OK, I'm convinced I NEED a.375H&H but, which one???

Ardent said:
The Mauser extractor works in conjunction with the receiver, where the receiver holds the extractor in place (and its band).
Click to expand...

On a 98, the locator lip on the extractor engages in a half-dovetailed groove that holds it into the bolt face. It does not rely on the band or the receiver to avoid jumping off the rim.
 
Ardent said:
I'm going to need to see that one, the test. I've just a few days ago read failure accounts regarding M700 extractors in Africa, and one's posted in this very thread as well by Gatehouse (and without re-reading, I do believe that one represented a pair of failures in the Zim PH qualifications). My good friend and PH has also had Remington and Weatherby fail in the hands of his clients, and strongly 'suggests' a free loaner Winchester M70 .375 to anyone arriving to his conservancy with one.

I googled and read forums, and can't find this test? Certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it also doesn't mean a heck of a lot until we can read it ourselves. If they did this 'test' in the open as I imagine it would be done, with two bolts standing alone outside receivers on this double ended tug of war 'case', well I think we can all imagine the situation there. The Rem 700 extractor is the snap over paperclip type, and doesn't work in conjunction with the receiver. The Mauser extractor works in conjunction with the receiver, where the receiver holds the extractor in place (and its band). Pulling on it in open air as a 'test' would be like comparison testing engines but removing half the cylinder head bolts from your competitor's engine first, because your engine only uses half as many. If that was the case the 'test' would be designed to have a known outcome, I'm hoping they did it right and had the bolts in receivers.

I'd actually like to find a cheap Remington and replicate this, I have a VZ24 Mauser with a shot out barrel that would be perfect. Wouldn't be hard to turn a 4140 double ended 'case', then put in between the two barrel-less actions and put a bottle jack between the two bolt handles. I have my suspicions which will still be working after, and the extractor alone won't be the only concern. The only mechanism to impart manual ejection force into the action, the bolt handle, is soldered on in the 700 as well. I suppose if I'm going to bash them, I better test them right? I'll hunt the EE for a cheap 700.
Click to expand...

Ardent,

the proefiency test in Zimbabwe you talked about is an old one and Don Heath retracted some comments he made one day and change ....

this is a long story that every rem hater or basher is using.

im not a fan of the rem 700 but if you see them working in the field they ll work as any others. in my years of guiding i ve seen 700 rem failing to feed, but even a real new mauser 98 (mauser is still making them) didnt work. as other rifle but most of the time it was not the rifle but more the guys operating them.

does it mean because a failure happen that only one kind of rifle is working and not the other ? i doubt and this very challenging as an intellectual discussion ...

now more in deep this article you can always think that whatever rifle you re taking for dangerous game this rifle need to function whatever it happens and whatever the situation is. this article was about people under pressure and pression and some can handle, some cant PHs or not ? !!! i ve seen guides after they first meeting with a buffalo, an oryx or lion going back to europe as with some customers too ...

and the other point is whatever rifle you re using as a guide need to be made working whatever the model and i can tell that guides are seeing a smith to be sure it s working the way they want when they can. even a ZKK, a Brno or a CZ, the same for a good Zastava.

off the shelf now ill take a Ruger Hawkeye and be sure it s feeding especially with the DGX when it s done you re good to go. Zastava if you find one can be good but will need some tunings to works.

it remembers the old days maybe you ever heard about that but in Rwanda it was possible to hunt in the Akagera without a ph and only a ranger with an AK47 or Fn Fal as a back up and you can still do that in Cameroon but this is really not for everybody. and i ve met some people that done that with weatherby mark V or a rem 700 and they were not fool they re doing that way without reading the CRF or PF debates.

i think first is finding a rifle (action and stock) that fit your needs then find a smith that make it working whatever the model is ..

all the best.
 
rgv said:
On a 98, the locator lip on the extractor engages in a half-dovetailed groove that holds it into the bolt face. It does not rely on the band or the receiver to avoid jumping off the rim.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however the poster was claiming the band jumped off the bolt, and when in the receiver both the extractor an band don't have far to go.
 
I didn't have any DGX bullets but I filed down the noses of some 300gr RN Hornadys and tried them in my 375 ruger. They fed really well. I even posted a video of it on CGN once:)
 
Gatehouse said:
I didn't have any DGX bullets but I filed down the noses of some 300gr RN Hornadys and tried them in my 375 ruger. They fed really well. I even posted a video of it on CGN once:)
Click to expand...

Gatehouse ill try to upload a picture between a DGS/DGX and an "old" RN they re not in the same design way.

and yes the RN feed perfectly. i know at least two members that had problems with it (DGX). but when it works they re around the same as the Partition ...
 
Ones that are easy and cheap to manufacture, it's military equipment, the same guys buy Remington 700's despite zero debate better options exist, and there CRF isn't going to put its strengths to use. Lets just say your typical .50 extractor isn't the same one you put in your .308's either. Bolt actions in combat are used from secured positions, slowly.

This is the Hunting and Sporting Arms forum if I'm not mistaken however, .375's including mine face fast moving, dangerous game close in. When a gun well suited to that work is available, for no increase in cost, why not buy it instead even if you're not sure you'll chase nasty creatures in the dark continent? It's a plain and simple better design for the cartridge. For .50's, which really don't have a place in this forum or discussion, the only CRF I'm aware of is the Zastava. I can't even imagine the expense a mainstream western manufacturer would face if trying to build big CRF Mauser .50's when a push feed's so much simpler and cheaper to make. A 20lb .50 isn't asked to feed and shoot upside down much either.
 
I know that Kevin Robertson doesn't like the PF system but I also know that my PH last year, Zimbabwean Ian Gibson, has used a Post 64 M70 in 458 WM for 30 years or thereabouts. He also carries a M700 in 416 Rem (doubledickdropoffitis!) as a loaner rifle. He spends a lot of time in the field every year and thus far has never had a problem with the rifle. As much as I'm a CRF guy, you can't argue much with the successful choices of a guy who makes a living guiding for dangerous game.
 
Ardent said:
Ones that are easy and cheap to manufacture, it's military equipment, the same guys buy Remington 700's despite zero debate better options exist, and there CRF isn't going to put its strengths to use. Lets just say your typical .50 extractor isn't the same one you put in your .308's either. Bolt actions in combat are used from secured positions, slowly.

This is the Hunting and Sporting Arms forum if I'm not mistaken however, .375's including mine face fast moving, dangerous game close in. When a gun well suited to that work is available, for no increase in cost, why not buy it instead even if you're not sure you'll chase nasty creatures in the dark continent? It's a plain and simple better design for the cartridge. For .50's, which really don't have a place in this forum or discussion, the only CRF I'm aware of is the Zastava. I can't even imagine the expense a mainstream western manufacturer would face if trying to build big CRF Mauser .50's when a push feed's so much simpler and cheaper to make. A 20lb .50 isn't asked to feed and shoot upside down much either.
Click to expand...

Military rifle or not, it simply illustrates that a pf is capable of handling the largest of cases with ease. I have no issues with crf, it undoubtedly works well and is an excellent system. That doesn't mean that crf is the only option. As stated before, there is more to a rifle than the extractor.

To suggest though that bolt action sniper rifles (regardless of caliber) are only meant to be used from secure positions, slowly, in uncompromised positions, and don't meet the requirements of a true dangerous game rifle is ridiculous.
 
JJ-65 said:
. . . Many years ago Remington, no doubt weary of hearing how inefective their extractor was , devised a test , their bolt vs a Mauser bolt. they turned extractor groves into both ends of a round piece of bar stock to mimick a cartridge with two heads. The Rem bolt was snapped over one end and the Mauser to the other and pulled on the bolts with with a hydrallic ram.

Anyone care to guess the outcome of this little test.:eek: The Mauser extractor and it's retaining band parted ways with the bolt, and the Remington bolt and its tiny extractor lived to fight another day with no damage.
Click to expand...

So if I understand this correctly, Remington set up this test in such a way that the 700 had to pass and the traditional Mauser had to fail. The Remington extractor is designed to slip past the rim of the case, most of the time they will if they are within spec, but the Mauser is not designed to do this. The Mauser claw is designed to have the magazine spring push the head of the cartridge up between the bolt face and and the claw extractor. The claw extractor is not designed to slip over the rim of the case and breakage to the extractor will be the result of improperly cycling with a round placed on the carrier ahead of the bolt. Cycled correctly, there is no way for the Mauser extractor to fail or wear out . . . unlike 3 Remington extractors I've had to replace. Modern Mauser actions apparently are more tolerant if you happen to slam the bolt closed on a round that has not been properly engaged by the bolt, but I don't see that practice as beneficial to either the rifle or the shooter.

If the push feed has an advantage over the CRF, it is that a round can be chambered while the magazine is full. You can't do this with a CRF unless you add the rounds from the bottom through the floorplate. Does this provide any advantage to a hunter armed with a push feed over the CRF? I doubt it. Occasionally one might want a different load in the magazine from what's in the chamber. There is logic to the practice that when hunting African dangerous game the hunter loads a soft is loaded in the chamber while the rest of the magazine is filled with solids. But your magazine will be loaded that way ahead of time. One might imagine that a broadside buff runs directly away at the initial shot, and the follow-up shot must penetrate deeply to stop a very tough animal from escaping. In this scenario you would not be dropping rounds from your pocket in front of the bolt, and by the time you've fired a third shot from your 3 shot capacity bolt gun, you've either succeeded or failed, there was no time for a 4th shot even if you had it. So you reload the magazine and either close the bolt on the top round chambering it or you push the carrier down and close the bolt on an empty chamber with 3 rounds waiting for the next opportunity.

While the advantage of CRF vs push feed could be debated ad nauseam, consider this: spitzer bullets provide the profile that is the easiest to chamber from the magazine. But when hunting dangerous game, particularly at close range, the choice of a spitzer bullet might not be your first or even second choice. That leaves us with a blunt nosed bullet which will tend to deflect from the line of the bore when pushed forward out of the magazine. This is where the CRF actions really shine because the cartridge is held in line with the center of the bore before it can be deflected into the edge of the chamber's opening. In theory, a CRF action can chamber a magazine full of empty cartridges, although the ones that actually can are a happy exception, because if the rifle will cycle empties, it doesn't matter what style or length of bullet you choose, provided it is short enough to fit in the magazine, it will feed.
 
Last edited:
Boomer said:
So if I understand this correctly, Remington set up this test in such a way that the 700 had to pass and the traditional Mauser had to fail. The Remington extractor is designed to slip past the rim of the case, most of the time they will if they are within spec, but the Mauser is not designed to do this. The Mauser claw is designed to have the magazine spring push the head of the cartridge up between the bolt face and and the claw extractor. The claw extractor is not designed to slip over the rim of the case and breakage to the extractor will be the result of improperly cycling with a round placed on the carrier ahead of the bolt. Cycled correctly, there is no way for the Mauser extractor to fail or wear out . . . unlike 3 Remington extractors I've had to replace. Modern Mauser actions apparently are more tolerant if you happen to slam the bolt closed on a round that has not been properly engaged by the bolt, but I don't see that practice as beneficial to either the rifle or the shooter.

If the push feed has an advantage over the CRF, it is that a round can be chambered while the magazine is full. You can't do this with a CRF unless you add the rounds from the bottom through the floorplate. Does this provide any advantage to a hunter armed with a push feed over the CRF? I doubt it. Occasionally one might want a different load in the magazine from what's in the chamber. There is logic to the practice that when hunting African dangerous game the hunter loads a soft is loaded in the chamber while the rest of the magazine is filled with solids. But your magazine will be loaded that way ahead of time. One might imagine that a broadside buff runs directly away at the initial shot, and the follow-up shot must penetrate deeply to stop a very tough animal from escaping. In this scenario you would not be dropping rounds from your pocket in front of the bolt, and by the time you've fired a third shot from your 3 shot capacity bolt gun, you've either succeeded or failed, there was no time for a 4th shot even if you had it. So you reload the magazine and either close the bolt on the top round chambering it or you push the carrier down and close the bolt on an empty chamber with 3 rounds waiting for the next opportunity.

While the advantage of CRF vs push feed could be debated ad nauseam, consider this: spitzer bullets provide the profile that is the easiest to chamber from the magazine. But when hunting dangerous game, particularly at close range, the choice of a spitzer bullet might not be your first or even second choice. That leaves us with a blunt nosed bullet which will tend to deflect from the line of the bore when pushed forward out of the magazine. This is where the CRF actions really shine because the cartridge is held in line with the center of the bore before it can be deflected into the edge of the chamber's opening. In theory, a CRF action can chamber a magazine full of empty cartridges, although the ones that actually can are a happy exception, because if the rifle will cycle empties, it doesn't matter what style or length of bullet you choose, provided it is short enough to fit in the magazine, it will feed.
Click to expand...

Well said and good points Boomer. My RSM will indeed feed empty cases without drama, happy to do a video when I get home if people need to see it themselves, and yep it does it upside down too.
 
Bowie said:
To suggest though that bolt action sniper rifles (regardless of caliber) are only meant to be used from secure positions, slowly, in uncompromised positions, and don't meet the requirements of a true dangerous game rifle is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You're a sniper I take it? Not sure what to tell you but it's true. Canadian, American, & British snipers do indeed shoot slow, and are very unlikely to be running and falling while using their 18X scoped heavy rifle- especially your example in the .50. Canada's bolt action armed marksmen shoot from rested positions 95% of the time, one shot, spotter calls it, another shot after correction, spotter calls it... And again, are we in the Hunting & Sporting forum...?
 
Ardent said:
Well said and good points Boomer. My RSM will indeed feed empty cases without drama, happy to do a video when I get home if people need to see it themselves, and yep it does it upside down too.
Click to expand...

There is a test that is important. "Can it feed empty cases in a pinch? Upside down? Under water?" I'm all about live ammunition myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom