The thread about CRF vs Push Feed might have covered this, but in an attempt to condense some information, what are some steps that can be taken to perfect the feeding of a Ruger, Mauser, M70 Winchester and other claw extractor (not even necessarily CRF) bolt actions?
Let's talk about ALL possibilities, from the zero cost things the gun owner can do himself, all the way up to having the rifle tuned by top gunsmiths.
Would ask that all that respond be VERY specific in their answers, including the brand name of any products used, the names of any gunsmiths that have been used, the name of the action part modified and where on that part the mods were performed, etc.
Thanks in advance for all answers!

Fred

I have only had one bad experience with a Model 70's feeding and that was with a mid-90's Classic. It would feed but it was always a little "glitchy", particuarily as the cartridge was starting to rise up the feed ramp. I tried polishing the feed ramp to no avail, I removed a few machine marks from the bolt face, once again - no help.

I did notice though that when I removed the extractor to polish the bolt face that the extractor was not "springy", it seemed to take a set and retain it when removing and installing it, I could bend it to the correct configuration, it would always work and extract cartridges with no problem. But, the lack of tension "springiness" got me thinking - I order a Williams extractor for it and it feeds flawlessly, it is like a completely different rifle now.

I have since read that the extractors in the Classics are a MIM part and that the grain structure is random rathere than linear and hence the lack of "springiness".

Anyway that was my probem and my fix - the best $30.00 I have spent in a long time.

drover

drover
Thanks- That is EXACTLY the type of information I was hoping for.
Fred

I'v have only had one problem with the CRF and it was with the Montana 99 and it was no fault of the action but human errow. When my son was in the Colorado School of Trades gunsmith school, he built me a 264 Win Mag on the Montana 99 LH action. This was his first rifle build and when he test fired the rifle after cambering he did so without installing the extractor. To make along story short when he put the rifle completely together and installed the extractor he didn't try a round through the mag . He sent me the rifle and when i tried a round in the mag it would lock up half way out of the mag. I measured the extractor and he had pick up the wrong extractor which was a standard case extractor instead of the magnum . I replaced the extractor with a magnum and the rifle worked flawlessly.

Recently had a 98 Mauser rebored/rechambered from .25-06,which fed flawlessly,to 9.3x62mm which would not. Seemed that the 9.3 casing wouldn't slip under the extractor completely to the top of the bolt face causing the 9.3 cartridge to pop up and jam just before entering the chamber. Got out my 1600 Husquvarna in .30-06 and tried the 9.3 in it. Fed perfectly! Got out a jeweler's file and filed my Mauser's extractor to match the contour of the Husky extractor. Only the bottom edge needed a minute amount removed but it made all the difference. All is GOOD now.

The subtle differences in Mauser calibers!

But ya know,my Husquvarna will feed the following with no problems:.257 Roberts,.25-06,.270 Win,7mm Mauser,.308 WIN,.30-06,and now 9.3x62mm. Go figure!

Getting a CRF action to feed perfectly is a combination of a lot of things (as we have already seen): extractor, feed ramp, feed rails, etc. Even the same case with a different bullet, or bullet diameter, can cause problems.

As an example, one of my rifles is a .338 Winchester Magnum built on a commercial FN Mauser action. This was a .30-06 action when I bought it from a friend, and I had a local gunsmith open up the bolt face. I did the work on the feed rails myself, which can get kind of tricky, as if you take off to much....

Anyway, I went slowly and also shortened up the claw on the '06 extractor. It fed perfectly and has now for over 20 years, with any kind of .338 ammo.

Last year I decided to fool around with the .458 Winchester Magnum. Instead of buying another rifle, I bought a take-off Shilen barrel in .458, and had a local gunsmith fit and headspace it to the .338 action. (I have a barrel vise and wrench setup, so I can switch barrels back and forth on various actions.)

Now, the .458 is the .338 necked up to .45. With the new barrel .458 cartridges feed but not terribly reliably, because the feed rails push the fatter bullets toward the side as they head into the feed ramp. They tend to hang up occasionally on the other side of the chamber from the side of the magazine they fed from.

I probably can get this action to feed the .458's perfectly, but then it might or might not feed .338's.

In many commercial CRF's getting cartridges to feed perfectly every time is often just a matter of round off sharp corners in the front of the action, or changing the angle of the feed ramp slightly, or even just putting in a tougher (or softer) magazine spring. My .416 Rigby CZ 550 Magnum fed pretty well from the start, but needed some rounding of the rear edges of the front receiver ring, plus a stiffer magazine spring to feed perfectly every time. The factory magazine pspring wasn't strong enough to lift the front of the rounds up to the feed rails, every time, so they tended to "porpoise," nose-diving into the rear of the feed ramp.

I had the opposite problem with a 1903 Springfield re-barreled to .338-06. The rear of the case was too far from the rear of the magazine, and the bolt would sometimes skip over the rim or a cartridge. This was because of a manufacturing defect in 1919: The milling cut for the magazine box wasn't quite far enough to the rear, pushing the rounds slightly forward and down. A couple of minutes with a Dremel tool solved that one.

On the other hand, a brand-new .375 Ruger Hawkeye fed both spitzer and round-nose loads perfectly, every time. I could not make it jam, no matter how rapidly or slowly I worked the bolt. This is just one of the things that impressed me about the new rifle.

D'Arcy Echols also installs wider magazines in all his Legends--and then further works over the actions to make sure any kind of ammo from that caliber feeds perfectly. The ideal, he says, is for the rifle to also feed epty cases, though sometimes that isn't possible. I have owned a few CRF rifles that that myself, including a .30-06 made on a VZ24 military 98 action. Load it up with empty '06 cases and they went through perfectly every time.

In general it is far easier to get push-feed actions to feed perfectly, but then they are still PF actions.

Mule Deer,

When you reworked your CZ where did you get the new magazine spring? Was it something a gunsmith had lying around or did you or him specifically order it in?

Just curious as I am currently getting my CZ 550 magnum in 416 Rigby tweaked and I am kicking around if it is worth doing while it's in the shop.

Thanks,

WC

Virtually every part of a CRF needs to be in correct relationship with the other parts in order to work correctly as designed 100%. That is what and why gunbuilders like Echols spend inordinate amounts of time building each rifle.
Your local gunplumber may be able to grind and polish a few parts with his dremel tool enough to make things work pretty well and fix individual problems - just as your local auto mechanic may fix a small problem with pliers, hose clamps and JB weld.

The real wizards, who understand how all the parts need to relate to each other, will start at some given point and carefully machine, file or grind all of them to the correct tolerances until all the parts work together as they were designed. Then they polish them for perfect feeding.

Even things most folks don't think of - like the depth of the extractor grooves in the cartridges - will adversely affect the feeding of a CRF rifle.

Most all has been addressed..I might add that the 98 Mauser is designed for the 8x57 and the 7x57 and the military guns work 110%, at least everyone I have seen does, unless of course someone has monkied with it...

Everything and I mean every hump, bump, dent, indention, hole or what have you on a Mauser is there for a purpose, even the shape of the bolt!

When we change the caliber then each and every part needs to be changed as well...I have built more than a few 404s on 98 Mausers and it is near impossible to get 110% feeding with them, but in a full magnum M-20 Mauser made for big bores it is a cinch. I have studied the Mauser almost as much an anyone and learned more about them from Jack Belk than anyone else. Jack is a genious in metal and one of the few who really knows the ins and outs of Mausers..Probably the best Mauser man in the world today is Harold Wolf, publisher of Hatari Times Magazine.

After you get one to feed, then they must be polished out and only with hones IMO..and this too is work for an artesian..Once done, then extensive testing needs to be done for a Mauser to be totally dependable and the only way you can determine that is testing and lots of it...that does create a gunsmithing problem and interferes with production and cost of building a rifle, thus the problems one runs into with many custom rifles. Even new blueing can cause you temporary feeding problems and generally does...300 rounds shot through a new rifle can make all the difference in the world.

Once done properly the Mauser is the best rifle in the world today....

I added this edited paragraph for the purpose of condeming the practice of those who cut the extractor on a Mauser or M-70 to ride over the cartridge head in order to make it possible to drop a round into the chamber and close the bolt.

The Mauser was purposely designed not to do that so that the extractor would be the strongest extractor known to man. It is also a fact that one can place a loaded round in the magazine and close the bolt just as fast/easy as he can drop one in the chamber and close the bolt. Dropping a round in the chamber will be more probable to cause a jam or fumble..FWIW..

Ray, John, Phil and all others
Thanks! Great deal of information here. I'd be curious as to where the real top notch guys learned where to start and what to do-

Fred

Westcoaster,

I substituted a military Mauser magazine spring that I found in my "box of Mauser parts."

Fred,

One invaluable source of information is THE MAUSER BOLT ACTIONS, A SHOP MANUAL, by Jerry Kunhausen (VSP Publishers 1991). I believe that Brownells offers it for sale.

What is considered to be the ideal point in the bolts forward travel for the cartridge to rise out of the magazine and be controlled by the extractor? As in should it be fully controlled by the bolt 1/2 way forward 2/3rds the way etc.?...................................DJ

John
Thanks
fred

I'm reluctant to post here, but feel this tidbit needs added. Many consider this a "reference book" and look for specific information they need to preform a job. I've read it, cover to cover three times, qnd learned something worthwhile each trip. Now I'll fade back into the background where I belong.

Another thing I found when I had a 30-06 Enfield rechambered 308Norma.The lip on the follower has to work in concert with the opening of the feed rails.

With a well timed action the round should pop up and be firmly grasped by the extractor by the time it is 1/4 of the way forward so it may be fed directly into the chamber.

Feeding is not the only issue;ejectors should be properly timed as well. I personally like the Mauser better.In a M70 it's important to keep the ejector slot clean so that the ejector will rise up properly to kick out the case.

I have seen some "untuned" Mausers that left the case sitting in the extractor after the bolt had been slammed back. Replacing the ejector with a military Mauser ejector has solved the problem.

All this sounds really complex, but when one works like it should,it is a sslick as it gets.One of the reasons I'm not much of a WSM fan is that it's hard to get the things to feed well; something like a 30/06 or a 270 on a tuned Mauser or M70 is a delight to use.

One tiny gremlin in converting a pre 64 originally chambered to a standard case like 30/06 to magnum case,is that the underside of the rear bridge should be opened out a bit to allow clearance of belted case on ejection. If you compare an original pre 64 264,300 WM, or 458, action,you will notice that the opening under the rear bridge is wider so that the larger case head can clear the port during ejection. This opening is narrower on an action for 30/06-sized cases.Conversions to magnum I have seen usually do not have this done,but seem to work well enough,although if you are really anal, it is worth considering this.

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.

True, and I think your right, it is worth mentioning to someone who's looking at the details. Thanks,

JCM

klik - you're right. I just looked at my M70 Classic's and they are not what I'd call "fixed" in the sense of my M98's and M77's. In fact, I'm not sure I'm crazy about another moving ejector part.

All the talk of CRF got me to looking at my go to rifles and I found I didn't care for the plunger style ejector system in my M700's because I did see one not function as advertised ~ 15 years ago. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. I think I recall seeing that the new Hawkeyes have a similar M70 Classic ejector system, not the older Mauser style.

I'm also a little underwhelmed by the physical size of the M700 extractor spring steel thingy compared to the Mauser style claw. I note on my PF M70, they used a Sako style extractor. People have been using M700's for a long time but I do see why folks have issues with the case extraction system.

I wish you guys would quit talking about this stuff.......

Statisically they would seem to be for sure. But, while rare, one is quite ordinarily a temporary problem (often due to lack of good maintenance) while the other is a quality control/ design problem; and permanent in terms of field correction. To have the ejector fail is not something I've ever worried to much about - and don't recall it happening to any of my Remingtons. To be left holding a peeled bolt handle is disturbing, to say the least. I guess a Remington extractor failure would also be a rather permanent problem in the field. I've torn a bunch of rims from ammo I've fired in various Remingtons. That is not appealing in the confidence instilling category. However, I would say the puny little bit of steel they use for the extractor does its job quite well. Unlike some anyway, it rarely slips off without causing the rim of the cartridge to fail first. (Often, using ammo that is on the fringes of safe pressures is a reason for the problem however, not the rifle's fault.)

But again, a rifle, or any other mechanical device (or person) is only as strong as its weakest link, and those things with more links have more potential points of weakness. I look at my rifles as a sum of their parts, not only at single features. Rifles which have several potential weak points do not instill confidence. Then again, I seem to have, physically anyway, more weak points that I did ten or more years ago.

MontanaMarine posted pics a couple months ago of a M700 bolt handle that he'd had "fixed" to the bolt via 3 screws. It looked good.

I figure that a failing braze joint is going to "tear" away, not just pop off, and if I pay ANY kind of attention I'll catch it early.

Then again I don't hunt 10-foot bears, either <g>.

From what I've asked/read about Remington bolt handle failures, they let go suddenly rather than in a process.

Jeff: Don't kid yourself;when they go,they just let go...there is nothing gradual about it.They pop off in your hand.Stupidest thing I have ever seen.....

I am trying to make this distinction between the various ejectors...both Mauser and M70 ejectors "move",and pop into recesses in the bolts,to eject the cartridges.
"Fixed" extractors are Mauser/Model 70 types that do not rotate as the bolt handle is turned.

I've had 3 M700 extractor failures - none in the field, all in preparation for hunts, all in custom-made tuned rifles with the factory part replaced with purportedly 'better quality,' branded parts by renowned makers. When sent back to the respective GSs for repairs I heard that "this is rare, never happens, etc." BTW, one of the rifles was a 338 WM by a very well known maker the other a 358 Mag. Both were rifles I took on bear hunting trips but didn't carry them in the field because I never quite trusted them to extract "110%" to quote Ray. Don't intend this as an indictment of the PFs, they seem to extract most cases well in most cases.

Upon closer examination - 4 rifles in various stages of undress, with flashlights and dental tools - the extractors on the M98 and M70 both move to allow the bolt to pass. I didn't realize the M98 moved as much as it did and can be depressed completely out of the way, same as the M70 Classics. I thought the M98's were completely fixed with minimal movement - my bad.

It seems the only difference between a "fixed" and "standing" ejector is location - standing is located under the bolt, fixed is located alongside the bolt. Is their any other difference?

BTW: My wife walked in last night and gave me that quizical look of should I call the hospital

I tore a 700 bolt handle off a new 700 while function testing in the shop. I was cycling the bolt vigorously and the bolt came off in my hand upon closing. The brazed joint appeared to be complete but it did fail.

I also had the extractor fail on a new BDL .300 Win Mag. with factory ammo. Every other round would be left in the chamber.

Anecdotal. I have friends who have dozens of 700s and have used them for years without a failure.

I guess I'm just unlucky.

Brian Bingham
D'Arcy Echols & Co.
Millville UT USA

Brian: I have a friend, a lefty, who uses a couple of Remingtons without a hiccup for years.

At the end of the day my attitude is...who the hell wants to even worry about it? I have enough trouble getting time to hunt, paying for it,finding an opportunity and capitalizing on it...lif is tough enough

do I want to worry about bolt handles coming off,too?

To all,

I do worry about a Rem. 700's bolt handle coming off now that I have read of many incidents. For decades I have used 40X Rems for target competition and they did not fail.

However both rifles were handled lightly and used in slow fire position shooting.

The 700 isn't the only action to suffer from bolt handle dysfunction. We started pinning all of the Classic Model 70 bolt handles a few years ago after several failures.

For some reason Mausers, Pre-64s and Rugers don't suffer from this malady. I wonder why?

Brian Bingham
D'Arcy Echols & Co.
Millville UT USA

Brian: How are the handles on th new FN M70? If you know.

Don't know for sure. We haven't had any in the shop. I assume they are pressed on and then brazed like the New Havens.

Brian

Brian, thanks!