that I know them all by any stretch of the imagination.

The Remington’s are designed to try to contain the pressure inside the infamous 3 Rings of Steel and the Mauser types are designed to try to evacuate the gas and re direct it away from the shooters face. In either case there is no guarantee that something isn’t gonna give way during those few milliseconds before the pressure drops to safe levels.

IMO, the biggest risks are with those actions that are hybrids of the Remington’s and the Mausers...normally advertised as being the “best of both typesâ€... because they aren’t really capable of the Remington’s containment because of the cut outs for extractors and/or ejectors, and very few of them are designed as well as a Mauser for evacuation and re direction of the gas.

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
Vapo, vapo, vapo... The bottom picture is a Savage 116 in .375 Ultra. It IS a PF action.

that's true,.....but the case head is unsupported just the same as a CRF.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
Vapo, vapo, vapo... The bottom picture is a Savage 116 in .375 Ultra. It IS a PF action.

that's true,.....but the case head is unsupported just the same as a CRF.

It would have been if it weren't blown to pieces. It is the same style bolt head as in the top picture. Only difference is that the bottom picture is missing some pieces.

quote:

Only difference is that the bottom picture is missing some pieces.

not so...the bolt is clearly machined as it shows and is almost undisturbed....that's the way it's made. I darn poor design by savage IMO.

The sections outlined in red and blue are machined into the bolt face and leave huge gaps in the support of the cartridge head where brass can easily flow when seriously high pressures are encountered. The resultant gas then breaks out into the receiver ring and works on greatly increased number of square inches and blows the receiver ring to pieces. This is the biggest problem with CRF actions.....and this one too even though it's not crf as stated.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Only difference is that the bottom picture is missing some pieces.

not so...the bolt is clearly machined as it shows and is almost undisturbed....that's the way it's made. I darn poor design by savage IMO.

You are right! Sorry...

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:

In fact, the Rem 700 supports less of the casehead than a Mauser does. The so called "safety breech" Mausers actually support more of the casehead than any other action I am familiar with.

this is pure
it's so wrong it's absolutely laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by JJHACK:
I have found something interesting. It might be CRF on the surface, but is it really CRF in function? Since I have seen this "situation" with mine I decided to look at a few more(at the local Gun Shop) to see if they infact work the same or is there something wrong with mine? Maybe some tweaking or adjustment was needed?

I have been saying this for years now. What's worse is that Ruger "Service" does not seem to know how to make it function like a proper control feed, despite sending rifles back to them (more than once in some instances).

Perhaps the RSMs are held to a different feeding standard - I hope they are given their intended application. But the standard MK-II is a poor excuse for a CRF. If a CRF is working properly, you should be able to reverse the bolt (with round in tow for ejection) the instant that the round exits the mag. The Rugers have this intermediate part of their "CRF" stroke where the round is neither in the control of the mag nor in control of the extractor. Often times full extractor control doesn't occur until the casehead has nearly reached (or passed) the forward lip of the feed ramp. This "slop" opens the door to short stroking and hence double feeding of the rifle. The ability of a properly functioning CRF to prevent short stroke double feeds is one of the main (if not the main) advantage of a CRF...

I'm sure Ruger doesn't care about this shortcoming, and I'm sure they know that 99.9% of the people that buy and use their rifles will NEVER notice this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
You are right! Sorry...

Thank you.

Here's a typical CRF boltface...this is an M-70 but the '98 Mausers are extremely similar.

The blue arrows point to the large unsupported areas of the cartridge head where the brass case will flow and create massive breaches (ruptures) in the case under serious over pressure areas.....such as the use of a .308 case in a .25-06 chamber.

This massive rupture in the case head releases gas into the foreward receiver ring so fast it cannot get away and the large number of square inches therein cause the receiver ring to come apart.

The Remington 700 has no such areas of unsupported case head.

Further it would seem that the PF M-70 and others have an extractor that fails to support the case head.....and it's true.....but the brass will flow into the extractor cut and stop as there's limiter room for the case to rupture....in effect checking the flow of brass.

Vapodog i think you should rethink your conclution about what split the reciecer.
After several deliberat blowup tests i ame 99% sure that the reason for the split reciever is High preasure making the chamberend of the barrel expand, and therby splitting the reciever. Basicaly because the casediameter is pretty large compared to wallthiknes in the chamber.
If the casehead has punctured earlier it would prevent the preasure to rise further, and imediatly after caserupture the preasure would drop dramaticaly, because the accesable volume is more than dubbeled. With the untightnes about lugs in raceways and the gasescapeholes in reciever it is not possible to split reciever because of gass efecting on reciever surfaces.

quote:

the reason for the split reciever is High preasure making the chamberend of the barrel expand, and therby splitting the reciever.

If that was true then explain why this bolt face was removed from an undamaged receiver.....as Fjold stated on another thread. It had a .308 round detonated in a 25-06 chamber.....The pressure had to be astronomical yet since there was no pressure released to the innerring (there was no place for the brass case to rupture to release gas) there was no damage to the receiver.

FWIW absolutely every blown-up action I've ever seen was of the CRF design.