Push Feed vs. CRF Accuracy

R

Rockmcdock

New member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Calgary, AB
Most LR accuracy rifles are push feed, with many built using Remington 700 actions or a clone, or something close. And claims for Savage and Sako/Tikka accuracy are everywhere. Seldom are custom LR accuracy rifles based on CRF actions. This ignoramous wants to know why. I have read that the typical CRF set up doesn’t center the firing pin in the primer as well as a push feed. I have read that it has to do with the round bottom verses flat bottom receiver. Is it maybe easier to true up the action with a push feed? Along with this, I have read of some shooters who are very pleased with their Model 70’s long range performance, so it is not as though CRF guns are always grossly less accurate than push feeds. Then, along with all this, Winchester has come out with their own long range rifle, and it’s based on their push feed XPR, not their CRF Model 70. Why? Clearly there is a difference, but I haven’t learned the answer yet. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
 
Falconflyer said:
Push feeds can be loaded one round at a time without having to push the round down into the mag.
Click to expand...

Only traditional mausers suffer from this. All modern claw extractors have a bevel that allows the claw to slip over a rim.
I just think most crf guns are used for hunting while most pf guns are used for target shooting and hunting. The whole point of a crf action is to ensure a controlled feed of the round AND the massive claw almost guarantees extraction. This is why it tends to be purposed more to hunting...especially when you could be on the menu, not just the quarry you are hunting.
 
I believe a good barrel makes a rifle accurate. But between a Remington and a Winchester, Remington must make better barrels. Generally.
 
It’s a simple case of, most “gunsmiths” can handle push feeds better. They are easier to work on apparently.

Does that make sense fragile?
 
Part of the "technical" thought might be to do with the CRF extractor normally putting pressure on it's side of the rear of the cartridge - with resulting "misalignment" of the cartridge within the chamber - Kuhnhausen p. 61 calls for extractor to be displaced outward .004" when cartridge rim in place. The real issue, I think, is that the shoulders around the mauser's bolt face are to be sized for .004" clearance around cartridge rim, so with the pressure of the extractor on the rim, the rear of the case can be "tilted" away from true centreline of the bore. Shouldn't matter with a precisely sized and aligned chamber, but, have read this was "an issue" regarding "precision".
 
chuck nelson said:
It’s a simple case of, most “gunsmiths” can handle push feeds better. They are easier to work on apparently.

Does that make sense fragile?
Click to expand...

Nothing fragile here, just wanted your input as this conversation is right up your alley. Truthfully I was googling custom crf actions last night.
 
Still have a pre 64 Model 70 in .30-06 Government .In the past I had a push feed Model 70 in .308 Winchester.No trouble with either rifle,both worked well.

When the push feed Model 70 came out,I believe Winchester should have given it another model number, as there is so much difference in how they feed.I suppose Winchester wanted to keep the well known Model 70 name in use,so no new number was used.
 
Falconflyer said:
Push feeds can be loaded one round at a time without having to push the round down into the mag.
Click to expand...

THIS NOT TRUE AT ALL!If you can not chamber a round and close the bolt with ease than the extractor needs to be adjusted that is it.
Extractor or ejector plungers are spring loaded and exert pressure on bolt faces on all of the actions crf and push.Crf actions can be set up to have no pressure if installed correctly same can not be said for push feed.
 
Last edited:
PF are easier to make, easier to work on, easier to "accurize" and less expensive. The attributes of a CRF are not typically required on a long range precision rifle, so a PF makes sense in this application. That's not to say a CRF cannot be very accurate, they can indeed.
 
Interesting comments, thanks. So, who north of the 49th does a great job accurizing CRF guns, if most think push feeds are easier to work on or if most prefer to accurize push feeds? I have a .300 win mag, New Haven made, Model 70, new trigger, with a new Bartlein barrel, ready to be properly exported that was done by Randy Gregory in Wisconsin (Accuracy Unlimited). His reputation seems solid, and he specializes in the Model 70s he loves. But who could I have gone to in Canada who is especially adept at working on CRF, if not everyone is?
 
Push-feeds cost less money to manufacture, easier to work with, lighter in weight, endless after-market products, most in particular the Remington 700.
 
98's and 96's were used for decades as the base for target shooting rifles. They can be made very accurate. 98 barrel locks up to the receiver probably more solidly then any other design. Lock time is a little slow on the 96 without some work, not so bad on the 98 with a heavy spring in there.
I have a spare S&L M69 barreled action I'm going to turn into a 1000m project at some point...got all the pieces, just need to dump it at the Smith.
 
G.E.FLACH said:
If you can not chamber a round and close the bolt with ease than the extractor needs to be adjusted that is it.
Click to expand...

Mausers were never intended to be fed directly into the chamber, they were designed to be fed up from the magazine. The ability to load direct into the chamber is a dubious advantage anyway, it's really no great hardship to load one into the magazine, even from a bench.
 
Neither PF or CRF are inherently more accurate than the other. All factors equal (bolt face, action/barrel threads, chamber true and action bedding, stock, barrel and ammunition identical) there would not be a difference except in the imaginations of those whose past time is arguing about how many spirits can dance on the tip of a pin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom