CRF vs Push Feed
- Thread starter TrevorMack
- Start date
I used to be a CRF snob thinking it was the most dependable, best for dangerous game and wars yada yada. But as time goes on with lots of rounds through push feed actions and seeing no issues I don't think those arguments are very warranted. They both have virtues. One bit of food for thought is the amount of CRF actions you'll see on the best F class shooter's rifles which is about zero these days.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Probably the same reason they fill their truck at the gas station rather than only going to 3/4 tank. Because...full.
Generally you don;t see ANY hunting actions in F class anymore. Top shooters all use highly customized rifles on benchrest-specific actions these days.
Because it's the only advantage a PF has over CRF
Conversely, there is no proveable advantage to CRF over PF. Just some opinions.
You know who does data and proof? Military arsenals, and they've pretty much all gone push feed, with the exception of the AK. And the AK was designed in the 40s.
I used to be quite biased toward CRF, but after having had many rifles in both PF and CRF, I've concluded that the quality of the rifle and its design matters much more than whether it's CRF or PF. I've had feeding and ejection problems with both styles of actions. Generally, there are more things to go wrong with a CRF rifle, but when they work properly they are very consistent. As far as the CRF works upside down and the PF doesn't, that's a bunch of BS! I find operating the action with a consistent amount of speed and force is much more helpful in determining feeding reliability. I find both styles of actions have the most problems pop up when either operated very slowly or very fast. I have rifles in both types of actions that work no matter what speed and position I operate them in, but have had different rifles in both types of actions that have multiple problems.
That said, on the CRF rifle the Mauser 98 style action is hard to beat. On the PF, the Howa 1500/Weatherby Vanguard has worked quite well in all the ones I've seen.
That said, on the CRF rifle the Mauser 98 style action is hard to beat. On the PF, the Howa 1500/Weatherby Vanguard has worked quite well in all the ones I've seen.
Remember that military will always pick the cheaper option given it has adequate performance. And the military hates needing highly trained armorers to repair things, they'd way rather just replace parts. Parts for the CRF rifles often have to be fitted to each rifle due to tolerance stacking, whereas PF rifles it's usually just drop-in.
I'm not slagging the PF, when designed properly it is very good. Do note that CRF rifles are typically more expensive, that's typically a reflection of the extra hand fitting they require.
Adequate performance is, by definition, adequate. QED.
Once you're underwater, you don't get wetter by swimming deeper.
The more times I read your post, the more it reads like you prefer PF!
Yup. And those actions are push feeds.
Assuming both rifles are functioning properly, the one advantage to the CRF is that it is more forgiving to operator error with regards to double feeding. Sure, you can double feed a CRF, but it's easier to mess up a PF. But it's still your fault.
How many benchrest rifles need to be fed from a magazine, or feed and extract properly in poor weather like ice, snow, dust, mud, water, etc.... None. Can't compare apples to pumpkins....
Adequate performance is, by definition, adequate. QED.
Once you're underwater, you don't get wetter by swimming deeper.
The more times I read your post, the more it reads like you prefer PF!
The whole thread is about which one is better, not about whether or not one is adequate.
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
Around the time I started hunting I had a Winchester 670 push feed. After a shot on a deer I decided to reload. The problem was that when I opened and drew back the bolt 3/4 of the way, the empty shell was ejected and i went on to close the bolt with nothing in the chamber. My next attempt at the second shot went "click" instead of "boom". Now if I had a crf in that senario that would have not happened since you have to pull the bolt all the way back to eject the shell making it more fail proof versus the push feed. Since that time I now usually have crf rifles when I'm hunting. I prefer the crf over pf. When I usually buy new guns it usually has to be a crf....like cz, zastava, ruger, and winchester......I do like some rifles that have push feed like rem 700s which I do consider from time to time but it seems I just opt for a crf.
Last edited:
And How many US Army/US Marines bolt action sniper rifles need to be fed from a magazine, or feed and extract properly in poor weather like ice, snow, dust, mud, water, etc....
All of them..... A little more critical wouldn't you think?
I was replying to the comments about benchrest actions. Which are a totally different animal than anything used in the field.
If both are "adequate" as in they both work, how would you know which is better? They both work. Did one go bang louder or something? Does CRF kill deader? If they both work, how do you know which is better?
You wouldn't know. But you'd still have an opinion, right? You'd still *think* you know.
