Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Why is Controlled Round Feed better than push feed?

For some reason I had never noticed this comparison before. A few weeks ago I was talking to a hunting buddy who likes Winchesters and now I seem to be running into this issue everywhere. I guess this is not new, but just one of those things that wasn't on my radar. Maybe it's because I shoot mostly Remingtons.<P>Anyway, I know that Remingtons are known to be the most accurate out of the box rifles around, so it can't be that. My friend also says that Winchesters are more reliable, but I've never ever had any trouble with any of my Remingtons. <P>I just want to knoe exactly what all the hoopla about the claw extractor is.<P>Thanks.

Jimbo:<P>It's not. The differences between CRF and PF are virtually entirely theoretical. I own and shoot both, and there is no practical difference.<P>Shoot the rifle you like and forget about the hoopla. <P>Good luck.<P>Dad<P>

I've heard it said that push feed is a little more accurate, and contolled feed is a little more reliable.<P>I sure would like someone to explain why.<P>elian

The advantages of the controlled feed are that it is impossible to have a jam since the cartridge head is gripped by the extractor claw as the shell rises from the magazine.The bolt then controls the cartridge,you can push the round into the chamber or retract it without locking the round in the chamber.Its impossible to get two shells out of the magazine by short stroking the bolt, partially chambering the round, then pulling the bolt to the rear leaving a round in the chamber and allowing another to pop up from the magazine.It was considered to be a big advantage in milatary rifles, because soldiers, in the heat of combat, might short stroke their rifles bolts causing jams. Also, extraction is said to be more positive due to larger size of the extractor claw in the controlled feed rifle. In actual practice there probably isn't much difference. Some dangerous game hunters feel the controlled feed rifles are safer to use.

This happened to me about 25 years ago: I used to own a "post '64" model 70 Winchester,[push feed], in .270. While I was deer hunting one time, I had the occasion to chamber a round from the magazine without watching the rifle feed because I was watching a buck and didn't want to lose sight of him. The rifle fed so smoothly that I did not feel any resistance as it stripped a round from the magazine and dumped it into the chamber long before the bolt closed. In fact I thought I had short cycled the bolt and not picked up a round at all so I never even closed the bolt but instead pulled it back to the rear and fed another round out of the magazine only now it seemed to be jammed since I could not chamber this round due to the fact that there was already a round in the chamber. So there I am cramming another round into the primer of the chambered round! Well nothing disastrous happened but right when I'm really counting on my rifle it's malfunctioning. In truth, it never did malfunction, not then, not ever; it was a real good rifle. I was the one malfunctioning. Never the less, for any firearm to deliver a well placed shot, it is dependent upon every component involved to do its job, and that includes the shooter. If my rifle had been a pre-'64, the one with controlled-round-feed, this would never have happened. My fault you say, but so what? If this had been a charging lion or whatever dangerous game strikes your fancy, it could have cost my life. Or perhaps merely the trophy of a lifetime. I highly recommend Winchester's remake of the pre-64 rifle known as the model 70 Classic Sporter with controlled round feed. So what if it costs a bit more than a 700 Remington? It's worth every penny of it. A good rifle should last longer than your lifetime. With just a little care it will be handed down to your grandchildrens' children and still take game. So the hundred or so bucks more you may have to spend to get the better rifle will become insignificant over the life of the gun. The above mentioned incident only happened once to me in 25 years. Under other circumstances it could have been one time too many. I hope this helps in your selection of rifles.<BR> Siskiyou 45

Oh yeah, about Remingtons being more accurate right out of the box: I think this was true when the post-64 Winchester M-70 came out. Mine would only shoot 3" or larger groups at 100 yards. Then my little brother got a hold of it and free-floated the barrell and bedded the action and the improvement was phenomenal. Winchester had changed the model 70 significantly so that it would be cheaper to produce and cheaper it was! I think they were attempting to be more competitive pricewise with Remington's very successful model 700. In doing so, the "rifleman's rifle" became second rate. Enough people complained loudly and long enough that Winchester found a way to re-introduce the "pre-64" and call it the model 70 Classic. Just like when Coca-Cola made "New Coke" and it caused such public outcry that they hade to bring back the old product and call it classic as well. The new rifle is one very fine rifle. Mine is, [can you guess?], in .270 and it is blued with a walnut stock. It has had NO CUSTOM WORK. The barrel is not free-floated. It's topped with a Leupold 3X9X40 Vari-X II scope and has a leather "military" sling and that's it. When I first got it I figured to glass bed the action and float the barrel. But there's this load I worked up that launches Nosler's 150 grain Partition bullets a bit over 3,000 fps and puts five of them into a two and a half inch or less group at 300 yards, so I ain't gonna fix something when it works that well. The only other thing I did to it was to adjust the trigger down to about two pounds. Now don't dump all your Remington 700's. I think they're really good rifles. In fact, I wouldn't mind having one myself, but I certainly wouldn't trade mine for one.

Hello. I have to second the comments by Siskiyou and John Duarte. I must say that in Alaska, almost every .375 you see will be a Model 70, at least that I've seen. You may never have a short-stroke on a Remington, but to take any chances when big bears are around is just foolish. The bottom line is that every angle should be covered, and Murphy's Law does apply.

Hey don't forget Ruger

short243,<P>Yup, I have a Ruger Model 77 MK II in .338 Win Mag purchased exactly for the reasons stated above. It served me well on an Alaska moose/bear hunt in '93.<P>At the time I bought it, the Model 70 Classics weren't available in a lot of different calibers, and certainly not in stainless.<P>I'm a controlled feed guy, be it Winchester, Ruger, or Mauser.

I really like Remington 700 actions, but I must say that if there is one advantage that I like about the CRF, it is the three-position safety.<P>Check out Remington's site <A HREF="http://www.remington.com." TARGET=_blank>www.remington.com.</A> They have a whole warning about pre-1982 700's and the bolt-lock feature. Not a very reassuring safety, to say the least.<P>The Mauser safety is better.<P>Teach

I'll take the opposite tact, and give a slight history lesson. After a few earlier models, the mauser 98, named for its introduction in 1898 was developed. Most all military and hunting rifle actions are a derivative of this design. The M98 was desinged for flawless function in hostile environments, ie crap in the gun, and many things happening that take your mind away from what your gun is doing. There is much more to the 98 then its controlled feeding, and just because a gun is designed as a control feed, doesn't mean it is in function. The bolt, extractor, action and magazene all work together for conrolled feed.<P>Now lets look at the M700, it was designed as something easier and less expspensive to make then a M98, plain and simple. You do not get a superior product when you take the cost cutting route, and in my not so humble opinion, the M700 is an inferior action for use in hunting rifles. The action cannot be field stripped w/o tools, the extraction system is less then robust, and as has been noted, push feed has certain problems. The comment about superior accuracy is greatly overblown. Out of the box, the lowly savage will outshoot the M700. In BR shooting, custom single shot bolt actions rule the roost. Its kinda like racing, where Chevy small blocks are used, its not because they are the best engine, just lots around, and everybody knows how to work on em. Same with 700's, lots around, and easy to make shoot. <P>If you want to craft a fine hunting rifle, you will use either an M98, or something similar to it. This is not to say you need such a gun for hunting, or that you won't find an M700 or other push feed gun 99.5% good enough. Some of us want 100%, and M700's by design don't deliver that.

Oh my!

Without getting longwinded, I'll explain my preference for the claw extractor. The biggest buck of my life walked out of the thick brush broadside at 70 yards or so. I had just got to my post and still had my gloves on, swung the gun up, a Remington 788 in .308, settled the crosshair on his shoulder and squeezed it off. The round hit a limb about 10 feet out from the barrel, my fault for not looking, and I cranked the bolt back to have the empty jam in the ejector. The buck stood there with me fumbling with my gloves, teeth and all, and then ran before I could clear it. I had shot the gun for years with no problems and shot it quite abit throughout the summer beforehand. I took it to a my gunsmith who took a pick and cleaned some shaved brass from under the ejector and said I shoot to hot a handload. That started quite a conversation, but to get to the point, I never trusted the gun after that and in fact bought a new m70 featherweight in 30-06 just two weeeks later. I know that empty is coming out come h___ or high water. I've had it for a number of years and had no trouble at all. I know I'll probably take a beating because it was'nt a 700 only a lowlly<BR>788. Fact is, the 788 is so accurate I kept it and still shoot it alot at targets, but my featherweight shoots just as well. Just my two cents worth. Rick

Here is my view on all this....take it for what it's worth. BTW, I'm not really interested in arguing this topic--sorry.<P>CRF actions are not better than push feeds. They are not any more reliable than push feeds. They do not provide greater exraction force than push feeds. Pushfeeds are stronger than CRFs, and have more accuracy potential. CRFs are harder to "double feed" or "short stroke." Let me address each of these topics in turn:<P>"Better" is purely a subjective term based on personal likes. I am 100% convinced that a Rem 700 is a better action than ANY M-70 action--for me. Others can make the same claim for M-70s or M-98s, and they are right as well. "Better" is what is better for you.<P>Pushfeeds are very reliable. My 700s will feed upside down and sideways. The key to proper feeding of any type bolt action is the magazine FOLLOWER. Take your slickest CRF, mess up the follower, and it will jam. I know of few factory M-70s in 375 H&H and 416 Rem that didn't properly feed. I have had two M-98s (a new one and an old one) as well as a M-96 that didn't feed properly. My new 98 couldn't feed rounds from the magazine without jamming, and it would scratch every case cycled through it. The old one scratched cases as well. Of course, all these problems can be easily fixed. <P>Usually, the CRFs work as advertised. I have kept one CRF (a sporterized P-17) and it feeds slicker than snot, cock on closing and all. The bottom line is ANY mechanical device can fail, and it is very important to test the reliablity in feeding of your rifle before you take it hunting.<P>Realize that when "hunting" the most dangerous game (Man), push-feeds are the overwhelming choice. US Military snipers use 700 actioned rifles, most police snipers use 700 actioned rifles, virtually every machine gun and rifle used by the US military is a push feed. The 700 replaced the M-70 as a sniper rifle in the US Military during Vietnam, and it has kept the job since. <P>The claim is often made that the big claw extractor on the Mauser type actions povides more force for extraction. That isn't really true. The claw does engage more of the rim, but it doesn't provide any twisting moment to the case when opening the bolt. Ever notice that the way you try to pull a tight fitting tube from within a tube is by twisting it? The extractor of a 700 grips the case very firmly, and twists the case as the bolt handle is lifted, providing a lot of extraction force. This little extractor is very strong. Twice I have seen reloads (not mine) so hot they froze the bolt, and when the bolt was hammered open, the little 700 extractor gripped the case so firmly it twisted the case head off. The case head came out and ejected, and the rest of the case had to be pushed out of the barrel with a rod. (BTW, it's not really a good idea to hammer on a bolt).<P>Because pushfeeds do not have any cut-outs in the barrel or reveiver for the claw, they are stronger than CRFs. This isn't really an important difference. As long as your CRF is made of modern steels, it is plenty strong enough to handle the hottest loads. It is nice to know that in the event of a barrel obstruction, my 700s action will hold and the barrel will blow. I'm not sure if modern CRFs will hold that kind of pressure, and I know many older ones won't. Periodically, I hear about someone having an overload and blowing the extractor out of their CRF--even pre '64 M-70s. Once again, it is an extreme case where the strength of a pushfeed over a CRF would be an issue.<P>As much as the CRF guys hate to hear it, pushfeeds have more accuracy potential than CRFs. Yes, part of the reason so many 700s are used in competition today is because they are easy to work on and lots of aftermarket parts are available (just like the 350 Chevy). However, they wouldn't have become so popular for accuracy applications if they didn't shoot so well. Realize, the commercial action most commonly used in BR, Silhouette, and Tactical, is the 700. Even in unlimited BR classes, 700s still occasionally show up and win. Recently (as reported in Precision Shooting), a factory barreled Sendero placed extremely in a 1000 yd competition, and it was competing against 30+ pound purpsoe built 1000 yd rifles. <P>I have had three Senderos--two in 7mm Rem Mag and one in 300 Win. The first one shot a touch over 1/2 moa with my then crappy shooting and loading techniques. I learned how to shoot and load when I got the other two. They both averaged under 1/2 moa, and best loads were in the .2s and .3s. They shot in the .2s and .3s many times--not just once. My 416 Rem (700 action, Pac Nor barrel) is right now averaging in the .6 range, and has also shot a group in the .2s. That's a 300 grain bullet at over 2750 fps (chronographed), generating about 50 ft lbs boys and girls. <P>(BTW, I too keep hearing about how Savages always outshoot Remimgtons. I never see that at the gun range or read about it in competition results. I have nothing against Savages and I think they are an accurate rifle and an excellent value. In fact, I highly recommend them. However, I'll need to see the groups from the Savages that are "outshooting" my 700s before I'll beleive Savages are more accurate.)<P>Now any rifle that will maintain a 1 to 1.5 AVERAGE is accurate enough for big game hunting out to ranges longer than most should shoot. Most well tuned CRFs ought to shoot sub moa. However, most CRF guys will likely lose bragging rights about the smallness of their groups when comparing notes with a guy shooting a well tuned 700. Is this a big deal? Only if your ego is dependent on your group size.<P>CRFs are a little harder to short-stroke than a push feed. A short stroke occurs when you open the bolt to chamber a round, push the round far enough toward the chamber so the follower releases it, STOP, pull the bolt back open, and try to chamber another round. If the muzzle is pointed down, the first round will slide into the chamber. When you try to feed in the second round, you jam the first in the chamber. This process is harder to do with a CRF, because the extractor grabs the round early in the bolt-closing cycle and keep it from sliding into the chamber. This is the only real advantage of a CRF, slight one as it may be. <P>After I had become disgusted with CRFs and began using push feeds, I heard about this short stroking thing. So I tried it. I really had to work at it to get my 700 to properly short-stroke. The bottom line here is to become familiar with the operation of your rifle, regardless of the action. The safety's operation and the action's operation should be second nature to you.<P>So how do I look at this CRF vs push Feed thing?<P>- Proper feeding: no difference<BR>- Extraction Force: advantage to push-feed (700), but not really an issue<BR>- Strength: avdantage push feed, but not really an issue<BR>- Short stroke proof: advantage to CRF, but not really an issue<BR>- Accuracy: advantage to pushfeed, but only an issue in competitions that require extreme accuracy<BR>- Reliability: no difference, as long as both are maintained properly<BR>- Which one is best? Whichever one you can operate in your sleep and have confidence in.<P>Blaine <BR>

One of the things in history that gives you an insight is the selection by Carlos Hathcock in his stints in Vietnam as a sniper. On his first round he got a Model 70 from the PX in Guam and did very well. On his second they gave him an issued rifle - model 700 action and he still did very well. I don't think it matters very much but you as the shooter must know and use whatever equipment you select with full knowledge and practice. Both can and do work very well - my $0.02 stv

Guess the CRF and Push feed thing is like the 270 v 30-06...it will go on forever. I think Blaine said it pretty good. I have had pre-64 CRF guns jam on feeding, these were always follower problems or bolt travel problems, easy to fix, but they do happen. Interesting is the fact that if CFR is great and as accurate as Push feed, why does Winchester supply Push feed in the Stealth, Black Shadow and Coyote model 70s? These are the very models that they promote as highly accurate. My guess is Hunters think CRF is better and shooters think Push feed is best. Winchester also plays the game. Blaine wins again. BEAR

AFP: Your push feed will feed a round in the chamber when upside down? Try this and see what happens: Turn the rifle on its side (ejector port down), then with the bolt... slowly feed a round into the chamber. As soon as the round is released by the magazine and is being pushed forwards, stop the bolt from moving forwards. Now, move the bolt back just enough to free the round. Does the round stays put, or does it fall on the ground? My push-feed Model 70 rifle drops it every time, but my Ruger with a mouser-type bolt holds the round in place.<P>I don't have any problem with neither of the two bolts, except that if a fall down or something happens where I have to load the chamber under stress (a bear ready to eat me, for example), I want to make sure the round won't fall out. When I am on a tree stand I don't worry about that.

Ray,<P>I'll be very careful not to stop the bolt when I have my 700 upside down and I am woking it very slowly while a bear is trying to eat me. <P>Blaine

Blaine: Regardless of speed, there is nothing holding the round in place with a push-feed bolt. If there is a malfunction when trying to push a round into the chamber, the tendency is to backup the bolt and try again. I was just trying to explain as simply as possible one difference between a push-feed and a controlled-feed bolt. Under any stressful situation, regardless of what kind,we may forget something. I also understand that I may never be in any stressful situation, but things happen.<P>I knew a guy where I worked at who was moose hunting with some friends. He was walking on a trail, and a grizzly bear happened to walk across the trail several yards ahead. He went into a panic mode, and supposedly fired his rifle three times on the bear, but the bear kept going. The guy ran back to his campsite to get his friends to help him track the bear, and when they returned to the spot where he had fired his rifle, there were three unfired rounds on the ground. He had never fired the rifle.

Brief experience: This year deer hunting with my 7X57 Mauser 98, controlled feed.<P>Deer walks out into field with me while I am minding my own business. (standing up scratching hair on my head, waving cap, no camoflague any where to be seen, basically looking goofy, ie not hunting) Immediatley drop to sitting, shoot. MISS TERRIBLY due to flinch because I'm too excited, deer starts walking back into woods, try to crank out old shell, and in with new, short stroke it, several times, finally pull all way back shell flies out new one in, deer gone but gun not jammed. If not CRF I would have jammed gun and no deer, this way, no jammed gun but still no deer.

#<p>[This message has been edited by AFP (edited February 12, 2001).]

458 Lott, I have NEVER heard of anyone having to field strip their bolt (other than in combat), so that is no big deal IMHO. If you do have to field strip your bolt while hunting, you are hosed anyway, because if things aren't working right, because 99% of the time a broken fireing pin is to blame. I don't know of anyone that carries an extra pin while hunting .Flinch