Rem 700
Sako-style
W-70

Pros/Cons? What's your preference and why?

[ 04-04-2003, 08:33: Message edited by: Nebraska ]

The Remington is a toe-nail clipping, not a plunger.

The M-98 is the best of all time. It has more surface area AND the best connection to the bolt, AND the bolt has the best attachment to the bolt handle.

Follow the force flow from your hand to the rim of the case. The best, next best, and so on is easy to see.

This is a case of "no opinion needed--it's a fact."

I think Nebraska is asking about Ejectors . In which case a fixed one is best.

KurtC---

You may be right. I took the M-70 "fixed" reference to mean non-rotating...

Hey Nebraska. What are you talking about? Either way you have the right answers, but curious minds want to know what you meant to ask.

I think "ejector" is probably the term I was looking for but input on the extractor and ejector would be very helpful. I am interested in what actions have the best feeding and extracting capabilities under "field" conditions.

I've owned numerous Model 700s and I haven't had a problem with the plunger but it certainly seems to get a bad wrap. I was curious as to whether this was substantiated or not.

I have no idea what the sako-style looks like or how it works.

M-70s seem to get a lot of good feedback on their fixed ejector(wrong term?) but I've heard from some that this gets deformed easily and can fail just as easily as the plunger types.

Any fixed ejector is best. I believe the Sako, CZ and M70 are in that category. The M98 is still tops. Critics say that splitting the lug weakens it, but Paul Mauser designed it so that the lug is actually supporting the ejector at the moment of impact.

Nebraska--

The most dependable by far is the Mauser system, which is what the CFR M-70 is a copy of.

With the plunger ejector (you can try this with an empty case) the case will be thrown clear of the rifle BEFORE the bolt is far enough to the rear to pick up the next cartridge. It's called "short stroking" or "short cycling".

With a CRF the ejector works when the bolt is in the right position to pick up the next round.

There's several other technical reasons for one or the other, but that's the one that makes the most difference

Nebraska

To complete the picture you should have added Weatherby Mark V as it has a Sako style extractor but plunger ejector as opposed to the blade ejector on the Sakos.

I dislike the Rem 700 extractor for a couple of reasons. Firstly the design means that cartridge head has to poke further out of the chamber than other designs. The execution of Remington's desigh is often poorly carried out and the extractor hangs a bit low and it tears into the case rim when you close the bolt. The rivoted in extractor on the magnums makes my skin crawl.

For being just generally nice to use I like the CRF system as in the Model 70. For example, it is easy to run cartridges through the magazine and not have to chamber each round. I like it when spotlight shooting as you can push the bolt forward but turn the handle down. You then only need pull the bolt back. A push feed either requires you chamber the round so as you can engage the extractor or tip the rifle back and hope the cartridge falls out.

For all round use and ownership I prefer the Sako system of its extractor and blade ejector. However if ammo is loaded and resized so that there is .003" or so of headspace I have the feeling that accuracy iss lightly better with a plunger ejector. I base this on having had bench style rifles on both M70 and Rem 700 and using them with the plunger ejector removed.

I also like push feed because you can set up to have barrels changed between actions.

My overall preference would be for the type of CRF used in one of the low priced M70s, the Savage and the custom Sako Safari. I think that system offers the best of Mauser type CRF and push feed.

As to overall reliability and when a wide range of rifles are examined and with brass in all sorts of conditions, then I think the Mauser and M70 CRF actions are the least reliable. I base that on having done a couple of years of range duty at one of big ranges.

Jack Belk will say that much of the above occurs with CRFs because of lousy calibre convesion jobs, fuck ups with CRF extractors being ground to more easily slip over the rim, stuffed up case rims. He would be correct. However I think the push feed in most rifles and most conditions is more reliable than CRF.

Winchester Australia will tell you there are far more come backs since the M70 CRF was introduced. This occured a lot in the earlier days. If the bolt was pulled back slowly it would leave the case sitting on the follower. Admittedly the extractor dimensions were wrong but it isa n example whereby the CRF needs to be "more right" to be reliable.

Mike

[ 04-04-2003, 09:30: Message edited by: Mike375 ]

Nebraska,

Clean ejection with the fixed or Mauser style ejector, is dependent on (A) how good a hold the extractor has on the case and (B) how forcefully you withdraw the bolt. The bolt nose style ejector of the Remington, exerts the same amount of force to the empty case regardless of how you move the bolt.

There is nothing wrong with having the empty case eject before the bolt has reached its rearward point of travel provided the departure path is clear. I have seen my share of fixed ejector problems although it is sometimes accompanied by an out of whack claw extractor.

For instance I have seen on occasion, the fixed ejectors timing so delayed as to cause interference between the fired case and the next round up in the magazine resulting in a traffic jam in the ejection port. This could be disastrous in a dangerous game rifle. I've not seen this problem with a bolt nose style. This doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, It just means that I have not witnessed a bolt nose ejector failure with a Remington. I've seen extractor failures, but never a bolt nose ejector problem.

For me, I want that empty case clear of the weapon long before I feed a new one. I don't want there to be any possibility of a failure to feed occurrence because of a dropped case. The M-16 for instance uses a similar extractor as that of a Sako and it uses a bolt nose ejector to boot. From my perspective this is also a winning combo, though perhaps not quite as traditional or classic...


Malm

The problem I had with Remington actions has not been with ejection, but with extraction. If the extractor leaves the case in the chamber after cutting through the rim/extractor groove, the best ejector in the world is useless! Then you have to have a ramrod!!

As Eldeguello mentions, a pull through situation is the worst thing that happens with Rem style extractors. I have a dozen or so Remington rifles, and in thirty years I've broken one extractor and had one pull through. I believe that the Mauser 98 design is the best design going for extraction/ejection, but I don't feel disadvantaged with a Remington. Of course, if I was facing down daily elephant charges I probably would feel differantly, but for 99.999999% of my hunting and shooting there is no real advantage to the one system over the other (as opposed to a perceived advantage). FWIW - Dan

Score another point for the Mauser FIXED EJECTOR, even though it means a split locking lug. That ejector will ALWAYS be there waiting to knock that case out of the extractor.

Winchester, Ruger, even the new Montana's (as I understand) have gone to a pivoting, spring loaded ejector. ANY moving part can fail.
I had a Model 70 .30-06 from the Winchester Custom Shop that had a burr or something that kept the ejector from coming up. Pull the bolt back and nada, the case just sat there. A little polishing of the ejector and ejector slot in the action fixed that, but I am surprised that we have not heard more about dust, mud, ice, whatever getting into that ejector slot and preventing that little bitty spring from pushing the ejector up at the end of the bolt cycle.

Hey Jim---

You *do* know the M-98 ejector is a leaf spring loaded, pivoting AND sliding part, don't you?

When anybody complains about what a M-98 cost I point to the boltstop/ejector spring and tell them to give me a quote on making one. I would LOVE to see the fixtures that they used to make those things!! I've seen the print for the assembly machine. Neat gizmo and could be made to work in a reloading press but there's no reason to take 'em apart unless your going to weld on the BS box..... In all my years of messing with Mausers I've never seen an ejector fail except by what Bubba did to it.

I don't think I've ever seen an unreblued Mauser that didn't have factory grease behind the ejector spring.

Smell that grease. That's the smell of an arsenal. If the whole rifle smells like that it means the action is real good one and nearly new. Or suffering whatever abuse some European Bubba did to it. It's not hard to tell them apart...

......at 50 feet.

The Mauser ejector still remains superior to the Winchester for the fact that the shell is getting the force placed on it at exactly the opposite direction that the shell needs to be ejected at, out the side. And as Jack already mentioned, the failure rate is about 0%, or close to it. I've never heard of a ejector failure on a Mauser either. One other ejector system that works real well is the the 03 Springfield. It is completely mechanical without any spring. This is another ejector that I've never heard of a failure with. It also ejects directly from the side too. The only drawback is the fact that sometimes it takes a little work to avoid the gummy feel that they get at the moment of ejection. This is caused by the ejector rubbing on the bold body. Other than that, it's pretty hard to beat.

Not to mention which one will "extract and eject" an overly expanded case or split and blown case, the Mauser 98 sure shines here, even if one has to use a bloody hammer to get the bolt up....you will usually knock the bolt handle off on the others btw..

The Mauser and its copies (m-70) continue to amaze me....

[/qb][/QUOTE] It's been a long time since I examined the two 8X57 Model 98's my father brought back from Europe, one made in 1938 and the other in 1942 (according to my father "at the end of WWII there were head high piles of them a hundred yards long each by the side of the road - just pick out a few and stick'em in your duffle bag") but I could have sworn that they had a fixed blade inside the rear receiver bridge and a slot in the left locking lug through which this ejector stuck out. But apparently I mis-remember that.

But I am sure I have seen that arrangement on a bolt action rifle somewhere. It looked to me to be the most reliable ejector possible.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Sound like you were looking at an 03 Springfield. There's no spring in that one.

Remington is the only one I have had problems with. Ejection or extraction. But only on the cartridge with the 223 size boltface.

I prefer a Mauser type.

[ 04-08-2003, 01:43: Message edited by: DLS ]