Controlled vs push feed

R

reynolds357

New member
Gale McMillan said the following:
"Posted: 12-01-1999 09:55 PM
The benefit of controlled feed is greatly exaggerated. Look at it this way the US military hunt the most dangerous game on earth with Rem. Rifles .
When I designed the Marine M40A1 we considered replacing the extractor but when we researched extractor failure we found it so incidental it
wasn't worth considering . The problem with installing the a M16 or Sako extractor is when you blow a primmer it turns to shrapnel"

I have never cared too much about push vs controlled, but I thought the above quote summed it up pretty well.
 
Sums what up?

A breaking extractor has nothing to do with CRF!

The primary advantage to Control Round Feeding in bolt action rifles is avoiding a jam.

Most of these jams occur from double feeding, ie: drawing the bolt back after starting a round from the magazine.

Also the US military rifles were CRF! Only when they went to autoloaders was CRF not necessary.
 
Last edited:
I would make the following observation and I have not dog in the fight.

1. People are not game

2. Snipers shoot at long distances with a spotter who is armed with a M16/M4 or other automatic weapon (sniper may have one as wel for all I know)

3. Do you blow primers any more often than you break and extractor? Less?
 
I blow primers much more often than I break extractors on the 700.
When I think about it, I have never managed to double feed a 700 or jam it up in any kind of way.
 
I don't know how many rounds I've reloaded and fired in 30+ years of shooting...at least 10,000, probably a lot more...and I've never blown a primer.

I do like, and prefer, the smoothness of the controlled feed (model 70)...but a push feed is OK too, just not as slick feeding with some rounds...and thats the real thing, the rounds themselves...some lend themselves to better feeding than others.

Have had feeding issues on a couple of Rem 700's...all short actions (308's), and a model 7 (also a 308)

Have had one Rem 700 with extraction problems...early 80's vintage 700 ADL in 270 Win....not a broken extractor, just wouldn't hold on to the case...changed the extractor, that fixed it.
 
where controlled round feed will really shine is with a short fat cartridge case or a case that has a width overly dimensional with its length.

for example i have a browning xbolt in 300 wsm. absolutly fantastic rifle but if attempting to cycle the action too quickly the cartridge lodges the bullet up into the reciever. i also have a winchester model 70 in 270 wsm which is practically the same catridge size. the winchester is controlled round feed and try as i might i can not seem to jam it up. always functions always. and thats the importance of CRF push feed i almost always effective but CRF is never innefective
 
In decades of high power bolt action rifle competition where 90 to 95 percent of them were Springfield M1903's or Winchester 70's of both types and the rest Remingtons or a smidgen of others, 99.5+% of all problems didn't involve 1903's or 70's. 25% of the ammo used was rapid fire in 10-shot strings over 60 second times.

Of course Gale McMillan liked Rem 700's; Winchester wouldn't sell him actions alone like Remington would. It's one of the reasons Rem's were popular in benchrest rifles besides being near half the cost of a Win 70 action.
 
Under "NORMAL" conditions none of us will ever notice the difference. 99.99% of all rifle shooters never put their rifles in a position where CRF can show its advantages. But if used in harsh dirty conditions a CRF action is a much more rugged and bullet proof design.

A common misconception is that CRF "feeds" more reliably. Not true. A PF rifle will feed rounds from the magazine and into the chamber just as reliably as CRF, and from any angle. It is more reliable extraction and ejection after the rifle has been abused or filthy where CRF shines.

Most hunters today take a clean rifle out of the safe, drive to their hunting area and climb into a tree stand or ground blind. A few hours later they return home. Under those conditions neither has an advantage.

But for the guy who is going to be outdoors for days at a time. Hunting on horseback or from a boat in harsh weather conditions with no way to properly clean the rifle I'll take CRF every time.

None of us plans on having to do this, but especially in rough terrain we sometimes fall, or drop rifles. It does happen. If I have to pick up a rifle I've just dropped overboard from a muddy river bottom and expect the rifle to fire, eject and feed rounds from the magazine a CRF rifle is the one I want.
 
being a lefty, i have seven left hand bolt action rifles,four remington and three winchesters(pre-64 type actions). i use and like all of them, but i found the rem PF were smoother than the win CF, untill i smoothed up the winchesters. after polishing up the win,s they work as smooth as the rem,s. i also have two pre-64 win,s and after 70-75 years of use they are as smooth as snot on ice. my favorite deer driving rifle is a PF rem model 700 SA left hand in 7-08 and i would love to have CF SA win model 70 left hand action to build another 7-08. in two trips to africa i used both PF and CF and didn,t have any problems with either. eastbank
 
Ridgerunner, I blow primers quite often. I guessI average 1.5 per year. The big reason is I have a tendency to use brass way past its appropriate service life. Way back before I discovered annealing, the case neck was the limiting factor. Now, the primer pocket is the limiting factor. Occasionally the case head crack at the belt is the limiting factor.
 
I found a new place to hunt deer and I was there "in dawns early light" opening day walking up to the spot I picked out for myself.

Somebody was already in 'my' spot! As I approached he got up and started past me! I asked if he was leaving and he said:

''My gun is jammed"

It was a push feed Rem. 760!:(
 
This argument has gone on since Remington came out with the 721 in 1948.

To summarize the multitudes of commentaries I've read since then, it appears that the push-feed design, supporting more of the cartridge case, will tolerate higher pressures than CRF.

Numerous commentaries from hunters of dangerous game, where one's adrenalin is high, favor CRF to avoid short-stroking or loss of a cartridge from the receiver while cycling in an awkward position.

And that's all I can tell after reading of it in these sixty-six years. :)

Y'know, at age 80, I'm gettin' to be like Elmer Keith's book: "Hell, I Was There". :D:D:D
 
i would bet dollars to donuts he was shooting reloads that were not sized right. the pumps just don,t have the camming power the bolts do, PF or CF. if he was useing a bolt action PC OR CF he could have pounded the bolt handle to eject the case or loaded round. i reload 99 pecent of the shells i shoot and run the ones i am going to go hunting with thru the rifle to make sure they are sized right for the rifle i am useing them in. i have also seen win,mauser and springfield CF extractors with the hook broken off trying to eject a case stuck chamber. what can happen will happen sooner or later. eastbank.
 
yes, and no...

The benefit of controlled feed is greatly exaggerated.
Click to expand...

yes and no. If you have your hunt (or your butt) saved by a CRF rifle, in a situation where a push feed would have failed, no amount of praise is enough.

On the other hand, how likely is that?

Also, remember that there are many variations of CRF and push feed, and even true, valid comments may not apply to all of them.

If you are one of the people who believes that anything that could improve your odds of success, at all, is an important thing, then CRF vs PF is something to consider.

If you are like most of us, things that don't clearly improve your odds significantly, aren't quite as important.

While we do, and have used push feed for sniper rifles, note that our bolt action infantry rifles have all been CRF (mauser derivative). (noted exception, our first one, the Krag)

A lot has been said about the CRF rifle and how it's the cure for short stroking, but its not, really. You can short stroke a CRF rifle, and Mauser variants, in particular. The real difference is how much of a short stroke leads to a failure to feed.

With most PF rifles, fired brass is flung clear as soon as the case mouth clears the ejection port edge. At this point, the boltface is not far enough back to pick up the next round.

With a standing ejector (mauser style) the fired case isn't ejected until the bolt is nearly all the way back, and when the case ejects, the bolt face is far enough back to feed the next round on closing.

You CAN short stroke a Mauser, and feed the fired case back into the chamber.

Nothing is perfect, and if you work it wrong, it won't work right. The problem is you, not the gun.

You may also note that a number of the PH's of the last century hunted the dangerous game of Africa with double rifles. Some still do. TO them, no repeater has the "reliability" for a fast second shot that the double rifle has.

Many of them felt push feed rifles (when they came across them) simply weren't up to the task, and made their opinions well known.
and as the bard said, "the tale grew in the telling"....
 
crf is god for when you want to hang upside down by your knees and still get your game:D

ps I stole that joke from an article about the m98:p
 
Most typical shooters will never see much difference.

In vary rare and weird circumstances CRF can be superior (and war is whole lot of rare and weird).

Savage99- The 700 Remington is push feed and it used by the U.S. military so saying all military rifles are CRF is not correct as 700s are used for sniper work.

I personally believe the bolt gun reached its pinnacle in 1898 and has not been substantially improved since. The 98 was designed with CRF so I think that's what a bolt gun should have. But I wouldn't be against a push feed rifle.
 
For what it is worth, the Army and USMC used 1903s as sniper rifles quite successfully. The USMC also used the Win M70 quite well.

The 7.62x51/308 Win having sharper shoulders and less body taper than the older 30-06 cartridge made it a natural fit for the Remington short action, and as Bart noted, Winchester wasn't selling bare actions.

If you want a CRF sniper rifle, you can buy an FN SPR (win pre 64 classic action) or Unertl (Montana M99 action) or CZ-750, or possibly some of the older Parker Hale/Canadian C3 sniper rifles floating around. They shoot every bit as tight as the push feed Remingtons, Savages, post 64 Winchesters, Tikkas, etc.

Jimro
 
Push feed actions with round receivers were notorious for twisting from barrel torque with heavy bullets shot fast that the epoxy bedding deformed. Flat surfaced control fed ones didn't.
 
I agree with Gale (going out on a limb, right?).

I REALLY like the Win 70s now - the "controlled round push feed" - I think it really is the best of both worlds, not just marketing hype. You can single feed and easily feed, even awkwardly and/or slow, but once the extractor grabs it, it GRABS it like a controlled feed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top