CRF vs Push Feed

I prefer rifles that slide the cartridge up under the extractor, rather than force the extractor out and over the rim. No particular reason except there is less strain on the extractor this way.
 
I like crf over push myself , mostly because I'm a huge fan of the 98 mauser action and it's crf. Also with crf where the bolt goes the round/cartridge goes , I like that. Push feed MAY save wear and tear on your extractor/ejector but how much IDK. It's an age old debate but I'm a crf fan. That said I choose a rifle for the rifle and crf or push feed isn't a huge factor in my decision overall.
 
I've had various push feed rifles over the years, and much prefer CRF. I have only one push feed left, a Rem 725, and at some point down the road I'll replace that with CRF.

I find that the feed on CRF rifles is a lot smoother. On a couple of my Mausers you actually have to look to see if you chambered a cartridge or not. I've never found that smoothness with push feed, there's always a little stop or bump at the end of the travel as the extractor snaps over the rim. You can also unload by running the cartridges into the chamber without ever actually rotating the bolt closed. In fact you don't even have to run the bolt all the way home most of the time.

You also have better control over the extraction and ejection with a CRF. Most push feed have a plunger ejector, and as soon as the case starts to come clear of the chamber, that plunger starts to apply pressure and push it against the right side of the chamber. When the empty finally clears the chamber and receiver ring, it just sort of dribbles out of the action. With CRF, you can gently nudge it so it just falls out of the action, or you can snap the bolt back and have the empty land 12 feet away. If you're careful you can open the bolt and pick the empty out with your fingers.

One habit you need to break yourself of, if you're using CRF, is feeding a round directly into the chamber and closing the bolt. I always feed from the magazine, and the habit is so ingrained I do it with push feed rifles as well.
 
CRF vs PF is an after thought to me.

I have to like the rifle overall. If a rifle appeals to me I wouldn't pass on it based on the feed/extraction type.

The feed/extraction parameter that does matter to me is consistency. Haven't had a problem with either one.

Maybe I need to hit my rifles with a hammer more or something ......
 
Uh oh, this thread will be a long one me thinks.

I prefer CRF as they do tend to be slicker; however, I own and hunt with both and the reliability aspect is not really a factor. If a rifle won't feed properly it is defective, CRF or push feed.
 
Short synopsis from a practical perspective:

- CRF was invented for military and dangerous game applications. The whole idea is achieving a mag-fed bolt action that will have very low FTF rates when the action is cycled in any position, including upside down, at all inclinations, etc. This is in case the shooter was being mauled by an animal, or in the grips of combat, etc. Of the two action types, this one will almost always feed more reliably.

- Push Feed pre-dates CRF as it is the simpler mechanism and was thought of first. In modern applications, like bench rest, it's thought that push feeds might shoot a smudge more consistently. I think the jury is out whether that is because of the feed mechanism, or some other design difference in the receivers themselves. Push feed is also a LOT cheaper to manufacture, hence why so many manufacturers offer push feed.

It's pretty simple really - CRF was a feature that was ADDED to the push feed rifles that existed first. It should be thought of as an option you can buy into if you have a need for a dangerous game rifle. Nothing more than that.
 
TrevorMack said:
I am just curious as to what people prefer and why. Pros and cons of each.
Click to expand...

Do you like Blondes or Gingers?
I like Blondes.
But, seriously depending on ones application it does make a tinkers difference in the grand scheme of things unless of course you wish to stir up interesting conversation here or around the campfire.
Me, I'm easy to please more or les.
Tight Groups,
Rob
 
Claven2 said:
Short synopsis from a practical perspective:

- CRF was invented for military and dangerous game applications. The whole idea is achieving a mag-fed bolt action that will have very low FTF rates when the action is cycled in any position, including upside down, at all inclinations, etc. This is in case the shooter was being mauled by an animal, or in the grips of combat, etc. Of the two action types, this one will almost always feed more reliably.

- Push Feed pre-dates CRF as it is the simpler mechanism and was thought of first. In modern applications, like bench rest, it's thought that push feeds might shoot a smudge more consistently. I think the jury is out whether that is because of the feed mechanism, or some other design difference in the receivers themselves. Push feed is also a LOT cheaper to manufacture, hence why so many manufacturers offer push feed.

It's pretty simple really - CRF was a feature that was ADDED to the push feed rifles that existed first. It should be thought of as an option you can buy into if you have a need for a dangerous game rifle. Nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of push feed rifles that existed before CRF rifles? I'd like to see some examples of rifles that had the CRF feature added, too. River M77 comes to mind, but was that to improve function or to improve marketing appeal? Can anyone prove which it was? I haven't noticed people avoiding the tang safety M77s. Is there a concrete example of a push feed rifle that was converted to CRF to improve reliability?

This CRF vs push feed debate is pretty much dominated by people who have an emotional attachment to one or the other. There's no useful data to use to prove one is better than the other. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I mean, how many CRF military rifles are still in use, is it zero or almost zero? Heck, the US Marines wouldn't adopt the Garand in WWII because it was too newfangled, and they were among the first to adopt the Remington 700 for a sniper rifle.

Push feed rifles are perfectly fine. Of the thousand reasons to choose one rifle over another, CRF vs push feed is the last thing to bother considering.
 
Claven 2...........Not sure where you get your info but the first successful bolt guns were by Heir Mauser and were all CRF. It is not a feature that was adapted later, quite the opposite.
Personally I'm totally bifeedual, I buy my rifles because they are pretty or in a cartridge I wish to play with and are of relatively high quality. I own dangerous game rifles in both systems and have never been able to see a difference in reliability or function. One thing I do not like about true CRF actions is the inability to single load the chamber. This in my opinion reduces the full capability of the rifle, by reducing the capacity by one round.
I was shooting a Husqvarna FN action '06 last weekend, and having to push the cartridge into the magazine, while at the bench, was a pain in the a$$.
I like 'em all, my old Sakos, my Remington 7s and 700s, my BSAs, my old Rugers, my Weatherby......all fine rifles and all push feeds. Then I have my new Winchesters, my CZs, my old Brno 602, a couple FN 98s, a Husqvarna and an old Parker Hale all CRF, and again all fine rifles.
I have hunted over most of the globe with push feed rifles almost all being 700 Rems and I have never had a failure to feed, extract or eject. In fact I have fired well over 100,000 rounds of centerfire from push feed rifles without a glitch in the field. I also believe CRF rifles are more prone to extractor breakage from single loading than anything you can do to a push feed. I saw 4 broken 98 extractors on the range in one day shooting silhouette. Guys forget to magazine the rounds and after 30+ shots of single loading the extractor let go and broke the claw off.......I have never seen 4 Rem 700 extractor failures in my life, so my personal experience says to me that push feed extractors are more reliable than the big claws and less prone to abuse inadvertent or otherwise.
 
Bartledan said:
Can you give some examples of push feed rifles that existed before CRF rifles?
Click to expand...

Do you guys ever look at anything that was available pre-1960?

Umm... how about the Mauser 71, the Mauser 71/84, the Krag, the Mosin action, the 88 Commission, the Lee series of rifles, the Mauser 91. millions of these were sold as military and sporting rifles.

All push feed.

The Mauser 93 series was the first time Paul and Wilhelm Mauser offered CRF - and almost all Mauser pattern bolt rifles since then have been CRF. Same with most derivatives up until the 1960's or so when lots of commercial gas started to come out from mid-tier producers like Sako, Tikka, Remington, Winchester cheapened the Model 70, etc.

I have both types of rifles in about equal numbers and don't prefer one over the other. It's a fact CRF was invented for feeding at all rifle angles and attitudes.
 
Last edited:
c-fbmi said:
Claven 2...........Not sure where you get your info but the first successful bolt guns were by Heir Mauser and were all CRF. It is not a feature that was adapted later, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Mauser invented the IG71, the IG71/84, the Mausers 91 - all push feed, all pre-model 98, and all of them produced in massive numbers for both civilian and military purposes. Africa was full of hunters using Mausers long before the 98 was even invented.

Now TODAY the 98 dominates the Mauser stable, but to say Mauser was not successful before CRF is patently false.

Here is a Mauser 91 bolt. Looks push feed to me. Also looks a LOT like many modern push-feed bolt.s

msr032.jpg
 
9.3mauser said:
The Lee Enfield is crf. Load from the magazine and the rim comes up under the extractor.
Click to expand...

Sort of. It's not a true CRF, in my view, but shares many of the traditional CRF characteristics. It's also designed to snap over easily. The claw is too narrow and has no lip on the top to limit upward movement. In theory since the round clears the feed lips, the cartridge base could slide up too high on the bolt face. It's unlikely though, as the round will usually have started into the chamber, entering the round to a certain degree.
 
One reason I like CRF is there is no spring loaded plunger pushing the cartridge against one side of the chamber, not that it really matter. Also it's nice being able to unload a blind magazine easily with control of the cartridges without chamberings them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom