Push feed or controlled feed?

[25WSM]

The guy that got mauled by the bear had a pressure issue for sure. Either too hot a load or a barrel ubstruction of some kind. I've never been able to pull an extractor through a piece of brass with my bare hands. I get guns all the time that are locked up tight from an over pressure event and I always need a mallet to tap it open. I have never had any kind of extractor pull completely through a rim. If you over pressure a round hard enough to pull a rim apart you are also close to blowing up your action. I'm 6ft1 230 pounds and know for 100% certainty I can't pull a bolt handle hard enough to break through a rim with my hands. On the other hand if a brown bear was running at me maybe my super human strength would show up. Then I could ditch the gun and be able to outrun the guide. Shep

 

[Rick_W]

A crf has nothing to do with extraction. It was designed to prevent double feeding in the heat of combat.

This is what I thought. Positive chambering under adverse/stressful conditions.

There are very few true crf rifles manufactured today, but many have some features of crf and claim to be crf.

The way Ruger words their marketing has be confused on whether the action is a true CRF.

• Non-rotating, Mauser-type controlled round feed extractor is the most positive case extraction system ever invented, and features a fixed blade-type ejector that positively ejects the empty cases as the bolt is moved fully rearward.
  

 

[Greyfox]

I am awaiting delivery of a Bighorn TL3 which seems to capture the positive attributes of both designs.
-Precision machining tolerances
-CRF extraction and ejection
-Fits a Remington 700 stock, and triggers.
Interchangeable bolt heads
I'm anxious to give it a try!

 

[Alibiiv]

The guy that got mauled by the bear had a pressure issue for sure. Either too hot a load or a barrel ubstruction of some kind. I've never been able to pull an extractor through a piece of brass with my bare hands. I get guns all the time that are locked up tight from an over pressure event and I always need a mallet to tap it open. I have never had any kind of extractor pull completely through a rim. If you over pressure a round hard enough to pull a rim apart you are also close to blowing up your action. I'm 6ft1 230 pounds and know for 100% certainty I can't pull a bolt handle hard enough to break through a rim with my hands. On the other hand if a brown bear was running at me maybe my super human strength would show up. Then I could ditch the gun and be able to outrun the guide. Shep

"if a brown bear was running at me maybe my super human strength would show up."
This was my point exactly. The four hunters were all hunting with factory loaded 300 WinMag ammunition. From the hunter whose gun jammed there were no barrel obstructions, actually really no explanation other than extractor failure. This hunter is built the same as what you have described your stature to, he is a construction worker, agile and naturally strong. What I can assure you is that I will take an extractor that is 3/8ths of an inch wide over an extractor that is 1/8 inches wide any day! I can also tell you that all four hunters are carrying controlled feed, 338 WinMags; the hunter's shot did hit the bear! But that's another story for another thread! The four hunters went back the following year and did find the skeletal remains of a dead bear a short distance from where the attack occured. The hunter stated that he knew it was the same bear because the scars in his head matched the teeth in skeletal remains they found.

 

[alcesgigas]

Maybe I'll get this right. Winchester's Model 70 became the rifleman's rifle for other-than-aesthetic reasons; its CRF of course and which is/was a modified Mauser; mechanical ejection and extraction; the three-way safety; its proven (by me too) safety in the event of a case failure. But there's one other that is most often overlooked, its coned breech.

 

[Alibiiv]

Maybe I'll get this right. Winchester's Model 70 became the rifleman's rifle for other-than-aesthetic reasons; its CRF of course and which is/was a modified Mauser; mechanical ejection and extraction; the three-way safety; its proven (by me too) safety in the event of a case failure. But there's one other that is most often overlooked, its coned breech.

Was uncertain about what you wrote in reference to a "coned breech"? Googled:

"Winchester knew by 1960 that, despite its good sales, the Model 70 was becoming too expensive to manufacture and compete with other rifles made on more-modern machinery. By 1962, Winchester was at work on an updated version, and in a remarkably short time had completed, if not perfected, a rifle with an improved action. "Improved" here applies to manufacture as well as design.


Gone was the cone-breech system of the Springfield and previous Winchester models. No one complained, as the coned breech had always been considered a weak point, and the new square breeching left very little of the cartridge head unsupported." Model 70 Story: A Classic Advance, American Rifleman July 8, 2010.

 

[25WSM]

Even though the remmy 700 extractor looks small it is very strong. It sits in a recess under cut in the bolt ring. To break it you would have to shear the in part of the bolt ring. In 30 yrs I have only had to replace 2 of them. One was a new in box rifle with an out of spec extractor. And one was actually removed by the owner because he thought he should clean behind it better. Once you bend the arms on a remmy extractor it's toast. Crf actions Definatly have a bigger stronger extractor but is it really needed. That bighorn action looks to be quite nice. The mausingfield looks nice too. I've hunted with 96 mausers and 98 mausers. Work quite well. I have a custom 98 in 35 whelen that I like. I have a 1903 Springfield that is nice. But my go to action is the 700. So yes I have some bias. But one thing is you really can't go wrong with any of them. Isn't is great that there are so many great actions out there for us to choose from. Shep

 

[Edd]

I have a Defiance action with a three position safety and a claw extractor on order. It is supposed to be shipped in a couple of weeks.

 

[Huggy]

The only failures to feed were with control feed. I won't own one.

Ditto to this comment.
Some have claimed the problems I experienced were due to a new rifle/bolt that wasn't broken in and Slick enough.
However, one rifle, a Mauser 98 in 8mm, was decades old and former military so I'm certain it had PLENTY of rounds cycled through it and it was plenty "slick."
And considering my background and years of experience in shooting, it wasn't my lack of technique, either.
The claw extractors have just tended to snag on rim's no matter HOW well polished they were.
So for that reason I don't feel any more confident using a CRF rifle over its opposition brethren.
BTW, I have NEVER had a problem with tearing through rim's, breaking the extractor, etc.
IIRC even if you are hunting dangerous game overseas, you'll have a very experienced guide along as your backup with their own large caliber rifle, be it a bolt gun or a double-barrel rifle.
For the record none of my rifles have CRF, whether my .300 WinMag or even my
.50 BMG, much less my lesser calibers.
So if having CRF gives you confidence, knock yourself out.
It is YOUR decision, after all, right?

 

[alcesgigas]

The coned breech was "born again" in '92 or so in the "Classic" (pre-'64) Model 70. I hadn't heard of the 70s' coned breech being anything but a desirable feature until this thread. I see it still as a definite positive in the Model 70. However, it surely is great to see a real spectrum of preferences out there; it truly is what makes the world go 'round.

 

[Greyfox]

Maybe I'll get this right. Winchester's Model 70 became the rifleman's rifle for other-than-aesthetic reasons; its CRF of course and which is/was a modified Mauser; mechanical ejection and extraction; the three-way safety; its proven (by me too) safety in the event of a case failure. But there's one other that is most often overlooked, its coned breech.

While the action design was an important attribute of the pre-64, aesthetics also played a major role in the strong appeal of the pre-64 Model 70's. Like the Remington 700 the post 64 Model 70 did not display the level of hand fitting of the components, and utilized what was considered to be the cheap and unsightly "stamped" checkering, used with the Remington 700. The pre 64 Model 70's had used a distinctive oil/varnish stock finish of what was considered a classic stock shape...changed in '64 to the controversial high gloss Monte Carlo style with the stamped checkering. Likewise, the metal work, fiitment, and bluing of the pre-64 which was comparable to many customs of the day was gone. All these changed lowered the cost of the pre-64 Winchester. Management succumbed to the cost accountants that drove the company to cut costs, and copy features and processes of the Remington 700. With the standard of excellence now lowered, Remington seized the opportunity and took Winchester's crippled lead position. Eventually, a new standard was established. This also effected the other Winchester models (ie. 94, 12, 88) which underwent a similar cost cutting exercise creating an instant market for pre-64 Winchester'. The differences in aesthetics between pre and post 64's is instantly recognized with all of these models.all this was my impression having lived through this era.

 

[NEMTHunter]

How about both??? I have and use both Like them both to. But i will add this I do like my CRF better.

 

[therifleman556]

Two of the world's most prolific bolt action battle rifles have been on both the winning and sometimes losing side. One is CRF & one is push feed. Feed em good ammunition and maintain them and both will treat you well.

 

[whitetail regulator]

Although crf was soposedly desigined for more reliable feeding under combat conditions. The extraction is amassing...I seen a m70 pre64 crf completely rip off the case head from case on a stuck cartridge....if that's not pulling power I don't know what is...