Controlled vs. Push Feed

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DealHunter

New member
Well I searched the old threads and was surprised not to find any recent info on the matter...

I know many people say there's not much difference unless you're hunting dangerous game (and even then), but what would the advantage of one over the other be? Is push feed just cheaper to make? Is there a limitation or disadvantage with a controlled feed (perhpas not as smooth in some cases)? Can one bind-up or misfeed where the other would not?

I have both currently in CZ/Ruger for controlled and Savage/Marlin for push and haven't really noticed much difference although on occasion I find it easier to recover my brass in the action w. the controlled feed when extracting.

Since I'm in the market I figured I'd ask around :)
 
Last edited:
For most people it's 6 to one, 1/2 dozen to the other...

I've never had any issues with any of my bolt action rifles and they have all been push feed.
 
As a gunsmith with 40 years of experience, I can answer this pretty well.
In all my life I have had to repair 2 "controlled feed" extractors and both were victim of work done wrong. One was over-ground on a Mauser that a man was converting to a belted magnum out of a standard extractor. It needed to be replaced.
The other was also on a Mauser that a man had ground the face down thinner on (I have no idea why) He's heated it to a point it was soft. Other than fixing “bubbaed” work, I have never had to fix one. Not one!

Now if I look at push feed rifles I have had come into my shop for repairs I can say that in my old shop which was open to the public (not my current work shop) and in the places of business that I used to do gunsmithing for I have had probably 200-300 rifles in need of repair. Most have been nothing more than the ejector getting stuck in the hole due to lack of cleaning. Notable among those was the older "Post 64" M-70 Winchesters and Savage 110 actions. Also a few Remingtons.

With Remingtons the main problem I have had to deal with is breaking extractors.

Better for the ejector to stick than the extractor to break.

When the ejector sticks the gun will work, but you need to shake out the empty, or in some cases flick it out with a finger. It will withdraw the shell but not throw it away.

In the case of the extractor breaking as I have seen in Remington 721, 722 and 700s the gun is out of commission 100% until you can get a rod down the barrel to knock out the old shell. Even then you would have the option of firing 1 shot only between "rod knocks". At least with a stuck ejector you have a workable rifle. It will take 2-3 seconds between shots to get the brass out, but that's better than having to run a rod down the bore.

I have seen the extractors break in their “T” slots a few times on Savage 110 actions and also 2 times on Mossburgs and 2 times on Howas. These failures leave the brass in the chamber too. So the “rod assisted reload” is what needs to happen if and when those extractors break.

I know a man and his son in Nevada that had that exact thing happen to them on a deer hunt, and they used a piece of rod to drop down the bore and knock out the shell rather than go home. To their credit they were both good shots, and they both killed their deer with the broken Remington 700 . “We told ourselves just don’t miss and it will be fine” is what the man told me when he brought in the rifle for me to fix. His kid said he felt like Daniel Boone reloading his 30-06. We all had a laugh over that.

For those that have push feed rifles, I am NOT telling you to dump them and get a controlled feed rifle. They are usually fine, but they do need attention.

Here’s what you do;
When you clean your rifle always dip the bolt head into the solvent and wipe away the drips, but leave it a bit damp. Leave it that way. I recommend the old Hoppies #9 because it doesn’t rust steel at all. Store the gun with a damp bolt head. When you get out the rifle to go shoot, dry it out a bit with a tissue and have fun.

The solvent floats and dissolves the bits of junk that get built up in the bolt extractor and ejector recesses over time. You store the gun far more than you fire the gun. So in the storage time the solvent does it’s work and you just stay ahead of the build up buy wetting he bolt face. If you do this with your rifles you will probably go your whole life and never have a problem.

If you use a “copper solvent” wet your bolt face and let it stand for about 30 minutes. Then wash it out with hot water and dish detergent and blow it dry, then oil it. The ammonia based aggressive copper solvents will often rust steel if left over long periods of time. So get rid of the ammonia with a water flush so the springs and parts don’t develop rust pits where you can’t see them, which can also lead to parts failure.

If you’d like, it also may be a good idea to spend a few bucks to just buy an extra extractor, ejector and springs, ball bearings and so on. Keep them in a pill bottle in your kit “just in case” Very cheep insurance.
 
Last edited:
The term controlled round feeding (CRF,) is misleading. Any pushfeed, (PF) rifle will FEED equally well. And do it from any position just like CRF. The advantage a CRF rifle offers is a much more rugged and reliable extraction and ejection system. For 99% of shooters and hunters a PF is good enough and most users will never notice the difference.

A CRF rifle is often preferred for dangerous game, not as much because they feed any better, but because the more rugged system is less likely to fail if the rifle is filthy, been dropped in mud, dirt, sand, snow, ice etc. It doesn't take much dirt in the bolt or action of a PF rifle to make it unuseable. A tiny speck of dirt or rust will freeze up the spring loaded ejector on a PF rifle.

Most hunters today take a clean rifle out of the safe, take it hunting for a few hours and return home later that day where they can clean the rifle again. For those guys CRF is probably not any advantage.

If you hike, horseback or fly into remote areas far from civilization and hunt in harsh climates where the rifle is more likely to see abuse then CRF starts making a lot of sense.

I have both, prefer CRF. The way I see it the options with CRF aren't any more expensive and have proven to be just as accurate. A CRF Ruger Hawkeye is cheaper than PF Savage 114. A CRF Winchester is cheaper than a PF Remington CDL. A CRF KImber is about 1/3 the price of a comparable PF NULA rifle. I see no disadvantages, so tend to buy Winchester, Ruger or Kimber CRF rifles even though I may never really need the more rugged system.
 
And looks can be deceptive, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think my Dad's old 77 6mm is a CRF. It snaps the extractor blade over the rim just like my other push feed rifles do.
 
I've experienced the frozen ejector in a new Remington Model 7 after about 50 rounds of factory loads, at the bench, in ideal weather conditions.

I own one push feed commercial rifle, a Weatherby Vanguard. Every other centerfire boltgun I have is a CRF.

Aside from the little Vanguard, my boltguns were acquired for situations where they HAVE to function, and the CRFs in either commercial or military form offer the best odds.

Denis
 
I know many people say there's not much difference unless you're hunting dangerous game (and even then), but what would the advantage of one over the other be?
Click to expand...

People who hunt dangerous game for a living tend to use double rifles, not turnbolts. I have only met one African guid who uses a turnbolt, and it was a Mauser.
 
People who hunt dangerous game for a living tend to use double rifles, not turnbolts. I have only met one African guid who uses a turnbolt, and it was a Mauser.
Click to expand...

Really? I'd assume that for the guides or people who do it "frequently, but does the average person really buy a double for 1-2 "big" hunts?

Also I guess for some reason I'd associated CF with a higher price tag in general but then Weatherby and Sako use PF.
 
Wyosmith's comments on feed types and other stuff bring back memories of watching all types used in high power rifle matches, both in slow fire and rapid fire events.

Pre-'64 classic Win 70 actions had/have the best track record of reliable feeding in rapid fire. Their receiver was an improvement over their Model 54 which was nothing more than a commercial version of the M1903 Springfield action. Remington's Model 7XX series were tried, but reliable feeding in rapid fire was both a magazine and receiver rail design issue. The Remmy's were decendants of their Model 720 which was a slight improvement over their Model 30 that was a commercial version of the M1917 Enfield. High power shooters in the '20's and '30's tried both military actions but those with the Springfield design were best. My only feed problems in rapid fire happened with my Rem 700 base match rifle, but it got replaced by a Winchester 70 for better feeding and for another issue common of all of Rem receivers.

Extractors, Paul Mausers design has proved most reliable over the years. The classic Winchesters and earlier M1903s had few problems. Most were caused by some errant 'smith trying to improve over the factory or arsenal design by grinding metal away from someplace where it was needed. Such controlled feed actions are easy to use single-shot as the case can be removed easily just before the bolt goes back far enough to let the ejector push out the empty case. The Remington design let them make extra money selling replacements. In my years on the range, I've seen a bunch of Remington extractor problems, most of them breaking. My first match rifle was built on a short Rem 700 in .308 Win and I replaced 2 extractors over the four years I had it. Only one Win 70 external, Mauser style extractor breaking did I see; it was mine and to this day I don't know why. These issues are why the US military snipers and competitive shooters liking the reliability of their Winchesters didn't want Remington to build the new sniper rifles back in the 1960's. Some tried to get the services to modify the Remington bolts with M16 or Sako style extractors which many competitors did to have something reliable, but that didn't work.

Sliding extractors in the bolt face were rarely a problem in Winchester's post '64 actions. But as Wyosmith mentioned, they have to be kept clean. They're easy to remove with a paperclip then clean out the hole in the bolt face as well as the spring and pin, lightly lube them then put 'em back in.

When I shot in South Africa, talking to the folks down there who hunted big, dangerous game, they preferred Mauser style action based rifles. Winchester 70's were the favorite with real Magnum Mauser actions favored for calibers over 45. There seemed to be no dominant preference for bolt action or double rifles as both can put out 4 well aimed shots in 6 or 7 seconds at angry behemoths. Rem 700 action based rifles were not all that popular.
 
Bolt action centerfire rifles with CRF are "good machinery". They help avoid operator error and have a pride of ownership and operation.

The others work of course and have some differences such as lower cost and claimed safety in terms of gas handling.

One of the brands with push feed also has a brazed on bolt handle and the locking lug section is brazed to the bolt's body.

To each his own.

m700extractoriwasoutsho.jpg
 
One reason for push feed is that more of the case head is supported. For a reloader, this is an advantage in the event of an excessive charge of powder.
 
Well art, that's not 100% true.
If you look at a 98 Mauser and how it chambers up, you'll see the case is inside the chamber up to the top of the extraction groove in the case head.
So when you say there is "more support", you need to say in comparison to what other rifle.

The “3 rings of steel” that Remington talked about so much in the 60s and early 70s was just a marketing ploy. As anyone can see, the internal groove cut for the extractor in a M700 only holds the ring of the extractor itself and the only part that even touches the brass is the hook itself. The nose of the bolt has to be made to support the front edge of that groove so that even more of the brass that is not supported.

As a gunsmith and a former barrel maker I do know a bit about this subject. I am not saying the M700 is weak, but the idea that it’s stronger because of greater support for the shell head is not true at all.

There are some older bolt actions made in the 20s that left a bit more of the shell heads unsupported, but they are not made today. If we look at the Springfield 1903, the 1917 Enfield (and Remington numbered sporters made on that action) the pre-64 M70 Winchester, the new Controlled feed M70s, the M-98 Mauser and the Ruger M77 Mk2, ALL of them support more of the shell head than the Remington m-700.

The M-700 and the Weatherbys, the HOWAs, the Savage 110 all support about the same amount of the case head. All are fine, but none of these support as much as the rifles in the paragraph above. I must also point out that the back of a case head is solid except for the primer pocket, so any action that supports a case up to about ¼” from the bottom of the case is giving enough support unless someone gets stupid with their handloads. If you have a bit of unsupported brass in front of the extraction groove and the pressure is so high that it starts to make a “belt’ on a non-belted case you are WAY too high in your pressure. The primer pocket will usually fail before that much pressure is reached.

The bottom line is this:
Any bolt action that seats a shell up to the top of the extraction groove is as supported as it can be. After that the only factor is the strength of the bolt and receiver.

Like the SMLE (which takes the shell as deep as it can go), some actions can still blow out if the pressure is too high, more because the bolt can be “springy” than because the shell is unsupported.
 
I have never noticed any reliability difference between the two except the true old style Mauser extractor is a bit better at extracting stuck brass than push feed. The newer style controlled feed extractors that will close over a round in the chamber are no more reliable at extracting than the push feed. Push feed as a rule is definitely more accurate.
 
My Model 70 Shadow is a Push Feed. It works reliably and i've never had a problem with it ejecting a shell. It's my go to Big Game hunting rifle.

That being said, if i were to buy a new rifle? I'd prefer it be a CRF. It wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker if it wasn't, but it would be a selling point for me. I'll defer to Wyosmith on the technical matters, as he is obviously more experienced than I.
 
On tying up the plunger type ejectors:My limited observation.

Assuming the hole in the bolt face for the ejector does not have a burr,and a mechanical pencil is pretty good for feeling those

We might ponder where do those crescent shaped fine shavings of brass come from that often tie up the ejector?

I suggest there will be no shavings unless brass is presented in front of a sharp edge,and the way the brass gets in front of the sharp edge is brass extrusion into the ejector hole via excess pressure.Then when you open the bolt you shear of that little sliver .

Back off the load a bit and ejector bind should be a rare problem.
 
I have never noticed any reliability difference between the two except the true old style Mauser extractor is a bit better at extracting stuck brass than push feed.
Click to expand...
Shoot several hundred, well aimed .308 Win. rounds a year in 10-shot rapid fire strings in one minute's time, one shot every 4 to 5 seconds. With a reloading time of less than one second. It's easier if your bolt gun has a stripper clip guide in the receiver bridge so you can charge the magazine faster when it's empty. Do this with a push feed Rem. 700 based rifle and a good controlled feed one such as a classic Win. 70 or M1903 Springfield. Keep track of the times the action fails to operate easily; either loading a round from the magazine or charging the magazine with 5 rounds from a stripper clip.

Push feed as a rule is definitely more accurate.
Click to expand...
Controlled feed actions were used to shoot sub 2" groups at 600 yards long before push feed ones did. And nowadays, there's no difference. As long as the bolt closes into battery the same way for each shot, there's no difference in accuracy. Both hold the head of the cartridge equally repeatable in position in the chamber. The bolt stays in place from primer strike by the firing pin until long after the bullet's cleared the muzzle.
 
Owners of push-feed rifles will of course try to rationalize some argument that puts their pride and joy in a better light, but the fact remains that push feed systems are inferior to controlled round feeding - unless you are a manufacturer who wants to collect "A" revenue for a cheaper to manufacture "B" product.

This holds true for push feed Vs controlled feed, just as it holds true for forged receivers Vs rifle actions machined from steel tubing or castings.

The most glaring example of sub-standard design and manufacturing going for a premium price is of course the M16/AR15, which is specifically designed to be cheap to manufacture and includes design compromises like the elimination of the operating rod so that combustion gasses and dirt are vented directly into the action. Here we have a $200.00 gun that both the government and the citizens pay a premium price for, and you have to ask yourself, "Why?"

This is why everybody and their dog is currently manufacturing AR15s. They are dead simple and dirt cheap to manufacture, the markup is astronomical - and suckers are lined up around the block to cough up "A" prices for a "C" product so you make big money fast.

Long ago, both Savage and Remington went for cheap to manufacture action designs that can be cranked out on a CNC mill from steel tubing, instead of from stronger and better designed forgings.
Savage at that time had the grace to charge less for these cheap to manufacture rifles, but Remington did not. After decades of watching Remington sucker undiscerning gunners and get away with it, eventually there was a management change at Savage and now they are charging premium "A" prices for a cheap to manufacture "B" product too.

And the owners of these "A" priced "B" products are writing home to assert, "Having a wonderful time in basic training, Maw! - The drill sergeant here is my new best friend!"

Riiight... That's the ticket but hey, it's just human nature at work.

Who would expect a parent to admit that their kid is ugly, picks his nose and is kind of stupid?

Whatever we've got, it's most comfortable to imagine that it's the best.

Imagine all you like - but don't try to tell me that push-feed designs are as good as controlled feed, much less any better. I own both types but I'm not fooling myself about which is a better design, and a better value.

- But that's just me.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I should have qualified my statement with "at the time of its introduction" in thinking of the Rem 721. 1948.

At the time, the strongest action as to chamber pressure. Their torture test was with a .30-'06. Case full of 4064, and four 220-grain bullets. It didn't blow up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top