This might be a stupid question but... at one point I know I read that the Ruger Scout rifle's crf function didn't work with the detachable magazine, that it instead turned it into a push feed with a mauser claw extractor. Can anyone else confirm this issue? And is it an issue with using detachable magazines in CRF actions in general or specific to that rifle
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CRF and Magazines
- Thread starter Polinese
- Start date
Since no one has commented on this yet, I will give it a go. I think the problem with CRF in a magazine gun is that, if the bolt is withdrawn after picking up a round, then pushed forward, it will try to pick up the next round and the gun will jamb. Perhaps this happens because the next round is directly below the bolt in the magazine. I suspect this is generally the case with box magazine guns, but I have no evidence of that and very little experience. I don't know about the Ruger Scout, but a claw extractor could grab the round as it pops up from the magazine, hence, not push feed, and it would be an advantage to have the round captured by a CRF bolt because that promotes reliable chambering, IMO. The best plan, when hunting, is to concentrate and never double clutch the bolt.
Polinese,
I don't know who told you that the Ruger Scout Rifle was Push CRF, but they were mistaken. The Ruger uses the same CRF style bolt as the M77 MkII.
http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=2013.15
The "Push CRF" was first adopted by Winchester to get proper feeding with the WSM and WSSM cartridges in bolt action rifles, the steep shoulder on the fat cartridge brass made sliding the case rim under a CRF extractor difficult from a geometric angle perspective.
A Scout rifle in 308 Win does not need Push CRF to fix a fat case/sharp shoulder angle issue. That being said, Savage's scout rifle used Push Round Feed, and it did just fine.
Hope this helps,
Jimro
I don't know who told you that the Ruger Scout Rifle was Push CRF, but they were mistaken. The Ruger uses the same CRF style bolt as the M77 MkII.
http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=2013.15
The "Push CRF" was first adopted by Winchester to get proper feeding with the WSM and WSSM cartridges in bolt action rifles, the steep shoulder on the fat cartridge brass made sliding the case rim under a CRF extractor difficult from a geometric angle perspective.
A Scout rifle in 308 Win does not need Push CRF to fix a fat case/sharp shoulder angle issue. That being said, Savage's scout rifle used Push Round Feed, and it did just fine.
Hope this helps,
Jimro
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
I have and like several CRF turnbolts (CZ, Ruger, Mauser), but CRF is over-rated, seems to me. Push feed guns like Remington etc. are very very very very reliable, even if turned to one side or the other while cycling. AND they are easier to single handload. For most purposes, all other things being equal, I prefer a push-feed.
As for new Winchester 70s, are they CRF or are they the hybrid of "CRF-Push" ? I cannot remember.
As for new Winchester 70s, are they CRF or are they the hybrid of "CRF-Push" ? I cannot remember.
Unlicensed Dremel,
The "Classic" Win70 is CRF, the other version is Push Round Feed.
What I like most about CRF actions is that with an ejector blade you have no additional stresses on the round when it is chambered. A button ejector will be pressing on the cartridge. In all practical matters this doesn't mean anything, save that sometimes you can get "ejector wipe" signs from something other than actual pressure signs sometimes.
In terms of CRF being "more reliable" that is largely a byproduct of other rifle systems competing against the Mauser 98 being less reliable. Actions like the Savage 110 or Rem700 came much later, with more modern manufacturing processes and materials.
Jimro
The "Classic" Win70 is CRF, the other version is Push Round Feed.
What I like most about CRF actions is that with an ejector blade you have no additional stresses on the round when it is chambered. A button ejector will be pressing on the cartridge. In all practical matters this doesn't mean anything, save that sometimes you can get "ejector wipe" signs from something other than actual pressure signs sometimes.
In terms of CRF being "more reliable" that is largely a byproduct of other rifle systems competing against the Mauser 98 being less reliable. Actions like the Savage 110 or Rem700 came much later, with more modern manufacturing processes and materials.
Jimro
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Jimro, can that button ejector push the round cockeyed and lead to accuracy inconsistencies, espec. in a loose chamber perhaps? It would stand to reason.
Thanks for the info. So the classics are hybrids or same as original? Is the "Controlled-push" feed really just a push-feed with a clever marketing name (i.e. is their really no such thing as a hybrid)? I mean, either the round is controlled... or it ain't. How is this hybrid supposed to be a hybrid, exactly - and from when to when were they made?
You don't have to answer - I'm fixin to go look this stuff up.
Thanks for the info. So the classics are hybrids or same as original? Is the "Controlled-push" feed really just a push-feed with a clever marketing name (i.e. is their really no such thing as a hybrid)? I mean, either the round is controlled... or it ain't. How is this hybrid supposed to be a hybrid, exactly - and from when to when were they made?
You don't have to answer - I'm fixin to go look this stuff up.
Last edited:
All current 70's are true CRF, even the WSM's. There were some issues regarding the WSSM's feeding that needed a modified CRF system. You will find extremely few controlled round push feed rifles. It was an experiment used only on a handful of rifles in rare chamberings.
PF works just fine most of the time because most people never push their guns to the point where CRF can show it's advantages. It is like saying a Ford Explorer is just as capable off road as a military HumVee. If all of your off road dirving is limited to improved gravel roads then the Explorer is probably good enough. But get into some really harsh conditions and the difference becomes apparent. Same with CRF vs PF.
Reliable feeding has nothing to do with it. Kept reasonably clean both feed equally well and from any direction including upside down. These stories keep being repeated. A CRF rifles advantage is in MUCH more reliable EXTRACTION and EJECTION. Especially if dirty or after being abused. There are far more things that can go wrong with a PF extractor and ejector. The CRF design is far more rugged and bullet proof.
But like the Explorer vs HumVee example above, almost no one pushes their rifles to the point where the difference becomes apparent. For a rifle to be taken into remote places in harsh dirty conditions and weather the CRF really shines. I have and use both, but when conditions get bad, the PF stays at home.
There is no difference in loading PF or CRF singly in any rifle made in the last 50 years. Some WW-2 military rifles may need to be fed from the magazine.
PF works just fine most of the time because most people never push their guns to the point where CRF can show it's advantages. It is like saying a Ford Explorer is just as capable off road as a military HumVee. If all of your off road dirving is limited to improved gravel roads then the Explorer is probably good enough. But get into some really harsh conditions and the difference becomes apparent. Same with CRF vs PF.
Push feed guns like Remington etc. are very very very very reliable, even if turned to one side or the other while cycling. AND they are easier to single handload.
Reliable feeding has nothing to do with it. Kept reasonably clean both feed equally well and from any direction including upside down. These stories keep being repeated. A CRF rifles advantage is in MUCH more reliable EXTRACTION and EJECTION. Especially if dirty or after being abused. There are far more things that can go wrong with a PF extractor and ejector. The CRF design is far more rugged and bullet proof.
But like the Explorer vs HumVee example above, almost no one pushes their rifles to the point where the difference becomes apparent. For a rifle to be taken into remote places in harsh dirty conditions and weather the CRF really shines. I have and use both, but when conditions get bad, the PF stays at home.
There is no difference in loading PF or CRF singly in any rifle made in the last 50 years. Some WW-2 military rifles may need to be fed from the magazine.
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
These stories keep being repeated. A CRF rifles advantage is in MUCH more reliable EXTRACTION and EJECTION. Especially if dirty or after being abused. There are far more things that can go wrong with a PF extractor and ejector. The CRF design is far more rugged and bullet proof.
Oh, that's right - thanks. I think I knew that once. It's reliability coming OUT, not reliability going IN. Not hunting in dirty gritty conditions often (ever really), I tend to not see that fact.
The additional advantage of CRF is if the bolt is short stroked. A CRF design will extract and eject a round thats has not made it all the way into the chamber. A push feed may leave the partially fed round in the way and pick up a 2nd round as the bolt is run forward again. Result... 2 rounds trying to get into the same chamber. Bad juju on a dangerous game rifle or other serious bolt gun
My FN SPR is a CRF. it just gives one a little bit more piece of mind knowing from start to finish the bolt has ahold of the round. IMHO
My FN SPR is a CRF. it just gives one a little bit more piece of mind knowing from start to finish the bolt has ahold of the round. IMHO
Some WW-2 military rifles may need to be fed from the magazine.
I can single-load a Lee-Enfield easily enough without the magazine in place, but I've always preferred - even in single-shot mode in slow fire rifle competition or when testing loads - to just push it into the mag and feed from there. My personal subjective feeling is that the resistance offered by being pushed up against the feed lips gives the extractor claw an easier ride up over the rim than being mashed against the breech face when the cartridge is already in the chamber.
Then again, when one considers the SMLE originally had a magazine cutoff, which was basically just a floorplate you dropped a cartridge on top of before closing the bolt, this wasn't really an issue.
I can single-load a Lee-Enfield easily enough without the magazine in place, but I've always preferred - even in single-shot mode in slow fire rifle competition or when testing loads - to just push it into the mag and feed from there. My personal subjective feeling is that the resistance offered by being pushed up against the feed lips gives the extractor claw an easier ride up over the rim than being mashed against the breech face when the cartridge is already in the chamber.
Then again, when one considers the SMLE originally had a magazine cutoff, which was basically just a floorplate you dropped a cartridge on top of before closing the bolt, this wasn't really an issue.
Dremel, that in-line ejector is a good idea for accuracy with bottleneck cases headspacing on their shoulder. When the bolt closes on a round, that ejector pushes it forward in the chamber centering the case shoulder in the chamber shoulder. That aligns the bullet well centered in the bore. Then the firing pin strikes the primer to fire the round when the trigger's pulled.
With other ejectors, the case gets driven forward by the firing pin impact to center it's shoulder in the chamber shoulder. Then the primer fires. The ejector doesn't touch the case until the bolt's almost back to its stop.
Some think it's better to have the case full into the chamber shoulder before the firing pin strikes the primer.
In most rifles, the extractor pushes the back end of the case slightly off center against the chamber so the round is a tiny bit crooked in the chamber. But it's always in the same direction and amount so it's very repeatable and doesn't effect accuracy.
Regarding reliability, back in the early '60's when Rem. 700 based match rifles started being used in high power competition, they soon became known to have problems feeding rounds from their magazine in rapid fire matches. No such issues with the old M1903A3 actions as well as the Win 70 CRF classic actions. In 1964 when Win. 70's went to PF actions, they were as reliable in rapid fire matches as the CRF ones. Remington's still had occasional problems unless their magazines and receiver rails were modified.
With other ejectors, the case gets driven forward by the firing pin impact to center it's shoulder in the chamber shoulder. Then the primer fires. The ejector doesn't touch the case until the bolt's almost back to its stop.
Some think it's better to have the case full into the chamber shoulder before the firing pin strikes the primer.
In most rifles, the extractor pushes the back end of the case slightly off center against the chamber so the round is a tiny bit crooked in the chamber. But it's always in the same direction and amount so it's very repeatable and doesn't effect accuracy.
Regarding reliability, back in the early '60's when Rem. 700 based match rifles started being used in high power competition, they soon became known to have problems feeding rounds from their magazine in rapid fire matches. No such issues with the old M1903A3 actions as well as the Win 70 CRF classic actions. In 1964 when Win. 70's went to PF actions, they were as reliable in rapid fire matches as the CRF ones. Remington's still had occasional problems unless their magazines and receiver rails were modified.
Last edited:
So far, no wise ones have dealt with the OP's comment about feeding from a detachable magazine. So, how about it? Is there a difference between PF and CRF when feeding from a clip as compared to a built-in, Mauser type magazine? Or is it simply not an issue? And while we are at it, how about some actual range results in support of the difference, or lack of it, between rifles with different ejector modes like PF vs CRF. Then I also would like to see some first-person, factual reports from folks who had grief caused by their push feed pole in the field, caused by dirt and grime or poor extraction, poor chambering, etc., perhaps all exacerbated by a charging beast.
I would offer an observation about a (gasp!) Savage 340, .30-30 Winchester. The cheap-looking stamped collar extractor functions as either a PF or CRF. If you load singly, the extractor simply snaps over the rim. Extraction is positive. It has a blade ejector. Mine has never broken in a couple 0f thousand rounds. If loaded from the clip, the round pops up and is captured by the extractor, held in place as the bolt goes forward and the round is chambered. If the bolt is drawn back again, not all the way, then forward, it will try to pick up the next round and will jamb. So, no dangerous game for me.
I would offer an observation about a (gasp!) Savage 340, .30-30 Winchester. The cheap-looking stamped collar extractor functions as either a PF or CRF. If you load singly, the extractor simply snaps over the rim. Extraction is positive. It has a blade ejector. Mine has never broken in a couple 0f thousand rounds. If loaded from the clip, the round pops up and is captured by the extractor, held in place as the bolt goes forward and the round is chambered. If the bolt is drawn back again, not all the way, then forward, it will try to pick up the next round and will jamb. So, no dangerous game for me.
Jimro, can that button ejector push the round cockeyed and lead to accuracy inconsistencies, espec. in a loose chamber perhaps? It would stand to reason.
Not normally. Bart B. explained it well.
In most rifles, the extractor pushes the back end of the case slightly off center against the chamber so the round is a tiny bit crooked in the chamber. But it's always in the same direction and amount so it's very repeatable and doesn't effect accuracy.
The exception is when the ejector button and spring are inconsistent, such as a grain of sand or brass shaving gets mucked up in the works or the spring starts to fail . This is why some competition bolts have no ejector built into it. One of my co-workers has a right bolt left port BAT action with a bolt that has no ejector for his F/TR rifle.
With CRF, the blade ejector is just a piece of steel that hangs out at the rear of the action and doesn't touch the brass until the bolt is at the rearward stroke.
Now CRF can actuall mask some headspacing problems as the non-rotating claw extractor in conjunction with the chamber can hold the brass tight enough against the bolt fact to allow the firing pin to set off the primer.
I mismeasured when putting together a 30-06 barrel on a Mauser action, and ended up with 40 thousandths excess headspace, enought that the brass was cracking when I shot the rifle. With a push round feed rifle, the brass would have ended up too far in the chamber for the firing pin to connect. God watches over young boys and fools, and he must love us because he sure made enough of us. Anyways, long story short I corrected the problem on that 30-06 and all was well.
Jimro
Sorry for the late response... no internet access during the week currently. I wasn't told that it was a Push crf. But I had seen it mentioned by a few folk that because of the detachable magazine the ruger scout didn't have the cartridges pop up under the claw like a crf with a built in magazine. Instead i was told that it basically functioned as a push feed rifle when it came to feeding, and a crf when extracting/ejecting. It's not a huge deal and I can't even remember where I was reading it (some forum I believe) but I was curious if this was the case with the scout, and other DBM CRF actions.
While I don't know the new Scout rifle from personal experience, the Ruger M77 I had decades ago was not a true CRF rifle in the Mauser 98 style.
It has the large Mauser style claw extractor, but rounds did not feed under it, rather it engaged after the round chambered.
Functionally, a staggered box or an inline box magazine makes no difference to a CRF rifle. They also make no difference to a push feed rifle.
It has the large Mauser style claw extractor, but rounds did not feed under it, rather it engaged after the round chambered.
Functionally, a staggered box or an inline box magazine makes no difference to a CRF rifle. They also make no difference to a push feed rifle.