I'm told its a $12000 price tag...
Push-feed vs CRF
- Thread starter Demonical
- Start date
- Status
I'm told its a $12000 price tag...
Wrong. Many you have mentioned are proprietary and custom gun makers and not from manufactures. Hunters cannot purchase these firearms over the counter. They do have quality, except for the Kimber (accuracy/feeding issues), but again, not from a major manufacture. There is only a short list of CRF firearm manufactures and they are Ruger, Brno CZ , Kimber and Winchester. Are they of good quality compared to the said push feeds?
Wrong according to you. The bottom line "track" is that push feeds are rampant because of cost. End of discussion. Now, tell us why a PF is superior. Incompetent gunsmiths ability to work on them and only them doesn't count.
Track, you're assuming I was on the CRF ban wagon....never said I was...I just wanted to know what makes a quality firearm. You and others are arguing that PF makes a firearms a better rifle and others say CRF is....well why? Its one thing to toss out some fancy names, its another to justify your stance.
You don't need a $12,000 rifle to have quality. A military Mauser made before roughly 1942 will be one of the highest quality rifles you can own. Quality is not fancy wood, engraving or gold crust. Foremost it must be reliable under all conditions. That means a good design, good workmanship, and attention to detail. It needs to be shootable; this means different things depending on the intended application. A benchrest rifle would make a poor hunting rifle and vice-versa. Using hunting rifles as an example, it needs to point naturally, and be well proportioned. Attention to detail comes into play again. Proper bedding & inletting, both for accuracy and to prevent the stock from splitting under recoil. Accuracy is over-emphasized today, thanks to the long range shooting fad. Accuracy is nice, but consistancy is more important. I would much rather have a 2" rifle that never changes zero, than a 1/4 moa rifle that puts that group in different spots on the paper depending on the weather and phase of the moon.
Isn't CRF easier on extractor claw which does not jump over the cartridge rim every time you chamber a round, and you can have just a fixed blade ejector instead of a spring loaded ejector? Such that mechanically CRF is simpler, puts less wear on extractor and does not require a spring loaded extractor to operate? Quality build CRF will function better for longer period of time, however this period of time is way beyond reasonable need because very few people can shoot a rifle so much to see the difference?
At the same time, isn't PF cheaper to manufacture with a given techniques of mass production and is efficient enough for 99.9% of intended usage cases of "I have a rifle, I bought it cheap, it sits in a safe all the time"?
At the same time, isn't PF cheaper to manufacture with a given techniques of mass production and is efficient enough for 99.9% of intended usage cases of "I have a rifle, I bought it cheap, it sits in a safe all the time"?
Dude just drop it. You're coming off like a real stubborn ass...
We all have our preferences and opinions. Not everyone will agree.
Actually you can skip the coming off as part; he has been for a long time.
He has decided he gets to dictate the rules now, so the ignore button is a far better option or his ignorance is likely to make your head hurt. When you fancy yourself something and go unrecognized you tend to spend a lot of time at your own horn.
Here is reality: if you poll the competitors at a precision competition, you'll likely find PFs dominate due to simplicity and the ease of flipping barrels.
If you polled a room full of qualified hunters that have been from Arkansas to Afghanistan with a thousand solid animals under their belt, it's likely you'd find the room spilt on preference.
If you polled the group of people known as professional hunters that make their living protecting their and clients hides in the last frontiers CRFs will dominate grossly and doubles with ejectors will ride ahead of PF flavored bolts as well.
If you want proof, I've heard the comment "I don't paint by numbers" is a good excuse for my lack of factual evidence (or just plain laziness). Or I'll just suggest you become better read and pick up some writ by Gates, O'Connor, Barsness, Page, Shoemaker and Aargard. They have all probed this question, some with more or less bias than others.
If PF are rampant because of cost, why are winchesters, rugers, cz in that same cost category as remington, TC Icon, browning?.....answer, the same quailty. If you want to know the quality of the said PF in my previous posts, well google is your friend.............lots of information. Engineering, materials, workmanship, fit and finish, balance, materials are supurb, or what my late great english grandfather use to say, "bloody marvellous".
Last edited:
Nah man, that was the best post of the thread thus far...
I fall firmly into the " shoot what makes ya happy" camp, but also largely agree with Dogleg and chuck's posts below, and mainly shoot M70s or M77s for 'serious' hunting rifles nowadays. My opinion/experiences are only reinforced by the fact that one of my favourite rifles, a push feed, is currently down and useless, as a result of a broken 'paper clip' extractor...
If history is any indicator of future behaviour, he'll keep at it till his name turns pink. We Alberta boys have seen it before...Dude just drop it. You're coming off like a real stubborn ass...
We all have our preferences and opinions. Not everyone will agree.
His lack of response to my posts would indicate that I am on his ignore list. And I am willing to bet I am in great company!
Funny how the premier builders of the world use CRFs. I like a good ol' Remmy 700, Sako 75 and even a Sauer 200 can catch my eye, but Ralph Martini never seems to showcase his latest master piece on them does he? No Miller, nor Penhold. Fisher ignored them as well as Beisen. They all do and did Model 70's and Mausers. They are far harder to do well from a factory built perspective, and that is a fact. Ask an engineer familiar with DFM and DFA projects. Now what is bloody marvelous is the difference between a Bulova and Rolex. Both are nice watches, but the best is just that, the best. And a PF platform can never make better than Bulova. So I would be much more inclined to let a master builder who understands quality workmanship having built it influence my opinion than an opinionated ol' goat on a forum. Owning a humidor full of excellent cigars and a cellar full of fine wines and spirits does not make one a connoisseur; you could just be a fool playing one.
Funny how the premier builders of the world use CRFs. I like a good ol' Remmy 700, Sako 75 and even a Sauer 200 can catch my eye, but Ralph Martini never seems to showcase his latest master piece on them does he? No Miller, nor Penhold. Fisher ignored them as well as Beisen. They all do and did Model 70's and Mausers. They are far harder to do well from a factory built perspective, and that is a fact. Ask an engineer familiar with DFM and DFA projects. Now what is bloody marvelous is the difference between a Bulova and Rolex. Both are nice watches, but the best is just that, the best. And a PF platform can never make better than Bulova. So I would be much more inclined to let a master builder who understands quality workmanship having built it influence my opinion than an opinionated ol' goat on a forum. Owning a humidor full of excellent cigars and a cellar full of fine wines and spirits does not make one a connoisseur; you could just be a fool playing one.
It just does'nt matter,because all I know is that we are going deer hunting together this Fall and whether we use a PF rifle or CRF rifle,its going to do the trick,like it always has.ALL of our rifles have always functioned flawlessly and to be honest with you I could really care less about whether a rifle is PF or CRF......however I can see it being frustrating for you when you get guys like charles and Kojack on here (who think Leupold optics and Kimbers are the best thing since sliced bread).....saying that CRF Rifles are better.....LoL
You will never see a gunsmith grinding off an integral recoil log to fit an oversized washer between barrel and receiver. You will never see a gunsmith modifying or changing ot a claw extractor for one of another manufacture.. You will never see a gunsmith removing a shroud mounted three position safety for one that rides along the side of a tang. You will never see it. Why is that?
You will see extractors swapped out on push feeds, lugs pinned on push feeds (heck I KNOW Ken Jarret has welded lugs to actions!), and we know three position safeties are added all the time.
You will see extractors swapped out on push feeds, lugs pinned on push feeds (heck I KNOW Ken Jarret has welded lugs to actions!), and we know three position safeties are added all the time.
After Reading this I dont know how my PF rifles have survived so long without malfunctioning......lol
Guns that live their lives in trucks and wheat fields have a hard time malfunctioning.
pisces-guy
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- West Kelowna, B.C.
As long as the rifle works well, I don't think push feed versus crf matters one little bit...
I guess my late uncles 300 wby built in the 1950's, That has taken over 50 elk in wmu 400 must be the exception because she aint ever malfunctioned
I guess my late uncles 300 wby built in the 1950's, That has taken over 50 elk in wmu 400 must be the exception because she aint ever malfunctioned
Oh FFS... They are both reliable 99.9% of the time. Pick your rifle as it suits you and don't feel you need to defend your logic to the death on some internet forum.
Some good FACTS have been presented in this thread but most of it is anecdotal BS.
If ever a thread should be locked, this is it.
- Status
