Crf ??

HKMark23

HKMark23

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Location
The Far East
Probably been discussed before but the search function here eludes me :mad:.

Another thread here compares Tikka and CZ rifles and similar comparison threads have been posted about other rifles like Winchester 70 vs Remington 700. A common point of comparison is CRF vs Push feed actions.

"To the question".

Is there any contra indication to CRF, over and above the ubiquitous position of Remington owners, that you don't really need it ? Or, to put it another way, all else being equal, is there any reason at all to prefer push feed actions over CRF?
 
Push feed actions are most often found in round actions like Savage 110s & Remington 700s while CRF actions tend to have flat bottom actions like Winchester M-70 and various Mausers.

If a push feed action has an advantage, it is that the head of the cartridge is usually enclosed by the recess of the face of the bolt. Whether or not this advantage has ever prevented a shooter from being injured with quality ammunition is questionable, but I guess if you like sticky bolt pressures, a push feed is better for you.
 
Just out of curiosity, I tried the search function. Entered "crf", and tried time intervals for 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. In the past 6 months, there were 137 posts on crf. Any longer time interval, and the number of hits exceeds 150.
As far as RF vs push feed goes, its a whatever turns your crank situation.
 
Although I am a Rem 700 fan, my preference is for the CRF Mauser claw as I have never experienced feeding and extraction problems.

The disappointing aspect of being a 700 fan is that the push feed does a crappy job with the WSMs. If they even feed, you still need a Sako extractor installed. WSMs work quite well in a CRF action.

That said, I dislike Ruger's bolt only because of the amount of excess play and wobble in the overall bolt construction. Any downwards pressure on the back of the bolt as you push it forwards to feed a round and a Ruger will skip over the next cartridge. I have never experienced this much extra movement in Winchester, Husky, or CZ. I do not recall this occuring on the Kimber, but they have other problems that keep me at a safe distance.
 
When the push feeds came out, I think in the 1950s, they were loudly hyped, to be the super safe bolt action. No more of the case sitting on a flat bolt face, but surrounded, for safety!
In all my life I have blown only one primer from a case in shooting, and that was from a very good quality push feed, 37 years ago.
A ball of fire surrounded the action and a much greater boom. No escaping gas hit me, but it blew the extractor off, with several little pieces and springs falling out, as I opened the action.
Had this been a Mauser action, I don't think any gas would have hit me, either. I will also guess that nothing would have blown apart.
So, you will ask, what did you do to get all that extra pressure?
Very easy to do. Normal load, that I had shot lots of, but on my "plinking" ammo I had neglected to trim the 270 cartridge, which has a habit of growing fairly fast.
 
H4831 said:
When the push feeds came out, I think in the 1950s, they were loudly hyped, to be the super safe bolt action. No more of the case sitting on a flat bolt face, but surrounded, for safety!
In all my life I have blown only one primer from a case in shooting, and that was from a very good quality push feed, 37 years ago.
A ball of fire surrounded the action and a much greater boom. No escaping gas hit me, but it blew the extractor off, with several little pieces and springs falling out, as I opened the action.
Had this been a Mauser action, I don't think any gas would have hit me, either. I will also guess that nothing would have blown apart.
So, you will ask, what did you do to get all that extra pressure?
Very easy to do. Normal load, that I had shot lots of, but on my "plinking" ammo I had neglected to trim the 270 cartridge, which has a habit of growing fairly fast.
Click to expand...

I had a similar experience with my Remington manufactured M-17 Enfield, in that I inadvertently double charged a case with fast powder and seated a .308/210 gr cast bullet over it.

The results were spectacular: after spitting out bullets at 1800 fps over the chrony, when the double charged load fired the Chrony read 2850 and the rifle boomed and kicked like a .300 magnum. I had to beat the action open with a 2X4, and once opened found the primer in the bottom of the magazine. Little wonder, the primer pocket expanded out to the lettering on the case head and the flash hole expanded to the size of the primer pocket. The lettering from the case head appeared in mirror image on the bolt face. No gas came back at me, the extractor didn't blow off, and nothing appeared to be amiss.

After a quick inspection by my shooting partner, a retired gunsmith, the rifle was declared serviceable and I continued to shoot with no ill effects. That rifle continued to serve me faithfully both on the rifle range and in the field until it was lost in a house fire some years later. Would a Remington 700 have done any better? I can't see how, particularly after reading Bruce's experience above.
 
Boomer said:
I had a similar experience with my Remington manufactured M-17 Enfield, in that I inadvertently double charged a case with fast powder and seated a .308/210 gr cast bullet over it.

The results were spectacular: after spitting out bullets at 1800 fps over the chrony, when the double charged load fired the Chrony read 2850 and the rifle boomed and kicked like a .300 magnum. I had to beat the action open with a 2X4, and once opened found the primer in the bottom of the magazine. Little wonder, the primer pocket expanded out to the lettering on the case head and the flash hole expanded to the size of the primer pocket. The lettering from the case head appeared in mirror image on the bolt face. No gas came back at me, the extractor didn't blow off, and nothing appeared to be amiss.

After a quick inspection by my shooting partner, a retired gunsmith, the rifle was declared serviceable and I continued to shoot with no ill effects. That rifle continued to serve me faithfully both on the rifle range and in the field until it was lost in a house fire some years later. Would a Remington 700 have done any better? I can't see how, particularly after reading Bruce's experience above.
Click to expand...

If its all the same to you boys, I don't think I'll try any of this :D.

Thanx everyone, for answering here. I wasn't even aware of the "safety bolt" aspect of the push feed, be it effective or not :redface:, so I've learned something,, (it happens :rolleyes:). I figured I was just addressing a sour grapes dismissal of CRF,, "who knew" ?
 
Boomer, on this post of yours, there is something else I find significant, which rang a bell when you posted it before.
It is the tremendous velocity reached by that bullet.
I have read on these posts a dozen, or maybe six dozen times, that when the "maximum" pressure in a cartridge, meaning what a loading book says in maximum, is reached, further powder just adds pressure to the cartridge, but very little increase in velocity.
Now, in my uninformed mind, I always thought that more pressure in the cartridge meant the bullet was going to leave the barrel faster.
Your unplanned experiment seems to prove that my old fashioned idea may just be correct.
 
And as you know, I have been the one suggesting that the increase in velocity drops off as the maximum load is approached, when powder charges increase in weight incrementally. If one gets nervous as he approaches the maximum load, and choose to increase the load in a smaller increment, it doesn't apply, because of the introduction of a variable which could account for the change. Therefore you can't be sure of the cause; are you near maximum or was the smaller increment alone responsible for the lower increase in velocity?.

When a powder is chosen appropriately for top performance given the case capacity, bullet weight, and the velocity sought, this remains true. When shooting over a chronograph, as you work up towards a maximum load say 1 grain increments, the amount of velocity gain as you near maximum pressure decreases; where it might have been 40 fps over the previous velocity, perhaps now it is 20 or even 15 fps, then the perhaps 8-10 fps and you observe a sticky bolt.

Conversely in the case of fast burning powders in large capacity cases, the phenomenon apparently doesn't occur until the pressure has risen beyond what would be considered safe, probably due to the capacity of the cartridge. But then we are fudging the design parameters when we choose pistol powders to shoot cast bullets or low velocity jacketed bullets in typical full sized rifle cartridges.
 
I was in a gun store one when a fellow came in saying that he didn't like his Rem 700 in 7 mag.

He said he always had to beat the bolt open and the gun kicked like a mule.
When the owned asked what load he was using the guy responded 90 something grains of H-4831.
The owner laughed and told him there was no way in hell that amount of powder fit in the 7 mag case. The fellow then causally mentioned he would first grind the 4831 into dust with a rolling pin....:eek:

The owner (a model 70 guy) told the customer he felt the only reason he was still alive was because of the Remington action...I'm pretty sure he was right.

Either way I think perfection is more important than design principal.
 
"When the push feeds came out, I think in the 1950s, they were loudly hyped, to be the super safe bolt action. No more of the case sitting on a flat bolt face, but surrounded, for safety!"
To be more accurate the push feed you describe is the closed face. The push feed open face has been around as long as the control round feed which was introduced by Paul Mauser
The biggest factor is that it would be easy double round feed with a push feed and create a nasty situation when hunting dangerous game.
 
Unless your hanging upside down from the lower limb of a Acacia tree, facing a charging cape buffalo, there's only a tiny advatage to CRF, assuming you have a round in the magazine.
 
bisonhd said:
Unless your hanging upside down from the lower limb of a Acacia tree, facing a charging cape buffalo, there's only a tiny advatage to CRF, assuming you have a round in the magazine.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is the sort of contra indication "that isn't" that prompted me to start this thread in the first place. Point being that, all else being equal, CRF is simply a benefit, with no contra. That those who happen to own push feed rifles don't see the need for CRF , seems to be the only argument, "if you can call it that", against it.

Verdict = CRF is good !
 
I think that the advantages of controlled feed are somewhat overstated and the disadvantages of push feed are even sometimes incorrect. I have tried to see if my Rem 700's would feed upside down and everyone of them will without jamming at all. I was told that a push feed should not be able to do that reliably every time. I think if you have to cycle your gun upside down, you have more serious problems on your hands.

When all is said and done, I think that whatever action turns your crank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom