Controlled Round Feed, thoughts...

[WildBill45]

While I am at it, another question.

I am old school, and for serious work in dangerous ventures I still only feel secure only with a controlled round mauser type action. This is so for dangerous places and dangerous game. I have stood on the ground with my two, and faced a lion on his four, and nothing but a CRF will do under such dire circumstances ... in that case all I had was a camera; I am still nervous!

Am I alone?

[TABING]

No, you're not alone. IMHO it's the only way to go. I prefer Mauser Mod 1910 actions.

[Scorch]

Any CRF is better IMO.

I prefer Mauser Mod 1910 actions.

And what exactly is a Mauser Model 1910? Do you mean a Mexican Model 1910 Mauser?

[44 AMP]

1909 Argentine, the best of the military actions....I've got a .458 Win Mag made with a 1909, now, if only those cloned mastodons over at the research station come my way when they break out.......

[giaquir]

Hey Wildbill45.
Are you the guy who shot himself
in the leg,trying to fast draw?

[PawPaw]

Originally Posted by WildBill45

I have stood on the ground with my two, and faced a lion on his four, and nothing but a CRF will do under such dire circumstances ... in that case all I had was a camera; I am still nervous!

You faced a lion, but all you had was a camera? Where was your rifle?

I like a good Mauser action as well as anyone, but there are tons of good push-feed rifles out there. The Remington Model 700 comes to mind. As does the Savage rifles. Great shooters, perfectly capable rifles. I remember guys bemoaning the fates when Winchester dropped the CRF for the push-feed Model 70. Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was an abomination, a heresy against modern sporting rifles. Heh! Nowadays, the Modern Sporting Rifle looks more like an AR-15 than anything else. And those are all push-feeds as I recall.

The Army's Model 24 and the Marines Model 40 are all push-feeds. Heck, even my Ruger 77 is a push-feed, regardless of the fact that it's got a Mauser claw. It works just like a push feed rifle. Great extraction, but the round isn't controlled out of the magazine. It's just got that big honking claw.

Yeah, the Mauser design is a good one. Probably the best ever made. But the world has moved on.

[kraigwy]

Control feed vs. Push feed?????????????

Anyone have a legit link where someone got into trouble because they were using a "push feed"???????????

I have a lot of Winchesters, indubitably my favorite rifle/action. I have both pre and post '64s and the new FN Model 70 (pre and FNs are control feed), and I never had any problems with either, push or control.

Of the Winchester Model 70s I made into target rifles, all are post '64 or Push Feeds, I never lost a point because of the extractor.

I have a Few Remington's, which are push feeds, Again, never a problem.

ARs are push feeds, and I've fire thousands of rounds through them in combat and some dern tought conditions, Never a problem.

When the army and marines went to bolt guns they both chose Remington's, again a push feed.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a "control feed", I saying push feeds work as well.

The only "KNOWN" and documented failures with extractors I am aware of is the extractors on the M1917 Endfields, there is several articles on the failure of it's extractor........the M1917 Enfields were control feeds. I've never had a problem with my 1917, but I didn't use it extensively on the trenches of WWI either.

I will admit the best, smoothest, off the shelf, out of the box, new unmodified rifle I ever bought is the FN Model 70 which like I said, a control round.

I like both and wouldn't hesitate to use either in combat or dangerous game. If I was going after dangerous game I'd take my Post '64 Model 70, not because of its extractor but because I'd fired hundreds of rounds though it and am comfortable with my ability to shoot it.

[WildBill45]

Anyone have a legit link where someone got into trouble because they were using a "push feed"???????????

Yes ... ME! I had problems with a few push feeds to include my Custom shop KS Remington 350 mag. IF< I was charged by a bear and it did it again, getting dead would spoil the fun!

This is why I like CRF, experience, not some opine from a Forum! Folks who have never been in real world life & death situations either wildlife or man, and I am not saying this to you specifically, do not understand the deep rooted desire for dependability over all other factors; caliber, cost, brand name, etc...

[jmr40]

CRF is very much understood. It is a better system, but it has little to do with dangerous game or feeding upside down or from any other position. Under normal circumstances a PF will feed just as reliably as CRF, and do it upside down just as well.

A CRF rifle will work under dirty harsh conditions and with dirty out of spec ammo much better than will a PF. They DO NOT feed ammo into the chamber any better than a PF. They do extract and eject much more reliably, especially when dirty. The TINY extractor on PF rifles may rip the rim off a stuck cartridge, or break the extractor all together while the much larger CRF extractor will grip roughly 50% of the cartridge rim, and grip it from both sides pulling sticky cases out.

The tiny spring loaded ejector on PF rifles can very easily become useless from a tiny spec of dirt or rust leaving you with a rifle that leaves empty cases on top of the magazine instead of ejecting them.

If you hunt like the majority of todays hunters were you take a clean rifle out of a safe, hunt from a tree stand in perfect weather for only a few hours at a time and return to your home where you can once again clean your rifle before the next hunt you will never notice the difference.

I have and use both types. I prefer CRF since there are no downsides to using it and when on backpack hunts or in harsh conditions the CRF rifles are the only ones I consider.

If you keep your rifle clean, use quality in spec ammo and keep it clean, one is just as reliable as the other. If I were on a wilderness hunt where a thorough cleaning may be impossible for days or weeks. Or hunting in bad weather, sandy dirty or muddy conditions etc. I'd much prefer CRF.

That is exactly the type of conditions the old time African Safari hunters hunted in. A hunt could last 4-6 weeks and they needed a tough rifle that could take abuse and still hunt.

[Old Time Hunter]

Under normal circumstances a PF will feed just as reliably as CRF, and do it upside down just as well.

With this I will contend, with push feed there isn't any accomodation to counter gravity. Laying upside down in a shell crater might pose a problem for a soldier using a push feed, being charged by a dangerous animal while trying to cycle a push feed also opens one up to the possiblity of a jam moreso with a PF, than a CRF.

Sitting in your tree stand or shooting paper off the bench, there is not an issue either way.

[Savage99]

I prefer CRF rifles for their mechanical operation. It's a pleasure to watch the machinery work including a three position safety that controls the firing pin.

Sure some where given push feed rifles to use in war but they had to take them.

A while ago I found a farm that had a perfect spot to watch for deer on opening day. Before dawn I was there ready with my M70 CRF 7mm WSM, Zeiss etc.

As I walked up to the spot I saw another hunter already there in MY spot. I walked away to take second best.

Just before light he came walking past me. I asked where he was going and he said:

"My Rem. 760 is jammed."

[old roper]

Savage99, Isn't a Rem 760 pump rifle?

http://www.remington.com/products/ar...amemaster.aspx

[dvdcrr]

well the small arms of today are capable of cycling 10 rounds a second and they are push feed. Seems like it works ok to me.

[TABING]

My mistake, I meant the 1908 Mauser. For more info, check this link.

In the 1980s I was fortunate to pick up four of these. Two are standard models with 29.25 inch barrels, one is a carbine with a 20 inch barrel, (my favorite walking around rifle), and one is an Israeli armory refinished with a new 22 inch FN barrel in .308 Win.

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?...le-(Mfg-by-DWM)

"The 1908 Brazillian Mauser is, alongside the 1909 Argentine Mauser, considered to represent the very finest of pre-WW1 German arms manufacturing. The rifles were finished to the highest grade and designed to last for Generations in the service of Brazil – something they did very well. In one form or another, these rifles stayed in service well into the 1950’s, though a considerable number reached the surplus market in unissued condition – presumably having been stored as war reserve material."

WildBill45: I suspect we are both older, and "old school".

jmr40: spot on!

[taylorce1]

Isn't the Lee Enfield .303 a push feed? I haven't held one in years but I don't remember a big extractor on them. Most consider them the best battlefield bolt action rifle of all time. I'm sure quite a bit of dangerous game has been killed with that rifle both in India and Africa.

I kind of agree with kraigwy on this one reliable rifles come in all manner of action types. I think that a double rifle would be the best option for a quick follow up shot in a dangerous game hunting situation. Plus when asked what would be a good bear defense firearm, there seems to be quite a few on this forum who think a 12ga and slugs is the only way to go.

A lot of what is used has nothing to do with it being a crf or not but by the countries that colonized it. Your major players in Africa was the Germans, Dutch, English, and French. I'm sure the predominant rifle for that region would be the home countries primary service rifle. This would have given the hunter ammunition availability especially in an era where ammunition wasn't of the quality we have today.

[RT]

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...-and-push-feed
"Bolt Actions Broken Down: The Difference Between Controlled-Feed and Push-Feed

by David E. Petzal

A blogger of my acquaintance asked me to explain the difference between controlled-feed bolt-actions and push-feed bolt actions, and the importance thereof to shooters.

Controlled feed refers to the system developed by Peter Paul Mauser for his Model 98 bolt-action. When the bolt is cycled, a cartridge rises up from the magazine and the extractor—that long, flat piece of metal that rides alongside the bolt—snaps onto the rim of the cartridge and holds it in a death grip on its trip into the chamber. When the round is fired, it pulls the case clear until it is kicked out of action by the ejector, a small, unattractive piece of steel that is fixed in place behind the follower and rides through a slot in the bolt face. So, controlled feed: Each round is held in place throughout the firing cycle.

Push feed was introduced by Remington in 1949 in the Model 721 (which eventually became the Model 700). Here, as a cartridge rose up out of the magazine, the bolt simply pushed it forward into the chamber without holding on to it. As the case chambers, a small unattractive clip snaps onto the rim, and pulls the case out when the round is fired. The shell is kicked clear by a spring-loaded plunger in the bolt face.

The advantages to push feed are that it’s cheaper to manufacture than controlled feed, and that the bolt face can be made to completely enclose the case head, so that if the case ruptures, you won’t be blown up as badly.

Controlled-feed fanatics snort and fart and claim that push-feed is unreliable; that without firm guidance, rounds will not find their way into the chamber consistently. The truth is that push-feed is just fine if the magazine rails fit the case correctly. Trouble comes when manufacturers try to make guns on the cheap and the rails fit poorly.

They further claim that the big extractors on controlled-feed bolts pull stuck cases better than the small extractors on push-feed bolts. Again, not so. A full-length extractor can slip off a case rim given enough force, and a push-feed extractor can either shear through the case rim or break.

In a properly-made rifle, either system works fine, and there are better things to worry about."

[dgludwig]

Three of my bolt-action rifles are push-feeds (a Browning A-Bolt and two Ruger Model 77s) and three are controlled-feeds (a Savage Model 116 SE and two Ruger MK II model 77s) and I have never been able to discern any differences between the rifles in terms of feeding or extracting (of course, I have never used any of them in combat situations nor have I subjected any of them to "torture testing"). That said, everything else being equal, I guess I'd opt for a controlled feed rifle for the reason jmr40 expressed: "...There are no downsides to using it...".

[WildBill45]

If you practice speed working your bolt gun to get good with it ... and I contend 99% of rifle owners never train like this ... you will see the difference if you use real ammo, blank or not. If you do not train with your bolt, you will fail under stress to do it right, fast enough, and keep it working if ever in such a scenario. If all your hunting is from a warm house--east coasters call these 'Camps" haha--and sit hunt, then an air rifle would do well on deer, but for surprise social encounters with bears, lions, and angry men you best be the best using that rifle under speed under stress or get dead real quick!

Train, train, and then train some more!!!

[TX Hunter]

I agree, but to a point, One of my Controlled feed rifles is a Jam O Matic, but the reason is because it was changed from 7x57 Mauser to .308 and where the cartridge is picked up out of the magazine is too far back for the shorter .308 cartridge and the cartridge sticks up, and impacts on the rear of the barrel above the bore.

But if you have a properly tuned controlled feed rifle chambered in the cartridge it was designed for its almost unstopable.

[roklok]

I think the whole CRF argument is just utter nonsense. I have both CRF rifles (Mauser and Win 70) and push feed Remington 700s. They both work. Both types of rifles can have feeding issues, both types can be flawless. If a given rifle is reliable, thats all that matters, be it push feed or CRF. If a rifles bolt is not operated properly, issues can arise with either type.

I have put literally thousands of rounds through various Remington 700s with never a problem. My go to big game rifle is a 700 in .35 Whelen, I have taken grizzly with it (solo hunts with no backup) and would not hesitate to do it again.

Harry Selby, one of the most renowned PHs used a Remington 721 on lots of dangerous game :

http://www.americanrifleman.org/arti...ton-721-rifle/

So, my thoughts ? Pick a reliable rifle and learn to use it.

[Savage99]

A push feed bolt action rifle is more apt to jam from a double feed.

A double feed is where a round is pushed part ways into the chamber and then another round is started along side it making a jam.

A Mauser type extractor will grip the rim and pull the first round out.

Besides, those push feed bolt faces don't look like good machinery.

[Hansam]

Thousands upon thousands of rounds through push feed semi auto rifles without failure due to the feeding system have said to me that there really isn't a problem with push feed.

Every FTE and/or FTF I've had with my rifles (all push feed) have had to do with malfunctioning magazines (ie mag lips) and/or squib loads. Sure you could argue this and argue that but if you put a detachable mag on a push feed mechanism and made it semi-auto you'd still end up with a similar ratio of issues... and for that matter more than likely the SAME issues.

When it comes to bolt action rifles I've ONLY ever had push feeds and have never had a problem with the rifle failing to feed or eject - and I abuse my firearms. My bolt actions are kept clean but they are used and exposed to all types of conditions, snow, rain, hot, cold, muddy, wet, dry and once, sandy. They've all worked just fine for me.

My ARs are even more abused - I only clean them once every couple thousand rounds. They are fired (a lot) in rain, mud, snow, hot and cold... arid and humid. Again no feed issues arising purely because of the feeding system... and I've got tens of thousands of rounds through these rifles altogether thus far.

[WildBill45]

I think the whole CRF argument is just utter nonsense.

Think as you wish, but the facts differ ... celebrity choices notwithstanding.

Winchester, CZ, and many other rifle makers bask in the sun of CRF! The new Winchester could have went either way; CRF was the choice, and the favorite of millions of riflemen in the USA for a long, long, time. It is a superior design for folks who may actually need a rifle to defend life & limb. Push feed is wonderful for animals that don't bite back.

To argue otherwise is just utter nonsense...

Selby's legacy is his legendary use of his 416 Rigby on dangerous game. Call Rigby and order a push feed ... let me know how that goes...

When I use to check my bear baits in Colorado, I had a push feed .338 Winchester, my Remington Custom Shop KS 350 mag, and my Winchester 7mm STW, and my Weatherby 300 Mag ... all lovely rifles that took more game than I can list, but, and there always is a but in life, I took my O3A3 Springfield ought-six because I trusted the CRF action when possible close work with bears was the job at hand!

I also shot thousands and thousands of rounds through my push feed Remington 10x in .220 Swift, which was great on prairie dogs, but, and there always is a but in life, if it were rabid coyotes that I was chasing I would have taken my O3A3 with accelerators instead ... for the same reason!

Danger: CRF over Push Feed any day of the week.

Push Feed was born to cut the costs for the rifle makers ... Period!

[WildBill45]

I agree, but to a point, One of my Controlled feed rifles is a Jam O Matic, but the reason is because it was changed from 7x57 Mauser to .308 and where the cartridge is picked up out of the magazine is too far back for the shorter .308 cartridge and the cartridge sticks up, and impacts on the rear of the barrel above the bore.

I do not understand at what point you agree to. You state that the rifle was changed from a working rifle to one with problems after changing the design parameters of the working rifle to a design that does not work. How does this give you any pause to doubt CRF when it was the rifle owner who is the direct cause of the failures of the rifle?

I think the 7x57 version of this rifle was probably a great rifle, and a similar rifle was used by Karamojo Bell to take many hundreds of elephants ... speaking of celebrity use of rifles, who made Harry Selby look like a tyro ... Bell, another big fan of CRF rifles!

[Gunplummer]

The only problem I have encountered is a CFR will pick up anything, hold it against the bolt and fire it. Wrong round or not it will fire it.