Hi all, I was in the local shootin' shop today and the guys behind the counter were complaining about feeding problems on the crf m70's. I have a pushfeed and I was thinking about trading in on the crf to have a 300wm built. I hadn't heard anything about feed problems and was wondering if anyone here has had any?

Andrew

What kind of feeding problems? What cartridge? Which action?

Wally

Someone said something about them having trouble getting the WSM's to feed, so they came up with the new "CRF/PF" action.
Have no idea what truth there is to it.
But if you're talking about the regular Winchester Magnum, rest assured, there's no trouble.

Be assured that there can be a problem with the "regular" magnums. The two left handed model 70's I've owned have had feeding issues, one was a 300 win mag and the other a 375 H&H. Both required a gunsmith to correct. The good news is that they were fixed and now feed very well.

In my opinion the PF/CRF is a cheap solution to a WSM caused problem.

Chuck

Once again the WSM feeding problem myth is raised, it seems a lot of people think that the cases is hard to feed but no one actually has the problem. My 300WSM laminate model is CRF and feeds beautifully, in addition to throwing barnes triple shocks into 1/2 inch groups consistently from a cold fouled barrel(its been pillar bedded and trigger worked,but factory barrel) It's much smoother and more reliable than my Rem 700 in 7mm-08

To feed properly, the magazine box length and side angles, the rail dimensions (side and underneath), and the ramp must all be designed to work together to time feeding out of the mag box, under the extractor, and center over the chamber, for each particular cartridge.

Winchester is manufacturing a "one size fits all" action. Consequently it is a compromise and does not feed all cartridges well. Modification is possible to correct the feeding problems as noted above.

If I were to build a WSM (which I won't), I would get an action designed for a WSM from the ground up. My first call would be to the Montana Rifle Company to see if they can help. Otherwise, I would hire an expert in the area, such as Dennis Olson or Jack Belk, to get it right the first time.

Please note that converting a rifle in 30-06 to 35 whelen and getting it to feed reliably is pretty easy. Converting a 30-06 or even a .308 to a short fat cartridge is much more involved if done right. Also note that with a short fat cartridges, precision of all of the angles will be more critical.

Chuck, if you would, please e-mail me your mailing address. I have a package for you....

Model 70 feeding problems: Yes, I've heard of some with the current CRF action. None with the pre-64s in my experience. I've never had a M-70 push-feed with a feeding problem, but I did own one that had extraction problems, and I witnessed one more PF at the range that wouldn't extract, but this is an easy fix.

The current action can have feeding problems, I believe, for any one of several reasons. First off, the extractor is not a true, machined spring-steel extractor like the pre-64s and should be replaced with an aftermarket unit from Wisners. Sharp riflesmiths like Echols, Simillion, and Miller always replace these extractors when they rework one of these current '70s, and USRAC made and fitted true spring-steel extractors for their Custom Shop Model 70s. This is bedrock in its importance.

Next, the extractor needs to be gapped properly so that the rim of the cartridge can slide up between the bolt face and the extractor when the cartridge is fed from the magazine. The fit should not be loose and not too tight, but snug - snug enough to hold the cartridge in place if you remove the bolt from the rifle, remove the firing pin assembly (for safety's sake), then slide a cartridge into position bewteen the bolt face and extractor.

Of course that's not the end of it. On the current action, the feed lips are built into the magazine box, and these need to be at the correct angle, etc. Sometimes these can be tweeked and adjusted as a fix, but sometimes the box needs to be replaced altogether. Then the feed ramp might need to be slightly reworked and polished, etc.

AD

Feeding is the one area wherein the short, fat cartridges really suck IMO. The M70 crf actions can be a bit of a problem. One short M70 recently had me contemplating alcoholism as a viable lifestyle. And I'm a non- drinker!
On the plus side, the magazine holds fewer of the short, fats so there are fewer of them to not feed! Regards, Bill.

Allen, I sent you the address, but for some reason it wouldn't allow it through this site so I sent it directly from my account.

Chuck

[ 08-24-2003, 21:25: Message edited by: Chuck Nelson ]

I didn't hear the caliber (I awas drooling over a vaquaro in 45lc at the time). I have the M70 "Black Shadow" (I think - all black won at a sporting clays shoot. NIB) was thinking of trading it in on a 300 wm CRF to then be stripped down and rebuilt into another 300wm, Trued action,single point the threads, lapped lugs,hart barrel and pillar bedded into a McMillan stock.
Local store has one in wood in 7mm stw for 550 seems interrensting

Andrew

[ 08-24-2003, 22:09: Message edited by: navrunner1 ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by allen day:

Model 70 feeding problems: Yes, I've heard of some with the current CRF action. None with the pre-64s in my experience.

Allen,
I just posted a question on another site relating to a feeding problem one of my pre-64 M70's is having, but perhaps you can answer it for me.

My .270 Win will only accept rounds from the magazine- if I place a round directly into the chamber the bolt won't close due to the extractor's failure to slide over the cartridge rim.

How can I correct this problem (it used to work fine).

Also, how does the bolt disassemble?

Thanks for your help.

Well said Mr. Leeper. Thanks. I'd add that w3hile you're replacing the extracter a real follower is in order.

This has been hashed out before but

Leave the feed rails on action alone. measure and compare them on any Model 70 action for nearly any cartridge and you will find them virtually identical. Just stone them for smoothness. feeding problems come from followers and magazines.

Like so many of you I prefer the pre-64 Model 70. However I've had three of the new PF/CR rifles through here. Looks like a damn good idea that might pan out.

Wally

I think this thread has made my point nicely, a dozen posts on Win. short mag feeding "problems" and only one person has actually experienced them! For the record my 416 rem model 70 would not feed at all until I had it worked over, 300WSM-no problem.

I will tell you there is more than one of us with experience with them.

Chuck

Chuck,
You posted about problems in a 300 and 375 with feeding issues. Next sentence you state that the CRF/PF is an answer to a WSM caused problem? Then whats the answer to the 375 feeding problem? The WSM's can feed just as smooth as the 375 but sometimes need some attention first just like the 375 and 300 you mention, but there is no fundamental problem that is either unique to or not fixable by traditional methods that affect other rounds, with the WSM case. Is the 416 rem mag junk because my model 70 safari express would not feed from the factory? And I submit that the WSM is not the second coming because mine feed perfectly. It just seems to be popular to pick on these rifles with no reason.

[ 08-25-2003, 20:28: Message edited by: KevinNY ]

I got one of the early M70 Classic Featherweights in 300 WSM. It had feeding problems from the get go...the second round in the magazine would pop out of the magazine before the bolt had time to grab it. Didn't matter if you worked the bolt fast or slow...the second round always popped out.
Boxed it up and sent it back to Winchester. They replaced the receiver and got it back to me in less than 2 weeks. Even paid for the postage both ways.
The gun feeds flawlessly now and I have used this gun a fair amount over the past 2 years. It also shoots tiny groups with only a little trigger adjustment on my part. Overall I'm very happy with the rifle...

We've worked directly with USRAC on the feeding of the WSM's. It is not a myth of a problem. There are several factors that influence the feeding of these cartridges. The follower is number one, with the feed rail running a close second. The problem that they get into is the spring pressure is too light on the follower, and the mag box is not wide enough to permit a stack angle of the cartridges out to 30deg. This is where they are trying to place 10lbs of crap in a 5lb bucket. Their extractors are also partially to blame due to the fact that they are not always casted accurately enough, and the tension is not set properly on the spring.
These are not rumors or myths by any means. We've worked directly with the custom shop on these problems, including the problem of getting three rounds consistently in the magazine without scraping the brass significantly with the bolt when it's closed. They are still a long way from getting it right.

Well I guess this is good news as I was not interrested in a WSM, but having a 300 wm built- full size! I am not sold on the fact that when you reload the 300wsm the bullet sticks really far into the case and you lose all that case capacity.
I was wondering- A complaint I have heard about the regular mags, is the belt, not really good to headspace off of. Everyone just neck sizes and head spaces there. Why hasn't anyone just made a run of brass with out the belt? I must be a pain the make the case with the belt, why not just get rid of it? It has been proven that the belt is not needed for strength. Just a question.

Andrew

That's a question I've been asking myself for a long time. The belt was intended to let the cartridges be used in double rifles when Holland & Holland began developing their line of catridges, but somebody got the bright idea that you needed them in a bolt acton too.

One cartridge that I'd love to see modified is the 22 hornet. Change that damn thing to a rimless. Then you'd have something to build a nice bolt-action repeater off of, rather than having to use Ruger's detachable box. Now you could also neck that down to .20 or even .17. What a neat little package that would make.

How hard would it be to have one of the smaller(or those who make it for obsolete calibers) ammo makers to do a run of regular mag brass w/o the belt? Obviously you would need to have some pull and a stack of orders ready but....... I guess it wouldn't be worth it. Unless you could show an accuracy gain or a definate safety improvement I don't think anyone would go through the hassle. But if Ruger is "tight" with Hornady maybe an expirement could be done- more rounds in the magazine would be the selling point !

Andrew

I know a guy who has a 7mm Rem. Mag rimless for 1000 yard shooting, turns the rims off manually.

I have or have owned a 375 Super Express, 338 Win Mag, 300 Win mag super grade, 30-06 super grad, a 7mm-08 Compact, a 270 feather weight, and a 280 rem feather weight. All Post 64 Crf. The only one that had any hint of feeding problems was the .375.

kevin-

Has he noticed an increase in accuracy he can attribute to running off the belt? Must be a pain in the neck to do and I was wondering what advantage he has seen with his beltless mag?

Andrew

I really couldn't tell you how it's worked out vs. a standard 7mm Rem Mag. Target shooters are funny some times in the things they think up.

Just some general observations on this whole thread. In no real order.
The CRF/PF is nowhere to be seen as it is for the wssm line. These are so stubby that they apparently won't feed (with current N.C. quality controls in place) with out a day of "expert" hand tuning.
Your old pre-270 not snapping over a cart. in the chamber. Check for desbris in the action where the extr. would need clearence, check for extr. tension, check for different brand or lot of brass.
The "myth" of not feeding with the shorties, no myth at all. Some do, some don't. This is a mass produced/ nonquality problem. They can be made to feed. We don't build any after the first few as they are never any advantage over what is out there and a HUGE disadvantage if you get seperated from your ammo. A .30 is still a .30 regardless of velocity. The WSM is "close" to a real WM. But not really. The SAUM will not do what a '06 will do in some guns. Again really much ado about nothing. 3400fps doesn't make the .270 a "better" elk gun, nor does a .4" less bolt travel and 7oz.in weight mean a hill of beans.
The H&H style of cases are far easier to feed as they are with out the sharp shoulders. The real 300 win is the tougher of the 2.5" mags to work with. The WBY's can be tough as the HUGE variations in brass (extractor fit) The standard ('06) cases usually don't protest as much. Anything shorter is going to give trouble. If it is going to be 50 or so mm long it should be less than .400 in diameter. This is why a .223 flies through a 700 but a 308 will screw up.
Please remember that at a gunshop, just like any other testosterone laced enviroment, take what you here with a grain of salt. If it sounds odd, post it here with the experts, who are dedicated to the world of personel firearms and some answers will surface.
Thanks,
ED
As a note of Interest, there is no WSM ammo "offically" shipped out of the states by Win.

Sorry forgot the belt debate.

The "belt" on a mag. case will remain on all those cases til the end of time. This is the greatest crutch the big companies could have ever asked for. In the beginning of time (1910 or so) The H&H case started the belt game. This is reported to be an aid to using the same ammo in a hindged action weapon as in a bolt arm. Maybe. The first of these was a velopex on a case similar in deminsion to the 400nitro. It had a belt for the purpose of headspace. Like a .458. The king(.300 super) came along with a very sloping case and it is reported to have a "disconcerningly" small shoulder area. Maybe. There was quality control then that only 2 shillings a day can buy. H&H built each 1 by hand 1 at a time. A roe hunter I am friendly with claims to have heard that H&H used the same (only 1) reamer and gauge for every .375 until after WW2. Maybe. Fast forward til after the war. Every shop had its own 2.5" magnum. This was a glorious time of enlightenment. A .300 WBY with scope as opposed to a 32-40 lever. WOW. Fast forward to "recent" times.

As for that crutch.

Every manufactor of firearms and ammo produces a magnum. Win. ammo has to fit a 700. Rws ammo has to be run through a Ruger. Hornady ammo had damn will fit a m-98 barreled by your uncle Fred. So dimensions get "adjusted". A maximum chamber and minimum ammo are still "safe" thou maybe not the best "fit". As for headspacing the belt is used for the first yank of the trigger but there is not die on earth that will make the case "small" enough to use it again. After the fire forming the shoulderwill headspace til the brass goes in the trash. A .264 with nearly a sq. inch of sholder surface surely doesn't need a belt. But the chambers of the early 70's M70 where so bad, thank god the was a belt to hold it in place for the first firing. Most all belted mags will shoot and operate better with ammo that "fits" the individual gun. We MUST handload.
Thanks,
ED