Push Feed vs. CRF Accuracy

guntech said:
Yes the barrel is important but the action is as well. There is a reason why the 700 action and clones of it shoot so well...
Click to expand...

Guntech,

And that reason you are thinking about is . . .? If I look through the posts, some give hints as to maybe why the CRF may not on average shoot as accurately as PF actions, like pressure on the cartridge from the claw, (but most seem to say there is no real difference); and Dogleg insinuates solidity and stiffness in the actions. What is the “reason why the 700 action and clones of it shoot so well” (I think you mean on average better than the CRF)?
 
Leeper said:
Within reason, lock time plays a fairly minor role for rifles fired off a rest. If it was a major issue, then actions with shorter lock time would always be more accurate. That the 788 was more accurate than the 700 is a myth with no foundation in fact. GD
Click to expand...

Shooting groups at beyond 300 yrds with a model 700, then a Mauser, I notice and appreciate the quick lock time. I believe it’s more than a minor contributor to good long range accuracy from a hunting gun
 
Buckmastr said:
Shooting groups at beyond 300 yrds with a model 700, then a Mauser, I notice and appreciate the quick lock time. I believe it’s more than a minor contributor to good long range accuracy from a hunting gun
Click to expand...

If you have problems hitting game in the field at any range you think you have business shooting, lock time is a wild excuse.
 
chuck nelson said:
If you have problems hitting game in the field at any range you think you have business shooting, lock time is a wild excuse.
Click to expand...

Bogus. Lock time is taken for granted these days because most actions are relatively quick. If you shoot a Mauser or Springfield at range you’d appreciate it.
 
chuck nelson said:
If you have problems hitting game in the field at any range you think you have business shooting, lock time is a wild excuse.
Click to expand...

I didn’t see anything posted to indicate he was having difficulty. Just that he’s observant and notices a small difference. To some people those small things matter, to others not so much.
 
I am going to explain why this argument will never end - its because it takes math to understand. Accuracy, or lack thereof, can be calculated as the square root of the sums of the squares of each individual error.

Average Group Size = sqrt[(error1^2) + (error2^2) + (error3^2) + ...]

What this means is that if you have an error or inconsistency in your rifle that causes a 0.6MOA error, getting rid of it will not reduce your total group size by 0.6 MOA. The effect of that error will be obscured by the other errors present. So lock time, barrel action joint, barrel vibration, action asymmetry, scope mounts, mercury in retrograde, etc, all add up to a total effect. If you understand vector addition, you will realize that errors in different directions around a circle will cancel each other out to a certain degree. This is why a rifle with 5 1moa sources of error wont shoot 5 moa groups, but will have seemingly random difficult to understand flyers.

To get away from the technical garbage, until every single source of accuracy other than action type is isolated, you will be unable to tell the difference as the other errors will obscure the difference in accuracy potential between two actions. It is my personal belief that the more symmetrical action will have a smaller deflection in either vertical or horizontal planes which will be more accurate. How much more? No clue.
 
I am, perhaps, having a little trouble with comprehension as I get older but I need to have someone explain how longer range makes lock time more of an issue. The fact is, lock time is an issue when firing from unsteady position and/or if the shooter's technique and follow through are flawed. As long as the shooter is able to maintain point of aim until the bullet leaves the barrel, the lock time has no real effect. To compare a Mauser to a Remington and declare the Remington shoots better because the lock time is quicker is to ignore all of the other differences between the two rifles.
More of a detriment than a longer lock time is a heavy striker fall which may disturb the rifle prior to ignition and certainly prior to the bullet exit. Even so, good technique will minimize any disturbance.
The thing is, you cannot isolate one variable and say, "this is the difference" unless that is the only variable; yet, that is what is happening here.
The type of extractor affects accuracy? Don't be ridiculous. The feeding system affects accuracy? Not likely. The rifle is a system and some parts of that system have an effect on accuracy while others do not.
Lock time is one of those things which, while everyone mostly feels quicker is better, there are compromises. In the attempt to achieve quicker lock times, some actions have done so at the exspense of reliable ignition. This can have a much greater effect on accuracy (and actually have a greater effect at longer ranges) than lock time.
Again, I have to point out, this has little to do with the original question.
 
You can take the extractor right out of your rifle and it’ll shoot the same as it did with it. That's not the point; the point is that you took the extractor out of an action. What were the other characteristics of the action? If it a mauser or basic knock-off before its still going to have skinny little sides and a couple big bites out of the receiver rings; one of which doesn't need a big bite out it. Forget rifles for a second; lets talk about doughnuts. A doughnut isn’t that stable on a good day, but it’s structural integrity goes downhill when you take a bite out of it. Back to rifles: the doughnut is the part holding your barrel on. That's bound to matter. ;)

So anyway, back to the LR precision rifle’s that are supposed to be the topic. Do you want to take your heavy, manufactured by flavour of the day elf branded pipe and hold it up with two skinny ralis and a doughnut with a bite taken out of it? Yeah, what could go wrong there? ;)
 
Last edited:
Dogleg said:
You can take the extractor right out of your rifle and it’ll shoot the same as it did with it. That's not the point; the point is that you took the extractor out of an action. What were the other characteristics of the action? If it a mauser or basic knock-off before its still going to have skinny little sides and a couple big bites out of the receiver rings; one of which doesn't need a big bite out it. Forget rifles for a second; lets talk about doughnuts. A doughnut isn’t that stable on a good day, but it’s structural integrity goes downhill when you take a bite out of it. Back to rifles: the doughnut is the part holding your barrel on. That's bound to matter. ;)

So anyway, back to the LR precision rifle’s that are supposed to be the topic. Do you want to take your heavy, manufactured by flavour of the day elf branded pipe and hold it up with two skinny ralis and a doughnut with a bite taken out of it? Yeah, what could go wrong there? ;)
Click to expand...

Hmmm, now I want a donut... dang you!
 
Rockmcdock said:
Interesting comments, thanks. So, who north of the 49th does a great job accurizing CRF guns, if most think push feeds are easier to work on or if most prefer to accurize push feeds? I have a .300 win mag, New Haven made, Model 70, new trigger, with a new Bartlein barrel, ready to be properly exported that was done by Randy Gregory in Wisconsin (Accuracy Unlimited). His reputation seems solid, and he specializes in the Model 70s he loves. But who could I have gone to in Canada who is especially adept at working on CRF, if not everyone is?
Click to expand...

Mitch Kendall - Kamloops.
 
A C ring 98 done up properly has the barrel butt up against the C ring, and a 1 to 2 thou crush at the reciecer ring, I don't know of any other attachment that secure. Along with the integral recoil lug, it's a very solid action, for a long action reciecer.
Push feed match actions have longer barrel threads to make for a stiffer barrel attachment, that seems to work fine as well.
 
There are some actions which have utilized an inner seat, like a Mauser. The Musgrave target action was one. The Barnard is another. I like the system but, again, there is no data to suggest that it works better or worse and most gunsmths do not utilize the inner seat at all. There are more actions competing at the top level which do not have an inner seat but this is simply because there are more actions of this type and there is no clear advantage to anything else.
 
chuck nelson said:
If you have problems hitting game in the field at any range you think you have business shooting, lock time is a wild excuse.
Click to expand...

The topic was comparing accuracy potential. Why would you try to incorporate hunting scenarios and insinuate a person has shortcomings in their abilities during a largely academic discussion?
 
Superbrad said:
I have seen many push feed vs crf threads on CGN..... I must say that this one takes the cake..... Utterly ridiculous...

Sorry if this made you want cake Hoyt....
Click to expand...

It does... but I am always looking for an excuse to ingest carbs... someone do me a favour and use a pizza analogy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom