Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Dang Fussy CRF!!!!!!!!

UUGGGHHH..........

The M-700 in 416 Rem I had fed 100% reliably, whether slow, fast, sidweways, or upside down. As long as the rounds woukld fit in the magazine, it fed them PERFECTLY.

Of course, I sold that rifle to make a politically correct DG rifle on a CRF. Maybe that was a mistake. I can accept that my custom barreled CZ 550 Safari in 416 Rem seems to be less accurate than my M-700. After all, this is not a long range rifle and gimme a break, a CRF will lose to a Rem 700 accuracy wise almost every time.

However, it bothers me that this Rube-Goldberg CRF extractor has to have things "just so" before it will feed reliably. Even though the magazine is very long--about 3.9", I just can't go ahead and seat bullets to that length. Just because they fit the magazine doesn't mean they will feed--like it did with my 700. A 350 grain Barnes TSX seated to .010" off the lands (measured to the ogive) WILL NOT feed from the magazine in this CZ. It needs to be at least .050" from the lands before it feeds properly. Of course, I didn't discover this until I had shot the first 15 handloads through the rifle with the bullets .010" deep....................................

Okay, I'm not really regretting my custom CZ. Like I have heard 100 times, push feeds are much more forgiving in terms of feeding, but a properly set up CRF is usually as reliable in feeding, and probably more reliable in extraction. The key is getting the CRF properly set up.

This rifle feeds 400 grain Rem factory ammo perfectly. The COL of the factory load is 3.6". The COL of a 350 grain TSX seated .010" off the lands is about 3.78". What happens is the nose of the bullet starts up the feed ramp too soon, which in effect pushes the head of the case down, which means the bolt slips over the top of the case.

When I seat the bullets .050" off the lands, which gives me a COL of 3.73", it works fine--the rim of the case comes up under the extractor before the bullet nose starts up the feed ramp. Now I don't yet know that .050" off the lands won't turn out to be be the best deating depth. My M-700 would shoot 1/2" groups with the bullets .110" deep. Then again, the Rem had a parallel throat, and this CZ does not.

It is a bit annoying that even though my CZ can fit a round with a COL of 3.9", I am basically back to the same COL that my Rem had.

Now, before you M-70 guys pipe in, realize you don't have a prayer of getting a bullet to seat in the magazine if it is much over 3.6" COL, so even at it's worst the CZ has more COL available than an M-70. Also, M-70s in 416 Rem have had their share of feeding problems as well..............

I could reshape the feed ramp, but I am loathe to do that. If I don't get it perfect, then EVERY bullet, regardless of seating depth, might jam. I suppose I could also mess with the extractor a bit, but once again, if I screw that up nothing will feed right--though I can always buy another ectractor.

What I will do is just seat the bullets deeper. This rifle MUST feed 100% reliably.

Blaine,

It ain't the feed ramp.

It's the surfaces that control the release point from the magazine that work in relationship with the upward camming of the feed ramp, and in relation to the OAL of the cartridge.


Wilhelm and Paul worked the receiver dimensions, in respect to cartridge dimensions, that respected the angles relevant to the extractor and feed timing.

It's a standardized pattern of relationships that must be honored or the thing ain't gonna work.

Same sort of thing that goes on with the 1911.

The 700 is a sloppy mess of issues that works like a Glock, because Gaston figured out the averages.

Step outside of those averages, and stuff gets weird.
Step outside of the known dimensions the system of the 1911 and the Mauser are based upon and things get weird.

The 1911 and the Mauser were meant to be made by Human hands, and not averages.

CZ is doing their best to bridge the gap and maintain a profit.
Just like Winchester and Kimber.

Last I knew, There were several good Mauser 'Smiths that understood the relationship between Cartridge dimensions and Magazine/rail angles that quietly did their work while back logged.

It's a timing thing and the Mauser brothers actually came up with a mathematical form for the matter.

Apologies that I do not have refference nor names readily at hand.

D'arcy Echols comes to mind however.

Hope this helps.
E4E

The worst feeding rifle I have ever seen is a CZ in 458. The long magnum action won't feed the short 458. My friend owns this rifle and is going to convert it to a Lott to get it to feed. The way it is right now I would not use it to shoot at a the range never mind an expensive hunting trip to Africa. It jamms up worse than any semi-auto I have ever fired.

If factory loads feed perfectly , and handloads near factory oal length feed perfectly..............don't worry , be happy (grin)

Sorry to hear that Blaine. Unfortunatley it's one of the reasons I got rid of my CZ in 375 H&H.

I've heard that they can be really good, but they do need some work.

E4E, spot-on post.

Blaine, what can I say... you're not ever gonna be happy unless you're torturing yourself with some sort of rifle project! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Best,

Brad

I am really not qualified to give opinion here; however, in terms of reliability I'll take my 30 plus years old Model 700 over my 10 plus years old Winchester CRF. In fact, the most reliable gun I own is my Sako with an AV action. I have heard they were too damn costly to produce. That is a shame, because I'd buy another in a heartbeat!

I think if I were hunting griz exclusively and I couldn't find an old Sako action, I would probably buy a 700 provided they are the same as the 700 action that made Remington famous. Also, I do know that many who venture into Alaska where griz calls home use a slightly modified Marlin lever action.

Remember, guys, this is just the opinion of one who likes to hunt but ain't expert in rifles. I just know what I like.


Good huntin',

Leon Phelps

Blaine: I remember you and I discussing your CZ purchase over the phone a couple of times. I also remember telling you the CZ was a grat rifle, but it does need a bit of work, especially with gents like us that like to mess around with different bullets, seating depths, etc. E4E hit the nail on the head with his analysis. I recommend when you find the load you like, send the rifle to Mark Penrod or any smith that understands the CRF and it'll be just fine. 700s just don't hold up under dusty, dirty conditions and they are not weel liked in africa. Below is an excerpt from African0Hunter magazine's archives regarding the PH test on 700s and others:

The 700 may be a very fine hunting rifle. I don�t know because I�ve never used one, but I do know that it is a piss poor dangerous game rifle especially in .416 Rem calibre. Apart from the odd inexplicable misfire, a broken extractor cost us an elephant wounded and lost at Rifa. This is not the first year that I�ve seen a broken extractor on a Remington 700 in .416 either. In addition they are just about the hardest rifle to refill the magazine in a hurry. My memories this year of students and candidates using them is that of youngsters frantically trying to thrust cartridges into the mag, only to have a double feed, the rounds pop straight back out or many other problems. A two round reload took on average, twice as long with the Model 700's as it did with just about any other make of rifle. The difference between the Remington and the Weatherby is that the latter can be downloaded a little so as to operate flawlessly and the safety fixed, whilst I do not know that anything can be done with the Remingtons except to re-barrel them to a plains game cartridge and leave them at home when out after the dangerous stuff. To be fair though, all of the extraction problems seem to be confined to rifles in .416 and .375. and they seem reasonably reliable in .458 provided you are prepared to tolerate the awkwardness of the reload. I am not. A good single shot or even a Weatherby is a better choice.

Blaine,

I have similar feeding issues with a Classic M70 in 6.5X55. If I don't load everything just right - right being very long- they won't feed worth a hoot. And the 160s or any flavor, probably any RN for that matter, are much less fussy.

Another M70 Classic, a 375, feeds anything I put in the magazine including rounds that won't go fully in the chamber. I think that rifle could easily be a switch barrel 375-300 H&H-338 WM or 358 Norma and maybe a bunch more without touching the magazine. It sometimes seems like a very arbitrary thing.

In your case I wouldn't be surprised if another bullet with a different ogive configuration might allow you to do just about anything in terms of seating length. I agree on issues of reliability. I also seem to have more confidence in my guns which have never shown any degree of fussyness. These include some of those Remingtons one of which is configured as a DG rifle (for Alaska, in a place where sand and grit is not an issue.)

Blaine, you're such a high maintenance guy. You want your rifle to shoot AND feed??

Sorry to have fun at your expence. If it makes you feel better, I have learned a lot from your suffering over the years.

Add Roger Ferrell to the list of Gunny types that can make that baby feed.

Mike

To all,

I suppose if the aft portion of the magazine rails were opened up a bit they might release the round sooner, perhaps allowing the rim to slide up under the extractor even with a long OAL. This is something else I'm leery about, because if it's screwed up the rifle won't feed. If the round is released too soon then it becomes a push feed.

As long as this thing will shoot with the bullets .050 to .100 deep, then I'll be happy. I am getting ready to head out the range in the 107ish degree heat--I'll probably be by myself--and I will see what happens with the bullets .050 deep.

My goal is to get it to feed as smoothly as an old FN Mauser I came across a while back. I was in a hunting camp, and one of the guys had this FN in 270. The magazine was full and the bolt was open. I pick up the rifle and pointed it downwards, just barely touched the bolt, which made it slide forward under it's own weight and brought a round up under the extractor. This is what I want, and I might indeed send it to one of the guys mentioned to get the actioned sorted out.

And yes, I am not happy unless I am fussing with a rifle, like most of the guys I know here...... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Now I don't dispute the problems 700s have had in Africa, but my 700 was a fully tuned and tested rifle, and as such reliable. The CZ is not yet tuned up. All this goes to show it's not enough just to buy a politically correct DG rifle and head to Africa. The rifle needs to be put through it's paces and sorted out. Like the fictional "Remington" told Patterson in the move "The Ghost and the Darkness", after Patterson missed a shot at a lion with a borrowed rifle that malfunctioned (that part of this troy is true)..............Remington asked, incredulously, "you went to battle with an untested rifle?"

I'm off to the range.........

If you expect a self styled rifle to function like one put togethor by John Ricks, you need your head examined. Quit dickin around, cause that's all your doing, and get someone to do it right the first time. I have an awful time believing that you "need" this rifle to feed and function properly or you would have gone about this whole mess a bit differently.

Give Tom Burgess a call, break out a pen and paper, sit back and enjoy an education.

Chuck

I think the right guy can make a crf feed pretty well regardles of seating depth. Might wanna check with Charlie, I'm guessing he could give you a couple of tips about what you need to be doing...

http://www.siskguns.com/Videos/Dangerous_Game_Rifle1.wmv

Just got back from the range. Adding an additional .050" seating depth didn't make much difference. It shot another 1/2" group with the 350 TSX at 2500 fps. That appears to be a huge sweet spot. I will need a crimp, as three shots set back the bullet of the round I kept in the magazine .008".

It fed reliably, Rube Goldberg feeding system and all. Whether it is the feed ramp or the magazine rails, bullets seated more than .050" (these were .060") feed well. I just need to figure out how to slick up the action a bit.

You know for me, getting a rifle to feed reliably--whether a factory rig or one from a custom builder, doesn't just happen magically. I had to fuss with two of the rifles John Ricks built me to get them to feed reliably. One was a 338 RUM that was built on a standard magnum 700 long. It liked to pop two rounds out of the magazine at once. I got it mostly sorted out. The other was a 30-06 that would ocassionally leave a round in the chamber. I was able to completely fix that. An out-of-the-box Interarms Mk-10 in 270 I had fed horribly, but that was "early" in hobby so I just dumped it and got a Sendero.

I guess 2500 fps, 1/2" groups, reliable feeding, and a mild load isn't so bad. I hope it will shoot as well with a Lee Factory Crimp on each round.

Blaine

I can only relate to what I have had to do to an M70 to get it to feed, using a "factory" box magazine - staggered top round. First, the extractor will need a little polishing at the "hook" edge to open it up just a little to accomodate the rim of the cartridge while the cartridge is entering at an angle into the chamber. Second, the "rails" on the action need to be releived back (away from the chamber end) ever so slightly, to get the round to "jump" to center as the bolt pushes the round forward and the extractor hooks the rim. This should solve the problem, as it does with a CRF M70. Another "fix" is to find a "center feed" magazine to fit that action. This is what I have done to all of my M70's, wheather push feed or CRF. I make my own magazine that is a stagger box magazing, with a taper at the top of the magazine to bring the top round to the center of the bolt (lower portion of the bolt), AND open up the claw slightly to help with rim engagement. This, along with machining away the "control" portion of the receiver rails to facilitate the new magazine.

It's a lot of work, but when done, I can take any of my DGR CRF's rifles and chamber an empty round without problems. By-the-way, I weld up and machine back the box portion of the receiver to give me a 3.95" loaded round length.

Hopefully, my experience may help.

Dale,

Thanks for the tip. I hadn't thought of it, but this magazine box should be deep enough to get four rounds in it single-feed.

Do you think single stack is the most reliable way to feed?

Blaine

I'll PM you some photos of my latest adventure. I have "designed" a staggered box / single stack magazine for my 416 Rigby based cartridges that fit into a modified M70. Don't know how to post here so it will have to wait until I can take some pictures and send them to you. The "single stack" idea seems to be the most reliable system going. Only problem is that it will limit you on magazine capacity. I'm presently doing a 7 round magazine for both my wildcats based on the 416 Rigby and the 404 Jeffery cases. Presently, I have machined the magazine "end view" out of aluminum, to see if my idea would work. It does, so I'll make the magazines out of (4130 alloy) sheet metal. These magazines will necessate drop box floorplates, but for me, the added rounds is worth the ugliness of the drop box.

AFP,

there are a lot of nice rifles on the market that do not have a full lenght extractor and/or CRF... i find it amusing that a rifleman of your experience felt the need to choose a different style of rifle based on the perceived need for "controlled round feeding.....

i AM a proponent of the winchester rifle, and the classic model 70 action...
for me though the issues are mechanical reliability, and functioning... neither of these issues have anything to do with controlled round feeding, except that the most functional and reliable rifles made, in my opinion, also happen to be model 70 winchesters with controlled round feeding...

controlled round feeding is given much credit for making a rifle more reliable... the design does, in fact eliminate one form of human error which, in dire circumstance can have drastic results.....
consistant practice, from field positions, and a cool head also eliminates such errors.....

have a blast with your new rifle..... FWIW, it sounds like a tool meant to function well within a defined envelope, rather than a tool with which to explore ballistic and accuracy potentials..... my guess is that loads within that defined envelope will do what you want to do... time and experience will tell..... john w

John,

I agree with on the advanatges of a CRF vs a push feed being minimal. If I could have afforded both I would not have sold the 700. Aditionally, my elk rifle, a 338 Win Cely built me that weighs in at about 8 lbs with the scope, and has a Sako extractor, has proven itself to be very reliable and durable--more that I expected. I am hard on stuff anyway, and I have beat the snot out of the rifle elk hunting.

I have outlined the reasons why I went with the CZ 550 Safari a couple of times. To me it is the epitome of the M-98 design. It has a very beefy extractor with excellent extraction of sticky rounds, whether from a cold dirty case or a hot over-expanded one. Reliable extraction and ejection under dirty, dusty conditions was the primary driver for me to go from the 700 to the CZ in this DG rifle.

While my favored Rem 700 has arguably the strongest extraction of any action for over-expanded cases, it doesn't so so well with cold sticky cases and the extractor design is somewhat sensitive to rim diameter. The 700's extractor is also somewhat sensitive to breakage from brass shavings, and it tends to produce a lot of brass shavings. A Sako extractor on a 700 virtually eliminates the brass shaving and extractor breakage problems, but it does so at the expense of hot case extraction. The 700s plunger ejecter is a bit sensitive to malfunction from debries.

Other reasons I picked the CZ include:

- The CZ has a magazine large enough for 5 rounds.
- The magazine is long enough to allow long bullets to be seated where they don't encroach so much on the powder space. I had originally thought I'd have .2" of extra length, but until the feed rails are modded--if I even do that--I have only .15" over a 700.
- The CZ has the full inner receiver ring as opposed to the mirror image extractor cutouts found on many M-98s
- It has a two position safety, very similar to what I am used to with the 700
- It is probably the most affordable large action out there. It's main competition in terms of size are the Ruger Rigby and the Wby Mk 5.
- I did briefly consider the M-70--which is also affordable, but there are just so many things I personally don't like about M-70s............