Controlled round feed real life benefits

F

Freyr_255

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 97.1%
33   1   0
Location
Northern BC
So I've never really been concerned about controlled round feed, but I feel the need to ask others because the thought crossed my mind. Do you see any real world benefit over a push feed? I know the standard arguments about it being preferential for a dangerous game rifle because of feeding reliability, but honestly the only thing I'm seeing that is different is the ability to eject a shell after 1/3 to 1/2 of the bolt stroke going forward vs having to fully chamber a round before the extractor grabs, but this only applies to a cartridge that's already feeding correctly and therefore a non issue. Now, presumably both would have their potential feeding issues if something went wrong as I can safely say I've had issues with both and it was usually a magazine issue, such as cartridges not fully seated at the back(tip binds and stays down), mag feed lips need adjustment, etc., and they bound up on the mag itself. So if the CRF gun had a feeding issue where it didn't feed properly and get locked onto the extractor correctly, it would have the same issues as a push feed and there would be no actual benefit beyond a psychological confidence factor. I guess maybe the CRF requires a full bolt cycle to eject and therefore limits short stroking potential? Presumably the military use of push feeds would imply they're not that bad of a firearm for dangerous situations.

Anyways, does anyone have some real stories or experience where CRF made the difference over a push feed? Technical thoughts? I'm going to request thoughts as it pertains to a DGR as that's where the arguments always lie.
 
I know one thing. The setup you chose in your head may not work so well on the range. And what works on the range has no guarantee of working while hunting. Strange things happen to your guns when a shot really counts.
I had a short stroke with a 788 once while hunting. Had problems with an Enfield too. No problems with any CRF yet, fingers crossed.
I never gave much importance to the "the military uses it so..." argument.
 
I think it is a combination of a "real" potential for a short stroke, and then American gun writers picking that up. I have a Weatherby Mark V on my workbench. Would think that "defines" a Dangerous Game rifle. It is push feed. So are all the Remington 700's that I have seen, so even Carlos Hathcock's would have been push feed? The 1955 Model 70 here is a controlled round feed, but both the 1976(?) 308 Win and the 1982 (?) 338 Win Mag, and the recently passed on 1968 (?) 375 H&H - all Model 70, are all push feed. So long as it is your practice to slam a bolt to its stops, I do not see an issue? I believe the Schultz and Larson I worked with a couple years ago was push feed, and that was the first actions that Roy Weatherby used, I think? Of course, years of practice and muscle memory on a short bolt 223 will probably cause grief on an unfamiliar 300 H&H, but it is the shooter's lack of practice with that rifle, or poor bolt manipulation technique, that is the problem, not the feeding system.
 
I like Mauser CRF because of the big, reliable claw extractor, no double feeds even under stress and the ability to strip down the bolt to clean and degrease if the temperature drops below freezing.
 
I suspect the legend of "reliable" mauser extractor was from days with the dovetail undercut in the groove at front of bolt that caused the extractor to tighten up against the cartridge head as bolt pulled rearward - does not exist on most "modern" rifles, with so called "controlled round" feed extractors. Taking down the bolt with fingers alone is very handy, but not necessarily a part of controlled feed system - my push feed Model 70's do the same thing - fingers only to remove the bolt guts.
 
With a push feed, if you have a round that won't fully chamber for whatever reason, you only have a couple of options to clear it. One is to try to force the bolt over the rim so the extractor engages. If that doesn't work, you've now jammed the errant round even farther into the chamber. Now you reach for option 2, which is to find a cleaning rod and try to pound the round out from the muzzle end.

With controlled feed, if the round won't chamber, the extractor already has a grip and you can force the bolt open with a boot heal if necessary, and get rid of the bad round.

To me, the crf feels smoother while feeding a round into the chamber.

There's also a safety factor, but this is only a small benefit imo. You can unload by cycling the action without having to turn the bolt into battery. With rifles that have a blind magazine, like the Remington 700 ADL, the only way to unload is cycle the rounds through the chamber.
 
9.3mauser said:
With a push feed, if you have a round that won't fully chamber for whatever reason, you only have a couple of options to clear it. One is to try to force the bolt over the rim so the extractor engages. If that doesn't work, you've now jammed the errant round even farther into the chamber. Now you reach for option 2, which is to find a cleaning rod and try to pound the round out from the muzzle end.

With controlled feed, if the round won't chamber, the extractor already has a grip and you can force the bolt open with a boot heal if necessary, and get rid of the bad round.

To me, the crf feels smoother while feeding a round into the chamber.

There's also a safety factor, but this is only a small benefit imo. You can unload by cycling the action without having to turn the bolt into battery. With rifles that have a blind magazine, like the Remington 700 ADL, the only way to unload is cycle the rounds through the chamber.
Click to expand...

I prefer CRF, and agree with all of the above except chambering the cartridge being the only way to unload PF rifles with blind magazine. I have done it many times, by simply starting the bolt to turn down until the extractor clicks over the rim, then lift the bolt and extract the cartridge. Actually had to do that with a Browning A Bolt a fellow had at the range a few weeks ago.

As for real-life experience, I have seen a couple of instances while guiding where hunters double stroked, and consequently jammed their rifle. Almost always after the first shot, getting very excited when the animal did not go down. One rifle I'm pretty sure was a 700. I well remember because in that situation we ended up in a real mess with a wounded animal. The hunter was not my sport, but I was guiding him after his guide got tired of him missing game and the outfitter asked me to take him out, but that's another story.

Ted
 
Last edited:
If both the controlled round feed action and the push feed action are working properly it doesn't really matter which you have. If one is not working properly, that one will be a pain in the ass.

It is more important the owner familiarize himself with what ever he has... and know how it works. Panicking and not operating the bolt properly is an operating error, not a design failure of the action.

You don't have to cycle rounds into the chamber to unload a push feed... just operate the bolt far enough for the round to pop up, raise the muzzle and pull the bolt back and dump the round out the port.
 
Why not? said:
I prefer CRF, and agree with all of the above except chambering the cartridge being the only way to unload PF rifles with blind magazine. I have done it many times, by simply starting the bolt to turn down until the extractor clicks over the rim, then lift the bolt and extract the cartridge. Actually had to do that with a Browning A Bolt a fellow had at the range a few weeks ago.

As for real-life experience, I have seen a couple of instances while guiding where hunters double stroked, and consequently jammed their rifle. Almost always after the first shot, getting very excited when the animal did not go down. One rifle I'm pretty sure was a 700. I well remember because in that situation we ended up in a real mess with a wounded animal. The hunter was not my sport, but I was guiding him after his guide got tired of him missing game and the outfitter asked me to take him out, but that's another story.

Ted
Click to expand...

rem 700 is the rifle i had the most problems while guiding in northern quebec. always the SA version. and always after the first shot.
 
I will admit to being a CRF fan, however, I also own and use PF rifles too. The only "real life" benefits as the OP put it that I can think of though miniscule are these:

1- the ability to work the bolt slowly to the point where you pull the bolt back far enough that the brass of the fired round partially sticks out of the action and can be grabbed by the shooter before being completely ejected. This may not have a practical purpose in a hunting situation but is a nice feature at the range.

2- chambering a round with a CRF a is quieter. Some people do not like to chamber a round until they get to their hunting/stand location and with a PF the round tends to pop up and out of the magazine making more noise than a CRF.

That's all I can really think of, like I said, no major advantages but some none the less.
 
medvedqc said:
rem 700 is the rifle i had the most problems while guiding in northern quebec. always the SA version. and always after the first shot.
Click to expand...

That would seem to make sense... the most popular hunting rifle in the most popular action length would probably be the one to have the most problems with. Also the action most popular with novice hunters. I'd suspect it's not the rifle, it's the shooter, no?

I'm really having trouble picturing the problem? Are you guys saying you had hunters fire, eject the brass, push the bolt forward, stop part way and pick up a second round?
 
Last edited:
-JD- said:
1- the ability to work the bolt slowly to the point where you pull the bolt back far enough that the brass of the fired round partially sticks out of the action and can be grabbed by the shooter before being completely ejected. This may not have a practical purpose in a hunting situation but is a nice feature at the range.
Click to expand...

?

No issue doing this with any PF action I've ever had. Lift the bolt with a bladed hand, pull back with your thumb, and grab the neck of the brass with your fingers.

guntech said:
If both the controlled round feed action and the push feed action are working properly it doesn't really matter which you have. If one is not working properly, that one will be a pain in the ass.

It is more important the owner familiarize himself with what ever he has... and know how it works. Panicking and not operating the bolt properly is an operating error, not a design failure of the action.
Click to expand...

^ This should end the discussion forever.

If CF was so important, it would be a required feature on modern sniper rifles. I can't imagine who would ever be in any more critical or stressful a situation with a bolt gun as their primary weapon as snipers are. If the police and military don't think it's necessary when lives are at risk, I figure the whole discussion is pointless. Both work, both are fine presuming they're properly maintained.
 
Last edited:
-JD- said:
I will admit to being a CRF fan, however, I also own and use PF rifles too. The only "real life" benefits as the OP put it that I can think of though miniscule are these:

1- the ability to work the bolt slowly to the point where you pull the bolt back far enough that the brass of the fired round partially sticks out of the action and can be grabbed by the shooter before being completely ejected. This may not have a practical purpose in a hunting situation but is a nice feature at the range.
Click to expand...

I do 1) with all my push feeds and works really well
 
9.3mauser said:
With a push feed, if you have a round that won't fully chamber for whatever reason, you only have a couple of options to clear it. One is to try to force the bolt over the rim so the extractor engages. If that doesn't work, you've now jammed the errant round even farther into the chamber. Now you reach for option 2, which is to find a cleaning rod and try to pound the round out from the muzzle end.

With controlled feed, if the round won't chamber, the extractor already has a grip and you can force the bolt open with a boot heal if necessary, and get rid of the bad round.

To me, the crf feels smoother while feeding a round into the chamber.

There's also a safety factor, but this is only a small benefit imo. You can unload by cycling the action without having to turn the bolt into battery. With rifles that have a blind magazine, like the Remington 700 ADL, the only way to unload is cycle the rounds through the chamber.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll concede this point. I guess I've never had a round not chamber before that wasn't feed angle related so didn't really think of it as much of an issue to have a round aligned and not chamber. I guess dirt, but presumably if that was the case the other shells would have a similar issue. Perhaps a malformed casing or the wrong cartridge. Presumably these second two are easy to mitigate with a little attention though lol!

Regarding safety factor, just close a PF bolt until the shell pops out of the mag and then open the bolt all the way and shake it out. Usually easiest to do in a vertical/upward position as the shell drops back out with the bolt and that way you don't have to fully chamber anything.
 
flashman2 said:
That would seem to make sense... the most popular hunting rifle in the most popular action length would probably be the one to have the most problems with. Also the action most popular with novice hunters. I'd suspect it's not the rifle, it's the shooter, no?

I'm really having trouble picturing the problem? Are you guys saying you had hunters fire, eject the brass, push the bolt forward, stop part way and pick up a second round?
Click to expand...

yes.
 
Reloading practices are likely the biggest problem in the function of a lot of rifles.

Neck sizing only and so forth.
 
Last edited:
I have seen push feeds short stroked and jam up. One thing I like about the Mausers is the ejection system. If you ever have a primer blow it can stick those puny little plunger ejectors. Then you have a problem. The fixed ejectors on the Mausers just work.
 
Way important to be familiar with what you take out. Original Mauser can not be single loaded - single round must be clicked into mag, then chambered. Not a good thing to discover when out hunting, and "in a rush". Modifications to original extractor lip are possible, but that is simply thinning off an already thin (but entirely adequate) piece. Contrast to an M1917/P14 - pretty much "controlled round feed" from magazine, but designed from the start to also be single loaded - much larger extractor nose, and of course, requires a cut into rear of barrel for that extractor nose. But the M1917/P14 do not have that dovetail groove just behind bolt face to assist the extractor - they simply have straight slot. So pretty "esoteric" differences being discussed.

Under panic or high pressure, almost everyone "defaults" to what has been practiced. If practiced cycling bolt without firing, will see a guy cycle through a whole mag - 5 loaded shells on the ground, and biggest deer ever slowly walking away. Or stopping bolt cycle to "catch and save" the fired brass - with game still there. People do what they practice.
 
Most of my rifles in the past have been 700s. No problems with any of them at the range or hunting.

Saying that, I am currently working up loads for an FN98. Extractor is original so cases have to be fed from the mag and not singly inserted into the chamber which is ok just different. One thing I do note is that the bolt needs to be worked assertively in order to get it to feed and eject properly. No gingerly bolt working like the 700s. If (at the range) you pull the 98 bolt back slow, the empty case will just pop of the extractor and sit in the top of the magazine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom