Push-feed vs CRF
- Thread starter Demonical
- Start date
- Status
As I suspected, no person can find a list of CRF that not only supercedes the PF in quanity, but in quality as well. It's most elementary or common knowledge to know that push feed is superior to CRF. I do like the Mauser, it is a classic action, and does fit into the realm of custom expensive firearms, however; the new kid on the block......................
please don't. I like your posts,they are right to the point. it is funny to find that a few guys here to use the the quantity as an argument in this discussion about quality.Oops, I'll be quiet.
Sako, Sauer, Blaser, Cooper, HS Precission, Merkel, Anschutz, Heym, Mauser, Weatherby, Krico, Antonio Zoli, Beretta, Christensen, Steyr Mannlicher and there are many others. This kind of Push feed quaility, guns over the counter that hunters can purchase. Now name me manufactured CRF of the same quality.
Last edited:
(I copied this from a discussion forum but can't remember which forum or who the author was, so take from it what you will.)
Rem 700 & Win 70
The Remington 700 has a 3 piece, soldered together bolt (including the bolt handle, it's soldered to the bolt body versus pressed splines for the Winchester), the Remington has a questionable 2 position safety to the Winchester's 3 position (Fire, Safe but able to work bolt, Safe bolt locked), which is likely the best in the business and copied by $20,000 a rifle custom makers more than any other safety as well. You can get top makers to build you a $10,000 rifle on a Model 70, when nearly none of them will put their name on a Rem 700 project. Read from this what you will. The Winchester also has an actual recoil lug, and an action made without the manufacturing shortcuts of the Remington. The Remington 700 receiver is pipe, with what I feel is a homely arrangement of a sandwiched recoil lug between the receiver and barrel, versus Winchester's integral to the action lug. Finally, the Model 70 is controlled round feed, with a Mauser-style claw extractor, versus the Remington's push feed, and "paperclip" extractor.
To play devil's advocate, benefits of the Model 700 is a minutely faster lock time, irrelevant to 99.9% of hunting likely, factory detachable mags if you prefer that, and it is extremely easy for gunsmiths to work on and tune, for instance the entire receiver being round as a manufacturing shortcut is easily chucked into a lathe and trued. The Rem 700 is a decent agglomeration of shortcuts to summarize.
I came to my heavy favouritism for Rugers and Winchester after building all my custom rifles on Rem Model 700's, when I first started I was a big fan of them. Time and some issues changed that, now you can't pry my Rugers and Winchesters away, they're just better built hunting rifles. There are some serious quality control issues to bear in mind with late model Remingons as well.
Rem 700 & Win 70
The Remington 700 has a 3 piece, soldered together bolt (including the bolt handle, it's soldered to the bolt body versus pressed splines for the Winchester), the Remington has a questionable 2 position safety to the Winchester's 3 position (Fire, Safe but able to work bolt, Safe bolt locked), which is likely the best in the business and copied by $20,000 a rifle custom makers more than any other safety as well. You can get top makers to build you a $10,000 rifle on a Model 70, when nearly none of them will put their name on a Rem 700 project. Read from this what you will. The Winchester also has an actual recoil lug, and an action made without the manufacturing shortcuts of the Remington. The Remington 700 receiver is pipe, with what I feel is a homely arrangement of a sandwiched recoil lug between the receiver and barrel, versus Winchester's integral to the action lug. Finally, the Model 70 is controlled round feed, with a Mauser-style claw extractor, versus the Remington's push feed, and "paperclip" extractor.
To play devil's advocate, benefits of the Model 700 is a minutely faster lock time, irrelevant to 99.9% of hunting likely, factory detachable mags if you prefer that, and it is extremely easy for gunsmiths to work on and tune, for instance the entire receiver being round as a manufacturing shortcut is easily chucked into a lathe and trued. The Rem 700 is a decent agglomeration of shortcuts to summarize.
I came to my heavy favouritism for Rugers and Winchester after building all my custom rifles on Rem Model 700's, when I first started I was a big fan of them. Time and some issues changed that, now you can't pry my Rugers and Winchesters away, they're just better built hunting rifles. There are some serious quality control issues to bear in mind with late model Remingons as well.
Does anyone know of a good quality CRF? LOL!!!
Dude just drop it. You're coming off like a real stubborn ass...
We all have our preferences and opinions. Not everyone will agree.
Yupp . . Cheaper to make , so they convince enough folks that push feed was the new improved and was way more better and more cooler and to be really nifty you just had to have one. . and they laughed all the way to the bank .
All my hunting rifles are CRF . . Back in 90's I tried the push feed and strongly dislike them, but each to their own . . push, shove, pull, who gives a flying farkle . . . buy and use what you like, but to spend this much time arguing over it, too much spare time and not working hard enough.
.
Here are a few. David Miller Co., D'Arcy Echols & Co., Gene Simillion, Matk Penrod, Dakota Arms, Kimber, Hartman & Weiss, Rigby, Holland & Holland, and his list could go on for miles.
CRF is just a small part of the equation, there are a bunch of other features that these actions have that makes them, in my opinion, superior. A large claw extractor that has been timed correctly is a wonderful asset to feeding and is more positive in extraction. It also is much more forgiving in dirt, wet, and cold. The bolt face is another asset. There are no itty bitty springs or plungers to gum up or freeze, or take brass etc. a fixed blade ejector is superior in every way. Many of the CRF actions ave superior safety systems and fire control systems. I've seen weather conditions cripple enclosed trigger systems while my model 70 keeps on ticking. Integral recoil lugs and large flat bottom receivers are another plus. Field strippable firing pin assemblies and robust firing pins another.
You never have CRF actions sent to gunsmiths to add features of most popular push feeds. The opposite has spawned a carriage trade all on its own.
CRF is just a small part of the equation, there are a bunch of other features that these actions have that makes them, in my opinion, superior. A large claw extractor that has been timed correctly is a wonderful asset to feeding and is more positive in extraction. It also is much more forgiving in dirt, wet, and cold. The bolt face is another asset. There are no itty bitty springs or plungers to gum up or freeze, or take brass etc. a fixed blade ejector is superior in every way. Many of the CRF actions ave superior safety systems and fire control systems. I've seen weather conditions cripple enclosed trigger systems while my model 70 keeps on ticking. Integral recoil lugs and large flat bottom receivers are another plus. Field strippable firing pin assemblies and robust firing pins another.
You never have CRF actions sent to gunsmiths to add features of most popular push feeds. The opposite has spawned a carriage trade all on its own.
I've had failures to feed with a few push feeds (Winchester, Remington) that were temperamental once the cartridge got past the magazine rails. So far every CZ, Ruger and Winchester CRF has been spotless. I now lean to CRF but am fine for PF on target rifles.
- Status
