Winchester Model 70 question cal 30-06

E

eastwind

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Location
Winnipeg, Mb
Will someone explain to me the difference between controlled round feed and push feed. Do they make them in both or was there a year when they switched from one to the other? Thanks in advance.
Also when did they switch from having sights to not having or can they be bought either way?
 
Controlled round feed is usually a mauser style action and will allow a round to be grasped and positively placed into the chamber (in theory). Push feed simply pushes the bullet into the chamber. The possibility of it not tracking properly into the chamber is there. This is why CRF is more popular as a dangerous game rifle. Winchester made CRF until before 1964 and then went to the push feed. The popularity of the rifle changed to. They changed again in 1994 (not positive on the year) back to the CRF. Sights I beleive are an option. I have a pre'64 featherweight in .30-06 without sights and I have seen the same vintage rifle with sights as well.
 
bluetick, I'm a bit confused by your explanation of CRF and PF. With Mauser 98 actions one had to feed the ammo throught the magazine. If you dropped one in the chamber, you couldn't close the bolt, because extractor wouldn't push over the base to get into its groove. OK, you could slam the bolt over it, but not recommended. When I wanted to seat bullets too far out to work through the magazine, I would take the bolt out, push the cartridge under the extractor, then slide the bolt back in the rifle.
When the new type bolt face came out, I think it was mid 60s, it was heralded for ease of operation, by just being able to drop a cartridge into the chamber and close the bolt. Also, the new type was advertised for greater safety, because the base of the cartridge was enclosed in a steel ring. I have used several examples of each type, and don't really have a preference for one over the other.
 
The pushfeed model 70 has a little tiny extractor that the world was convinced wouldn't work. They are similar to the one on a remington 700 that everyone knows don't extract reliably.

Unless you want to shoot upside down or shortstroke the bolt it is much ado about nothing.
 
Controlled feed: Big mauser like claw (separate hunk of metal on the side of the bolt)that strips the round from the magazine and holds it securely against the bolt face until it is chambered. It also serves as the extractor for the spent round.

Controlledfeed.jpg


Push feed:

A single monolithic bolt that pushes the round from the magazine into the chamber. The extractor / ejector are integral to the bolt face. The round is not secured against the bolt face (controlled) from the point that it leaves the magazine to the time that it is chambered. It relies on the momentum of the action to chamber a round. The round "could" fall out, but as stated before, you have to be working the action while hanging from your toes.

pushfeed.jpg


Merry Xmas

Hakx
 
Like said above;

Unless you are hanging upside down or something, controlled round feed is just another bolt type.

Those guys that "insist" it is better are the guys who have never fired their "grizzly defence" gun either........lol
 
H4831, I beleive you and others have added to my explanation for better understanding by Eastwind. I personally do like the CRF but there is also nothing wrong with the PF!
 
H4831 said:
bluetick, I'm a bit confused by your explanation of CRF and PF. With Mauser 98 actions one had to feed the ammo throught the magazine. If you dropped one in the chamber, you couldn't close the bolt, because extractor wouldn't push over the base to get into its groove. OK, you could slam the bolt over it, but not recommended. When I wanted to seat bullets too far out to work through the magazine, I would take the bolt out, push the cartridge under the extractor, then slide the bolt back in the rifle.
When the new type bolt face came out, I think it was mid 60s, it was heralded for ease of operation, by just being able to drop a cartridge into the chamber and close the bolt. Also, the new type was advertised for greater safety, because the base of the cartridge was enclosed in a steel ring. I have used several examples of each type, and don't really have a preference for one over the other.
Click to expand...

H4831, for your info to add my two cents,, bluetick's explaination on the difference between CRF and PF was exactly correct.. Nuff said. Also to try to explain the reason CRF in theroy is better, take blueticks example of a typical CRF action like the k98. You will note the claw extractor on the 98 bolt is a long spring. "YES A SPRING" which is almost as long as the bolt body. This long spring has way more gripping power than your typical PF extractor simply by its sheer size when you compare. So hense the greater potential to have a spent casing extracted from the chamber which makes it more popular of a system when hunting dangerous game. Pretty much sums it up. PF is likely not going to fail, but you have an advantage on no fail more with a CRF action.
 
K98action, maybe the difference between us is that I have no financial interest in either type action. Nuff said.
 
That's another thing. I don't want to start anything, but can anybody tell me of a single instance in the history of hunting with push feed rifles where anybody has actually short stroked the bolt and got mauled? Everyone is so worried about 'dangerous game' yet 99% of people who must have a dangerous game rifle never hunt dangerous game. I will say this now, I will go to Africa and Alaska one day. While I have no desire to shoot an elephant, hippo or rhino, I would like a leopard and lion. I also have no problem in taking a regular Joe's rifle that lacks any CRF. Now if only you all would donate to my cause so I can test the theory whether or not I get eaten. Any takers? :D
 
Well being a smart ass must be your nature. The old question of CRF and PF, did not just invent itself, and the CRF action was popular with hunters for reasons mentioned. Now I do believe I said that modern rifles with PF actions likely are not going to be a problem, but old sales tactics die hard, and CRF due to its popularity with turn of the century african hunting rifles was popular. Any advantage when using a magzine rifle against dangerous game would sell.

Don't worry pharaoh I use PF went hunting Gophers too! lol... but if I ever have the chance to hunt Lions, well I will use my CRF. (better yet a double) No questions. I guess I'm just not as tuff as a gopher hunter as you are.. lol
 
:rolleyes:

Explain where I was being a smart ass, then I can tell you where you started being a dink. :wave:

I was asking a question, and stating my opinion, nothing more. Now if your done, I'll ask again. Can you show me a single documented instance where someone short stroked a push feed rifle and was mauled?
 
pharaoh2 said:
Thank you, I suppose there are a few stories out there afterall. I still think there is way too much emphasis placed in CRF actions though. Thanks for the link though. :)
Click to expand...


opinions vary, and the debate endless.

one thing is for sure, take three 30-06 Model 70 Featherweights in 90-95% condition, and

the pre-64 will be worth north of $1100

the post 64 push feed will be worth ~$500

and the post 64 'classic' will be worth ~$700
 
Another difference is on extraction at the range. The push feed will want to immediately kick the spent shell or unshot catridge out on extraction from the chamber. The CRF will not kick the shell out unless it is completely pulled back. So with the CRF you can simply remove the spent shell or bullet by hand instead of trying to catch it from getting flung out with the PF.

My old Ruger is kind of a hybrid of sorts. It has the large claw extractor, but has the push button in the bolt face like on the push feeds.

I think it's more important that whatever rifle you do have has been extensively shot and tested with different brands of ammo. This way you will have less of a chance to be surprised by a malfunction in the field. One of my dad's fancier bolt rifles (a Kleingunther) works beautifully with Winchester bullets but fails to extract Remington unspent bullets! I haven't taken a caliper to check for differences, but with the naked eye I could not determine why this happens.
 
K98ACTION said:
. but if I ever have the chance to hunt Lions, well I will use my CRF. (better yet a double) No questions.
Click to expand...

So by your own admission you don't trust CRF as much as a double. For you hunt (and money) you would take a double, curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom