I used "push feed" interchangeably with "employs a plunger ejector", and they aren't the same (i.e. the Sako 75). Fair enough. I get you, though.
A lot of "fixed ejectors" aren't really fixed. The "fixed" ejector in the Ruger M77 (MKII and on) used in the Ruger Scout is spring loaded to fold out of the way when the action is closed. How is this always-folded ejector less susceptible to a corrosion related failure? If it stays folded, you're exactly as ####ed as if a plunger fails to pop back out.
I think that the abuse that would make a plunger ejector quit would be murder on any number of other mechanisms, as well. Particularly salt water, especially soak-dry-damp cycles.
The "fixed vs. plunger" debate will never be solved because failures due to either are pretty darned rare, too rare to become actual *data*. Especially in actual military/milspec firearms. A plunger ejector was clearly deemed to be acceptable to the specification. Before the rifle went to field evaluation, it almost certainly had to pass a reliability test, so I doubt people reading field reports were very interested in reading editorial critiques of operating principles which did not in fact create a failure in the field, during that reviewers evaluation. Brother's best friend's cousin's anecdotal reports carry zero weight.
Someone hands you a brand new stainless Tikka design, superbly made by Colt Canada and says "what do you think?" You evaluate it for 6 months, and it proves to be light, accurate, and reliable, then what negative thing can you say, without editorializing? The person concatenating field reviews will discard your editorial comments. He or she has to.
