The CRF will get the case rim everytime, no matter what, the push will work under any sane use of the rifle, but there are some 'insane' ways it will not work. One has already been mentioned ... upside down.
All game, all around the world has been hunted with both, and both have been proven to work. Beyond that I think it really is a personal choice issue.
Let the eternal debate begin.
Posts: 25 | Location: Reeders, PA | Registered: 14 September 2002
Hglass I use both types. crf Mod 70 Win 98 Mauser pf Sako l579 Rem 700 I've never had a problem with either system. I also don't hunt anything that bites. The folks arround here that do hunt dangerous game tend to prefer a crf action. There have been several discussions of this before by the African and Alaskan hunters, so you might try a search on this topic. I'm sure more opinions will be forthcoming. Covey16
Some CRFs will jam if a round goes into the chamber without first being hooked under the extractor. Others have an extractor that's beveled on the front and is springy enough to snap over the rim, like my old Ruger M77. I don't want a rifle I can't single-load directly into the chamber without having to go through the magazine.
Posts: 1325 | Location: Bristol, Tennessee, USA | Registered: 24 December 2003
An "old" Ruger 77 is a pushfeed action as are the initial run of Mk. IIs. A properly managed CRF rifle WILL feed the round by pushing it into the chamber and closing the bolt. IF, the extractor beak has not been beveled, simply push down hard on the outside of the extractor and the beak will "climb" over the rim of the casehead.
I hunt and worked alone in the bear dense wilderness of B.C. and have owned and used both types.Of my 32 current rifles, only five of them are not CRF, those include my Minis, my Kimber 82C, my Sako Finnwolf and my BLR---these are all "toys" to me. ALL of my serious working and hunting rifles are CRF, an incident with a Grizzly in 1979 in the East Kootenays convinced me that pushfeeds-a Ruger 77-tang-are not for me.
My next bear rifle is going to be on a 1933 Mauser Banner action, ghost ring and post, Accrabond stock in 9.3x62 using 286 gr. Nozzies. It's worked for over a hundred yrs., who am I to argue.
It is not that simple. Each version has pros and cons.
There are also different levels within each version, having specific qualities of chambering and extraction.
Most important is the quality that goes into the design and manufacture of that particular rifle. There is a lot of crap out there in both CRF and PF, just as there are a lot of diamonds in each.
.....before you say a pushfeed won't feed upside down, you better try it. My Weatherby would feed upside down without a hitch, and sideways, and any other way I could think of. Of course, that's running the bolt like I would while hunting, after a shot, not at a snails pace.
For a hunting rifle CRF is desirable but not necessary. The correct comment was made above in that if the extractor is made right then the rifle will be functional.
I really don't like the tiny spring extractor on Remington rifles.
For target rifles that are loaded single shot then a push feed is selected freqently. These are generally M 70's that I am familair with.
If money is going to be invested in a rifle one may as well try to get CRF. The reasons for it are stronger than the reasons against it.
I was told that a push feed would not feed upsidedown. I took an old Rem 721 270 Win loaded the mag with a mix of ammo. A 340 Wby in the bottom then a 243 Win,after that a 7x57 then a 220 swift. Then I put the barrel in a paded vice inverted. No matter how slowly I worked the bolt they all fed, of course they wouldn't chamber, but none fell out as predicted by the experts. Lyle
I heard a rumor that Winchester is going to stop making the Classic, and that they will all be the Controlled Push Feed in the near future. Anyone else heard that?
Posts: 135 | Location: Grants Pass, OR | Registered: 07 September 2003
My Browning is a push feed, and it feeds upside down just fine. As a matter of fact, it feeds more reliably than my CRF Classic Safari Express Winchester rifle that cost 50% more than the Browning.
The one malfunction you avoid with CRF is this: Feed a round from the magazine of a push feed into the chamber, but don't lower the bolt handle. Now pull the bolt handle back and try to feed another round. You can't, dummy. You left the first one in the chamber, and now it's in the way. With the CRF rifle, that first round gets extracted and ejected when you pull the bolt back. Why someone would want to feed a round and not lower the bolt handle is beyond me.
That having been said, CRF adds to the whole aesthetic of a dangerous game rifle. A push feed DGR is kind of like a double rifle that fires a belted rimless cartridge. If the rifle is made well, it will function just fine. For a certain type of person, the fact that a malfunction could happen in principle just spoils the whole picture.
H. C.
Posts: 3691 | Location: West Virginia | Registered: 23 May 2001
I prefer CRFs myself, but I do onw many push-feed Weatherbys that I really like. For dangerous game, I prefer the CRF, just based on what the folsk who do that kind of stuff for a living say. I'll leave you with this thought though: The CRF was the original, push feeds came much later as a "cost saving" method of production. jorge
Posts: 7149 | Location: Orange Park, Florida. USA | Registered: 22 March 2001
Here's some useless information to fuel the debate:
Paul Mauser's original designs were pushfeeds. From the 1860's until 1891, all of his designs were based on push feed actions. Prior to him forming his own company, he even tried to sell one of these push feeds to Remington, who turned him away.
I believe the first CRF action was the 1893, after Mauser had formed his own company and was competing for military contracts.
The "most" controlled feeding action ever designed is the 1903-69 Mannlicher-Schoenauer. In addition to a claw extractor, each cartridge is cradled in its own position on the rotary spool, and feeds from a single column. This eliminates the left-right-left feeding difficulties found in most box magazines. However, the M-S claw extractor is not self-locking like the 98 extractor, so it is not as desireable for large cartridges.
While many folks feel that the split left lug on the 98 weakens the bolt, it actually supports the ejector at the instant it strikes the case. This prevents the ejector from bending or breaking under stress.
Anyone who has ever had a cartridge land in the left raceway while single loading a rifle, will appreciate the thumb slot in the left side of military mausers.
That is absolutely correct and I own and use Mausers, both 98 pattern and all of the post-war Brno and FN designs, Pre-64 Mod. 70s, a Dakota and an M-S. The 98 in a good specimen converted by someone who knows what he is about is the most trouble-free design I have ever used and that is why I prefer it for "working" rifles. The wonderful M-S rifles are now too rare and expensive for this purpose, IMO.
I have no quarrel with anyone on this issue and I would love to have both a NULA and an Ed Brown "Damara" in my collection, the problem is money....BUT, since the current crop of Ruwinrems does not impress me and I actually spend much time alone in Grizzly country, I prefer the CRF in tested rifles that, although worn, still function flawlessly.Even if they are only 2% better, I want that advantage on my side not on the side of a foul-tempered 650 lb. furry SOB who wants to chomp my fat, old butt!
Just to prove that there is always something new under the sun, Winchester's new Super Short Mags are described as a "controlled push feed" action. That's because the angle created by the increased diamater of the short case prevents the extractor hook from engaging until the round is well up on the mag follower. Seems the new arument is not (if) one or the other ...but BOTH. For now it's only chambered in .223 and .243 cal. It's only a matter of time before someone blows it out to .308 cal...or larger.
Quote: I heard a rumor that Winchester is going to stop making the Classic, and that they will all be the Controlled Push Feed in the near future. Anyone else heard that?
This is truely a rumor. I can assure you without a doubt, they'll be making the classic for a long time to come
Marketing is a little out of touch with the shooting public, but they aren't so far out not to realize what's been selling rifles over the last several years, and it's not push feeds, or, wish I had controlled round feeds, it's the classics.
Posts: 1021 | Location: Prineville, OR 97754 | Registered: 14 July 2002
In all honesty by the time the extra size of that claw extractor was an advantage, The bite back would probably have you. Meaning once you stuck a case in a gun to the extent the larger surface area of the claw extractor comes into being and advantage over the pushfeed style extractors. The game is over especially at close range. The more competitive highpower XC actions such as the Tubb 2000 are push fed from clips. The newer battle rifles are push feed. The Magnum Remingtons seem to be more problematic with extractors. I seem to have more feeding problems with the CRF's that I have owned. They can all be made to work reliably and smoothly. I thought one of the magazines did a pulling contest between a Winchester Claw extractor and a Remington Extractor and the Remington won. Anyone know the details on that?
Posts: 93 | Location: Mi | Registered: 14 May 2003
Quote: I thought one of the magazines did a pulling contest between a Winchester Claw extractor and a Remington Extractor and the Remington won. Anyone know the details on that?
Remington's design isn't strong enough to out pull a spring steel extractor on a Winchester, but the weakest link in all of it is the brass itself. When that fails, it won't matter how strong your extractor is.
The ultimate in reliability and feeding would be a controlled round fed system from a rotary or box magazine that feeds the cartridges straight up, rather than staggered, as someone else previously mentioned about the Mannlicher. Of course, there are downsides to the current designs. Those being not limited to:
1)Magazines that don't want to stay in your gun 2)Oversized receivers to handle the design 3)limited amount of cartridges that can be held. 4)And last, but certainly not least, cosmetics. Probably one of the single most reasons why someone buys what they buy; because it looks good.
In the world of marketing, you must sell something that functions well, but more importantly, it must look good too, even if it means that it is of inferior design. That is a bit of our downfall in the firearms industry. We are too traditional in our ways, and can't get out of the ruts. I'm just glad that folks like John Browning and Samuel Colt, as well as Peter Paul Mauser were not that way. Sadly, those days of bigger and better inventions are left at the wayside with the firearms industry for the most part. We sure haven't come very far over the last 100 years compared to the aerospace, or automotive industry. Of course, that also has to do with the dwindling number of people who are still interested in shooting and hunting in general, compared to yesteryear.
Okay,I'm off the soap box
Posts: 1021 | Location: Prineville, OR 97754 | Registered: 14 July 2002
I have that article somewhere, I'll have to look. But basically it boils down to the tester took a steel bar and turned it in a lathe to the shape of a cartridge and tested it with different bolts to see which ones were stronger, In every case the the push feeds tested stronger because the CRF extractor eventually slipped over the "cartridge" head. The tester did say that in a real world test with a brass cartridge case that the smaller bite that the push feed takes on the rim would cause it to tear a chunk of the rim off at lower pressures that the CRF would slip over the rims at.
Posts: 12764 | Location: Kentucky, USA | Registered: 30 December 2002
Chuck, was making a joke. Most SxS's or double guns have one or the other to remove fired cases from the chamber. Extractors do not eject fired cases. And doubles are damn difficult to load while upside down. I think the CRF/Push Feed thing is a lot like arguing the merits of politicians of the same party. Sooner or later they'll both let you down.
The M98 has alot of design features that make it superior, the CRF is just one of them, along with non rotating claw extractor, self cleaning bolt face, timed ejection, just to name a few.
Posts: 3097 | Location: Louisiana | Registered: 28 November 2001
I don't think that a claw extractor necessarily makes a rifle a CRF. I've seen several commercial rifles that fed CRF from the right and were push-feeds from the left. Poor quality and half-assed conversions are usually the cause.
I also feel that a claw extractor is no better than any other if it does not have the self-locking feature of the 98. I will assume that the claw extractor mentioned in the above test was from a M77 or a M70, as it is impossible for a 98 extractor to override a rim.
Since the push feed extractor rotates with the bolt then one would think its ability to break the case free of the chamber walls would be greater than CRF.
Mike
Posts: 7206 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 22 May 2002
As was stated earlier a Mauser 98 can't jump the rim because of the"locking feature" of the extractor. This is one of my gripes about the Winchester's and Ruger's.I really like the Winchester's because they are machined instead of cast. I just wish they had added a few more operations and not just cut a slot on the front of the bolt for the extractor to ride in!
Posts: 129 | Location: Kennerdell,PA | Registered: 04 November 2003
Quote: I have that article somewhere, I'll have to look. But basically it boils down to the tester took a steel bar and turned it in a lathe to the shape of a cartridge and tested it with different bolts to see which ones were stronger, In every case the the push feeds tested stronger because the CRF extractor eventually slipped over the "cartridge" head. The tester did say that in a real world test with a brass cartridge case that the smaller bite that the push feed takes on the rim would cause it to tear a chunk of the rim off at lower pressures that the CRF would slip over the rims at.
The only extractor that I have broken or had fail was on a 1980's push feed M70 Featherweight in 30-06. I chambered a reload for another 30-06 and it stuck in the chamber. I tried to lift the bolt and when I got it open the extractor had cracked off on it's inside corner of the dovetail where it enters the bolt face.
The thickness of that extractor is .050" which is the same as a rim on an 06 case and the case did not fail. I blame poor metalurgy as a guess only. Perhaps Matt Williams knows what they made the extractors out of then?
I called Winchester and they said they were sorry and offered to fix it or send the parts. The sent a new extractor as I had found the spring and plunger. As I recall the old extractor was blue in color and the new one had a bright plated look to it. I have my guesses as to why that extractor broke instead of tearing the rim off. But don't need to guess as it's over.
I prefer the pre 64 M70 CRF over all rifles. If the extractor jumped off and I did not have a cleaning rod I would jam some coins under the extractor behind the collar and try again. Better than breaking off the extrator. The last thing you want is for the rifle to break. The case can be removed somehow.
Go over to 24hourcampfire and read of the current failures of 700 extractors.
I am a fan of the Mauser for hunting rifles but ultimately,I don't care! If the rifle is well tested and functions well then it is a good one. The Remington 760 uses the same extractor syatem as the 700. One BC game warden had one (they were standard issue at the time) which apparently had a very rough chamber. Rather than have the chamber corrected he simply grabbed the forend in bot hands and yanked it back! If the case was really stuck he might have to place the butt against a tree or stump. This went on for years and the extractor never failed to do it's job. There were no quick second shots though! The most foolproof extractor system I ever had on a rifle was on a Wichita Mini action. These actions had a bolt face like a shellholder. In use the cartridge was placed in the bolt which was then inserted into the rifle. No question of this extractor working! The Lee Enfield extractor is a remarkably good one. Working in it's favor is the substantial rim possessed by the rimmed cartridges and the low pressures to which the cartridge is loaded. It is worth noting that those rifles which are chambered for lower pressure cartridges seldom have any extraction difficulties. I had one customer who insisted that I freebore all of his rifles to reduce pressures. When he was on one of his African hunts he rated certain extraction over accuracy. Regards, Bill.
