I've heard lots of people saying that they only want controlled claw feeding for their bolt actions because push feeds aren't reliable. I've never had my Remington 700 fail yet. Also, I haven't heard any credible accounts of people having push feed failures. So, who here has ever had a push feed malfunction?
Push Feed Reliability
- Thread starter ronin308
- Start date
rugerfreak
New member
Take a close look at the AR-15 and Mini-14---both push feeders----and very reliable.
Nevada Fitch
New member
I am not all that convinced that controlled round feeds are that much better as far as feeding goes. I have had very good service out of several Remington 700's and I have seen model 70's that had problems, but I do have more faith in the big claw extractor than the tiny extractor on the Remington 700. Once again I have had no problems with the tiny extractors of the 700, as long as good ammo is used. However I have extracted spent shells from Mausers that absolutly would not have been extracted with the tiny 700 extractor. I have lots of faith in my Remington 700s , but if I had to have a rifle that I absolutly had to rely on with out any backup rifle, my choice would be a Mauser extractor.
Clint Tickler
New member
No expert here but I think that the issue has more to do with making 100 % sure the fired case is extracted so the next round can be chambered. My Rem 700's have been reliable too but I think the extractor is considered a little fragile compared to a claw type. Some who hunt dangerous game only want the controlled feed for that extra reliability so they don't become dinner. For what I do my 700's are fine.
A little understanding helps. The first Mauser designs were push feed. When jacketed bullets came along, it was realized (maybe the hard way!) that if a round were pushed into the chamber but the bolt not locked to engage the extractor, and then the bolt was drawn back and another round fed from the magazine, the bullet point of the second round could be driven into the primer of the first. Bad things happened shortly thereafter!
So controlled feeding was born. Not to prevent jams, as is often stated, but to prevent disaster.
But as lessons were forgotten, and concerns among manufacturers about overloads came to the fore, rifle makers began to design for maximum strength and maximum enclosure of the chamber area. That meant doing away with the Mauser type extractor and going to a different extractor system, with push feed.
In most cases, push feed works fine, but try your rifle upside down or on its side and things might not work so well. As for the possibility of a bullet striking a primer as described above, the feeding is controlled by the cartridge guides in the magazine, and the possilbility is greatly reduced if not entirely eliminated. But anyone rechambering or rebarreling a push feed rifle to another caliber should check to see where a bullet point ends up.
Jim
So controlled feeding was born. Not to prevent jams, as is often stated, but to prevent disaster.
But as lessons were forgotten, and concerns among manufacturers about overloads came to the fore, rifle makers began to design for maximum strength and maximum enclosure of the chamber area. That meant doing away with the Mauser type extractor and going to a different extractor system, with push feed.
In most cases, push feed works fine, but try your rifle upside down or on its side and things might not work so well. As for the possibility of a bullet striking a primer as described above, the feeding is controlled by the cartridge guides in the magazine, and the possilbility is greatly reduced if not entirely eliminated. But anyone rechambering or rebarreling a push feed rifle to another caliber should check to see where a bullet point ends up.
Jim
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
It is conceivable that if you're stumbling and falling and trying to reload in time that a lion or buffalo or elephant won't ruin your day, a claw-feed might be better. Same for a rather-upset brown bear in Alaska.
Outside of that sort of Oh-my-Gawd! deal, I fail to understand the problem.
, Art
Outside of that sort of Oh-my-Gawd! deal, I fail to understand the problem.
, ArtMr. Keenan- Thanks for the info on the original intent of the controlled feeding design. I always assumed it was for reliability reasons only.
Yeah I know the push feed has a little dinky extractor but its never failed for me! Also, none of my controlled feed rifles have never failed either...
Dan
Yeah I know the push feed has a little dinky extractor but its never failed for me! Also, none of my controlled feed rifles have never failed either...
Dan
Hi, Art,
The scenario might not be too far fetched. But let's not forget the original purpose. Lot's of people have had to handle and operate their personal weapon under less than ideal conditions. Like while slipping, sliding, falling, climbing, in mud, dirt, sand, ice, etc. We have a name for those folks - soldiers.
Jim
The scenario might not be too far fetched. But let's not forget the original purpose. Lot's of people have had to handle and operate their personal weapon under less than ideal conditions. Like while slipping, sliding, falling, climbing, in mud, dirt, sand, ice, etc. We have a name for those folks - soldiers.
Jim
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Evenin', Jim,
I'm not forgetting the original purpose; heck, there are three Springfields, three Carbines, a Krag and a Garand in the gun room, right now, and my first-ever center-fire rifle was a DCM 1917 Enfield. Herr Mauser had a purpose and reasons for his design. I got a ton of respect for soldiers and battle rifles...
But in today's world, how many in the U.S. armed services use bolt-action rifles? How many hunters in the U.S. hunt in really rough conditions? Or for bite-you-back critters? For those who need them, controlled-feed rifles are readily available.
What charges my batteries is the degree of importance attributed to some feature, when it's not particularly necessary to somebody's primary uses. This "artificial importance" or "induced importance" leads to somebody emoting about "reliability", for instance, which then leads to ronin308's original question.
Oh, well.
I certainly appreciate your historian's knowledge of the reason for controlled feed and the claw extractor.
Best regards to all,
Art
I'm not forgetting the original purpose; heck, there are three Springfields, three Carbines, a Krag and a Garand in the gun room, right now, and my first-ever center-fire rifle was a DCM 1917 Enfield. Herr Mauser had a purpose and reasons for his design. I got a ton of respect for soldiers and battle rifles...
But in today's world, how many in the U.S. armed services use bolt-action rifles? How many hunters in the U.S. hunt in really rough conditions? Or for bite-you-back critters? For those who need them, controlled-feed rifles are readily available.
What charges my batteries is the degree of importance attributed to some feature, when it's not particularly necessary to somebody's primary uses. This "artificial importance" or "induced importance" leads to somebody emoting about "reliability", for instance, which then leads to ronin308's original question.
Oh, well.
I certainly appreciate your historian's knowledge of the reason for controlled feed and the claw extractor.
Best regards to all,
Art