Push feed vs controlled round - Page 4

BusGunner007 · October 4, 2018, 10:47 PM

I heard that Craig Boddington said a push feed WILL shoot upside down.
That made me happy.

I also heard that .50 BMG makes 'feeding' a moot point!
Solved a multitude of problems in my mind!

HiBC · October 5, 2018, 02:13 AM

While it is true a CRF extractor can be modified or produced to snap over the rim of a cartridge not fed from the magazine,to do so compromises the the advantages of the CRF extractor.
Engagement and tension are reduced,as is extraction power.Looking at the bolt face,engagement from 9 to 6 O'clock might be cut back.That is where the "control" of CRF lives. The round has more opportunity to escape if you shoot standing on your head.

I doubt a CRF extractor modified to snap over is any more reliable than a push feed extractor.
It gets done,and if thats what you prefer...it works.Its convenient...but any "CRF advantage" is largely illusion.

Some folks modify push feed bolts to accept AR type extractors. Whatever floats your boat.

I suggest if you are shooting at something that will bite or stomp you,load to moderate pressure so cases don't stick.
375 H+H,404 Jeffreys,416 Rigby ,etc are loaded to pressures that allow brass to spring back,and the cases have some taper.

For most of us,deer/elk,etc are someplace between meat and hobby hunting.An imagined "It could happen" extractor failure would generally be an inconvenience,not life or death.You do have a backup rifle in camp,don't you?
(If you worry about extractor failure,I suggest one,along with a spare distributor for the truck and a defib machine,spare suspenders and extra boxer shorts)

The theoretical arguements aside,I prefer CRF rifles because ,IMO,they look proper. Silly,I know.But I think a 1903 Springfield is elegant.
And I'm just not interested in any motorcycle that looks like a jet ski or an Asian copy of an anachronistic Vee twin. Anachronisms are fine...but they must have a legit connection to something.
I'd happily hunt with my Hawken...but a plastic stock stainless Rem bolt muzzle loader??Nah.Not in my elk picture. You can,though.Its cool.
I like CRF extractors with my eyes.
I get to make my gun choices on pure preference,silly emotions included.

I don't need to have a strong technical argument to convince anyone else.

It seems the silly idea of using a CRF extractor for headspacing purposes has been suggested.
I prefer a proper chamber and good ammo.

I suggest using pin gages to determine the bolt face to extractor hook dimension.Then measure rim thickness and see how precisely an extractor will headspace.

A CRF rifle won't work without clearance under the extractor hook.
As the bullet/neck feed up into the chamber,the case head is still down in the rails.As the case head rises up under the extractor,its tipped away from the bolt face.Clearance is required.Or it binds. Its a geometry thing.

dakota.potts · October 5, 2018, 02:54 AM

It's been my experience that push feeds can be smoother and faster, and I prefer them for gaming such as PRS shooting (most of the high-end custom actions for this sport are push feed anyways).

If I were in a position where I felt like every round had to chamber and extract no matter what, I'd probably choose the CRF. I'm not in battle and I don't really hunt, so for me it's generally push feed.

Nathan · October 5, 2018, 07:28 AM

I actually believe that the crf action is a countermeasure to an old problem. So is a 3 position striker lock bolt safety and sights + scope.

Basically when “hunting” for sport with bolt action rifles began, the guns were pretty cobbled together. Precision machining was not born. So, you might have trigger parts tha were rough and bound up or were easily jarred off the sear. Therefore, a loaded rifle needed the sear blocked. I personally believe this is still a requirement due to how hunting rifles are often handled today in the field.

Sights are another. Modern optics have few failures, but say that about a 1950’s optic. It might fog up or something worse. Nowadays, this really doesn’t happen except with sub $100 optics.

The crf action is the same, but I still like it! Call it piece of mind!

October 4, 2018, 10:47 PM	#76
BusGunner007 Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Upper Left Coast Posts: 2,116	I heard that Craig Boddington said a push feed WILL shoot upside down. That made me happy. I also heard that .50 BMG makes 'feeding' a moot point! Solved a multitude of problems in my mind! __________________ "...if you're not havin' fun, you're workin'..."

October 5, 2018, 02:13 AM	#77
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,286	While it is true a CRF extractor can be modified or produced to snap over the rim of a cartridge not fed from the magazine,to do so compromises the the advantages of the CRF extractor. Engagement and tension are reduced,as is extraction power.Looking at the bolt face,engagement from 9 to 6 O'clock might be cut back.That is where the "control" of CRF lives. The round has more opportunity to escape if you shoot standing on your head. I doubt a CRF extractor modified to snap over is any more reliable than a push feed extractor. It gets done,and if thats what you prefer...it works.Its convenient...but any "CRF advantage" is largely illusion. Some folks modify push feed bolts to accept AR type extractors. Whatever floats your boat. I suggest if you are shooting at something that will bite or stomp you,load to moderate pressure so cases don't stick. 375 H+H,404 Jeffreys,416 Rigby ,etc are loaded to pressures that allow brass to spring back,and the cases have some taper. For most of us,deer/elk,etc are someplace between meat and hobby hunting.An imagined "It could happen" extractor failure would generally be an inconvenience,not life or death.You do have a backup rifle in camp,don't you? (If you worry about extractor failure,I suggest one,along with a spare distributor for the truck and a defib machine,spare suspenders and extra boxer shorts) The theoretical arguements aside,I prefer CRF rifles because ,IMO,they look proper. Silly,I know.But I think a 1903 Springfield is elegant. And I'm just not interested in any motorcycle that looks like a jet ski or an Asian copy of an anachronistic Vee twin. Anachronisms are fine...but they must have a legit connection to something. I'd happily hunt with my Hawken...but a plastic stock stainless Rem bolt muzzle loader??Nah.Not in my elk picture. You can,though.Its cool. I like CRF extractors with my eyes. I get to make my gun choices on pure preference,silly emotions included. I don't need to have a strong technical argument to convince anyone else. It seems the silly idea of using a CRF extractor for headspacing purposes has been suggested. I prefer a proper chamber and good ammo. I suggest using pin gages to determine the bolt face to extractor hook dimension.Then measure rim thickness and see how precisely an extractor will headspace. A CRF rifle won't work without clearance under the extractor hook. As the bullet/neck feed up into the chamber,the case head is still down in the rails.As the case head rises up under the extractor,its tipped away from the bolt face.Clearance is required.Or it binds. Its a geometry thing. Last edited by HiBC; October 5, 2018 at 02:31 AM.

October 5, 2018, 02:54 AM	#78
dakota.potts Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2013 Location: Keystone Heights, Florida Posts: 3,084	It's been my experience that push feeds can be smoother and faster, and I prefer them for gaming such as PRS shooting (most of the high-end custom actions for this sport are push feed anyways). If I were in a position where I felt like every round had to chamber and extract no matter what, I'd probably choose the CRF. I'm not in battle and I don't really hunt, so for me it's generally push feed. __________________ Certified Gunsmith (On Hiatus) Certified Armorer - H&K and Glock Among Others You can find my writings at my website, pottsprecision.com.

October 5, 2018, 07:28 AM	#79
Nathan Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2001 Posts: 6,331	I actually believe that the crf action is a countermeasure to an old problem. So is a 3 position striker lock bolt safety and sights + scope. Basically when “hunting” for sport with bolt action rifles began, the guns were pretty cobbled together. Precision machining was not born. So, you might have trigger parts tha were rough and bound up or were easily jarred off the sear. Therefore, a loaded rifle needed the sear blocked. I personally believe this is still a requirement due to how hunting rifles are often handled today in the field. Sights are another. Modern optics have few failures, but say that about a 1950’s optic. It might fog up or something worse. Nowadays, this really doesn’t happen except with sub $100 optics. The crf action is the same, but I still like it! Call it piece of mind!