How do you have one in the chamber and a full magazine with a CRF bolt action?
- Thread starter kferguson
- Start date
Have one of them as well. An older midland in 30-06 exact same type of claw extractor that feeds from mag or single feeds.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Apologies, Mr. Flach, but I have too many original military Mausers and New, Old Stock parts to believe that to be true for military arms. And several brands of commercial rifles built on original military or commercial copies of Mauser 98 actions - including FN and Santa Barbara. Certainly for sporting hunting rifles, I agree - it makes no sense to me not to be able to single feed a hunting rifle - but have read many books of early days hunters learning to have to feed from magazine only, and I therefore thought mine were "normal" - so looks like I have a number of them here to get busy with, now that I know how it is to be done.
I also notice most of the military or former military ones have or had charger slots - not present on many "new" rifles, so maybe we have only "inherited" a part of the original system?? Never were meant to single feed - was to be fed by charger only. And then USA came along with 1903 Springfield, and then the P14 and M1917 Enfield that demonstrated an improvement of the mauser design...
I recently received a Ruger Hawkeye M77 - have seen it referred to often as CRF - it does have the large non-rotating clawed "hook" extractor. But no dovetail in the extractor guide slot around the bolt face, nor matching dovetail in that extractor guide foot that rides in that slot. And of course, no charger slot. So a lot of the details from Mauser design have gone away. I am quite convinced that "CRF" is the case rim from the magazine's round sliding up the bolt face, behind the extractor claw - rather than being pushed ahead of it - that external extractor is not really the "CRF" part - a No. 4 Lee Enfield is also CRF. However, I just tried it and this thing single feeds flawlessly!!!
I also notice most of the military or former military ones have or had charger slots - not present on many "new" rifles, so maybe we have only "inherited" a part of the original system?? Never were meant to single feed - was to be fed by charger only. And then USA came along with 1903 Springfield, and then the P14 and M1917 Enfield that demonstrated an improvement of the mauser design...
I recently received a Ruger Hawkeye M77 - have seen it referred to often as CRF - it does have the large non-rotating clawed "hook" extractor. But no dovetail in the extractor guide slot around the bolt face, nor matching dovetail in that extractor guide foot that rides in that slot. And of course, no charger slot. So a lot of the details from Mauser design have gone away. I am quite convinced that "CRF" is the case rim from the magazine's round sliding up the bolt face, behind the extractor claw - rather than being pushed ahead of it - that external extractor is not really the "CRF" part - a No. 4 Lee Enfield is also CRF. However, I just tried it and this thing single feeds flawlessly!!!
Last edited:
My Husky 9.3mm is built on a '50's vintage commercial FN action, and the extractor most certainly will not slip over the rim of a chambered cartridge... magazine feed only.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Thinking. I suspect this double charge jam was an issue that Paul Mauser was trying to address in his design. Designers at Enfield trying to deal with same thing in Britain. Soldier pushes a bolt part way forward - then pulls it back - leaves a cartridge in the chamber and the bolt has also picked up next one from magazine. So rifle is tied up, until cleared. With Control Round Feed, if cartridge has started into the chamber, the extractor has a hold of that case's rim - push forward as if to close, then pull back the bolt - that first unfired round gets extracted and goes flying off - so rifle quite ready to accept the next round that bolt is pushing out of magazine. Unless single fed. Because that is NOT controlled round feeding.
You probably have to actually see a hunter aim and operate his rifle at a deer, and cycle through all the rounds he has on board, without doing the "pull the trigger" part - a pile of unfired cartridges laying in the snow... So I guess soldiers were known to do similar??
So, German and British military training was to load with chargers into the magazine, and then to chamber cartridges from the magazine. I guess. Always covered by the "protection" of the CRF system. 1903 Springfield, No. 1 Lee Enfields - that double feed jam not going to happen if the magazine cut off is used - can not pick up another round from magazine, if or when one is left behind in the chamber by a "short stroke". Unless user drops a second round in there with the first one still in the chamber - while the bolt is open. No clue at all why the P14 and M1917 saw fit to get away from that magazine cut off?? Both clearly were made to single feed; but no magazine cut off - soldier instructions for the day clearly identified ability of those rifles to be single fed. Some how figured out how to ensure that the soldier actually fully closed the bolt each time he pushed it forward??? No doubt the same reason why Weatherby, Remington, etc. had very few or no CRF rifles, ever. Figured out how to get the user to fully close the bolt each time it was pushed forward?
You probably have to actually see a hunter aim and operate his rifle at a deer, and cycle through all the rounds he has on board, without doing the "pull the trigger" part - a pile of unfired cartridges laying in the snow... So I guess soldiers were known to do similar??
So, German and British military training was to load with chargers into the magazine, and then to chamber cartridges from the magazine. I guess. Always covered by the "protection" of the CRF system. 1903 Springfield, No. 1 Lee Enfields - that double feed jam not going to happen if the magazine cut off is used - can not pick up another round from magazine, if or when one is left behind in the chamber by a "short stroke". Unless user drops a second round in there with the first one still in the chamber - while the bolt is open. No clue at all why the P14 and M1917 saw fit to get away from that magazine cut off?? Both clearly were made to single feed; but no magazine cut off - soldier instructions for the day clearly identified ability of those rifles to be single fed. Some how figured out how to ensure that the soldier actually fully closed the bolt each time he pushed it forward??? No doubt the same reason why Weatherby, Remington, etc. had very few or no CRF rifles, ever. Figured out how to get the user to fully close the bolt each time it was pushed forward?
Last edited:
To single load a Mauser, one simply closes the bolt until the extractor contacts the case rim then depresses the tang of the extractor to move the hook out until it snaps over the rim. Easily done if the shooter has any degree of manual dexterity at all.
Not sure how the OP's request got so complicated .
You can pinch the extractor or have fixed by a competent gunsmith to close on a chambered round .Who cares about the rest of the arguments.Bottom line is if you gun won't close on a chambered round have it fixed!
My 375 M70 magazine holds 4 rounds. It's a pre-64 with CRF and as such it's not wise to load a round with extractor jumping over the cartridge head and that's the only way to load the 5th round. It'd be okay for a push feed model.
If you look at he model 70 extractor it is different than a Mauser it has a long tapered ramp ,it is designed to ride over a cartridge rim .There is nothing wrong with closing the bolt on a chambered round with a model 70 or a Mauser with the modified extractor.
What is the difference between PUSH FEED EXTRACTOR AND A CRF THEY BOTH HAVE TO RIDE OVER THE RIM.
Pre-64 extractors are designed to snap over the case rim if one desires to do so. The same is true of the Model 54 Winchester. The only Model 70's I have seen which would not were some with aftermarket extractors which lacked clearance at the tang of the extractor. Gary has explained how Mauser extractors can be altered to snap over and I have explained how they can be manipulated to snap over (by the way, all of my own are altered). I have explained how Model 70's were designed to do so. Now, if an owner of a Model 70 prefers to believe his rifle shouldn't do that, I guess that's up to him.
The push feed does not have to ride over the rim of the cartridge. The bolt face encircles the whole case head and doesn't have control of the cartridge just pushes it into the chamber so no problem. . The CRF feeds the cartridge from the magazine in other words it feeds up to the bolt face between the bolt face and the extractor and has control of the cartridge. . New extractors are expensive and sometimes tough to find, especially on pre-64 M70's, and a good way to wear them out prematurely is riding a case head over the extractor. . You can do what you want with your rifles but I will feed mine from the magazine as they're designed to do. Just saying.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
This is similar to pulling the trigger on an empty chamber. . Some do it all the time and others never do. I'm of the latter. . Same with closing the bolt and riding the extractor over the case head. . Some do it all the time and other never do. . Again, I'm of the latter. . Old school thought is by riding the extractor over the case head it wears the sharp edge off the extractor in other words it rolls the edge over and eventually extraction slowly becomes poor. . I've had M70's with the extractor edge rolled over and replaced the extractors for the reason I explained. .
Also, I have both the pre-war manual and the post war manual. . The pre-war does not say you can do it and doesn't even bring it up but the post war says if you have it you can. . But like I said, everyone can do what they think is best. My thought is the magazine holds enough rounds with out having to ride the extractor over the case head for an additional round. . Hell, I'm going hunting and not to war.
