Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Controlled round feed, who wouldn't want it?

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.