Help me understand Win 70 actions

U

Unlicensed Dremel

Moderator
So, first off, are ALL post-USRAC / post-2006 (FN Herstal) Win 70s of a *single* variety of bolt, and is that single variety the so-called "Controlled Round Push Feed" from 2003**, which has the big claw extractor and blade ejector like pre-64s, but allows single round feeding due to the "open" bottom of the bolt face? That's what mine appears to be. Or is there more than one variety of actions among post-2006 models, and if so, what are they? Are they making both "true" pre-64s (i.e. "Classics"), and these CRPFs, or what? Or has there even already been a change since 2006 in what they build.

Next, this CRPF (controlled round push feed) action... Is it really the best of all worlds? If so, has any other maker copied it? Wouldn't it be better classified as a push-feed generally, since you can push one in which was not in the mag (i.e. it's a Push feed with an asterisk, or push feed with mauser style claw extractor). Or is it quite apt and descriptive to call it CRPF, since the round IS "controlled" in a sense or to an extent, by the extractor, during feeding, albeit later in the process (farther forward it the stroke). In other words, what would YOU have named the CRPF? Seems to me the name might be apt since it is a true hybrid, not so much of a marketing gimmick.

I'm kind of starting to think it really is the best of all worlds - best design going - any drawbacks to it? I mean, I've thought for awhile that controlled feeds are more reliable on the OUT-stroke (extraction), but push-feeds are more reliable on the IN-stroke (feeding), and it does indeed seem darn near impossible to make this thing NOT cycle flawlessly, even running it upside down and sideways. And that's reliability under pressure, to say nothing of the handy-ness of being able to drop one in on top of the mag and shoot it.

The thing about overhyped gun marketing is the boy who cried wolf effect - you see so much utter bunk, that when Winchester came out with that CRPF however many years ago that was, I read about it, thinking "yeah right" - some tiny change but it's really a Remington-copy push feed without examining it closely or ever buying one until after 2010 - but looks like the hype might have been undersold if anything for once. I dunno. I know just enough about guns to be dangerous. :)

**But wait; elsewhere I read that CRPF came out in 1992, some 11 years earlier - what gives? I'm pretty sure it was 2003, not 1992. EDIT: OK, 1992 was the CRF "Classic", then 2003 was the CRPF.

I'm more impressed with my new Win 70 and my T/C Icon classic than any other turnbolts I've had, including Wby Mark V. Granted, though, there are several kinds I've not owned. These two just ooze quality.
 
Last edited:
Pre-64's were CRF

PF rifles were made 1964-2006

Winchester brought back CRF with their Classic line of rifles in 1992. All the Classics were CRF and were the top end rifles made during those years. Wincester continued making PF rifles at the same time. All PF's made after 1992 were their cheaper budget line of guns.

Winchester came out with the WSM and WSSM line of rifles starting in 2000. Some early rifles chambered in these rounds did not feed reliably in the CRF rifles. The bolt was modified to make them feed better. Since it was no longer true CRF they called it controlled round push feed, CRPF. There were only a handful of these ever made and all were in the WSSM cartridges. You will not find many CRPF rifles, and none in standard calibers.

Winchester closed in 2006 and none were made until 2008 when FN started production in SC. The new FN made guns are all CRF. There are some minor differences between them and rifles made in New Haven. Most notably a different trigger.
 
Let me try to explain the advantages of CRF vs PF. It is one of the most misunderstood topics on the internet, or gunshops.

Both systems "FEED" equally well. Both systems will feed equally well upside down or from any other position. Generally speaking PF is a lot cheaper to manufacture. The notion that CRF is prefered for Dangerous Game because it "FEEDS" more reliably is pure BS.

CRF's main advantages are that it "EXTRACTS" and "EJECTS" far more reliably. It is also a lot more rugged and dependable, especially if dirty, neglected or abused. Hunters after Dangerous game prefer CRF because it will extract and eject rounds a PF may not when things go bad.

The spring loaded ejector used on PF rifles is far more likely to malfunction if dirty. The blade ejector on a CRF rifle is bullet proof

The tiny extractor on a PF rifle will often pull through a dirty cartridge rim where the far larger CRF extractor will pull it out of the chamber.

The way most people hunt both systems work equally well. Most folks take thir gun out of a safe, hunt for a few hours, return home, clean their gun and put it back in the safe. Under those conditions both are about equal.

On a wilderness hunt where weather conditions are unpredictable, hunting from horseback or from a boat in Alaska CRF is more likely to keep working. No one plans on dropping their gun in the mud or snow, but sometimes it happens.

Controlled round push feed is neither an advantage or disadvantage. It is simply an attempt to get short fat cartridges to feed more reliably.
 
I think push feed, controlled round push feed, and then the claw extractor were all used by Paul Mauser in one military model or another. The final and best solution was the claw extractor . Something that the M98 action had, that I have not found on the M70, Arisaka, or the M1903, and perhaps is unique to the M98 action, is the angled section on the extractor that fits into the bolt extractor groove. This angle mates with a corresponding angled section in the bolt and this has the effect of keeping the extractor from jumping off the rim of a tight cartridge. Lesser actions have a square ended extractor groove and I have had extractors jump off tight cartridges in the M70 and in the M1903. To get the case out I had to find a cleaning rod.










It used to be that the M70 and M700 ruled the line in NRA highpower matches. Back in the day, it was well known that at some time in the future your M700 extractor was going to wear out, break, and cartridges were going to fall off the bolt face of the rifle during extraction. The push feed M70 had a larger, more robust extractor, and it would last longer, but in time, it would wear, and the shooter would experience failures to eject. Pre 64 extractors would last, basically forever, as long as you pushed rounds into the magazine box. This is something I do regardless of action, but with the claw type extractors, if the round is not fed from the magazine the claw has to bend around and snap over the rim. In time the extractor will break.

Something that I feel is more important to reliable feed than the extractor type is milled feed lips. Early bolt actions had milled integral feedlips. This was true of pre 64’s, but I am not uncorking one of those to get a picture. Feed lips were machined as a part of the receiver. As long as the receiver was properly machined, these integral feed lips provided the most precise, repeatable, and rugged cartridge feed and release of any type of feed mechanism. However, the feed lips had to be matched to the cartridge configuration, as the shape of the cartridge determined just how it was oriented and when it released from the magazine. Call it timing, timing is absolutely critical for reliable feed and this is something that was carefully studied for these military bolt actions. Military bolt actions were highly reliable in feed and extraction and their receivers tended to have a lot of machining operations. Early commercial rifles were competing against highly developed military actions and you find early commercial rifles, such as pre 64 M70’s, also had milled feed lips in the receiver. Cost considerations made commercial actions cheaper, since the average shooter never fires enough ammunition to really test the reliability of an action, post WW2 actions became cheaper, and cheaper, and less reliable. The more recent the commercial action the more cheaply it is made, instead of milling in feed lips into the receiver, commercial actions began using generic stamped sheet metal boxes with bent feed lips. All of the post 64 M70's use a cheap magazine box of one sort or another. Cheap box magazines are in the all of the post WW2 American rifles I have handled, from Ruger M77’s, Rem 700, etc. These stamped metal box magazines can have issues. It was rare, but you would occasionally see, a competitor stripper clip five rounds in rapid fire, only to see the whole stack auto eject out the top.


You can see in these pictures, the milled in feed lips in a 303 British P14, a 30-06 M1903, and the box magazine of a PBR. FN did not create a removable double stack magazine, and because of the nonexistent feed characteristics of the receiver, the cartridge has to be exactly in line with the chamber or a jam will occur. This arrangement reduced magazine capacity from five to four rounds.

P14 top, M1903 Bottom



M70 PBR magazine box
 
Last edited:
OK, so tell me if I'm summing up the eras correctly:

1. Pre-'64: Pre-'64 CRF

2. '64 - '92: Post-'64 PF

3. '92 - '03: Both (a) Post-'64 PF, and (b) CRF ("Classic") [USRAC]

4. '03 - '06: Both (a) Post-'64 PF, and (b) the new CRPF Hybrid [USRAC] - Or did they make ONLY the CRPF Hybrid? Or did they make all three types - PF, CRF Classic, and CRPF?

5. '08 - '14: (Only) CRPF Hybrid [FN Herstal] - is that right - no other types?


So I guess I'm confused mostly about #4 era.
 
There is one other part of this subject that is worthy of mention and it is not just the Winchesters it's all makers of the PF system and I take this info from "The Modern Rifle" by Jim Carmichel.

He goes into detail as to the choice of makers when it comes to safety vs. popularity by saying the PF type allows for complete enclosure of the cartridge head as opposed to the partial enclosure of the large leaf type hook(CF)feed system. He goes on to say a manufacturer will always go with the safety feature.

That makes sense to me with the popularity of hand loading on the rise keeping in mind those who would push the envelope on wildcatting loads and the legal matters that could arise and lest we not forget the fact of the cost involved in manufacture of the older CF system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top