Push feed vs controlled round

Elmer keith who is my god and guru used to fart out siamese kittens if you mentioned push feed bolts. But then he also used to fart out badgers if you mentioned bolts for african game. You don't want to know what happened if you suggested that he should use noisy, brass tossing ejectors rather than nice, quiet extractors.

Elmer, my god and guru is an angry god and he is not to be messed with; this explains why remington went down in flames.

I do dislike that controlled feed must be taken from the magazine in some rifles, leaving you with one less capacity. Seriously, though, five rounds isn't enough in the rifle? I have never missed a first shot in this life or any of my previous ones.

Still have a preference for controlled feed for outdoors or hunting, range guns I actually like push fed. I don't have to load into the magazine to get the round into the chamber.

Maybe i'm wrong, but don't the europeans make more models in controlled feed than we do?
 
Chris

Still waiting to hear back from F.Guffey
Click to expand...

Did you verify the gage? You checked the length of the chamber with a go-gage + a .002" shim meaning your chamber length is about half way between a go-gage length chamber and a no go-gage length chamber.

My fired cases are 1.629 from expansion
Click to expand...

I would get all of my gages to agree, your fired cases indicate you have a .003" discrepancy. When verifying the 308W a datum diameter of .400" is used but if you are using Sinclair/Hornady tools you can forget matching all of the numbers.

You used a go-gage + a shim of .002" to check the length of the chamber, that is not necessary; you could have used the no go-gage if you knew your way around chambers and gages.

As to sizing the case for the bench rester; the bench rester should learn to verify the length of his cases from the datum to the case head in thousandths and use the same gage used to verify the go-gage. If the gages do not agree I suggest the bench rester use the gage as a comparator.

F. Guffey
 
That's true if your bottomed die to shellholder is giving you a .016 size
Click to expand...

To be clear; I adjusted the die off the shell holder enough to add the .014" feeler gage meaning the gap between the top of the sell holder and bottom of the die was .014" after removing the shim.

F. Guffey
 
I prefer crf for nostalgia and safety. Safety in the sense that on a number of occassions I got an opportunity to shoot with my rem 700 pf and while the round was fed, I did not close the bolt as the opportunity passed. So here I am full of adrenalin, pulling bolt back without a round visible thinking gun is safe only to later discover a round in the chamber. In my Cz with crf this is not an issue. In terms of accuracy, real not theoretical, I believe 90% of us aren't good enough shots to take advantage of the benefits one has over the other. Accordingly my advise will be to get whatever talks to your heart. Personally I like my Lee Enfield action more than anything else.
 
I like your Enfield action too, but only for nostalgia.
The cock-on-closing puts it behind a Mauser for me.
Much as I like my own Enfield. :)
Denis
 
I am 72yrs old I have seen bar fights over this, at deer camp this would come up all the time in the 60s & 70s but then it just went away, now its best bullet or best new $300 gun !!!
 
You have wisdom. it used to matter. it's not important now, we have too much to think about now. Bipod, how much for a scope, which one of the hundreds of available scopes, which of the 100 available cartridges, barrel type, and then which of the fancy schmancy bullet and brands do we use to make sure that our deer falls down and dies?

Some of the most fundamental ideas that were so important to the guys like us, the ancient warriors who used slingshots are not important anymore. the products these days are actually written by the market.

you guys can go to any gathering of deer hunters now, such as a check in station and poll hunters. Controlled feed, yes or no, or "of course I watch my diet!"
 
Meh. It could just be that the market doesn't care much.

Personally, if I were designing a rifle picking and choosing features, I'd probably stick on a CRF system instead of push feed, but I also really don't care that much about it either way. For sporting rifles my stable is about 1/3 CRF's and 2/3 push feeds and all of them work fine.

I will say that for anyone who has never hunting with a CRF bolt action before they can be SLIGHTLY confusing as people will try to just drop a round into the chamber and think there's something wrong with the gun when the bolt won't close. My dad got a Ruger M77 after hunting with a Remington 742 all his life and took quite a few tries to comprehend that EVERY round needs to come from the magazine.
 
"I will say that for anyone who has never hunting with a CRF bolt action before they can be SLIGHTLY confusing as people will try to just drop a round into the chamber and think there's something wrong with the gun when the bolt won't close. My dad got a Ruger M77 after hunting with a Remington 742 all his life and took quite a few tries to comprehend that EVERY round needs to come from the magazine."

Exactamento! ;) Just so I don't forget, I single load all my bolt action rifles from the magazine. Makes no difference if it's one of my custom Mausers or a Remington M700. At the bench I push the round into the magazine prior to chambering. Same thing with my single action revolvers. I load fine beans in the wheel and put the empty chamber under the hammer. I shoot old model and new model single actions so like the one load from the magazine, a simple habit that helps keep one out of trouble. :cool:
Paul B.
 
"My commercial CRF bolts will close on a direct-chambered round."

Some will and some won't. I have four rifles, J.C. Higgins M50's all based on the commercial FN action. One you can drop the case on the follower and run the shell home. The other three, no. Ain't gonna happen. Years ago I had a Husqvarna Husky based on the 640 model and it too had to be fed from the magazine. The two Mark X Mausers I had were a sometimes thing. Sometimes you could chamber off the follower and other times they had to feed from the magazine. So I just keep it simple and shove the round into the magazine, then run it into the chamber.
Paul B.
 
I was making the point that you can't make a blanket statement about NO CRF being direct-chamber capable. :)
It does vary.
My military Mauser won't do it, my commercial CRFs will.
Denis
 
You can cycle a Controlled Round Feed rifle on your back.

Other than that?

Been pretty happy w/ the Remington 700 low these many decades.




Red.
 
I heard that Craig Boddington said a push feed WILL shoot upside down.
That made me happy.

I also heard that .50 BMG makes 'feeding' a moot point!
Solved a multitude of problems in my mind!
 
While it is true a CRF extractor can be modified or produced to snap over the rim of a cartridge not fed from the magazine,to do so compromises the the advantages of the CRF extractor.
Engagement and tension are reduced,as is extraction power.Looking at the bolt face,engagement from 9 to 6 O'clock might be cut back.That is where the "control" of CRF lives. The round has more opportunity to escape if you shoot standing on your head.

I doubt a CRF extractor modified to snap over is any more reliable than a push feed extractor.
It gets done,and if thats what you prefer...it works.Its convenient...but any "CRF advantage" is largely illusion.

Some folks modify push feed bolts to accept AR type extractors. Whatever floats your boat.

I suggest if you are shooting at something that will bite or stomp you,load to moderate pressure so cases don't stick.
375 H+H,404 Jeffreys,416 Rigby ,etc are loaded to pressures that allow brass to spring back,and the cases have some taper.

For most of us,deer/elk,etc are someplace between meat and hobby hunting.An imagined "It could happen" extractor failure would generally be an inconvenience,not life or death.You do have a backup rifle in camp,don't you?
(If you worry about extractor failure,I suggest one,along with a spare distributor for the truck and a defib machine,spare suspenders and extra boxer shorts)

The theoretical arguements aside,I prefer CRF rifles because ,IMO,they look proper. Silly,I know.But I think a 1903 Springfield is elegant.
And I'm just not interested in any motorcycle that looks like a jet ski or an Asian copy of an anachronistic Vee twin. Anachronisms are fine...but they must have a legit connection to something.
I'd happily hunt with my Hawken...but a plastic stock stainless Rem bolt muzzle loader??Nah.Not in my elk picture. You can,though.Its cool.
I like CRF extractors with my eyes.
I get to make my gun choices on pure preference,silly emotions included.

I don't need to have a strong technical argument to convince anyone else.

It seems the silly idea of using a CRF extractor for headspacing purposes has been suggested.
I prefer a proper chamber and good ammo.

I suggest using pin gages to determine the bolt face to extractor hook dimension.Then measure rim thickness and see how precisely an extractor will headspace.

A CRF rifle won't work without clearance under the extractor hook.
As the bullet/neck feed up into the chamber,the case head is still down in the rails.As the case head rises up under the extractor,its tipped away from the bolt face.Clearance is required.Or it binds. Its a geometry thing.
 
Last edited:
It's been my experience that push feeds can be smoother and faster, and I prefer them for gaming such as PRS shooting (most of the high-end custom actions for this sport are push feed anyways).

If I were in a position where I felt like every round had to chamber and extract no matter what, I'd probably choose the CRF. I'm not in battle and I don't really hunt, so for me it's generally push feed.
 
I actually believe that the crf action is a countermeasure to an old problem. So is a 3 position striker lock bolt safety and sights + scope.

Basically when “hunting” for sport with bolt action rifles began, the guns were pretty cobbled together. Precision machining was not born. So, you might have trigger parts tha were rough and bound up or were easily jarred off the sear. Therefore, a loaded rifle needed the sear blocked. I personally believe this is still a requirement due to how hunting rifles are often handled today in the field.

Sights are another. Modern optics have few failures, but say that about a 1950’s optic. It might fog up or something worse. Nowadays, this really doesn’t happen except with sub $100 optics.

The crf action is the same, but I still like it! Call it piece of mind!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top