Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ruger - Controlled Round Feed?

You guys got me wondering so I pulled my stainless MKII .35 Whelen (original barrel was a .30-06). The bottom of the bolt head hasn't been milled out, it has the claw extractor and it feeds "push-feed" style. It just pushes the shell out of the mag until its in the chamber than the claw "clicks" over the groove. According the serial number it's a '91. I guess it's normal then? MD said that they phased in the CRF after their introduction so I must have one of those "in between" MKII. I've heard that your not supposed to push feed cartridges in rifles with claw extractors but I'm assuming it's fine with these because it's the only way you're going to feed it! Anybody else has one of these in between MKII?

Yeah, my son has left hand early M77 Mark II 30-06 thats a push feed, my later model M77 Mark II in .223 is CRF. Now I'll really confuse some people by adding that the newer Savage short actions for the WSM cartridges are CRF. I've got a 300 WSM like this.

Send it back to Ruger for adjustment. A 7 mag I have was doing that. The round is not being held by the extractor against the bolt face when its picked up and drops off.

Or use a good gunsmith. Mine was perfect when I got it back from Ruger. Good luck with it.

My -06 featherweight grabs and controls the shell the second that shell pops up. Controlled feed from the get go. I might call Ruger about this. If I'd wanted a push feed I'd bought one. Not saying anything is wrong with them. just like the idea of a CRF. On average I'd prolly bet push feed barreled actions are lighter? No?

I like the gun! I like the .260!. It is a shooter! But I thought all MKII's and MOD 70's were CRF.

I just stoped typing and cycled a few more rounds. When I push the bolt forward slowly the claw dosen't grab the shell clear until it's almost outa site. But when I quickly force the bolt forward it has total control buy the halfway point maybe sooner.

Looks like the quicker I cycle the bolt the quicker it picks up the shell. So If I'm being charged and runnin that thing full speed it totally apears to be CRF. But when slowly running it through the cycle it's a push feed? guess it's both?

Creepingdeath, that's been my experience exactly. If you soft stroke the bolt, it's PF. But give it some force & it's CRF. I was thinking of sending it back to ruger & having them tweek it. My father's Springfield 03-A3 sporter grabs the cartridge immediately upon being stripped from the magazine. Go figure!

+1... what bmt said....

hey cd,

there really is no reason to close a bolt softly...

Yup, that's pretty much the way mine work as well. Ruger can fix the "problem" if you want to bother them.

FWIW, my pushfeed Win70 will feed upside down and sideways from both directions without dropping any rounds on the floor.

I never had a feeding problem with a CRF rifle, but have had plenty of trouble with push feeders. The common problem with my PF rifles has been rounds popping up too high when leaving the magazine, thus tying up the action until I retract the bolt a little and then ram the round home.

My brand new M7 just would not feed at all. Every time I tried to chamber a round from the magazine it would pop up out of the magazine too hard and too far, and the bolt would not close. I had to do a lot of work on that rifle to get it to feed, but now it appears to be OK. The work included reshaping the magazine box, partially filling-in the low side of the follower, and reshaping the feed lips of the receiver. It actually feeds quite well now.

A pre-MarkII Ruger 338 had the same problem - rounds pop up too high oout of the magazine, jamming the bolt. I sold that rifle.

CRF rifles do not allow rounds to pop up higher than the bolt. They can't. The round is controlled by the bolt when it leaves the magazine. Also, CRF rifles require less effort on the bolt handle because it doesn't require muscle power to snap the extractor over the rim. Consequently, they feel smoother. I have two Weatherby PF rifles that the bolt will not even start to close until I thump the bolt handle forward with the heel of my hand to engage the extractor over the rim.

I know a lot of guys own PF rifles (including me) and have success with them. I just prefer CRF. My Ruger CRFs are the smoothest I've experienced, and my 03A3 is slick as h-well. Pre-64 M70s and M54s I've owned were also very smooth. My Kimbers are not too bad, but I'd like to see them tighten-up the tolerances and put a smoother polish on the receiver and bolt, and install a metal follower. I have owned several 98 Mausers but have yet to experience the storied smooth feeding commonly read about. My current one was made by FN for Harrington & Richardson.

During PH qualifications testing at Rifa, Zimbabwe, the glaring deficiencies of the PF 700s, specifically in 416 Remingtons became readily apparent and with more than one rifle. When the bolt was cycled with the barrel at port arms or a higher (circa 90deg angle to the deck) with a full magazine, the next bullet in line tended to fall out. Also there were a few extractor issues as a result of the puny extractor. Then there's the issue of the safety. But yes the PF/CRF debate is a bit overblown. I love my PF Weatherbys and would have no issues hunting DG with one, but given a choice, I'll take a well tuned CRF anytime. And yes the MKIIs are CRFs. jorge

A few years back I got treated with scorn for suggesting that Ruger�s M77 MkII (yes, the nominally CRF one) is a bit lacking in the �C� part of the CRF. Specifically, it is my impression that Ruger puts a very pronounce bevel on the extractor so that it will easily snap over a cartridge rim when some yokel drops a round on the feed rails and slams the bolt home. I can�t say that I entirely blame Ruger for doing so as I would not enjoy the prospect of repairing hundreds or thousands of extractors so damaged. However, the result is a less-than-positive engagement of the extractor to the case.

I�ve owned three Ruger M77 MkII�s (yes, again, the nominally CRF one. It�s important to emphasize that as when this issue is brought up people somehow always assume you don�t know a push-feed from a Mauser). Anyway, they are good rifles and a good value, but a pristine example of a well-tuned CRF they ain�t. And I�m a Ruger fan, by the way.

Wismon: My 416 Ruger is. If you go back and read Muledeer's post, he gives a very good definition of the CRF process, point being ALL CRFs don't engage the case head immediately. THere is about 3/8- 1/2" of forward travel before the head's engaged. The bevel on the extractor is now common to all modern hunting CRFs including M98s. That is to facilitate putting a round directly into the chamber. jorge

hey cd,

there really is no reason to close a bolt softly...[/quote]

the only reason I soft stroked it was I was trying to see at what point it was picked up(the shell). When strokin the bolt under feild(huntin) conditions it sends that shell into a controled feed with a quickness!!

JorgeI,

I don�t doubt that your 416 works well, that rifle is a $1,500 semi-custom version of the M77 MkII, which was most likely hand-tuned. To see what I�m referring to you�d have to examine one of the standard $500 versions in a deer rifle caliber. Of the three such rifles I had none gripped the case nearly as well as my mil-surp Mausers or CZ-550�s.

As for the bevel, yes, I know it�s to facilitate putting a round directly into the chamber � I discussed that in my prior post. And I could be mistaken but I think even my mil-surps had bevels; however, they sure fed differently. My point regarding the bevel is that the bevel on the Ruger seems more pronounced then on other brands and, though I didn�t mention this earlier, I think the portion that holds the rim isn�t configured well for proper engagement.

On all three of the ones I had I could half-way feed a round, pause, withdraw the bolt, and the round would remain right there on the feed rails. I had to work very hard to make my Mausers or CZ�s do that.

Again though, to use a $1,500 safari rifle as the basis for comparison is to stack the deck in Ruger�s favor. A safari rifle ought to function better than a deer rifle, otherwise what was that extra $1,000 for?

I�ve never discussed this issue without folks getting upset. But I sure didn�t pay creepingdeath to bring up this topic and I�ve seen others bring it up as well. Apparently there are some of us out here who feel this way. Dismiss us if you like but I believe that where there�s smoke there�s fire. Thankfully this �fire� isn�t of any particular significance and they are still dandy rifles; but that doesn�t mean they are without flaws.

I just gave my new Ruger Hawkeye African a try, and the cartridge rim snaps under the extractor as it leaves the magazine. I compared it to the one Mauser I have on hand ( a commercial M98 design from Heym), and if anything the Ruger controls the round sooner.

The CRF feature was for military reasons: to prevent double feeding, thus hanging up the rifle. If your CRF rifle will leave a cartridge loose in the action when you pull the bolt back part-way through the feed cycle, it isn't working properly.

I would also say there is too much bevel to the extractor tip if you are breaking them, and I don't know that Ruger is having that problem. You can help an unbeveled extractor to pop over the rim of a loose cartridge (i.e. one dropped in and not fed from the magazine) by reaching your fingers around the bottom of the action and pushing down on the middle of the extractor. The tip will be forced open enough to ride over the rim without touching it.

jim

Wismon,

One of the supposed advantages of the pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester was that the extractor was designed (beveled) to snap over a round already in the chamber. This was perceived as an advantage by many hunters, especially those with experience with the 98 Mauser, which would NOT do the same thing unless the extractor was modified. PH's in Africa were particularly happy with the M70 because they then had a bolt-action that would never, ever end up with a round in the chamber and no way to get out out except with a cleaning rod.

This is exactly why many gunsmiths have beveled 98 extractors over the past century or more, and why Ruger designed theirs to. I have always modified my R98 extractors to jump a chambered round's rim, and have never had one break. Have never had a Ruger's break either, or a Model 70's--and I have shot and hunted a lot with all three. Not that it is impossible to break them, but it appears the odds are against it.

JB

Is the Mark X, Daly, Rem 798 et al DESIGNED to jump the rim of a chambered round? Had a 25-06 MkX that would (did it 1 time)but felt awfully hard. Have several others I have always just fed from the mag.

Per Jack Belk, Peter Paul Mauser designed the M98 so that it wouldn�t have this problem either and the operating manual issued to troops included instructions on how to address the situation. If you have a round in the chamber with the bolt open just push on the side of the extractor as you close the bolt and the engaging end of the extractor will jump the rim. But you don�t have to believe me, just try it yourself. I have; it works.

All the best.

Hunter Jim, JorgeI, and other satisfied customers,

I�m glad your rifles work to your liking. I, too, like Ruger products including, nay, especially, the M77 Mk II and its variants and descendants. (You can have their push-feed predecessors, though, regardless of how nice their early craftsmanship was.) But by and large I like Ruger products. It�s a likeable situation and I like that.

But I also stand behind my statements as I�ve done on previous occasions when this topic was broached. And I�m sure we�ll have this discussion in the future as well as I know from before that on this topic neither side will convince the other. But, like, you know, that doesn�t mean we can�t like each other.

No problem Wismon I never doubted your words for a second. BTW, I had to spend some money to get the Ruger to feed to my liking but it was well worth it and it now feeds slicker than whaleshit jorge