Aftermarket 700 actions that are CRF

dakota123

dakota123

Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Hoping to short list my homework with a little help. As the title states I’m hoping a few can help me out compiling a list of aftermarket 700 actions that are controlled feed.
It seems to be frequently not mentioned and a little difficult to find out so any help is appreciated.

I know the Zermatt bighorn origin is one for sure

​

 
Mik123 said:
Some of the defiance actions are CRF like the deviant and they use to make a Rebel with a CRF feeding, blade ejector and three position safety. All of the American Rifle Company Action are CRF as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks, appreciate the info

guntech said:
How would you make a 700 action into a controlled round feeding? It would totaly compromise the excellent extractor system that makes the 700 the strongest safest 2 lug action ever made.
Click to expand...

Sorry, for clarification purposes I was meaning 700 footprint
 
Rman said:
A question would be why want a CRF action in the first place? Seems to be a lot of compromise for little to no return?
Unless planning on doing a lot of shooting upside down?

R.
Click to expand...
Never had one and want to give it a try partially and a reputable shooter has recommended it so I figured why not, I’m Canadian after all and diversity is our strength 🤣

Would you mind elaborating on the compromises please. From all the reading I’ve done it seems to be more of a pissing match like Chevy vs Ford without much valid argument besides short stroking on dangerous game hunts, stronger extractor, better “controlled” feeding/extraction and with originally setting it up being a little more tricky as the real only down side.

This is going to be for a 6mmBR build if that matters at all
 
The pissing match would be from those that insist on CRF, or believe that it is superior in any way. The issues listed are among the top reasons not to go CRF for most fellers. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, no matter how much "control" squeeze has.
A 6BR build would be among the last that would require CRF... but if you want to do a DEI build, then fill your boots, and giver all the way. It will most certainly go bang and send lead/copper at whatever it is you'll shoot it at.

R.
 
Rman said:
The pissing match would be from those that insist on CRF, or believe that it is superior in any way. The issues listed are among the top reasons not to go CRF for most fellers. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, no matter how much "control" squeeze has.
A 6BR build would be among the last that would require CRF... but if you want to do a DEI build, then fill your boots, and giver all the way. It will most certainly go bang and send lead/copper at whatever it is you'll shoot it at.

R.
Click to expand...
I’m obviously not understanding what you’re saying. I’ve only ever owed push feed 700’s and never had any issues or concerns, just thought maybe I’d try something different and see if I like it.
Aside from initial setup being a little trickier which will fall upon my gunsmith I honestly don’t see how a stronger extractor, more controlled feed/extraction and not being able to double feed are negatives.

I’m honestly curious, what are the comprises? Is it because it’s a 700 footprint made into a CRF action or are all Winchester, CZ, Ruger CRF actions subpar to push feed?
 
dakota123 said:
I’m obviously not understanding what you’re saying. I’ve only ever owed push feed 700’s and never had any issues or concerns, just thought maybe I’d try something different and see if I like it.
Aside from initial setup being a little trickier which will fall upon my gunsmith I honestly don’t see how a stronger extractor, more controlled feed/extraction and not being able to double feed are negatives.

I’m honestly curious, what are the comprises? Is it because it’s a 700 footprint made into a CRF action or are all Winchester, CZ, Ruger CRF actions subpar to push feed?
Click to expand...
The benefit of the original 700, is the gas sealing design with the extractor in the bolt face, that is the benefit of a 700, get a case failure and all the gas is sealed and vented out the bore.
Change that, it's a #### design. That's basically it.
 
the actions today are not a true crf a true crf you can not drop a cartridge in the action and close the bolt it has to be fed from the magazine on a ruger or a win you can do this function
 
Hitzy said:
The benefit of the original 700, is the gas sealing design with the extractor in the bolt face, that is the benefit of a 700, get a case failure and all the gas is sealed and vented out the bore.
Change that, it's a #### design. That's basically it.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much, this response is the kind of info I’m looking for.

Everything I was reading was PF vs CRF in general, not PF vs CRF in a 700 action footprint specifically so I hadn’t read anything that suggested CRF took away from the original 700 design but it makes complete sense.

This is a perfect example of “if it ain’t broke , don’t fix it” and really helps me, again I appreciate the knowledge.

struff55 said:
the actions today are not a true crf a true crf you can not drop a cartridge in the action and close the bolt it has to be fed from the magazine on a ruger or a win you can do this function
Click to expand...
Another good nugget of info, thanks. I was reading conflicting information about this. Some said it couldn’t, some said it could and some said it could but it didn’t feel good forcing the extractor to jump the cartridge rim.

Any idea why the newer variant of CRF actions mentioned above allow the extractor to be forced over the rim? Is there a drawback to it or just not a true CRF to the purest?

Really appreciating the information guys, thanks
 
dakota123 said:
Any idea why the newer variant of CRF actions mentioned above allow the extractor to be forced over the rim? Is there a drawback to it or just not a true CRF to the purest?

Really appreciating the information guys, thanks
Click to expand...

Modern crf actions have a relief cut that allows the extractor to jump over the case rim from behind without damaging anything. Some of the older designs, the Mauser to be specific didn’t have a relief cut and forcing the bolt closed on a single round dropped into the chamber would eventually lead to a broken extractor. I may be wrong on this but as far as I know it is more of a difference of opinion. Some guys get very particular about what constitutes crf for whatever reason.
 
Rman said:
The pissing match would be from those that insist on CRF, or believe that it is superior in any way. The issues listed are among the top reasons not to go CRF for most fellers. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, no matter how much "control" squeeze has.
A 6BR build would be among the last that would require CRF... but if you want to do a DEI build, then fill your boots, and giver all the way. It will most certainly go bang and send lead/copper at whatever it is you'll shoot it at.

R.
Click to expand...
How do you make a post like this and then not actually list any issues, especially when you know that's what OP is looking for?? Peak CGN stuff right here lol.
 
dakota123 said:
I’m obviously not understanding what you’re saying. I’ve only ever owed push feed 700’s and never had any issues or concerns, just thought maybe I’d try something different and see if I like it.
Aside from initial setup being a little trickier which will fall upon my gunsmith I honestly don’t see how a stronger extractor, more controlled feed/extraction and not being able to double feed are negatives.

I’m honestly curious, what are the comprises? Is it because it’s a 700 footprint made into a CRF action or are all Winchester, CZ, Ruger CRF actions subpar to push feed?
Click to expand...
A miss here as well... It was posted above my last post about the integrity of the 700 action, and the things you listed with the CRF actions, including the extractor, are their known issues.
The fellers above filled in the blanks, better.

R.
 
Scotty454 said:
How do you make a post like this and then not actually list any issues, especially when you know that's what OP is looking for?? Peak CGN stuff right here lol.
Click to expand...
He listed the issues himself, which is what was referred to. Didn't see the point in typing several paragraphs of technical spew. It's impossible to know what everyone else knows or doesn't.

R.
 
guntech said:
Why do you think a controlled round feeding action has a stronger extractor?

I have hung over 200 pounds on a 700 extractor with no problems.
Click to expand...
Simply because it’s one of the common arguments I’ve read in the PF vs CRF debate.

I’ve heard the rumour of weak extractors in 700’s but have never witnessed one myself. I very much value your knowledge and experience and appreciate it. Definitely carries more weight to me than internet gossip.
Someone much more knowledgeable than me recommended I get a CRF action so I’m trying to do a little homework before I go throwing money at something I know little about.

I personally like the 700 footprint and that’s why I asked the original question about which ones were CRF. Now I know that CRF takes away from the intended design of the 700 action so at the very least I’m slightly more knowledgeable.
 
dakota123 said:
Any idea why the newer variant of CRF actions mentioned above allow the extractor to be forced over the rim? Is there a drawback to it or just not a true CRF to the purest?
Click to expand...
imo that function is separate from crf
true crfeed the round from the mag is fed up under the extractor as it rises, always being held either by the mag lips or the bolt extractor claw
whether or not the round can be single fed by top loading is another function

re why there are not many crf custom actions, maybe the requirement is not needed by a very high percentage of target shooters which is a far larger market than custom hunting rifles
Need/want of crf in a hunting rifle will always get a debate, but it that is what you want don't let anyone talk you out of it

Stating intent in the OP helps with input
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom