I am starting to gather information for my one-and-only-last-gun-I'll-ever-need (yeah..,like that's ever gonna happen). I'm stuck on controlled round feed or not. I have no expectation of hunting outside north America, so Brown bears are the only dangerous game I'd ever face..and even that's not too likely east of the muddy Mississippi.

I've picked up bits of internet conversations about the negative aspects of CRF..is there really a negative that would keep you from owning one? My most likely caliber would be 284win or 7SAUM.

Thanks for sharing your experience,
Jeff

the only real problem with CRF is if you get a gun thats not perfectly in time....if they are out of time they will jam worse than most their proponents say pushfeeds do....but CRF even for dangerous game is largely a recent American hangup....if you look at alot of the high dollar DG rifles coming out of Europe they are push feeds and these are clients that can afford a properly set up rifle of their choice....

Jeff, this argument has been going around forever, but I wouldn't sweat it. CRF as it was originally designed was a lot more robust in controlling a cartridge than the present day design. Back then, you couldn't feed a round into the chamber and close the bolt, they had to feed up through the magazine so it would slide up into the extractor. We now reduce the thickness and strength of the "claw" so that it will snap over the rim a a cartridge already in the chamber, significantly reducing its strength.

Anyway, I don't think it makes much difference. You will notice than no benchrest or rifles built for accuracy are based on CRF, as the claw interferes with providing even pressure on the back of the case when in the chamber. You'll also note that no military weapons are CRF designed, and they're used against targets that shoot back.

Put the debate aside and chose the action you like.

Me for one. I find push feeds to be lesss finicky and easier to get to shoot. Savage 99 will be along shortly with his stupid jammed rifle pic. He lives for this topic.

I don't really get this debate. My Remington 700 feeds without problems. My Winchester Model 70 pushfeed feeds flawlessly. My Winchester CRF feeds well also.

If someone can't get either one to feed, that rifle either needs a less "challenged" owner or the rifle needs to see a gunsmith.

I do like a 3-position safety, though. Just a personal preference. PTG even makes one for a Remington 700.

Jeff,

For clarity, I have never been to Afrika or hunted bears that could eat me. I have only owned about thirty rifles over the years and I'd say it's about a 50/50 split on PF and CRF actions.

Maybe I'm just lucky but I don't remember a jam or failure to extract with either/any action I have owned. I have or have owned Win 70 classics, Ruger 77's, Husqvarna, Kimber Montana, Rem 700, Rem 7, Weatherby MK V and a few others.

I don't buy into the majority of the BS I hear on the net. Buy a rifle that feels right to you and rock on.

It's not always a matter of "poor feeding". It's extraction problems (with pushfeeds) that need to be addressed.. just sayin..

Right, both PF and CRF rifles FEED equally well. Even if modern CRF rifles are less robust than originally designed 100+ years ago, they are still more rugged and bullet proof if used in harsh or dirty conditions than PF. Kept reasonably clean both work equally well. But CRF gives me a little more confidence in case of unplanned events. No one throws their gun down in the mud on purpose, but I've had to fish guns out of creeks, rivers and ponds in the past. I believe CRF offers a slighty better chance of it functioning afterward.

And I don't see any real downside.

I've shot the piss outta my Rem M7 7mm rsaum, and never had a failure to extract.

What am I doing wrong?

Why would a rifle that had fallen down the side of the mountain (let's say) be less damaged if it was a CRF than a PF? I dropped my PF rifle out of a tree stand once. It fell about 25ft but it landed on soft forest litter. When I checked it out, it still shot to the same point and everything worked okay.

Funny how that works.

Seems the CRF guys are the ones that always see the problems.

I have several push feed actions and have owned a lot more over the decades and never had an issue of any sort nor ever saw or heard of one until I came on this website. (I am not denying they occur as reported)

Because I spent so much time on public ranges testing and reviewing rifles I saw several feed and extraction issues with Mauser rifles which in the majority, were surplus rifles, many having had action work and new barrels and stocks.

Interestingly, the SMLE push feed military rifle was a flawless performer by comparison.

I found a gem about a dozen years back, it was a customized Model 70 in .458 and the smoothest and most flawless feeding rifle I ever shot, period, with a superb trigger that snapped as cleanly as a glass rod.

I was offered much more than it was worth a couple of years back and by chance, it was recently redirected to me and I snapped it up. I would NEVER trade it again for another rifle simply based on an extractor variation.

The other thing that has got way out of hand in these debates, is that the term CRF is wrong. These actions are also push feed until the case head is released from the feed rails and the cartridge is about the same depth into the breach as the "slandered" push feed action.

If someone wants to call it a claw extraction, that would be reasonable, but claw feed? No. Push, flick, feed? ok.....

Simple, you're shooting it and not writing about the flawed design

I love CRF and PF. Most of these are PF and nary a hitch. No safe queens, all are hunters. Brass is worked up and stored in 5 gallon buckets, not 50 count boxes.
I likes me some shooting.
My breath probably smells like a mixture of IMR 4350 & RL'22

Most hunters never shoot enough to know the difference, or for that difference to matter to them. Better to buy powder by the 8lb keg than wonder about the difference in CRF or PF.

Shoot 'em enough and you'll have problems with either.

Deal with rifle fit, feeding & function, ability to stay zeroed, and accuracy before worrying about CF vs. PF.

if you are buying a rifle, go with what you like and accept the action platform that it comes with.

If you're building a rifle, choose an action and then build what you want.

For what it's worth, I once (jr high) jammed (double fed) a push feed m700. My dad then took pains to teach me how to cycle a rifle, and it has never again been an issue.

Great response.

I've had about an even mix of each over the last 35 years and honestly have never had a failure in the field with either. In my younger days when I was working up loads and I thought the reloading manuals were a bit too conservative, I did stick a case or two in Remingtons that a claw extractor might have removed. Then again it might not have. I long ago decided that there's no need to load to those levels and haven't stuck a case in 25 years.

It's kind of funny that during the time when the two big boys, Remington and Winchester, only made push feeds, I never remember hearing this debate. Lots of PF's went to Africa back then and killed stuff. And the owners came back alive.

I can say this. I have never had a failure to feed with a push feed. I have with a CRF and it has been with round nose bullets and not having them seated to the correct depth. My pre 64 model 70 35 Whelen gave me fits with round nose bullets till I figured out they were seated too deep. Once I corrected that they fed flawlessly. Same with my 400 Whelen, also a model 70. Round nose bullets have to be seated out to at least 3.330 or they will jam every time in that rifle. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with CRF's, it just means you have to play by their rules.

This. My hat's off to those who have spent years around rifles, shot a lot,and "never seen a problem" of any kind. I've shot the hell out of both, seen problems with both.So put to rest the notion that only PF rifles get shot a lot...more internet BS.

A PF works fine if:

-The plunger ejector does not stick. You get one speed of ejection and it depends on the strength of the spring and free operation of the plunger...if it gets dirty, grimy or frozen, it won't work.

-The small extractors common on PF's functions properly, does not tear through a cartridge rim,or drop the case as it slides along the inside of the receiver ring from the tension of the plunger ejector.On many popular model rifles, the extractor is a small, junky, piece of pot metal. I have seen them break on Savage 110's,and PF M70's. Never seen a Remington extractor break...but have seen them pull through a case rim and leave a fired case in the chamber...more than once. Generally they do not take as big a bite on the case rim, as the extractor on many CRF's.

I sat and watched a guy I knew who was leaving for Africa on a buff hunt,shooting a PF M70 458 Win. The thing failed to extract at least 2-3 times out of every 5-6 shots....I asked him did he really intend to take the rifle without having it fixed? He said, sure no problem...gave me great insight into the working knowledge of some shooters when it comes to rifle function.

(Like anything else, not all PF's are equal; neither are all CRF's.)

- Feeding is pretty easy so long as the follower rides up the way it should and positions the cartridge so that the bolt face grabs the rim and pushes it forward like it should. This can cause a problem with either action style.

- With a PF,the shooter should make sure he does not short stroke the action, or make sure he brings the bolt fully into battery.If not, it's easy to get a double feed and a jam. This is easy under the controlled and sedate conditions of shooting at the range. How we all react when trying to keep a Cape Buffalo out of your trousers is another issue. But most of us will never have Cape Buffalo issues so it's all good.


Many assume that because a rifle has a long, external,non rotating extractor, it's a "CRF". This is BS and shooter myth. A true CRF is a system.Follower, feed rails, magazine dimensions are perfectly matched to the cartridge.If the cartridge is too short for the magazine, the system is no longer "CRF". This is because when you operate the bolt,the fired case should contact the standing ejector and kick out the fired case (clear the loading port) before the bolt moves back far enough to pick up the rim of the next cartridge to feed as the bolt is moved forward. This is why a CRF should not "double feed",and is a feature built into the CRF by Paul Mauser so that battle stressed soldiers would not end up with a jammed rifle in the heat of battle.. But if you have a nice FN Mauser 30/06 action, and barrel it for a 308, it isn't a CRF anymore and all bets are off.

(In passing I will mention that at least two world wars saw extensive use of CRF's, the Mauser 98 and the Springfield. That all battle rifles were/are PF's is untrue. Many of these "PF's" are semi auto's, not manually operated bolt guns.)

- The extractor on a 98 Mauser bites a bigger section of the case rim than many (all?) PF extractors. A hook on the underside of the extractor fits a circular recess on the nose of the bolt...the harder you pull on the bolt,the harder that hook grabs, supports the extractor to keep it from sliding over the case rim. This helps insure that a dirty or stuck case is positively pulled from the chamber on extraction...it's all mechanics. The M70 does not have this feature,but depends on a tough spring steel extractor to do the job.Again not all CRF's are equal.

- The rails, magazines, and followers of a Mauser 98 are all in sync with the cartridge. Feed rails are machined into the receiver, not stamped into a magazine box, which is cheaper and easier to make.

In fact, most of the features that evolved into the PF design were done because they were cheaper and easier to manufacture; not because they worked "better".Many of them were designed and patented by Paul Mauser about the same time as the 98,and rejected by the German Government as not being as reliable as the M98 design. Go figure.

If everything in a CRF system is not working properly,it will not work. If everything in a PF design is not working properly, it will not work...so the fact that someone had a hard time getting a CRF to work properly means nothing...it only means the rifle was a broken POS,or ill designed or built, the same way it would be if a PF fails to work properly. So comparing them on that basis is utterly worthless.

In sporter weight rifles properly tuned, of equal barrel weight and design, there is no difference in accuracy (more shooter myth).Any M70 with equal barrels will shoot right along with any Rem 700,if both are tuned to their full capability.What bench rest shooters use is of utterly no interest to me in a rifle designed and built to hunt BG animals,anymore than I am interested in using their bullets to shoot BG animals. The two disciplines have nothing in common.

I have no problem hunting with either a PF or a CRF...so long as they both work the way they should.

Bob,

I guess I should have been a bit more specific. I did say I never had a failure in the field. I did have a couple PF's that gave me fits but they never went to the field until they were fixed. One a Remington that wanted to double feed went back to the shop where it came from and was repaired by the owner. The other a PF 70 heavy barreled 222 that didn't like to eject properly. It got repaired before we hunted it. Most all of my PF's have been Remingtons, either 722/21, 600 or 700's.

The more I shoot, the less the PF/CRF thing means to me.

These days it's more "Can I get the bullet I want in the case at the length I want/need?"

Box length is more my consideration right now, might not be in the future.

Excellent post, Bob.

From a functional standpoint, it doesn't matter much to me if a rifle has a claw extractor or a Sako/M16 type, but I do prefer fixed EJECTORS.

It's been many, many years since I've owned one, but I don't like the design of the Remington extractor, even though it usually works.

I do much prefer the look and feel of the claw extractor actions, probably because I'm kind of an antique design myself.

Mart most of these snafu's get uncovered at the range....assuming of course guys run their rifles enough to uncover them.

I have seen them a couple times in the field in other people's rifles. Never happened to me....see above. I grind the things to try and make them not work, before they go hunting.

Thank You All for the considered and experienced answers. I can see that I was stuck in shallow mud, and I can pull myself out of this one easily.

I will pick an action that has the proper magazine length and operates smoothly, then concern myself with the safety and trigger details I prefer.

I figure my money will go further by getting a used gun and putting a great barrel and glass on it. I mostly didn't want to hear that I needed to buy a $1000 custom action to find a good platform to build on.

Indeed.

In all my years of hunting I've only seen one rifle incapacitated and it was a 98 Mauser that jumped the rim of a chambered round leaving it stuck in the chamber. That is a grand total of one so not exactly damning. I actually have both CF and PF rifles . The biggest complaint is trying to feed a empty case into a CF rifle like when you are setting up a set of dies. The PF rifles work fine for me so I guess if I had to make a choice it would be PF.

PF or CRF doesn't matter all that much to me. All other things being equal I prefer CRF because at the range I can easily control extracted cases with one hand. I also prefer the stronger extraction strength of Mauser-type claws. Not so much with PF. Neither has given me problems in the field.

As to differences in accuracy and the "advantage" of PF types, my most accurate rifles have Ruger and Interarms CRF actions. Some PFs come close, though. The one really accurate PF I had went down the road to fund my first AR. No regrets.

In the end, if I like a rifle I buy it. Somehow I don't see myself shooting upside down while hanging from a tree and hunting DG is rather unlikely. Both PF and CRF work for my hunting and range work.

Ask Savage_99......He knows......or does he?

You need to pose that damn dog on the other end of that rifle. He looks skeeeeert!

Nothing quite like a level headed check of reality. I may be able to skip my coffee this morning.

A gunsmith I know happens to be a Winchester warranty repair station. He tells me that the CNC machining that has taken over the manufacturing of guns in recent years has led to a decline of highly skilled fitters, resulting in guns commonly leaving factories with inproperly timed or fitted parts.

Yes, I have taken him work for both CRF and push feed extractors and not just Winchester brands.

To the OP of the thread, for a custom rifle I like to start with old used donor actions, well worn in and smooth operating. I'm not particular about push feed or CRF. Buy an action that you like the way the safety is located or the way the magazine operates etc.

Bullsh!t!! "Snoopy" is a 9lb Lion �. LOL

When I first started buying rifles a gunsmith sold me on the idea of the "three rings of steel" and the Remington "safety chamber"

I tend to still believe it.

Love the pooch!

All it takes is a simple magazine spring to break and your beloved whatever has become a single shot! (Had that happen twice on an otherwise generally 'reliable' CRF : M70 375 H&H).

As BobinNH pointed out every rifle is a system wherein all parts must work together properly. A gunked plunger ejector may not work on a M700 (or other push feed type rifle) but a 'standing ejector' can be stymied even more easily and then they don't work either.

I won't hazard a guess on how many 'controlled round feed' rifles leave the factory in 'semi-CRF' condition but I would bet the percentage is high. I'm talking about rifles which work when run very slow, very fast and hard, and everything in between. No standard production rifle is one I'd trust straight out of the box (which isn't to say that it won't work or that I wouldn't hunt with it.)

Any rifle needs to be correctly set up and maintained reasonably well. I suspect a lot of people might get a surprise if they got themselves in a tight spot where they were 'shucking and jiving' hard and fast while they 'scorched the tailfeathers' of a pack of wolves doing the 100 yard dash or similar. A trip to a competent 'smith who knew his stuff well as it applies to function under any condition (or bullet configuration/length) should be considered when thinking about an 'ultimate' hunting rifle.

As Lee pointed out recently, some of the Winchester WSM rifles had feeding problems, so if I was going to build a custom based on one of the WSM's ( and that was what I was thinking of doing, a 7 WSM " extreme weather type SS action bedded in a Edge McMillan) I guess I would rethink it unless there is an easy fix for the feeding issues) I would most likely go with a custom clone on a Defiance or Borden action instead. For a custom "looker" I would most likely use a Winchester 70 CRF as I really like the look of these actions with their 3 position safeties and simple triggers. I suppose instead of a WSM, I would just go with a 280 Ackley with either a really nice hunk of walnut or a speckled McMillan stock and have someone like Lee ( Redneck) put it altogether. I remember one of our members showing a rifle that Lee made (think it was a 280 Ackley) and the test targets were superb.

That's funny right there.

I've never had a CRF fail to extract. I've had a number of Remingtons fail to pull the case out.

I've never had a CRF fail to eject. I've had/seen Remingtons fail to eject due to a bound plunger.

My most reliable rifle seems to be a Winchester pushfeed, with which I've never had any problem at all whatsoever. But with the small extractor, it will be more easily broken than a big claw, and it has the plunger ejector which I know can quite easily get bound up.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3445551/2

Remington actions are very strong. Tales of folks walking away unscathed from blow ups are plethora. Laugh all you want. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

I'm a lefty and have owned a bunch of LH Model 70's. Only two of them were true CRF, and both were made that way by talented gunsmiths. Consequently, both still reside in my safe and are my main hunting rifles.

A high percentage of Rugers and also CZ's don't quite CRF. Extraction and ejection is another thing, there have been numerous problems with 700 extractors, for years gunsmiths used Sako parts to cure the problem.

For what it's worth, I still like my commercial FN's a lot.

WTF is, "the Remington safety chamber?"

I have both. I took my Winchester mod 70 stainless 338 WM, pushfeed to So Africa a couple of months ago. Took 8 animals no problems. I think you are asking the wrong question. So long as they are fitted well and perform who cares???

I never said they were not strong, but I'm still laughing at the vaunted "three rings of steel". Not sure that thread really serves to make your point, but I don't plan to try to change your mind. My opinion is they are just about as strong as most other commercial bolt actions. To buy one for the "three rings of steel" just means you have been successfully advertised to. Nothing wrong with a 700 action and nothing wrong with buying the manufacturers line of advertising.

You know, if you think about it, a Savage has 4 rings of steel if you count the barrel nut...

M98s and CZ-550s are my favorites, but I won't sweat owning a Savage(which I do). I may even buy a 700 someday(if a Classic in 8x57 ever falls into my lap at an incredible price)...the way I see it, keep 'em clean and they won't give you any trouble.

It ain't advertising; it is engineering.

http://benchrest.com/archive/index.php/t-54852.html?s=199acc60e7e7766037a3119f0dec3d6d

The remington design is legend for its strength. Threads like this are everywhere. If there is a design that is stronger than, "three rings of steel" what is it?

I have several rifles of both types. Like them both and use them both. Here is my experience in no particular order:

1. Short action Remington 700's with box magazines in .223 and .308 will jam sooner or later. Period, end of story.

2. Installing a detachable box magazine in a short action Remington 700 will correct feed and eject problems, assuming everything else (extractor, ejector, etc.) are working properly.

3. A tac load (i.e., throwing a round into the action above an empty magazine box and slamming the bolt home) will work most of the time on a short action Remington 700 in either .223 or .308. When it doesn't work, the nose of the bullet is usually jammed into the vertical surface of the barrel/breech.

4. AI cartridges such as 22-250 AI mess up (i.e., require some modifications to fix) magazine capacity and/or feeding in short action Rem 700's. Can't comment on the .223 AI because I have never used one.

5. Fixed ejector designs eject loaded rounds much, much better than plunger ejector designs. Assuming the load/eject port is opened to proper size. Why does this matter? Because misfires do happen from time-to-time.

6. Neither PF nor CRF designs will feed empty cases. Now someone will say, "Mine does." Fine. Mine doesn't.

7. CRF actions are a system and require tuning/timing to work properly. Some work fine off the shelf, but many do not. However, once one is working properly it's almost spiritual. Bottom line, if you get a CRF rifle plan on having it tuned/timed.

8. Likewise, PF action are a system, but tuning them for proper function requires less attention. Example the detachable magazine box modification mentioned above.

9. Off side bolt raceways on Remington 700's will swallow standard size (e.g. 308, 30-06) cartridges and not drop them down into the magazine mortise in the worst of times. Getting them out while under pressure is a real challenge.

10. 3 Position Safeties make field stripping of the bolts very easy and handy.

11. Sako and M16 extractors on Remington 700's have a tendency to eject empty rounds into the scope. An empty cartridge after hitting a low mounted scope can be redirected back into the loading port and cause a jam. This can be corrected/mitigated by moving the position of the ejector button, which requires a new bolt. Mini M16 extractors with properly positioned ejectors seam to work pretty good.

12. I suspect long action Rem 700 will feed/eject better than short action 700's but can't testify to that because most of my field experience is with long action CRF guns.

13. Magazine size (read length) matters in a CRF action. A SAAMI length .338 WM in a long action CRF M70 with .375 H&H length box magazine is a pain to get to feed and eject properly. Recoil pushes the rounds in the mag box forward which messes up the ejection because the case head catches on the next round int he magazine prior to be ejected by the fix blade ejector. Had one like this several years ago and sent it to 3 different gunsmiths for a fix. All three said it worked fine. Nope. That .338 WM is now a .375 H&H.

14. I have never had factory Remington 700 extractor fail. The ejection angle of the factory ejector works very well. IOW cartridge casings do not hit low mounted scopes.

15. I have had a factory Remington 700 ejector fail because it stuck in the dirty ejector cylinder. Cleaning it fixed the problem.

There's probably more, but that's all that comes to mind now. People can/will debate each of these points, which is fine. But this is my experience. Hopefully it will give you information from which to make an informed decision.

I didn't care about CRF-v-PF until I tried to load a round slowly and quietly only to have the round fall on the ground a tink loudly from a push feed Winchester. All my rifles since have been CRF except for a 220 Swift.

I am not a gunsmith so my jargon may be incorrect. It has to do with the bolt nose and counter bore of the Remington. It enhances safety. It makes for another tight clearance that a rupture must hurdle to get back at the shooter.

This discussion hits on it a little bit.
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/gunsmithing/rem-700-breech-counter-bore-126314/

I relate it to a labyrinth seal on shafts inside large centrifugal compressors; but that is something I have worked with I can relate it to.

Gas handling and strength are two different things. I won't argue with the ability of a 700 to route gas away from your face, but I don't really think it is any 'stronger' because of it. Nothing wrong with good gas handling ability at all. Heck, I've got two of them myself?

There was a video I saw years ago that showed a diagram of the bolt nose and counter bore, "safety-chamber" and as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I have not been able to google it up.

I was only trying to politely counter the idea that 3 rings of steel is simply a matter of marketing fluff. I would argue that the concept has a very real engineering and machinist foundation.

Forgive me if I came across as pedantic or caustic; all my interaction on this board is for entertainment purposes only. LOL

Great post!

6. Neither PF nor CRF designs will feed empty cases. Now someone will say, "Mine does." Fine. Mine doesn't.


Someone needs to fill me in as to why people say this. What does feeding empty cases have to do with anything ?

I pfhuqqing hate CRF,if only because I've had/have lots of them. They are fickle kchunts,as a best case scenario,but I can only speak in regards to 100's of rifles. Hint.(grin)

Had an interesting thing happen yesterday,while fireforming Nickle Virgins in the BMFOTP. 50gr V-Max,'2200 and a kiss,as per always.

Found it interesting enough,that I tried to pry the pfhuqqing thing out and had a Bar Wrench in one hand,a Dremel in the other and my heart was in it. Finally threw in the towel,as the bitch is beyond fused.




When it happened I shrugged my shoulders and pitched all of the lot out into the Rhubarb Patch and shot my Baby BR some more. This was round #11 of the 100 I had loaded and the first 10 were as per usual. Schit happens.

Sent the pic to Greg to see if he was in the mood to pfhuqq with it and if not,I'll buy a new S/S OEM bolt from Brownell's and send it to him to be bushed/threaded,then right back in the saddle.

Threw another bolt in it this morning and formed more cases of Virgin brass hulls and she weren't fazed in the least.

Best one I've ever seen,in well over 1000 pounds of powder expended......................

When you are setting up a sizing die for a crush fit on the case shoulder, it is necessary to feed a case into the chamber and close the bolt to determine whether the goal is met.

Having said that, the feed and extraction system does not matter if you drop a case into the chamber and close the bolt unless it is an older Mauser action where the extractor claw does not snap over the rim of the case.

In that case, it would be necessary to feed the empty case in a controlled feed manner. Not an issue to a push feed action which these days, is likely the most common action design.

John

Duh--it's for when your watching the TV hunting shows? Don't you?!?!

I knew there had to be a logical explanation.

Holy Christ, that's funny stuff.

I particularly liked #3 on 'tac' loading. I have occasion to do that all the time....


especially with the AIs...since I now know they don't feed from the magazine well....

Wow! You did a number on that one. I find CRF's to be fickle, PITA's as well.

You never had a round fall on the ground a tink loudly from one of them sweet PF M700s?? I have, FWIW..

See a pattern there??

Lots of people still believe the AIC too..

Just curious, izzat 'gunsmith' still in business?