Push feed -v- control round feed

[bigted]

Would like to begin a discussion concerning the ups and downs of each ( Push Feed and Control Feed ).

I confess that I have really never contemplated virtues of or downfalls of either bolt gun action.

Now thinking about maybe acquiring a feather weight Winchester rifle in either 270 Win or 308 Win. I find both mid years push feed and later years control feed rifles. Both available but want to determine which action I more want.

Besides which I have honestly never given thought to this controversy of benefit v downfall of either.

What say ye?

[RU shooter]

I've never really had any issues with either not Winchesters but Mauser and Springfield actions vs Remington and savage actions . I'd pick either . I can say the push feed always felt smoother to me

[white eagle]

Having both in Featherweight rifles I see no difference and like both
seems I have more control feed rifles than push feed from my mini Mauser to Kimbers to Winchesters
don't own a Remington rifle so I won't comment on them

[Petrol & Powder]

It all boils down to when the extractor gains control over the cartridge rim during the loading cycle and the consequences of that event.

In a controlled feed action, the cartridge rim slips under the extractor when the bolt begins to push the cartridge forward. In a push feed, the extractor doesn't grasp the rim until the bolt is nearly closed on the chambered round.
Both of those systems work just fine.
The issue (which may have some marketing hype behind it) comes from the operator "short stroking" the bolt. If the user begins to chamber a cartridge but withdraws the bolt before completely chambering the cartridge; the cartridge may remain in the chamber when the bolt is withdrawn. This isn't a huge problem unless you then attempt to chamber another round behind the one now in the chamber.

With a controlled feed action, if the operator withdraws the bolt before the round is completely chambered and the bolt closed; the bolt will withdraw the round.

There are those that advocate for controlled feed actions on dangerous game rifles to prevent the likelihood of a serious jam due to operator error or some failure of the round to chamber.

In terms of accuracy and strength, I don't think one system is significantly superior to the other. I've used both and find that they both work as they should.

The Remington model 712 & 722, introduced in the late 1940's, utilized a push feed. This reduced production cost but retained excellent strength. Winchester held on to controlled feed until they couldn't afford the production costs. The post 1964 Winchesters utilized a push feed system. Some of the marketing hype between those two major American rifle makers during the 1948-1964 years, may have deeply entrenched the debate.

[Bigslug]

The primary advantage to controlled-round feed is that if either lack of experience or the stress of combat causes your bolt technique to suck, you are less likely to fumble yourself into a malfunction - most likely a double feed.

You can unload a CRF rifle by simply shoving the bolt forward far enough for the round to clear the magazine, and then pulling back to eject. This was doctrine on Lee Enfields and you can clear one very quickly that way. On a push feed gun, you may have to lock the gun completely into battery to get the extractor to grab.

The main advantage to a push feed gun is if you want to single feed rounds without loading them into the magazine first. SOME controlled-feed guns will let you do this, but even then, you need to remember that CRF rifles are designed to feed from the magazine, and that direct-chamber loading will force the extractor to bend more than intended. The spring-loaded, but still CRF extractor on Lee Enfields is unlikely to care, but the tempered leaf spring extractor on Model 70's and other Mauser 98 derivatives is more likely to experience wear, and damage, and some models won't even allow it to flex outward enough to pop over the cartridge rim and lock into battery when attempting to load that way.

Push feed is also easier if you want to have one extra in the chamber in addition to a full magazine.

Push feeds make better benchrest rifles. Beyond that, you have to consider your abilities and the application.

[pietro]

.

Unless hunting dangerous big game, where positive extraction is a must, either system works just fine.

.

[crash87]

.

Unless hunting dangerous big game, where positive extraction is a must, either system works just fine.

.

Really, I guess I should have known that, before, I went to Africa / cape buffalo, and then Alaska, Brown Bear.
Seriously though, That statement is totally not true. Either one is perfectly fine, (Hint, practice shooting a little with whatever rifle(s) you plan to use or have)
crash87

[country gent]

Either works and is reliable. The controlled round feed is easier to unload and wont be jammed up by short stroking the action. The push feed is e little easier to single load. I have both and they work well. I also prefer a fixed ejector over plunger types. Single loading a crf is like single loading a m14 you simply push the round down onto the follower and click it in.

[Petrol & Powder]

A LOT of ink has flowed in regard to this topic (I guess ink has been replaced by electrons ??).

In the early post WWII years Remington, seeking to hold costs down, adopted sweeping changes. Their centerfire bolt action rifles (models 721 & 722) incorporated push feed designs. Their pump action shotgun became the 870, also a cost cutting design. They saw the market for less expensive sporting arms and moved to fill that demand. Savage went even farther long those lines with a rifle that was designed for fast assembly and low cost.
Winchester was slower to adapt to the post war economy but by 1964 they couldn't compete and had to alter their designs to stay afloat.

Huge numbers of bolt action rifles with the non-rotating Mauser style extractor existed alongside the Winchester model 70 but in the end, the push feed design proved to be less costly to manufacture. Both systems (non-rotating extractor & push feed) are capable of fine accuracy and both are strong actions. So the only real selling point was the Controlled Feed offered by the non-rotating Mauser style extractor.
While there is a good argument to be made for controlled feed, I suspect a lot of the debate was simply fueled by marketing hype.

It's interesting to note that Winchester did later return to making some bolt action rifles with controlled feed actions but they sold them at a premium.

Both action types have their merits and I don't think one is significantly better or worse than the other.

[Norske]

I have rifles with both feeding mechanisms. Surprise, my Savage 99 is CRF, as are some of my Ruger bolt actions. Since I don't plan to shoot anything while hanging upside down from a tree limb, I only notice one advantage to CRF. That's the ability to chamber a sized case without bullet to check for fit while adjusting my sizing die.

[jjamna]

I saw a TV show on this . They say that the controlled feed is quieter when closing the action than the push feed. If you like to wait till the shot presents itself, then chamber, controlled feed. Again this was a TV show I don't even remember which one. I can't say one way or the other and I have both.

[Stephen Cohen]

I have both but prefer control feed because they are Mauser. I honestly think the more important issue is type of extractor and power it generates in extraction. I have seen several Remington extractors fail, and a couple on rather new rifles. I have a Savage 110in 222 that fired some 25 shots before the extractor stopped working because it broke, I purchased two spare extractors and a spring and indent ball which I keep in a small hole I drilled under the but plate, while I like the Savage action I would never hunt dangerous game with a Savage actioned big game rifle, that is why my 458 wm is a Mauser. As fore which is best I believe that is up to the individual and they will get no complaint from me. Guns are like women and beer, very few bad ones just some are better than others, and even that is an individual taste. Regard Stephen

[bigted]

I confess to having both as well. My Rugers are CRF. My remington 700 is of course the PRF.

I have just never partook in conversations concerning this subject. I do know that the rifles I am most attracted to seem to be the CRF action AND the corresponding price tag.

My Rem 700 is a heavy barrel 308 Win and I like it just fine. I have never had a problem with it except a blown primer that chipped away some of the rim on my bolt ... but ... still functional and never misses a beat. I do like the push feed for shooting singles over needing to install in the mag first on my Control round rifles.

My Ruger 375R is the CRF and maybe because of the head size , or maybe a stiffer extractor claw ... closing the bolt over a single without first putting it in the mag first is possible but, it takes more slamming to get it done then I am comfortable with.

I just wanted to finally hear both sides in case I have missed something.

Thanks for your posts and keep em coming please.

[Stephen Cohen]

bigted, there are those who modify the extractor on control feed Mausers, but I never load a single round directly into chamber on any of my rifles, I always use the mag as it was designed, I understand one can damage extractors by forcing as you say, I agree with you its not something I am comfortable with as well. I doubt anything we can say will change a mind on which is better, if one is. Regards Stephen

[wildwilly]

" Dangerous Game". Two of the greatest dangerous game rifles were the Lee-Enfield and the M1 Garand...push feeds. Used then and now.

[Uncle Grinch]

The primary advantage to controlled-round feed is that if either lack of experience or the stress of combat causes your bolt technique to suck, you are less likely to fumble yourself into a malfunction - most likely a double feed.

You can unload a CRF rifle by simply shoving the bolt forward far enough for the round to clear the magazine, and then pulling back to eject. This was doctrine on Lee Enfields and you can clear one very quickly that way. On a push feed gun, you may have to lock the gun completely into battery to get the extractor to grab.

The main advantage to a push feed gun is if you want to single feed rounds without loading them into the magazine first. SOME controlled-feed guns will let you do this, but even then, you need to remember that CRF rifles are designed to feed from the magazine, and that direct-chamber loading will force the extractor to bend more than intended. The spring-loaded, but still CRF extractor on Lee Enfields is unlikely to care, but the tempered leaf spring extractor on Model 70's and other Mauser 98 derivatives is more likely to experience wear, and damage, and some models won't even allow it to flex outward enough to pop over the cartridge rim and lock into battery when attempting to load that way.

Push feed is also easier if you want to have one extra in the chamber in addition to a full magazine.

Push feeds make better benchrest rifles. Beyond that, you have to consider your abilities and the application.

Excellent description!

[sharps4590]

Which one do YOU like better? That's the one you should get.

[yovinny]

There hasent been a controlled feed military rifle in many, many decades...and I dont know of even a single semi auto or machine gun design that ever felt a need to incorporated it....
If combat isent 'dangerous game',,, Ive no clue what is...

[Larry Gibson]

There is one other benefit to many CRF rifles. That is control of ejection. With my CRF rifles I can bring the extracted case to the rear and stop w/o ejecting it. Then the fired case or loaded round is easily removed....a great boon on the bench or in SF matches. Also the case mouth does not get dinged or the case/round does not get flung off the bench or into the dirt.

I have both type of actions and prefer the CRF but if a PF feeds reliably [many staggered magazines don't, especially with a full or close to full magazine when easing the bolt forward the round pops up and sideways causing a jam] I don't find much difference in actual use. Just have to get used to each is all. Boils down to which you like.

[BudRow]

The early Ruger M-77 (Mark I ?) were push feeds despite having a Mauser style non-rotating extractor. The extractor was designed to snap over the rim. The later Mark II series M-77s were true control feeds using the Mauser non-rotating extractor.