Ok this is not a which one is better post. I want to look at this from a manufactures point of view. Everyone says they quit makeing the pre64 cause it cost so much more to make than say a remington 721 action. It would seem to me that a mauser would be cheaper to build than a remington 700 action, because you have a piece of metal that sticks through one of the lugs and that serves as the shell ejecter, then you have a big claw extractor made of heavy spring steel that snaps in place and serves as the extractor, there are no extra springs or machining, just simple parts made of simple metals that work. Looking at at ruger M77 push feed with mauser extractor, it looks to me like this is more complicated than just haveing a ejector that fits through the bolt lug like on the m77 mk2. so If it aint broke why fix it, I am not saying which action is nicer just why from a manfactures point of view is it easier to produce a push feed action

A proper CRF action is more expensive to make because of the labor, not the parts. There is a delicate balance of magazine, follower, rails, ramp and extractor that often has to be hand fitted for each individual cartridge.

Push feeds can often be manufactured using one-size-fits-all parts, needing little labor.

The M70 and M77 CRF rifles do not use Mauser extractors. They only look like Mauser extractors (from far away).

Your first assumption is wrong. The CRF is more expensive to manufacture. From a manufacturer's point of view, just about everyone started making CRFs and only went to push feeds to simplify production and cut costs. The 98 action is more expensive to manufacture. Just take your time and examine both closely and you'll understand why. The Ruger action came about afterthe CNC process came into being and that is a whole other matter.jorge

Actually Jorge the Ruger came about by the process of casting the actions....not CNC, that came later.

Ruger guns use what is known as the "lost wax process" of casting.

First of all, there's crf actions and then there's mausers.

The model 70 is easier to make than the 98 Mauser because of the lack of the inner c-ring, but a little more complicated than the 700 due to the fact that it's not a round receiver that can be machined primarily in a lathe, at least not most lathes anyway.

For the pure who's cheaper to make argument, Remington wins hands down, with a model 70 following not too far behind.
The Mauser 98 on the other hand is quite the manufacturing task to say the least. The machining that they accomplished on that model over 100 years ago still manages to humble the most highly skilled journeyman machinist to this day. To call it impressive is an understatement indeed.

Hey Guys,

I've read what everyone has had to say and I have always assumed that the Mauser/CRF actions were the most expensive. However, with today's technology, if a firearms dealer went with all new machinery could computerized machining make the Mauser actions less expensive to make?

Using computerized machinery, could we duplicate the Mauser actions of a hundred years ago? I have a Winchester, P-14 action that is absolutely superb. I have not seen anything made today that can beat the quality of its manufacture.

Good Shooting,

Smoker

The Model 700 was basically designed around circa 1947 mass-production techniques. Its fundamental form really hasn't changed from that of it's predecessor, the Model 721, that was introduced right after WWII.

I've always found it odd that, in the face of modern CNC capability, etc., that Remington has not seen fit to upgrade the Model 700. A modern version of the pre-war Model 720 (a dressed up Model 30S), for example, would sell very well..........

AD

Advanced CNC technology would definitely bring down the price of making a Mauser replica, but there are still operations that must be performed on that receiver that would be ultimately the same as they were 100 years ago. For instance, the raceways would need to be cut with a shaper, rather than a vertical or horizontal broach. These things take time, and while you could significantly bring the costs down, without a huge volume of sales, it's still gonna be pretty expensive.

The sad part is while the techology is available to make fine firearms today that would rival by far anything made in the past, the firearms manufacturers are stuck in a bit of a timewarp. Their equipment is really outdated and their fixturing methods lack a lot to be desired for obtaining optimum results as far as accuracy, efficiency, and cosmetic appeal.
When you walk through a major manufacturers plant and see manual machines that date back to WW2, performing operations that the CNC's should be doing, it's no wonder that they can't seem to get it right from the start. New to them is 1985, which in CNC techology is stone age. CNC's have come leaps and bounds forward in the last ten years, and why they don't seem to catch on to the gun industry is beyond me.

yeah, that's what I meant to say Investment casting, then CNC. The issue remains the same; push feeds are cheaper to manufacture. jorge

Some of the gun manufacturers see themselves as a sunset industry. A few new gimmicks now and then to stir up some sales, but no fundamental changes.

Triggerguard1,
Do you think the change to the interupted c-ring on later FNs was the result of a change to broaching the raceways rather than using a shaper? I suspect this to be the case but what do you think?
The thing that really amazes me about the old Mausers is that they are quite straight with little of the warpage problems from heattreat that plagues some modern actions.
The other bit of machining which made the mausers and the pre-64 M70s more expensive and more difficult to manufacture was the machining of the feed rails in the bottom of the action. These were, in some cases, cartridge specific. Modern CRF actions mostly rely upon the sheet metal box to form a portion of the feed rails. This means the mag well is a much simpler operation. Regards, Bill.