Push feed -v- control round feed

[country gent]

Having shot nra high power for years I learned early that there is an art to working a bolt action. In the rapids first 2 finger open bolt thumb closes it its a simple flick of the wrist, and on long actions a twist of the head for me. Trying to baby it or work slow will cause stickiness and or feed problems. My pre 64 match rifle threw brass farther in the rapids than my M14/M1A did.

A lot stoned a radius on the bottom corner of the extractor to allow it to snap over the rim when single loading. CRF wont jam up with a short stroke if the action. I also think it allows a more natural chambering of the cartridge with the fixed ejector.

Again it boils down to what you like, have confidence in, and feels right to you, Thats what really matters. Some of the newer actions with smaller ejection ports are almost impossible to singlle load or feed rounds in. A springfield, mauser, model 70 set up to load with strippers is pretty darned usable across the board.

[Norske]

My first MK II Ruger looks like a CRF, but it isn't. There is a slight ridge at the bottom of the bolt face that makes it a PRF. It's my 338 Win Mag. Later MK II purchases are truly CRF, one is a 22-250, the other a 257Roberts Ultralight. It would seem I bought them in the wrong order. The 338 can't really be converted because the feed rails at the top of the magazine box/bottom of the action for CRF need to be narrower for a vertical feed under the extractor.

[sniper]

FWIW,I asked that question of a gunsmith, and he told me "We send a lot of push feeds to Africa!"

[bigted]

Interesting. Lotza thoughts.

My gunsmith when we lived in Alaska swore by CRF rifles and boo hoo'd PF's. Said that PF's got folks killed. Never got in a conversation to find what happened to form his opinion.

My findings are that with some exceptions, pf's seem to get er done just fine. Personally I have never heard of anybody getting into hot water with a Remington 700 and yet opinions rage on.

Have always been a Winchester fan. Have and have had Remingtons but the stock configuration seems "not quit rite" as to fit for me whereas the Winchester 70 seems to just "fit".

Has not been a CF - v - PF issue per say so thought this conversation would be of interest.

Have and hope to continue reading each post ... thanks

[tazman]

In the past, I have had issues with one PF action(Winchester 70 in 375H&H mag) not wanting to extract properly. Never had an issue with CRF actions.
At the same time as the aforementioned Win 70, I had a brand new Winchester African model 70 in 458 Winchester Mag delivered with a bent barrel. It was bent badly enough you couldn't see through the barrel with the bolt removed. This would have been around 1975-1978.
At the time, the African model was Winchester's premier rifle. Great quality control.

[444ttd]

i have used pf and crf. and if i had the choice, i'd go with crf. no reason why, i just luv old mausers and krags. just looking back, i can't say anything bad about them.

[swheeler]

I have both types and have had problems in extreme cold weather with push feed extraction at times. Over oiled bolts in guns carried with one in the chamber and 20-30 below zero hunting have caused problems, but no polar bears in Mt so I survived.

[murf205]

I have both types and have had problems in extreme cold weather with push feed extraction at times. Over oiled bolts in guns carried with one in the chamber and 20-30 below zero hunting have caused problems, but no polar bears in Mt so I survived.

That is one thing that gets overlooked when browsing the used rifle racks. The old push feed M70's had the absolute best trigger for cold weather, or any other weather for that matter. I have no experience with the new style Winchester trigger but the older one was a great one. The problem with the post 64 Win's was not so much the PF action but the hideous stock and awful attempt at checkering. If I was in the market for a new hunting rifle right now, it would be a toss up between a new M70 FTW or a Kimber, both with a walnut stock. They are both CRF rifles, but that wouldn't be the deciding factor since I have never had an issue with a PF gun. When it comes to comparing on action to the other, remember the U S military snipers hunt the most dangerous game in the world with a push feed rifle.

[charlie b]

Not just the snipers. AR's are push feed.

[atr]

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 above was mentioned in an earlier post and to me this is the major difference. I have both push and controlled feed actions and except for the above mentioned I have not had problems with either. However, if I were in a combat situation I would opt for the controlled feed.

[danmat]

I would be more concerned with the anti bind system of the rifle, I have a Browning A bolt beautifiul gun, shoots good, but you better not need to work the bolt in a hurry.
My Win. 70 bolts you cant bind up if you try, Rem 700 also.

[Petrol & Powder]

FWIW,I asked that question of a gunsmith, and he told me "We send a lot of push feeds to Africa!"

It is wise to qualify that statement with FWIW (for what it's worth)
1. Not all game in Africa is dangerous game. Someone shooting Kudu is unlikely to be in much danger. Not every hunter in Africa is facing down a Cape Buffalo.
2. Most professional hunters "back up" their clients and carry a serious rifle. It's not as if the hunter is standing out there all alone.
3. (and this is bit tongue in check) The important criteria isn't how many people you send to Africa equipped with push feed rifles......it's how many come back home!

This thread has shown that while preferences certainly exist, the debate isn't as polarized as it was years ago. I do think that during the 1950's and early 1960's when Remington was producing push feed actions and Winchester was resisting that change in design; Winchester needed a marketing campaign to remain competitive. By claiming that Controlled Feed was safer, and making those claims via gun writers and advertising, Winchester could convince buyers that their more expensive system was worth the additional cost.
Eventually economics caught up with Winchester and they were forced to reduce their manufacturing costs in order to stay alive. The post-1964 push feed Winchester model 70 was born. Now later, Winchester was able to bring back the controlled feed in some select models (and charge a premium for them) but they could no longer attack the push-feed system as inferior because they had a push feed design of their own.

In practical terms, both systems are well proven.

[Lloyd Smale]

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

same here. Its a non issue for me and the only place it might apply is in a dangerous game gun and even then a lot of rem 700s are used in africa and alaska.