Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Perfecting a CRF feed

I am certainly no expert on the subject of perfecting a CRF rifle but have seen some that ran perfectly and a couple that did not.

What I think is clear is that a decent push feed action like a Remington or a Howa will feed dern near anything,it's control feed actions that have issues unless they are properly timed and tuned.

I built two rifles in 280 Ackley,a Remington M700 and a Mauser originally sporterized by Mr Ackley himself. Both were originally set up for 30-06. Quess which one had issues? The Mauser.

I had mucho problemos getting a couple of early CRF Kimber M84s to feed right as well.

While I agree that nothing is slicker than a fine CRF that has had the touch of a master smith,it could be that Joe six pack who pulls a gun out of the box and uses it,may just be better of with his Remington or Howa because unlike a number of CRFs that I
have encountered,they tend to work and are not what BobinNH refers to as a 'Project in the Box'.

Then again, my Dakota M76 in 330 is going with me while I leave my PF at home when I hunt anything with big fangs and claws.

Britt: TF!....The new M70 FW,so far, is so push-button I cannot believe it.....

Its logical that the control round feed rifle would require more effort to get it to operate well. After all it does more!

Very well said ruraldoc.

To me the snapping of the extractor over the case head on a PF, is like nails on a chalk board.

But neither has more than a single purpose - the delivery!

Unfortunately, that also implies that a CRF not well tuned has few if any virtues to suggest it over a push feed- and I do prefer CRF at least in theory. But reality also proves that nothing is stronger than the weakest link in the system, and a system with more links has more potential weak spots.

I sure do like my early version M70 Classic 375. Unfortunately, though the bolt and firing mechanisms have always functioned flawlessly, the magazine spring has simply snapped - twice- and that doesn't contribute reliability to an otherwise fine, reliable rifle.

I know nothing about CRFs so please bear with me. Do they normally need to be worked fairly fast to function? My first and only CRF is a Kimber 84M that needs to be worked with some gusto so as not to jam. Just curious if this is more or less normal or if I should be able to slowly work the bolt and have a round chamber. Not a huge deal for me, I just have to remember I'm not working one of my PFs.

Not sure exactly how/where your jam is occuring.....

You should be able to feed/chamber a shell as slowly as you like.

To eject a shell, the action should be worked quickly. A CRF bolt doesn't have a plunger type ejector like you'll see on a M700. A CRF action has a fixed ejector that the brass hits when the bolt is withdrawn. If done softly, the brass won't be thrown from the action.

I believe some pushfeed actions also have fixed ejectors.

JCM

Thanks JC. I loaded some dummy rounds with a different bullet tonight and you're right, I can run the bolt slow and they chamber fine. With the only other bullet I've tried prior to tonight, it jams with a slow stroke. I'm guessing the flat nose is hitting something and jamming unless I have some oomph behind it. It seems the new plastic tips are the difference.

Perhaps it's minutia, but I think it's worth mentioning that many or most of the current commercial CRFs do not utilize "fixed" ejectors. Rather, they have standing ejectors which rise into position as a bolt recess or groove allows their movement. That difference in design over a true fixed ejector means another moving part which needs to perform. As I've learned with a case which spilled powder into the action, "stuff" that interferes with the movement of a pivoting standing ejector can cause it to fail.

458 I respectfully disagree with your idea that a shell should be in line with the bore and completely grasped by the extractor with 25% fwd movement. This is much too simplified. There is no fixed rule. A properly set up extractor needs to have enough tension that the case head is grasped with some force. Set up this way the case head will not necessarily always be completely in place with only 1/4 fwd motion. Call Echols he will explain.

This thread reinforces one of my personal principles which is, whenever possible, to chamber firearms in the cartridges for which they were designed. The engineers knew what they were doing when they designed & tested these products, adding variables to the mix is asking for trouble.

I like my Mausers in 7x57, my 1911s in .45 ACP, my ARs in 5.56, etc.

It's not always an option, but if it can be done it can prevent some headaches.

Had that happen on my Winchester Custom Shop Model 70. There was a burr in the ejector slot that would prevent the blade from rising up. I can see how grit, ice or any number of things could prevent that ejector from being pushed up by that little tiny spring.

When I replaced the factory extractors on my M70 '06 and .375 H&H with Williams' units I tried the .452 sized extractor on the .375 just for the heck of it. That tighter spring tension really grabbed the .375 case head. The round would not come up out of the magazine until that extractor was good and ready to grab it, and when it did pop up the extractor grabbed it good!

Most controlled CRF rifle I ever had was a .270 WSM. The cartridge nose would rise above the magazine but the case head would still be grabbed by the feed rails as the bolt went forward. When the round popped up it was the same as the .375 example above - it really popped up and was grabbed by the extractor, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

All of my Model 70's were/are left handed. On practically all of the .452 sized rifles, the extractor will let the last round in the magazine fall out and lie there on top of the follower if you extract it slowly. The followers on all Winchesters are for right handed rifles. Not a big deal in practical terms but just another example of how everything in a CRF rifle has to work together.

DJ,
I have found 1/4th to almost 1/2 depending on the size of the case..The round should be in full position to go absolutly straight into the chamber..The longer the case the quicker it must come into play.

2/3rds is a recipe for a stacked round jamming into the top of the chamber edge.

You also have to take into consideration the width of the cartridge stack in the box..This is REAL important.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the claw doesn't have total control of the round by 2/3 the round round will already be partially in the chamber.
My tuned Winchester classics have complete control by 1/2 and my stock 1909 Argentine Mauser is about the same.

+1 on a well tunned push feed. Will take simplicity everytimme.

LC

Possibly a stupid question, but I didn't realize there was anything other than a fixed ejector on CRF's. I have and/or had a pile of M98's and assumed all CRF using the Mauser system had fixed ejectors.

What mainline CRF's have something other than a fixed ejector? Does the M70 Classic have a fixed or other ejector system?

Learn something everyday.........

Both the Ruger M77s as well as the Winchester M70 us a pivoting ejector which must rise to "stand". I'm not sure about some of the others.

I will say that I trust my Remington M7 358 which I've used and shot a lot - even though it's a push feed....and I am less concerned about the feed method or extraction than I am about brazed bolt handles - though I believe this one was well done based on my experience with it. And probably, just as with most other rifles, whether I load the magazine correctly or not matters in reliable feeding, sometimes just as much, if not more, than how the mechanical parts work or don't.

I'm sure I have read, by one or more scribes, that no DG weapon should actually be considered complete until it has been gone over in detail by one who understands rifles well. I think that applies to any design, PF or CRF. I'm also quite sure that some have advocated a portion of the rifle budget to include such expense. That doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. I know the rifles that have worked best for me are all rifles that have spent time with people who knew guns well. That doesn't mean I paid to have a fine-tooth comb treatment, but they do seem to have been "tried-n-trued" in ways that out-of-box rifles rarely are.

I think "fixed" is a confusing term to use for any Mauser variation ejectors. They are "fixed"(fastened) to the receiver, as opposed to traveling with the bolt.

The only true "fixed" ejector I can think of is in the British Enfield family. That ejector is just the tip of a screw through the receiver wall.

Klik, I would think that Remington ejector failure issues are much more prevalent than bolt handle issues.