Controlled vs push feed
- Thread starter reynolds357
- Start date
trg42wraglefragle
New member
If I was in the market for a new rifle this debate would definitely be the last thing I considered in purchasing a particular rifle. In fact I don't think I will even think about it when I make my next purchase.
I can understand why round receivers would be more likely to twist in the stock than flat-surfaced receivers. Why would it make a difference what type of feed was involved?
Wouldn't a flat-surfaced push feed receiver be just as resistant to twisting in the stock as a flat-surfaced controlled feed receiver?
JohnSKa,
Yes, flat bottomed PF receivers resist twisting as well as CRF flat bottomed receivers. Which is why in some old gunsmithing texts you can find instructions on how to solder on a flat based bottome to a round Remington action. At the time Bart B. is referring to, there were no flat based PF actions that I know of, at least not in the US.
No need to do that today, just buy a Howa rifle and call it good, unless you don't want to deal with the metric threads.
Jimro
Yes, flat bottomed PF receivers resist twisting as well as CRF flat bottomed receivers. Which is why in some old gunsmithing texts you can find instructions on how to solder on a flat based bottome to a round Remington action. At the time Bart B. is referring to, there were no flat based PF actions that I know of, at least not in the US.
No need to do that today, just buy a Howa rifle and call it good, unless you don't want to deal with the metric threads.
Jimro
After Gale McMillan sold his Rem 700 based .300 Win Mag long range match rifles to the military teams, they learned in less than 200 shots their accuracy dropped off. One attempt to fix the problem was a 1.5" thick recoil lug whose large flat sides helped somewhat. They didn't bend from recoil like the factory ones sometimes did. Tubb's replacement one didn't bend:
http://www.davidtubb.com/recoillug-stainless
Civilian shooters with the same problem started gluing flat bottom/sides aluminum sleeves on round receivers and that solved the problem. Benchresters had to sleeve their short round receivers that way when the 6PPC was used as its bullets were heavier than the 22PPC's. All of which led to the Stolle actions becoming popular when best accuracy was the objective.
http://www.davidtubb.com/recoillug-stainless
Civilian shooters with the same problem started gluing flat bottom/sides aluminum sleeves on round receivers and that solved the problem. Benchresters had to sleeve their short round receivers that way when the 6PPC was used as its bullets were heavier than the 22PPC's. All of which led to the Stolle actions becoming popular when best accuracy was the objective.
Last edited:
TCB, one of those control feed decendants of Mauser actions was used to shoot the smallest series of 10-shot groups at 600 yards known to date. The average group size was 1/3 the size of the current NBRSA 600 yard 3" agg. of six 10-shot groups set four years ago. That was back in 1971 with a wood stocked Win 70 aaction with a Hart barrel shooting Lapua bullets. All two dozen groups measured .7" to 1.5" extreme spread. Then a 40-shot group was shot measuring 1.92"
Other Win. 70 CF based match rifles back then were shooting test groups the same size as long range benchrest current records are today with PF actions.
Other Win. 70 CF based match rifles back then were shooting test groups the same size as long range benchrest current records are today with PF actions.
Last edited:
TCB,
I'm pretty sure no one in this thread has done what you accuse them of doing.
There are a lot of other options for CRF than the Mauser based actions. Win70, Ruger 77, CZ 550, Husquarna HVA or Improved, Montana, are all on the market.
If you want a PF action, there are plenty of those too. As far as anyone saying anything is the absolute best, well that is just fanboi talk right there.
Jimro
I'm pretty sure no one in this thread has done what you accuse them of doing.
There are a lot of other options for CRF than the Mauser based actions. Win70, Ruger 77, CZ 550, Husquarna HVA or Improved, Montana, are all on the market.
If you want a PF action, there are plenty of those too. As far as anyone saying anything is the absolute best, well that is just fanboi talk right there.
Jimro
When I blueprinted a Rem 700 this summer, I changed out the extractor. I did it solely for the experience of doing one. Personally, I prefer factory and it's more than just shrapnel from a blown primer. In case of case failure, the bolt head on the Rem 700 is designed to expand and seal the breech. By removing metal from the bolt head to install a claw type extractor, you're defeating the built-in safety engineered by Remington. Now gas will flow past the extractor and to the shooter. 
My instructor who taught me to blueprint felt it was unnecessary too. He suggested I convert mine just for the gunsmithing experience.
My instructor who taught me to blueprint felt it was unnecessary too. He suggested I convert mine just for the gunsmithing experience.
Gas from a ruptured case or primer will flow back through the 700's ejector and firing pin holes as well as around the bolt head between it and the barrel long before the bolt head may try to seal itself to the barrel at the pressures needed to do that. It'll escape the bolt around the firing pin cocking piece, bolt sleeve and trigger.
How much peak pressure is needed to seal the bolt head to the barrel on a Rem 700? Cartridge brass can withstand about 100,000 psi before rupturing. Several proof loads peak close to that level.
How much peak pressure is needed to seal the bolt head to the barrel on a Rem 700? Cartridge brass can withstand about 100,000 psi before rupturing. Several proof loads peak close to that level.
Last edited:
"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."
I'm inclined to agree; on both points. IMHO, the 1898 Mauser was Mauser's best idea for a "GOOF PROOF" weapon of war based on the technology of the period. It was desing so that a terrified recruit in his first battle could potentially survive that battle because of the efficiency of the design. The fact that they make darn good sporting rifle is for us who hunt just icing on the cake.
I have both types, CRF and PF and use them on various hunt or at the range depending on what mood I'm in. My first atnelope hunt which was in 2009 saw me using a Winchester M70 PF in .270 Win. My main rifle for my elk hunts has been a mauser actioned .35 Whelen with another Mauser action .280 Rem as back up. If my load work up goes as planned my next elk hunt may see my Winchester M70 PF in 7x57 and being the main gun with a Remington M700 BDL or Classic as back up. It all depends on what my frame of mind is when I leave for the hunt and regardless of what I decide on, I have full confidence the rifle chosen will do the job.
If forced to go with one style? Mauser all the way.
Paul B.
I'm inclined to agree; on both points. IMHO, the 1898 Mauser was Mauser's best idea for a "GOOF PROOF" weapon of war based on the technology of the period. It was desing so that a terrified recruit in his first battle could potentially survive that battle because of the efficiency of the design. The fact that they make darn good sporting rifle is for us who hunt just icing on the cake.
I have both types, CRF and PF and use them on various hunt or at the range depending on what mood I'm in. My first atnelope hunt which was in 2009 saw me using a Winchester M70 PF in .270 Win. My main rifle for my elk hunts has been a mauser actioned .35 Whelen with another Mauser action .280 Rem as back up. If my load work up goes as planned my next elk hunt may see my Winchester M70 PF in 7x57 and being the main gun with a Remington M700 BDL or Classic as back up. It all depends on what my frame of mind is when I leave for the hunt and regardless of what I decide on, I have full confidence the rifle chosen will do the job.
If forced to go with one style? Mauser all the way.
Paul B.
Ok, that makes sense. In other words, the issue was one of availability of a certain combination of features and not one having to do with any performance difference between CRF and PF.
All of which has absolutely zero to do with CRF vs PF. I understand where you're going and coming from, but it's like interjecting a lesson on Mazda's business and marketing strategies into a discussion on the relative merits of reciprocating piston engines vs Wankel rotary engines. It may help explain why Wankel engines never became popular, but it has nothing to do with why one is or isn't better than the other.
Except that its part on the reason why all the snipers who were also competitive shooters knew a CRF action was a better one for military use and wanted it instead of a PRF one but were out ranked by flag officers who had other objectives and little knowledge of either actions' realities plus the fact that Winchester was in financial straits at the time.
The bias for CRF came from...
the African Professional Hunters that found the Mauser action kept controlled of the round (held in place if they had to RUN) .
I have used both M70 PF and 1917 Enfield CRF over the course for high power and have no preference for either.
As far as the M700 being more accurate, the REM 788 had better accuracy at a cheaper price and was used for more brenchrest rifle than the 700 until it was dropped.
USMC in WWIIl used over the counter M70's and supplemented with 03A4 as they became available. Then used the M1C and D's as they replaced the bolt actions.
Refer to www.jouster.com, by late Maj. Culver for "Sea Stories" about USMC development.
the African Professional Hunters that found the Mauser action kept controlled of the round (held in place if they had to RUN) .
I have used both M70 PF and 1917 Enfield CRF over the course for high power and have no preference for either.
As far as the M700 being more accurate, the REM 788 had better accuracy at a cheaper price and was used for more brenchrest rifle than the 700 until it was dropped.
USMC in WWIIl used over the counter M70's and supplemented with 03A4 as they became available. Then used the M1C and D's as they replaced the bolt actions.
Refer to www.jouster.com, by late Maj. Culver for "Sea Stories" about USMC development.
I agree. In the time period when the bolt rifle was the combat weapon, more claw extractor designs than push feed designs became main line issue service rifles. If I were to draw an arbitrary line of 1898, which would remove the Mosin Nagant (perhaps unfairly!), I can think of only a few push feed actions, off the top of my head, past that date. There are the Swiss Schmidt Rubins, the French Mas 36, hopefully others can add to the list. But, even with a longer list, just how many of these push feed actions were made and used, in comparison to the claw extractor types?. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but Mauser 98’s were made in huge quantity for export, maybe 70 million, and then there were military issue CRF rifles that were used the Mauser extractor. Such as the M1903, M1914, 1917, Arisaka, probably more.
For a military application, it might be a toss up between the Arisaka and the M98 as the best military actions, and I am of the opinion, that the claw extractor is the best extractor type for a military bolt rifle.
For civilians who never wear a barrel out, maybe fire 40 rounds through the lifetime of a rifle, price considerations overrule durability. Push feed actions are easier to make, work well, there are a number of fine examples on the market.
I suspect claw extractors took up too much space in automatic mechanisms, the claw might be in some early designs, but I can’t think of any.
i wonder how many german soldiers died because they could not load a single round into their empty rifle by stuffing a round into the chamber in a emergency? you have just emptied your rifle at a charging squad and one man is very close to you and you have no time to ram a full stripper clip into your rifle, but a single round could be stuffed into the action and slaming the bolt home you just get your rifle up in time to stop the enemy soldier. eastbank.
eastbank, you ask a good question.
Some Mauser 98's extractors slid over chambered case rims easier than others. My brothers Obendorf (BYF code) M98 did not. The M98 german commercial set-triggered sporter did so with extra force. Nor did my DWM M1909's. I don't think the M98 design intended rounds be chambered any way besides from the magazine. The M1903A3 sporter I had would let its extractor slide over a chambered case rim but only with a hard slam of the bolt into battery.
On the other hand, my classic Win 70's did that very easy with a bit more than normal bolt closing. Their extractors tip is further forward than the Mausers' and have an angled, round-grooved claw that easily slides out then back into case rims.
Some Mauser 98's extractors slid over chambered case rims easier than others. My brothers Obendorf (BYF code) M98 did not. The M98 german commercial set-triggered sporter did so with extra force. Nor did my DWM M1909's. I don't think the M98 design intended rounds be chambered any way besides from the magazine. The M1903A3 sporter I had would let its extractor slide over a chambered case rim but only with a hard slam of the bolt into battery.
On the other hand, my classic Win 70's did that very easy with a bit more than normal bolt closing. Their extractors tip is further forward than the Mausers' and have an angled, round-grooved claw that easily slides out then back into case rims.