Push feed vs controlled round

Because IMO,"Best" one of the few questions that just might be silly. "Best" does not mean anything.
"Which is best" often means "Which one will get me the most comments of approval and least shaming on facebook"
Which is best...according to who? You said "The market"
Which is best,a rib eye or a skinless,boneless chicken breast,according to the market?

YOU are the market.What do YOU want from an extractor design?
Keep your power to choose.To heck with "the market"

I suggest we begin with "Help me understand the differences,and strengths and weaknesses of controlled round versus push feed so I can choose"

You are unsure or you can't make up ypur mind over a subjective matter of preference....or availability.

Good,reliable,accurate rifles are made with both systems.

A dangerous game professional hunter might prefer a CRF.But nearly all of the US Military small arms since the pre-war M-70 Winchester have been designed as push feeds.(Some M-70's became sniper rifles.The Krag,Springfields,and P-17 were CRF And the 1911)
For a long time,the push feed Rem700 was THE US sniper rifle.

Push feed works. Bambi is not an enraged Cape Buffalo

All my bolt rifles and my 1911's are CRF. Despite all the theoretical advantages of the rugged Mauser claw extractor,to me ,unless a bolt rifle's bolt has a claw extractor on the side,it LOOKS funny. Naked. Cheap.They don't make them like they used to.
Its purely emotional. Silly reason.
But in my guns,I get to use what I (as a market of one) choose. I get to run on my preferences.
And I promise not to put down another man's push feed.Or his bird dog
 
Last edited:
Push feed are the best for me. I like bolt guns with shorter bolt throws and don't like the clunky looking CRF actions. Both action types have killed plenty of dangerous and non dangerous game all across the planet.

Some might argue that a break action rifle is the only way to go for serious dangerous game hunting.

Each design has their pros and cons. It's good to have choices.
 
The market has determined what's best. Best to have options; everybody doesn't want the same things. I already know what's best, but the next fellow knows better.
 
On average...I believe the push feed is bit more accurate than a CRF bolt rifle --- Even though I prefer both --- But for dangerous game...like the "Big Five" in Africa, I would choose a Mauser type CRF bolt rifle; because of it's ability to chamber a round, while even having the rifle being held upside down.
 
Last edited:
In terms of "why can't the market determine which (push feed vs controlled feed) is best", in addition to what has already been said, another factor might be that push feed systems are cheaper and simpler to make. Rifles that cost less to manufacture (in terms of the cost in making the extractor), everything else being equal, would seem to have some impact on the marketing of bolt-action rifles.
 
Interesting points. I like CRF when I feel like there are limited opportunities or the health risks of a feed failure are too high. I like the positive but controlled extraction and ejection. I also like the big extractor being able to hold a case head close for positive firing. Hunting mostly.

When I prioritize accuracy over failure, then I like the push feeds case push with the ejector and easy ability to snap over a case head fed as a single. I don’t like that it requires that extra force to overcome the ejector and extractor on every round.

So, I kind of need both, but am still interested why both exist!
 
I have both types but when push comes to shove, all my custom rifles are base on Mauser actions. I have no use for the very popular pre 64 M70. It's just not a Mauser. When the 98 Mauser was designed, it was for that poor has to do the dirty job of fighting for his country and Herr Mauser wanted the best most goof proof battle rifle that could be had at that time.
So my rifles based on Oberndorf, DWM, Steyr and FN clones are my choices for my hunts. They flat out work. My push feeder are normally used for paper or deer hunts these days but elk hunts get the Mausers. Naturally your mileage or opinion may vary.
Paul B.
 
In bolt action rifles, why can’t the market determine which is best?
Click to expand...
The market is reactive, it responds to consumer demand. Why can't people decide which one they like best? Truth be told, navigating through consumer demand can be like sailing along a coral reef, one false move and you sink your boat.

Example- About 55 years ago, Winchester decided to cut costs (seen as "good" by "the market") and respond to apparent consumer demand (seen as "good" by "the market"). The ensuing PR fiasco was perceived by the consumers ("the market") as a disaster on par with the end of times. Why? Winchester had responded to two market stimuli, but the backlash almost put them out of business. Because the firearms market is so conservative, the "new" Winchester products were seen as abominations by Winchester customers. Winchester customers were not ready for a different design, they wanted their Winchesters, just cheaper. 25 years after dropping CRF rifles, Winchester revived the "pre-'64" design in the 70 Classic.

Example- Remington's Model 30 was a good rifle, but was heavy. Not 8 lbs heavy, either, but 9-1/2 lbs heavy (it was essentially the same as a M1917 Enfield). For most of its life, it was only offered in 30-06. Sales were slow: from 1921 to 1940 they made shy of 30,000 of them in all variants. Production ceased during ww2. In 1948, Remington released an experiment in manufacturing, the Remington 721 and 722. Tubular, push feed, cheaper to make, and incredibly enough it was super-accurate. And available in several new chamberings. Because the Model 30 was not a very popular sporting rifle, replacing it was seen as "acceptable" by the market, and the new less expensive rifles were gobbled up like candy corn. Kinda like the new plastic fantastics nowadays.

So what went wrong? Both companies did the same thing. Both responded to internal and external market forces. The buying public loved one and not the other.
 
Erno86,
What the heck are doing with the rifle upside down?
I'm tell'n ya, your doing something wrong! :D:

I have both, and like both.
 
It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I grew up with CRF. It was all I had, besides a 22 RF. I shot my first 22 whitetails with CRF.

Now I have push feeds from various manufacturers. They all shoot well.

The most accurate rifle I have that is 30 caliber or larger is a CRF.

The second most accurate is a push feed but it is only separated out by a few thousandths in group size. Not enough to matter.

All my big bores are CRF. I don't think a 222 Rem needs a CRF.
 
why can’t the market determine which is best?
Click to expand...

They have, both have their merits, the market has determined this and both types are produced.

It depends on what you want. CRF generally costs more and under extreme conditions will always be more rugged and reliable. But not for the reasons most people mistakenly believe. Generally speaking PF is less expensive to produce and it is a little easier to produce better accuracy with a PF rifle.

Both action types are just as reliable when it comes to "FEEDING". Both will reliably feed upside down or from any other position. Lots of guys mistakenly believe that CRF will feed more reliably, that is not so. Where CRF has an advantage is a more rugged and reliable extraction and ejection system. Both types work equally well if the rifle is reasonably clean and well maintained. But a CRF rifle is far more likely to function if the rifle has been neglected, or is filthy. It doesn't take much dirt, sand, snow, or ice in the right spot to render a PF rifle's extractor and ejector useless.

This could make a huge difference for the guys who hunt into remote areas and hunt in extreme conditions where snow, mud, sand and dirt could easily get into the rifle. Think of the guys hunting Alaska out of boats in mud flats, or on horseback hunts at higher altitude where snow and ice are common. Especially when multi-day camping trips are involved. And the more dangerous the game hunted the more valuable a reliable rifle is.

Years ago many hunting trips were expeditions. Multi day, even multi-week hunting trips into remote regions with no way to go back and get another rifle if the one you had failed. Today most hunters take a clean rifle out of the safe and return it back into the same safe at the end of the day.

I have and use both types. Most of the time I don't care much. But my most accurate rifles are PF. If I'm backpacking into a remote region and staying outside for days in the weather I take my CRF rifles. Next month when I travel to Colorado to elk hunt at higher altitude I'm taking my CRF rifles. After driving 1700 miles one way and spending $700 for a tag I'm not taking any chances on a rifle not working when I need it to work.
 
"Best" is not an easy thing to decide because it's based in context.

Which is "best"? A Volkswagen or a dump truck?


(best for what?)



If we used words like "strongest" "Most reliable" "Least troublesome" or "easiest to manufacture and sell cheaply" we have grounds to talk about in definitive ways.

But if all rifle were made with controlled round feed that costs 2X or 3X more then a person can pay, is not "best" -----because for him it would mean being unarmed.
 
I've used both but since I don't hunt dangerous game(where it's widely proclaimed the controlled feed is far better), I don't see much diff.
My AR's are 100% push feed and don't seem to have a high failure to feed rate.
 
I have both. Sako, Remington, Mauser, and Winchester.

Get the one you like the best. If I had to choose, I'd take a Model 70 over all the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top