Push Feed vs. CRF Accuracy

I have always felt that the type of extractor or the mechanical action in feeding would have no effect whatsoever on accuracy and I still believe that. The problem is, there are very few opportunities to do a direct comparison. Comparing the accuracy level of a Mauser action with that of a Remington, while the comparison can be made, is not just a comparison of extractor or feeding and the effects on accuracy. There are too many other factors; lock time, striker inertia, bedding footprint, action concentricity and alignment. All of these things also affect the performance at the target.
The closest I can come to a direct comparison is the performance of some target rifles which I have built and shot and which are based on Model 70 actions; push feed and CRF. The rifles are similar in construction and purpose. In fact, the two rifles are both set up in two different configurations; in laminated prone stocks or in silhouette stocks. I have shot both with the same barrel and the performance has been pretty well equal. Both rifle actions (a 1980's PF and a pre-war crf) have been trued and the bolts are bumped. Both triggers are crisp at just over two pounds so the comparison is pretty valid.
The only special requirement when fitting a barrel to a CRF Model 70 is to be sure the extractor does not contact the barrel. If it does, it may deflect the nose of the bolt. Otherwise, fitting a CRF is no different than a push feed.
When it comes to hunting rifle accuracy, there is certainly no difference.
 
9.3mauser said:
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.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.Mauser was designed to be loaded from the top with a striper clip into a box mag yes but they were battle tested to function no matter what, even over a chambered round covered in sand .I have have owned and worked on a lot of crf rifles in the past 35 or 40 years and the majority of them functioned over a chambered round that is why the extractor has the bevel on the leading edge ,the odd one needed minor tuning .Its not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
Leeper said:
I have always felt that the type of extractor or the mechanical action in feeding would have no effect whatsoever on accuracy and I still believe that. The problem is, there are very few opportunities to do a direct comparison. Comparing the accuracy level of a Mauser action with that of a Remington, while the comparison can be made, is not just a comparison of extractor or feeding and the effects on accuracy. There are too many other factors; lock time, striker inertia, bedding footprint, action concentricity and alignment. All of these things also affect the performance at the target.
The closest I can come to a direct comparison is the performance of some target rifles which I have built and shot and which are based on Model 70 actions; push feed and CRF. The rifles are similar in construction and purpose. In fact, the two rifles are both set up in two different configurations; in laminated prone stocks or in silhouette stocks. I have shot both with the same barrel and the performance has been pretty well equal. Both rifle actions (a 1980's PF and a pre-war crf) have been trued and the bolts are bumped. Both triggers are crisp at just over two pounds so the comparison is pretty valid.
The only special requirement when fitting a barrel to a CRF Model 70 is to be sure the extractor does not contact the barrel. If it does, it may deflect the nose of the bolt. Otherwise, fitting a CRF is no different than a push feed.
When it comes to hunting rifle accuracy, there is certainly no difference.
Click to expand...

Leeper, that was a great post. My knowledge took some steps forward with that one post. Questions, though: You said, “I have shot both with the same barrel.” Do you mean the exact same barrel or a barrel with the exact same specs? I assume the latter, but just checking to make sure I understand, because I wouldn’t think it possible for it to be the identical barrel used on a PF and CRF, without modifications to the breech end. Secondly, what is a “bumped bolt”? Thanks for your patience.
 
I try, in all my posts, to be factual and literal. When I say, "the same barrel", I mean exactly that. In this particular instance, the barrel was first installed on the push feed action then, when I decided to turn it into a 6.5, I installed this barrel onto the pre-64 action. This did require the deepening the chamber and cutting clearance for the bolt nose and extractor cut. Currently, the push feed action is a 6.5 Creedmoor silhouette rifle and the pre-war is a 30/06 prone rifle. As I said, I switch things around quite often.
The bumped bolt is a bolt with inserts at the rear which become "bumps" to align the rear of the bolt with the bore and tighten up tolerances. This is usually good for a slight reduction in vertical spread and is especially effective on Winchesters and Remingtons since the angled contact on the cocking piece on these causes the bolt to lift at the rear when they are cocked.
With the 308 barrel I referenced installed on the two actions, both rifles would shoot five shot groups which averaged about 5/8 moa at 300 meters.
These are the only two match rifles I have which are still repeaters and are as close as one can get to an equal comparison of the two types.
 
Leeper said:
I try, in all my posts, to be factual and literal. When I say, "the same barrel", I mean exactly that. In this particular instance, the barrel was first installed on the push feed action then, when I decided to turn it into a 6.5, I installed this barrel onto the pre-64 action. This did require the deepening the chamber and cutting clearance for the bolt nose and extractor cut. Currently, the push feed action is a 6.5 Creedmoor silhouette rifle and the pre-war is a 30/06 prone rifle. As I said, I switch things around quite often.
The bumped bolt is a bolt with inserts at the rear which become "bumps" to align the rear of the bolt with the bore and tighten up tolerances. This is usually good for a slight reduction in vertical spread and is especially effective on Winchesters and Remingtons since the angled contact on the cocking piece on these causes the bolt to lift at the rear when they are cocked.
With the 308 barrel I referenced installed on the two actions, both rifles would shoot five shot groups which averaged about 5/8 moa at 300 meters.
These are the only two match rifles I have which are still repeaters and are as close as one can get to an equal comparison of the two types.
Click to expand...

I skipped over this thread till I saw you had posted, was what I figured to be the case, and cut through the bias to the delivery.
 
Saw a lot of printed pages in a book on Target Shooting actions, devoted to analysis of the amounts of cross sectional area of the various shapes and styles of actions.

Never much worried about whether I could feed a round while hanging upside down from a branch, nor have I ever heard of anyone where that was a factor in their day.

Seems to me, most of the 'controversy' comes about because gun writers expound opinions as if they are facts, and they seem to like a good argument as much as anyone.
 
I like a CRF action hunting rifle just as much as the next guy. I can talk about small advantages most of any day ( If you’re buying;) ), none of which have anything to do with hanging upside down . Heck, I've even been accused of liking Winchesters fercryinoutloud, and Kimbers, CZ, MCRs, and mausers have all made their way through. Some even wore their own barrels for awhile. Lots of them even shot, the good ones were plenty good enough for the pickiest hunter. Most were good enough. It’s all good.

Then lets wander through the pushfeeds. Stock and squared 700,s, rem clones like stiller, bat, defiance. Whatever you want to call a barnard. Stock and rebarrelled sakos, weatherbys, coopers, geriatric Sportcos and if nobody is looking a savage once in a while. Life would simple if a CRF was going to shoot like that on average. In the meantime its a nice fantasy.�� Talk to benchresters or visit a F Class match and count all the CRFs. It won’t take long ;). Do you suppose that a guy laying on the mat with more money in parts than my first 4 vehicles combined cost chose a pushfeed to save money? :)

Splitting hairs is fun; and maybe its not the the actual CRF feature that makes the difference. Please direct me to a CRF that is going to shoot like a Defiance, Bat etal so I can build a rifle on it.
 
Dogleg said:
I like a CRF action hunting rifle just as much as the next guy. I can talk about small advantages most of any day ( If you’re buying;) ), none of which have anything to do with hanging upside down . Heck, I've even been accused of liking Winchesters fercryinoutloud, and Kimbers, CZ, MCRs, and mausers have all made their way through. Some even wore their own barrels for awhile. Lots of them even shot, the good ones were plenty good enough for the pickiest hunter. Most were good enough. It’s all good.

Then lets wander through the pushfeeds. Stock and squared 700,s, rem clones like stiller, bat, defiance. Whatever you want to call a barnard. Stock and rebarrelled sakos, weatherbys, coopers, geriatric Sportcos and if nobody is looking a savage once in a while. Life would simple if a CRF was going to shoot like that on average. In the meantime its a nice fantasy.�� Talk to benchresters or visit a F Class match and count all the CRFs. It won’t take long ;). Do you suppose that a guy laying on the mat with more money in parts than my first 4 vehicles combined cost chose a pushfeed to save money? :)

Splitting hairs is fun; and maybe its not the the actual CRF feature that makes the difference. Please direct me to a CRF that is going to shoot like a Defiance, Bat etal so I can build a rifle on it.
Click to expand...

Virtually all "F" class and BR rifles are built on single shot bolt actions which are not push feed or CRF. Those which are magazine rifles are push feeds because that is what is being built and that is what is available; not because one extraction system is better or worse than the other. By the way, I built one rifle on a Defiance CRF action and it seemed to shoot as well as if it had been a push feed.
This posting is another classic example of comparisons of action which are different in many ways; one of which is the feeding system.
Actions which are rigid and which have a good bedding footprint will usually work better than those which are flexy with limited bedding surface. Whether or not the action, if a magazine action, feeds under the extractor or ahead of it is absolutely meaningless.
The only real test would be to try a proven rifle utilizing each system and do a realistic comparison. If the contention is that it is the extractor which makes the difference, it would be easy enough to shoot a rifle with a Sako-style extractor then fit the bolt with a mauser-style extractor and do it again. If it is the contention that the feeding system makes the difference, my Model 70 test comes close but one could take it further. The only question then becomes, who will pay for it?
 
Leeper said:
Virtually all "F" class and BR rifles are built on single shot bolt actions which are not push feed or CRF. Those which are magazine rifles are push feeds because that is what is being built and that is what is available; not because one extraction system is better or worse than the other. By the way, I built one rifle on a Defiance CRF action and it seemed to shoot as well as if it had been a push feed.
This posting is another classic example of comparisons of action which are different in many ways; one of which is the feeding system.
Actions which are rigid and which have a good bedding footprint will usually work better than those which are flexy with limited bedding surface. Whether or not the action, if a magazine action, feeds under the extractor or ahead of it is absolutely meaningless.
The only real test would be to try a proven rifle utilizing each system and do a realistic comparison. If the contention is that it is the extractor which makes the difference, it would be easy enough to shoot a rifle with a Sako-style extractor then fit the bolt with a mauser-style extractor and do it again. If it is the contention that the feeding system makes the difference, my Model 70 test comes close but one could take it further. The only question then becomes, who will pay for it?
Click to expand...

Sure lots of F Class guns are single shot push feed solid actions. Mine is. Plenty aren’t though. Haven’t seen a single Mauser or Winchester at all. That stuff might have flown with 2 MOA 5 rings but no more. Those solid stiff CRF actions don’t seem to exist, do they? In a one horse race, the horse that shows up, wins.;)
 
Dogleg said:
Sure lots of F Class guns are single shot push feed solid actions. Mine is. Plenty aren’t though. Haven’t seen a single Mauser or Winchester at all. That stuff might have flown with 2 MOA 5 rings but no more. Those solid stiff CRF actions don’t seem to exist, do they? In a one horse race, the horse that shows up, wins.;)
Click to expand...

i ve seen one shot crf action in sweden build on mauser 98. it was for military competition shooting not with scope only sights but i do not know about the kind of shooting you re taling about.
 
Dogleg said:
Sure lots of F Class guns are single shot push feed solid actions. Mine is. Plenty aren’t though. Haven’t seen a single Mauser or Winchester at all. That stuff might have flown with 2 MOA 5 rings but no more. Those solid stiff CRF actions don’t seem to exist, do they? In a one horse race, the horse that shows up, wins.;)
Click to expand...

Actually, solid, stiff crf actions do exist but you are unlikely to see them on the firing line because (a) they are rare and, (b) they require more gunsmithing than just plug and play. The solid bottomed single shot is by it's nature, push feed only, regardless of the extractor type.
Precision action builders will usually go with push feed only because it's an easier design. Precision rifle builders will build on what is popular, available, and effective. This still does not prove that the pushfeed system is more accurate; it only proves that it is more common. That wasn't the question.
 
Well I’ll say the control feed on my bighorn tl3 is something else. I really dig it. That said, I would not even overthink this thing. Push feed is plenty good!!
 
Leeper said:
Actually, solid, stiff crf actions do exist but you are unlikely to see them on the firing line because (a) they are rare and, (b) they require more gunsmithing than just plug and play. The solid bottomed single shot is by it's nature, push feed only, regardless of the extractor type.
Precision action builders will usually go with push feed only because it's an easier design. Precision rifle builders will build on what is popular, available, and effective. This still does not prove that the pushfeed system is more accurate; it only proves that it is more common. That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

Only a guess but I would say if there was even a minute advantage of one action over another high level competitors would grab it. The money would not matter
 
Buckmastr said:
Yep.
Is there a crf rifle that has a faster lock time then a Rem 700 push feed?
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of, but the Rem 788 kicked the 700's arse in lock time and accuracy for an "outta the box" hunting rifle. I go with the 783's over the 700 as well as they are stiffer actions with Brewer type barrel nut setup fer easy headspace control.
 
Within reason, lock time plays a fairly minor role for rifles fired off a rest. If it was a major issue, then actions with shorter lock time would always be more accurate. That the 788 was more accurate than the 700 is a myth with no foundation in fact. GD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom