Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Bolt Actions Broken Down: The Difference Between Controlled-Feed and Push-Feed

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 16, 2011

Bolt Actions Broken Down: The Difference Between Controlled-Feed and Push-Feed

By David E. Petzal

A blogger of my acquaintance asked me to explain the difference between controlled-feed bolt-actions and push-feed bolt actions, and the importance thereof to shooters.

Controlled feed refers to the system developed by Peter Paul Mauser for his Model 98 bolt-action. When the bolt is cycled, a cartridge rises up from the magazine and the extractor—that long, flat piece of metal that rides alongside the bolt—snaps onto the rim of the cartridge and holds it in a death grip on its trip into the chamber. When the round is fired, it pulls the case clear until it is kicked out of action by the ejector, a small, unattractive piece of steel that is fixed in place behind the follower and rides through a slot in the bolt face. So, controlled feed: Each round is held in place throughout the firing cycle.

Push feed was introduced by Remington in 1949 in the Model 721 (which eventually became the Model 700). Here, as a cartridge rose up out of the magazine, the bolt simply pushed it forward into the chamber without holding on to it. As the case chambers, a small unattractive clip snaps onto the rim, and pulls the case out when the round is fired. The shell is kicked clear by a spring-loaded plunger in the bolt face.

The advantages to push feed are that it’s cheaper to manufacture than controlled feed, and that the bolt face can be made to completely enclose the case head, so that if the case ruptures, you won’t be blown up as badly.

Controlled-feed fanatics snort and fart and claim that push-feed is unreliable; that without firm guidance, rounds will not find their way into the chamber consistently. The truth is that push-feed is just fine if the magazine rails fit the case correctly. Trouble comes when manufacturers try to make guns on the cheap and the rails fit poorly.

They further claim that the big extractors on controlled-feed bolts pull stuck cases better than the small extractors on push-feed bolts. Again, not so. A full-length extractor can slip off a case rim given enough force, and a push-feed extractor can either shear through the case rim or break.

In a properly-made rifle, either system works fine, and there are better things to worry about.

Comments (77)

Top Rated
All Comments
from MJC wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

This could be the first post in a series called "Things Gun Nuts spend entirely too much time debating."

Next up- barrel break-in procedures.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

What happens if you must work the bolt in a situation where you can't hold the gun in a horizontal and upright inclination - and gravity acting on the bullet being fed from the magazine comes into play - doesn't the control-feed mechanism perform better in this situation?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from cbanks wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Thank you, David. Now I know.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In most push feed rifles of proper design, the case is held by the lips of the magazine box / lower receiver until the cartridge is pushed well into the chamber. I suppose if you were standing on your head and short cycled the round and retracted the bolt, the cartridge would fall out. I have tested my Weatherby and Remington rifles upside down and they fed everytime. Hard to shoot them that way though....

I like the case head completely surrounded by the bolt face since I handload most ammo. Just my thing. Also, never heard of a factory round's case rupturing.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from fromthepeavine wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I've never really paid that much attention. After reading this I realized I have both set ups and will check them out.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Had rifles with both systems. Both systems worked fine. Only hassle I ever saw on extraction was a custom 220 Swift on a Mauser 9 action by a novice gunsmith. The novice cut too much off the extractor rim. Many times a fired case remained in the chamber, making the presence of a rifle rod mandatory.

IMHO ejection is just as important as extraction in a big game rifle. I prefer Mauser 98 and Springfield 1903 actions for this reason, and want these actions on my dangerous game rifles. I detest Enfield actions for their weak ejectors.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Written so well even this bowhunter understands. Well done Dave.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from duckcreekdick wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Minor correction here. In a controlled round feed rifle(a 98 Mauser), the extractor does not "snap onto" the rim of the cartridge. Instead, the rim of the cartridge slides underneath the extractor as the bolt is pushed forward. That is why an unmodified 98 Mauser may not close on a cartridge if you just drop a shell in the chamber. The action is designed to feed from the magazine.
Also on a 98 Mauser, the extractor is designed to function like the jaws of a pit bull. The harder you pull, the more it hangs on. The cartridge rim will fail before the extractor breaks. On a Remington 700, three things might happen 1. the extractor will break 2. the rim that the extractor fits under will break or 3. the bolt handle will come off. With factory ammo, all three will be rare occurrences but I've seen every one of them happen more than once.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from country road wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Thank you for giving me some relief. I had been lying awake nights worrying about the difference.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

duckcreekd...

Never heard of a bolt handle falling off. # 1 & 2 for sure.

Philosophically speaking, every round fired is one step closer to the next/first malfunction may it be 5 or 50,000 rounds downrange. Everything breaks or wears out eventually.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from cbanks wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Thanks for the explanation, Dave.

I always called the 'controlled-feed' gizmo a "Mauser" action--my Husqvarna .30-06 has it, as has my Springfield '03. I always found it finicky--I can't seem to load a round directly into the chamber and have the bolt-head slip over it, like you can in the other type (you call it "push-feed"?)

Push-feeds, like my ULAs, can also be finicky. If you load rounds to max length, they sometimes get hung up. The magazine, too, needs attention to keep feeding the rounds perfectly level.

Sounds like each has peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Is anybody working on improved versions?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jason Hart wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Mr Petzal...
I know it doesn't matter but, which do you prefer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

To duckcreekdick: You are correct; Mauser extractors do not snap over the cartridge rim. As you say, the rim slides under the extractor, and with some actions, the extractor will not snap on the rim of a case when you shove one in the chamber without working it through the action. In commercial actions, the extractors are almost always altered so they'll do both.

To all: On a couple of occasions, I've reloaded both Weatherby and Remington push-feed actions while running after or running away from something, holding the rifle in all sorts of odd positions, and never had a problem. If they work, they work.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jason Hart wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal....
Just to satisfy my curiosity, but which do you prefer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MReeder wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

My first bolt action, centerfire rifle was a sporterized 1908 Brazilian Obendorf Mauser which I used almost exclusively for about a dozen or more years. For the past 20 years or so my pet rifle has been a Remington 700 Mountain Rifle, although I also make occasional use of an '06 built on a commercial Mauser action. In other words, I go back and forth from controlled feed to push feed all the time and honestly can't tell much difference, although if you got me in a hammer lock I'd have to say the old 1908 may have been the slickest bolt action I ever cycled. Whether that has anything to do with the controlled feed I cannot say. You will know the difference between the two if you happen to short throw a controlled feed action, though, because it will jam up as tight as a drum. I say that from sad experience after missing a shot at the best buck I ever saw in the woods right after I had bumped off a doe and reached for a cup of coffee. When I looked to my left and saw his antlers rising from the mist, I got a little shook, rushed what I was doing and sat there cussing, trying to get the damned thing to clear, while the buck gave me the walleye and tripped daintily into the brush. That was about 30 years ago and the thought of him traipsing away still brings a tear to the eye.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Dave's point is well-taken: There are indeed far more imporant things to worry about than whether your rifle is push-feed or control-feed. I have used Weatherby Mark Vs, Sakos, Remington M700s--all push-feeds without a single problem. Also a couple pre-'64 Winchesters. No problems there either. My bungled opportunities all were caused by the guy behind the rifle.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom-Tom wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

If one was hunting a quarry with a track record for killing those shooters whose marksmanship was questionable, then this might be an issue of concern.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In my experience rifles with push feed actions tend to be a tad more accurate than those with CRF. However, my preference is for the nice secur feeling I get with CRF when a very important shot presents its self. Have seen both not work so well. IMO a Remington 700 will outshoot a CRF Mdl 70 just about everytime.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

To Jason Hart: I have no preference. If they're made correctly they work, and if they're not, they don't.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

and a m98 can be made to slip over the rim if u just bend the extractor claw a little and round the inner edge;) so then it will allow u feeding the cartridge directly in the chamber:P wont reccomend it to anyone though.. except knowledgeable gunsmiths and even then probably not:P i just know it works:D

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

well with the controlled round feed you get all most positve ejection. with push feed you get the option to hold down the 4 cardtges in the magizine and put 1 in the chamber. mmm desicons desicons. on one hand you got postive ejtion the other more ammo...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I'll take the extra round and the ability to load directly into the chamber.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I agree with Mr Petzal, if they are both made correctly they work, if not they don't. Just by chance all my rifles over 338 are control feed, 358 Norma up through 500 Jeffery. Do have 338 with both types. Have killed hundreds of animals using both types. No complaints have been in tight situations with both feeds. Have used both in extreme conditions..

Often have a hunch, when writers have nothing they can thing of to write about, they dust off this subject. Both have their merits. Kindest Regards

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Under ideal conditions, both systems work fine. But the smaller gripping surface of the push feed extractor, and the fact that its ejector relies on a small spring to function properly, makes the push feed theoretically more vulnerable to malfunctioning under less than ideal conditions. No big whoops.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I agree with Mr Petzal, if they are both made correctly they work, if not they don't. Just by chance all my rifles over 338 are control feed, 358 Norma up through 500 Jeffery. Do have 338 with both types. Have killed hundreds of animals using both types. No complaints have been in tight situations with both feeds. Have used both in extreme conditions..

Often have a hunch, when writers have nothing they can thing of to write about, they dust off this subject. Both have their merits. Kindest Regards

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from duckcreekdick wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I own both controlled-round feed and push feed rifles and even have a couple of the early hermaphrodite Ruger 77's that looked like the former but were really the latter. I like them all but a fine 98 Mauser sporter still makes me weak in the knees.
And in answer to an earlier question, Remington 700 bolt handles will come off when the shooter uses a piece of 2X4 to pound open the bolt trying to unstick a case, normally a too-hot reload.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In a way, the controlled-feed system is somewhat comparable to the pinned-and-recessed feature found on some older Smith & Wesson magnum revolvers. More expensive to produce because of the extra machining, but often cited as a mark of quality.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

99Ex

I don't think any non-pinned S&W wheelgun barrels ever fell off from not being pinned either! As for recessed; that just saves a couple of machining steps and $$$, IMO.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

OK I'll give one advantage to CRF. You control how far the case gets ejected. With PF it doesn't matter how hard or softly you open the bolt, it'll shoot out the same. Good for handloaders and people that don't want to litter. On the other hand, people that keep their brass and keep it nice are usually accuracy nuts, and how many super accurate rifles are built on CRF actions? Not to say that they can't achieve amazingly good hunting accuracy and beyond, but you won't see one at a match.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

As an aside concerning uncontrollable ejection, I have a 1903 Winchester .22 Automatic. Obviously I can't handload it (I don't even shoot it anymore for lack of ammo available), but sometimes I want to keep the brass. It's rare stuff. Anyways, that thing ejects so damn far. I could never find the stuff. I remember being hit in the face by the thing from untold distances.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

DITTO'S David!

Another overlooked subject is care of the chamber.

Just about every rifle I ever came across with a broken extractors you can put in two categories.

Category 1: primarily contains to gas guns but not limited to. load to hot and or the propellant duration like IMR4831 which puts to much pressure at the gas port creating to much pressure when fired cycles the bolt faster than designed ripping the rim off the case and tossing the shell into the next zip code or breaks the extractor or both most of all causing premature fatigue and/or damage to the receiver.

Category 2: Improper chamber maintenance causing cases to stick. Although the bolt may open ok, during opening of the bolt the rotation extracts the casing partially and this is were the excessive force can cause the extractor to break.

One more thing,

duckcreekdick has a valid point, I have come across controlled feed, they must be magazine fed, not just dropping the round into the chamber which would cause extractor to have an allergic reaction!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Unless your a "Moon Bat" hanging from a tree requiring controlled feed, both designs will work as designed!

Never had a 700 fail to feed, go figure!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Speaking of push feed actions I talked to the folks at Weathery a few minutes ago. They will start delivering the new Vanguard 2 (blued) in June. Stainless will be later this summer. With any luck my 300 Wby will be here in a month or so. This rifle comes with a new adjustable trigger and 1 MOA guaranty.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Clay,

Speaking of your "Moon Bat" post above, I could not agree more! Clean chamber + clean ammunition = reliable feeding and chambering!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I've never had any issues with my long action M700. The bolt feeds and cycles slicker than greased lightning. However, I have had miss- feeds from short action 700's particularly the short fat cartridges. Has anyone else had the same experience? Just curious, still wouldn't trade.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I like prf. As said more accurate and as good if built correctly.
duckcreek said it best, both are the same unless handloaded to hot, result, CRF wins.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

From what I gathered whiling away the days reading Messrs. Van Zwoll, Barness, Aagard, Seyfried, etc: (btw, ethnically, that's 2 Germans and 2 Norwegians, all Americans.)

The controlled round feed action is a wonderful thing when properly done, and could also be extremely accurate (see library index "Dakota" LOL).

However, the Mauser/CRF type requires a lot more from its manufacturer or custom gunsmith/tuner in order to work exactly right, especially if it were to be used for different calibers. In other words, it is easier and more economical to produce a really good (reliable and accurate) push feed than a controlled feed.

The action includes the magazine, and if the magazine's dimensions aren't correct for the cartridge, the rifle will fail to feed properly, regardless of bolt design.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, the Mauser and its derivatives just seem prettier as rifles, with slim, straight American (or Rigby) "classic" stocks. The Remington 700's combination of trigger group, tang, grip angle and other stuff I don't fully understand, results in an action that is too "tall" and prevents a real slim, graceful stock with a more open grip, and it has an ugly trigger guard. Amazingly, the Remington 725, long discontinued, is quite the opposite.

Push feeds just deal with the shortfats better.

Savage created a CRF variant of its M116, called the M116 Safari Express (SE) in the 1990's, chambered in .458, but discontinued it after a few years. Amazingly, Winchester (pre-FN) revived the idea with its Controlled Round Push Feed (CRPF) in the 2000's and Savage never raised a hoot! The CRPF's job? To handle those devilish Winchester Super Short Magnums (WSSMs). Ed Brown's Model 704 is basically the same design. Those folks at Savage are really good.

Browning, Winchester's sibling company, handles all sorts of shortfats just fine with its A-Bolts and X-Bolts. Push feeds just handle shortfats better.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

and the Moisin Nagant, one of the most, if not the most, reliable military bolt actions ever fielded, is probably a push feed. At least that's what Richard Venola's article suggests: "Unless the bolt is completely closed, the tiny extractor will not snap over the rim..."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Good stuff Dave. It's a choice between something good and something good.

@Shane,
The main reason you rarely see CRF actions at matches is because the PRF's are so much easier to customize.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1uglymutha wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

i remember the virulent arguments between gun writers of the early 50s. most favored the crf actions. after the remington model 700s became popular, those arguments seemed to fade into the background. but,like the "small bore vs. big bore" arguments, they always seem to resurface. everyone has their favorites. the arguments over which is better, like the new "innovations" in firearm design, seem to sell guns so i guess it's not all bad. it would be nice though to see a truly innovative new firearm design. especially a light and handy medium bore auto-loading rifle.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RES1956 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Next topic, disposable razors Vs. replaceable blades; stay tuned for this exciting feature!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Better next topic. Give a good explanation of "headspace" and how it is determined.
As for CRF or push-feed, I have a LH Remington 700 and have never had any problem with it regarding push-feed. It just works.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Better next topic. Explain "headspace", how it is determined and how to adjust it.
I have never had a problem with my Remington 700 push-feed. It just works.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

What is going on with posts not showing up?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

My fellow competitors I've witness over the years having to change bolt assembly on the firing line due to broken extractor and they all had one thing in common,

No chamber care!

I must say the most neglected part of any firearm, is the chamber!

The slightest stick due to rust and/or residue build up unchecked will in fact spell disaster to your plan to success or in the case of self defense a jam can be lethal to the defender Home Owner or Law Enforcement

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idduckhntr wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Shane, gunsinternational has a bunch of 22 Auto amma but it aint cheap thought I would let you know.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I am a big fan of Peter Paul's work. Not just the Mauser, but also the Almond Joy.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from white bison wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Dave, Your comment was excellent on this subject...but to
add my 2 cents: The claw extractor was a military rifle
(98 Mauser) design to avoid any mischief in recycling under pressure of warfare & excitement. It does work well, but...and this is a big one...I once had a claw extractor Mauser type extractor on a new rifle in .375 H&H. On testing the rifle at the range, what sometimes would happen...is the "claw" of the extractor would not go
over the rim...but butt behind the case,...forcing the case in the chamber, but without the claw extractor over the rim to eject the case! And this in a dangerous game caliber! So, then the only way to pop out the case would be to use a cleaning rod from the muzzle & pound the case out. Of course, I admit there was probably the need to have a skilled gunsmith adjust the claw extractor, and have it work properly. But in the same argument...I have had a claw extractor foul up on me...but never a push feed. There are those who think a Mauser type claw extractor is de rigueur on bolt rifles, especially dangerous game rifles...like my friend...when he speaks of a bolt action..he has a mantra.."claw extractor, claw extractor" ad nauseum.
Personally, I prefer a push feed...to me its simpler & less likely to mess up...like the old "kiss" saying...
("keep it simple, stupid!). In this respect I vote for the simpler push feed...I NEVER in 50 years of shooting all different push feed rifles had any problem. But I have had with the vaunted claw extractor.
Anyway, that's my spiel on it. Like another saying...
"a legend in your own mind"...I think the Mauser claw
extractor is over rated & has blindly though of as a must. I disagree & vote for the push feed bolt action.
Best Regards, Tom

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve in Virginia wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I own both types of actions and have been equally pleased with both. Someone however mentioned the issue of accuracy, and I've also heard that Remington-style push feed actions are stiffer and more accurate than Mauser-style actions. Comments?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Zermoid wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Well, I have a Swedish Mauser that would argue with you about the whole "holds it in a death grip on its trip into the chamber" thing.

Every now and then the round gets in front of the extractor and it turns into a gawd awful version of a 'push feed and pick the round out of the chamber by hand' rifle. Since you shouldn't force that "controlled feeding" extractor over the rim of the round or risk breaking it. (and then try to find a replacement, good luck there) So out comes the pocket knife to try to pick the round lose from the chamber and get the rifle working again, again, good luck there.

This has been my only run in with a "controlled" feeding rifle and I ain't impressed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In the for what it's worth dept. I have had a Rem Mdl 7 push feed action fail to feed. It was a custom built 6mm-284 Winchester that had to go back to the builder for an adjustment. No problems after that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

my fine rifle is a pushfeed, but have a rotary magazine that aligns the round with the chamber perfectly and a sako style extractor.. (before sako started using them actually :P )giving it a wider grip thats more solid so it wont break.. it works flawlessly 100% of the time so far and ive owned than gun since i was a mere 18 year old.. never seen a pushfeed loose its bolt handle, but have seen many mausers that had been sporterised do it:P the explanation is that to sporterise the mausers u cut the handle off and weld it back on in a lower angle so u can use scopes on it;) sometimes bad welds get through.. :P

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Well, this subject is not me to comment; most of us here, I would guess, were spoon fed on the push feed design anyway. As you said Dave,"In a properly-made rifle, either system works fine, and there are better things to worry about."
Ditto*

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Carl Huber wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I'm with MCJ on barrel break in being the next topic. Shoot-clean-shoot-clean is it really necessary and does it increase barrel life and accuracy. It's something we all do but with today's machining is it worth while.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Maxpower, Your comment regarding control feed being more difficult to to customize reminds me of a couple of top bench rest shooters discussing this topic. They indicated CRF being more difficult and expensive to customize and still not being as accurate after all the work. I am only a big game hunter and have had good luck with both types.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

After reading some of the posts above, it is confirmed that a steel ball can be mutilated with a rubber hammer. Just sayin'...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Speaking of controlled feed I went to a few guns stores last weekend and fondled all to the new Winchester rifles and was impressed with the finish. The Featherweights were $850 and the Supergrade was only $1,150 which is quite a bit cheaper than the web site would suggest. The wood was beautiful but for some reason I prefer the wood checkering pattern on the Featherweight. I don't know if I could get used to that safety. It is very strange to me and it seems you would have to move your hand to disengage it.

My brother in law and I got into an argument about the push feed as opposed to the controlled round feed (imagine that) and his opinion is that the only thing a controlled round feed action does is add bulk and weight to the rifle.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

As long as I am thinking about it, the brother in law also said there is not a whole lot of difference in the Browning A Bolt and Model 70 and that the Winchester SXR and Browning BAR are essentially the same rifle now that Fabrique National is making them both. I said he was full of crap and then the gun store owner told me the factory rep for Winchester and Browning were the same guy and shrugged his shoulders.... any thoughts? Random ruminations?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Dittos WAM on the rubber mallet!

Crack me up Bro!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Amflyer wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

As far as the BAR and the SXR go, I think they are the same basic design and execution. As I remember from looking at both, the BAR had a few more controls than did the SXR. Also, the stock shape and cosmetic differences were there too. SXR's were a lot less expensive in my neck of the woods.

Yup, just googled it...BAR has a bolt release on the right side of the reciever and the SXR uses a different method for that function.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Has anyone heard from gunslinger lately. Hope he is well.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

to MJC
i agree too much debate on this kind of nonsense, better yet the THERMO COUPLER VS THE FLUX CAPACITOR?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

To Steve in Va: It's true that push-feed actions are stiffer and are easier to make into accurate rifles than controlled feed. This is because there are fewer cuts in a push-feed action, and because many are cylindrical, as opposed to the weird forms Mauser receivers take. In the early days of benchrest shooting people tried to build these guns from Mausers and then pretty quickly began "sleeving" them--welding a steel tube over the action with a cut for ejection and loading, just to stiffen the thing enough to be competitive.
This is not to say that you can't build a very, very accurate controlled-feed rifle, but in theory at least it should be easier to do it with a push feed.

To nc-30/06: You're not alone. It takes me three or four tries to get on here.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I asked about Gunslinger a while back. He was having health issues in November and he has not been heard from since Christmas.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

the spamfilter is horrific here.. often im limited to a post a day and then cant reply or repost till next day.. sucks..

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sarg wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Doesn't matter to me as long as it's a Rem.700 in .308win....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Thanks for clearing that up. It has little to do with customization (shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 10/22s at matches using that concept?). Push feeds are just the way to go for accuracy extremes.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

wa mtnhunter:

I've only had one case head separation in my life, and it was a life-changing experience. Was using a Model 700 Rem. at the time. No long term effects, although that face full of hot gas definitely messed with my concentration in the short term.

It would seem to me that if you were looking for a bolt rifle to drag through swamps and muddy foxholes, it'd be some form of controlled round action, just because they are looser. But no, as a type they don't shoot as straight. Go to any bench rest competition and count the controlled feed rifles. The next one you see will be the only one you will ever see.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from iron giant wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

My Dad and I were just talking about this today. Wandering what the difference really was. Thanks for clearing it up.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

As for accuracy, there is no advantage between controlled vs Push-Feed, period!

Good receivers with proper care and maintenance will function like a Swiss Watch, provided your not hanging by your toes from a tree!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sarg wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Del, Gunslinger has been having a pretty bad time latly, but still kicking. Not hunting as much as he wants. Been in contact with him for some time.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

sarg,

Give Gunslinger our best regards and tell him that we miss his musings. Ask him to drop in on the blog once in a while! Tell him to get off his duff and come on out to Craig this year and see what he says.

WAM

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidvlane wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Not that anyone will read the 366th post to this article, but I need to vent. I had to sell my Winchester Model 678 precisely because I could not stand its push feed fallabilities one more season. The 678 is the entry level version of the model 70, birch stock, no iron sights, and horribly un-operational push feed bolt. I often found myself embarrased at the gun range when my neighbors witnessed my 30-06 shells dancing around as they were beig fed into the barrel. The bolt didn't so much as feed the shell into the barrel. Rather,it used its mild mannered, gentleman prodding to convince the shell towards the general direction of travel. Only after several years did I really take notice that I was guiding the shell into the chamber with my right thumb (I am not right handed), something I never have to do with my other bolt rifles. So, to this blog I say, push feed be damned. I want my controlled round feed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

davidvlane,

Do you have some Mossberg shotguns, too?

Another reason not to buy entry-level anything.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackhatarcher wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Hey entry level items are a lot cheaper than those 1000 dollar models you see in the magazines and TV. In this econimy cheaper is better.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bellringer wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

I have been shooting a Ruger M-77 for so long I cannot remember when I got it, only once have I ever had a failure to chamber a round, the result of an extremely slow working of the bolt, combined with a short stroke and a second pull back which effected the release of two cartridges from the magazine. I just turned the rifle upside down, dropped the free cartridges out and cycled it again, made my shot, picked up the unifired shells, reloaded the gun and went on my way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from lukeduke wrote 2 years 46 weeks ago

Shane Fumerton was killed by a grizzly Oct. 1995 while field dressing an elk. He worked the bolt of his PF rifle 2x jamming another cartridge against the 1st.(remember reading this in one Gary Shelton’s books)
There are many similar stories re: PF jamming while charged etc.!

You can't possibly doublefeed a CRF rifle because the round is positively controlled at all phases of the bolt stroke. ( In a PF action, you could partially stroke a round, have the extractor not grab the rim, and then stroke the bolt again jamming a second round into the first. Or you could fully stroke the round, chamber and fire it, and then have the extractor fail to extract the round and slip off the rim; then stroke the bolt again jamming the next round into the base of the fired round that failed to extract).

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from MJC wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

This could be the first post in a series called "Things Gun Nuts spend entirely too much time debating."

Next up- barrel break-in procedures.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In most push feed rifles of proper design, the case is held by the lips of the magazine box / lower receiver until the cartridge is pushed well into the chamber. I suppose if you were standing on your head and short cycled the round and retracted the bolt, the cartridge would fall out. I have tested my Weatherby and Remington rifles upside down and they fed everytime. Hard to shoot them that way though....

I like the case head completely surrounded by the bolt face since I handload most ammo. Just my thing. Also, never heard of a factory round's case rupturing.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I agree with Mr Petzal, if they are both made correctly they work, if not they don't. Just by chance all my rifles over 338 are control feed, 358 Norma up through 500 Jeffery. Do have 338 with both types. Have killed hundreds of animals using both types. No complaints have been in tight situations with both feeds. Have used both in extreme conditions..

Often have a hunch, when writers have nothing they can thing of to write about, they dust off this subject. Both have their merits. Kindest Regards

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bryan01 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

What happens if you must work the bolt in a situation where you can't hold the gun in a horizontal and upright inclination - and gravity acting on the bullet being fed from the magazine comes into play - doesn't the control-feed mechanism perform better in this situation?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from country road wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Thank you for giving me some relief. I had been lying awake nights worrying about the difference.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I'll take the extra round and the ability to load directly into the chamber.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

What is going on with posts not showing up?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

To Steve in Va: It's true that push-feed actions are stiffer and are easier to make into accurate rifles than controlled feed. This is because there are fewer cuts in a push-feed action, and because many are cylindrical, as opposed to the weird forms Mauser receivers take. In the early days of benchrest shooting people tried to build these guns from Mausers and then pretty quickly began "sleeving" them--welding a steel tube over the action with a cut for ejection and loading, just to stiffen the thing enough to be competitive.
This is not to say that you can't build a very, very accurate controlled-feed rifle, but in theory at least it should be easier to do it with a push feed.

To nc-30/06: You're not alone. It takes me three or four tries to get on here.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from duckcreekdick wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Minor correction here. In a controlled round feed rifle(a 98 Mauser), the extractor does not "snap onto" the rim of the cartridge. Instead, the rim of the cartridge slides underneath the extractor as the bolt is pushed forward. That is why an unmodified 98 Mauser may not close on a cartridge if you just drop a shell in the chamber. The action is designed to feed from the magazine.
Also on a 98 Mauser, the extractor is designed to function like the jaws of a pit bull. The harder you pull, the more it hangs on. The cartridge rim will fail before the extractor breaks. On a Remington 700, three things might happen 1. the extractor will break 2. the rim that the extractor fits under will break or 3. the bolt handle will come off. With factory ammo, all three will be rare occurrences but I've seen every one of them happen more than once.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

duckcreekd...

Never heard of a bolt handle falling off. # 1 & 2 for sure.

Philosophically speaking, every round fired is one step closer to the next/first malfunction may it be 5 or 50,000 rounds downrange. Everything breaks or wears out eventually.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bernie wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Dave's point is well-taken: There are indeed far more imporant things to worry about than whether your rifle is push-feed or control-feed. I have used Weatherby Mark Vs, Sakos, Remington M700s--all push-feeds without a single problem. Also a couple pre-'64 Winchesters. No problems there either. My bungled opportunities all were caused by the guy behind the rifle.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I agree with Mr Petzal, if they are both made correctly they work, if not they don't. Just by chance all my rifles over 338 are control feed, 358 Norma up through 500 Jeffery. Do have 338 with both types. Have killed hundreds of animals using both types. No complaints have been in tight situations with both feeds. Have used both in extreme conditions..

Often have a hunch, when writers have nothing they can thing of to write about, they dust off this subject. Both have their merits. Kindest Regards

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from duckcreekdick wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I own both controlled-round feed and push feed rifles and even have a couple of the early hermaphrodite Ruger 77's that looked like the former but were really the latter. I like them all but a fine 98 Mauser sporter still makes me weak in the knees.
And in answer to an earlier question, Remington 700 bolt handles will come off when the shooter uses a piece of 2X4 to pound open the bolt trying to unstick a case, normally a too-hot reload.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Unless your a "Moon Bat" hanging from a tree requiring controlled feed, both designs will work as designed!

Never had a 700 fail to feed, go figure!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Clay,

Speaking of your "Moon Bat" post above, I could not agree more! Clean chamber + clean ammunition = reliable feeding and chambering!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

From what I gathered whiling away the days reading Messrs. Van Zwoll, Barness, Aagard, Seyfried, etc: (btw, ethnically, that's 2 Germans and 2 Norwegians, all Americans.)

The controlled round feed action is a wonderful thing when properly done, and could also be extremely accurate (see library index "Dakota" LOL).

However, the Mauser/CRF type requires a lot more from its manufacturer or custom gunsmith/tuner in order to work exactly right, especially if it were to be used for different calibers. In other words, it is easier and more economical to produce a really good (reliable and accurate) push feed than a controlled feed.

The action includes the magazine, and if the magazine's dimensions aren't correct for the cartridge, the rifle will fail to feed properly, regardless of bolt design.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, the Mauser and its derivatives just seem prettier as rifles, with slim, straight American (or Rigby) "classic" stocks. The Remington 700's combination of trigger group, tang, grip angle and other stuff I don't fully understand, results in an action that is too "tall" and prevents a real slim, graceful stock with a more open grip, and it has an ugly trigger guard. Amazingly, the Remington 725, long discontinued, is quite the opposite.

Push feeds just deal with the shortfats better.

Savage created a CRF variant of its M116, called the M116 Safari Express (SE) in the 1990's, chambered in .458, but discontinued it after a few years. Amazingly, Winchester (pre-FN) revived the idea with its Controlled Round Push Feed (CRPF) in the 2000's and Savage never raised a hoot! The CRPF's job? To handle those devilish Winchester Super Short Magnums (WSSMs). Ed Brown's Model 704 is basically the same design. Those folks at Savage are really good.

Browning, Winchester's sibling company, handles all sorts of shortfats just fine with its A-Bolts and X-Bolts. Push feeds just handle shortfats better.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from white bison wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Dave, Your comment was excellent on this subject...but to
add my 2 cents: The claw extractor was a military rifle
(98 Mauser) design to avoid any mischief in recycling under pressure of warfare & excitement. It does work well, but...and this is a big one...I once had a claw extractor Mauser type extractor on a new rifle in .375 H&H. On testing the rifle at the range, what sometimes would happen...is the "claw" of the extractor would not go
over the rim...but butt behind the case,...forcing the case in the chamber, but without the claw extractor over the rim to eject the case! And this in a dangerous game caliber! So, then the only way to pop out the case would be to use a cleaning rod from the muzzle & pound the case out. Of course, I admit there was probably the need to have a skilled gunsmith adjust the claw extractor, and have it work properly. But in the same argument...I have had a claw extractor foul up on me...but never a push feed. There are those who think a Mauser type claw extractor is de rigueur on bolt rifles, especially dangerous game rifles...like my friend...when he speaks of a bolt action..he has a mantra.."claw extractor, claw extractor" ad nauseum.
Personally, I prefer a push feed...to me its simpler & less likely to mess up...like the old "kiss" saying...
("keep it simple, stupid!). In this respect I vote for the simpler push feed...I NEVER in 50 years of shooting all different push feed rifles had any problem. But I have had with the vaunted claw extractor.
Anyway, that's my spiel on it. Like another saying...
"a legend in your own mind"...I think the Mauser claw
extractor is over rated & has blindly though of as a must. I disagree & vote for the push feed bolt action.
Best Regards, Tom

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Maxpower, Your comment regarding control feed being more difficult to to customize reminds me of a couple of top bench rest shooters discussing this topic. They indicated CRF being more difficult and expensive to customize and still not being as accurate after all the work. I am only a big game hunter and have had good luck with both types.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from cbanks wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Thank you, David. Now I know.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Written so well even this bowhunter understands. Well done Dave.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

To duckcreekdick: You are correct; Mauser extractors do not snap over the cartridge rim. As you say, the rim slides under the extractor, and with some actions, the extractor will not snap on the rim of a case when you shove one in the chamber without working it through the action. In commercial actions, the extractors are almost always altered so they'll do both.

To all: On a couple of occasions, I've reloaded both Weatherby and Remington push-feed actions while running after or running away from something, holding the rifle in all sorts of odd positions, and never had a problem. If they work, they work.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MReeder wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

My first bolt action, centerfire rifle was a sporterized 1908 Brazilian Obendorf Mauser which I used almost exclusively for about a dozen or more years. For the past 20 years or so my pet rifle has been a Remington 700 Mountain Rifle, although I also make occasional use of an '06 built on a commercial Mauser action. In other words, I go back and forth from controlled feed to push feed all the time and honestly can't tell much difference, although if you got me in a hammer lock I'd have to say the old 1908 may have been the slickest bolt action I ever cycled. Whether that has anything to do with the controlled feed I cannot say. You will know the difference between the two if you happen to short throw a controlled feed action, though, because it will jam up as tight as a drum. I say that from sad experience after missing a shot at the best buck I ever saw in the woods right after I had bumped off a doe and reached for a cup of coffee. When I looked to my left and saw his antlers rising from the mist, I got a little shook, rushed what I was doing and sat there cussing, trying to get the damned thing to clear, while the buck gave me the walleye and tripped daintily into the brush. That was about 30 years ago and the thought of him traipsing away still brings a tear to the eye.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In my experience rifles with push feed actions tend to be a tad more accurate than those with CRF. However, my preference is for the nice secur feeling I get with CRF when a very important shot presents its self. Have seen both not work so well. IMO a Remington 700 will outshoot a CRF Mdl 70 just about everytime.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

To Jason Hart: I have no preference. If they're made correctly they work, and if they're not, they don't.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

OK I'll give one advantage to CRF. You control how far the case gets ejected. With PF it doesn't matter how hard or softly you open the bolt, it'll shoot out the same. Good for handloaders and people that don't want to litter. On the other hand, people that keep their brass and keep it nice are usually accuracy nuts, and how many super accurate rifles are built on CRF actions? Not to say that they can't achieve amazingly good hunting accuracy and beyond, but you won't see one at a match.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

DITTO'S David!

Another overlooked subject is care of the chamber.

Just about every rifle I ever came across with a broken extractors you can put in two categories.

Category 1: primarily contains to gas guns but not limited to. load to hot and or the propellant duration like IMR4831 which puts to much pressure at the gas port creating to much pressure when fired cycles the bolt faster than designed ripping the rim off the case and tossing the shell into the next zip code or breaks the extractor or both most of all causing premature fatigue and/or damage to the receiver.

Category 2: Improper chamber maintenance causing cases to stick. Although the bolt may open ok, during opening of the bolt the rotation extracts the casing partially and this is were the excessive force can cause the extractor to break.

One more thing,

duckcreekdick has a valid point, I have come across controlled feed, they must be magazine fed, not just dropping the round into the chamber which would cause extractor to have an allergic reaction!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Speaking of push feed actions I talked to the folks at Weathery a few minutes ago. They will start delivering the new Vanguard 2 (blued) in June. Stainless will be later this summer. With any luck my 300 Wby will be here in a month or so. This rifle comes with a new adjustable trigger and 1 MOA guaranty.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I've never had any issues with my long action M700. The bolt feeds and cycles slicker than greased lightning. However, I have had miss- feeds from short action 700's particularly the short fat cartridges. Has anyone else had the same experience? Just curious, still wouldn't trade.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I am a big fan of Peter Paul's work. Not just the Mauser, but also the Almond Joy.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

After reading some of the posts above, it is confirmed that a steel ball can be mutilated with a rubber hammer. Just sayin'...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

wa mtnhunter:

I've only had one case head separation in my life, and it was a life-changing experience. Was using a Model 700 Rem. at the time. No long term effects, although that face full of hot gas definitely messed with my concentration in the short term.

It would seem to me that if you were looking for a bolt rifle to drag through swamps and muddy foxholes, it'd be some form of controlled round action, just because they are looser. But no, as a type they don't shoot as straight. Go to any bench rest competition and count the controlled feed rifles. The next one you see will be the only one you will ever see.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from sarg wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Del, Gunslinger has been having a pretty bad time latly, but still kicking. Not hunting as much as he wants. Been in contact with him for some time.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from lukeduke wrote 2 years 46 weeks ago

Shane Fumerton was killed by a grizzly Oct. 1995 while field dressing an elk. He worked the bolt of his PF rifle 2x jamming another cartridge against the 1st.(remember reading this in one Gary Shelton’s books)
There are many similar stories re: PF jamming while charged etc.!

You can't possibly doublefeed a CRF rifle because the round is positively controlled at all phases of the bolt stroke. ( In a PF action, you could partially stroke a round, have the extractor not grab the rim, and then stroke the bolt again jamming a second round into the first. Or you could fully stroke the round, chamber and fire it, and then have the extractor fail to extract the round and slip off the rim; then stroke the bolt again jamming the next round into the base of the fired round that failed to extract).

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark-1 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Had rifles with both systems. Both systems worked fine. Only hassle I ever saw on extraction was a custom 220 Swift on a Mauser 9 action by a novice gunsmith. The novice cut too much off the extractor rim. Many times a fired case remained in the chamber, making the presence of a rifle rod mandatory.

IMHO ejection is just as important as extraction in a big game rifle. I prefer Mauser 98 and Springfield 1903 actions for this reason, and want these actions on my dangerous game rifles. I detest Enfield actions for their weak ejectors.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from cbanks wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Thanks for the explanation, Dave.

I always called the 'controlled-feed' gizmo a "Mauser" action--my Husqvarna .30-06 has it, as has my Springfield '03. I always found it finicky--I can't seem to load a round directly into the chamber and have the bolt-head slip over it, like you can in the other type (you call it "push-feed"?)

Push-feeds, like my ULAs, can also be finicky. If you load rounds to max length, they sometimes get hung up. The magazine, too, needs attention to keep feeding the rounds perfectly level.

Sounds like each has peculiar strengths and weaknesses. Is anybody working on improved versions?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

well with the controlled round feed you get all most positve ejection. with push feed you get the option to hold down the 4 cardtges in the magizine and put 1 in the chamber. mmm desicons desicons. on one hand you got postive ejtion the other more ammo...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

and the Moisin Nagant, one of the most, if not the most, reliable military bolt actions ever fielded, is probably a push feed. At least that's what Richard Venola's article suggests: "Unless the bolt is completely closed, the tiny extractor will not snap over the rim..."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Good stuff Dave. It's a choice between something good and something good.

@Shane,
The main reason you rarely see CRF actions at matches is because the PRF's are so much easier to customize.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RES1956 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Next topic, disposable razors Vs. replaceable blades; stay tuned for this exciting feature!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Better next topic. Explain "headspace", how it is determined and how to adjust it.
I have never had a problem with my Remington 700 push-feed. It just works.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

My fellow competitors I've witness over the years having to change bolt assembly on the firing line due to broken extractor and they all had one thing in common,

No chamber care!

I must say the most neglected part of any firearm, is the chamber!

The slightest stick due to rust and/or residue build up unchecked will in fact spell disaster to your plan to success or in the case of self defense a jam can be lethal to the defender Home Owner or Law Enforcement

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idduckhntr wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Shane, gunsinternational has a bunch of 22 Auto amma but it aint cheap thought I would let you know.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Zermoid wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Well, I have a Swedish Mauser that would argue with you about the whole "holds it in a death grip on its trip into the chamber" thing.

Every now and then the round gets in front of the extractor and it turns into a gawd awful version of a 'push feed and pick the round out of the chamber by hand' rifle. Since you shouldn't force that "controlled feeding" extractor over the rim of the round or risk breaking it. (and then try to find a replacement, good luck there) So out comes the pocket knife to try to pick the round lose from the chamber and get the rifle working again, again, good luck there.

This has been my only run in with a "controlled" feeding rifle and I ain't impressed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Well, this subject is not me to comment; most of us here, I would guess, were spoon fed on the push feed design anyway. As you said Dave,"In a properly-made rifle, either system works fine, and there are better things to worry about."
Ditto*

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

the spamfilter is horrific here.. often im limited to a post a day and then cant reply or repost till next day.. sucks..

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sarg wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Doesn't matter to me as long as it's a Rem.700 in .308win....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

sarg,

Give Gunslinger our best regards and tell him that we miss his musings. Ask him to drop in on the blog once in a while! Tell him to get off his duff and come on out to Craig this year and see what he says.

WAM

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackhatarcher wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Hey entry level items are a lot cheaper than those 1000 dollar models you see in the magazines and TV. In this econimy cheaper is better.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fromthepeavine wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I've never really paid that much attention. After reading this I realized I have both set ups and will check them out.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jason Hart wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Mr Petzal...
I know it doesn't matter but, which do you prefer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jason Hart wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Mr. Petzal....
Just to satisfy my curiosity, but which do you prefer?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tom-Tom wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

If one was hunting a quarry with a track record for killing those shooters whose marksmanship was questionable, then this might be an issue of concern.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

and a m98 can be made to slip over the rim if u just bend the extractor claw a little and round the inner edge;) so then it will allow u feeding the cartridge directly in the chamber:P wont reccomend it to anyone though.. except knowledgeable gunsmiths and even then probably not:P i just know it works:D

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Under ideal conditions, both systems work fine. But the smaller gripping surface of the push feed extractor, and the fact that its ejector relies on a small spring to function properly, makes the push feed theoretically more vulnerable to malfunctioning under less than ideal conditions. No big whoops.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In a way, the controlled-feed system is somewhat comparable to the pinned-and-recessed feature found on some older Smith & Wesson magnum revolvers. More expensive to produce because of the extra machining, but often cited as a mark of quality.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

99Ex

I don't think any non-pinned S&W wheelgun barrels ever fell off from not being pinned either! As for recessed; that just saves a couple of machining steps and $$$, IMO.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

As an aside concerning uncontrollable ejection, I have a 1903 Winchester .22 Automatic. Obviously I can't handload it (I don't even shoot it anymore for lack of ammo available), but sometimes I want to keep the brass. It's rare stuff. Anyways, that thing ejects so damn far. I could never find the stuff. I remember being hit in the face by the thing from untold distances.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I like prf. As said more accurate and as good if built correctly.
duckcreek said it best, both are the same unless handloaded to hot, result, CRF wins.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1uglymutha wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

i remember the virulent arguments between gun writers of the early 50s. most favored the crf actions. after the remington model 700s became popular, those arguments seemed to fade into the background. but,like the "small bore vs. big bore" arguments, they always seem to resurface. everyone has their favorites. the arguments over which is better, like the new "innovations" in firearm design, seem to sell guns so i guess it's not all bad. it would be nice though to see a truly innovative new firearm design. especially a light and handy medium bore auto-loading rifle.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from nc30-06 wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Better next topic. Give a good explanation of "headspace" and how it is determined.
As for CRF or push-feed, I have a LH Remington 700 and have never had any problem with it regarding push-feed. It just works.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve in Virginia wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I own both types of actions and have been equally pleased with both. Someone however mentioned the issue of accuracy, and I've also heard that Remington-style push feed actions are stiffer and more accurate than Mauser-style actions. Comments?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

In the for what it's worth dept. I have had a Rem Mdl 7 push feed action fail to feed. It was a custom built 6mm-284 Winchester that had to go back to the builder for an adjustment. No problems after that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

my fine rifle is a pushfeed, but have a rotary magazine that aligns the round with the chamber perfectly and a sako style extractor.. (before sako started using them actually :P )giving it a wider grip thats more solid so it wont break.. it works flawlessly 100% of the time so far and ive owned than gun since i was a mere 18 year old.. never seen a pushfeed loose its bolt handle, but have seen many mausers that had been sporterised do it:P the explanation is that to sporterise the mausers u cut the handle off and weld it back on in a lower angle so u can use scopes on it;) sometimes bad welds get through.. :P

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Carl Huber wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I'm with MCJ on barrel break in being the next topic. Shoot-clean-shoot-clean is it really necessary and does it increase barrel life and accuracy. It's something we all do but with today's machining is it worth while.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Speaking of controlled feed I went to a few guns stores last weekend and fondled all to the new Winchester rifles and was impressed with the finish. The Featherweights were $850 and the Supergrade was only $1,150 which is quite a bit cheaper than the web site would suggest. The wood was beautiful but for some reason I prefer the wood checkering pattern on the Featherweight. I don't know if I could get used to that safety. It is very strange to me and it seems you would have to move your hand to disengage it.

My brother in law and I got into an argument about the push feed as opposed to the controlled round feed (imagine that) and his opinion is that the only thing a controlled round feed action does is add bulk and weight to the rifle.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

As long as I am thinking about it, the brother in law also said there is not a whole lot of difference in the Browning A Bolt and Model 70 and that the Winchester SXR and Browning BAR are essentially the same rifle now that Fabrique National is making them both. I said he was full of crap and then the gun store owner told me the factory rep for Winchester and Browning were the same guy and shrugged his shoulders.... any thoughts? Random ruminations?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Dittos WAM on the rubber mallet!

Crack me up Bro!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Amflyer wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

As far as the BAR and the SXR go, I think they are the same basic design and execution. As I remember from looking at both, the BAR had a few more controls than did the SXR. Also, the stock shape and cosmetic differences were there too. SXR's were a lot less expensive in my neck of the woods.

Yup, just googled it...BAR has a bolt release on the right side of the reciever and the SXR uses a different method for that function.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

Has anyone heard from gunslinger lately. Hope he is well.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

to MJC
i agree too much debate on this kind of nonsense, better yet the THERMO COUPLER VS THE FLUX CAPACITOR?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago

I asked about Gunslinger a while back. He was having health issues in November and he has not been heard from since Christmas.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Thanks for clearing that up. It has little to do with customization (shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 10/22s at matches using that concept?). Push feeds are just the way to go for accuracy extremes.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from iron giant wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

My Dad and I were just talking about this today. Wandering what the difference really was. Thanks for clearing it up.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidvlane wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

Not that anyone will read the 366th post to this article, but I need to vent. I had to sell my Winchester Model 678 precisely because I could not stand its push feed fallabilities one more season. The 678 is the entry level version of the model 70, birch stock, no iron sights, and horribly un-operational push feed bolt. I often found myself embarrased at the gun range when my neighbors witnessed my 30-06 shells dancing around as they were beig fed into the barrel. The bolt didn't so much as feed the shell into the barrel. Rather,it used its mild mannered, gentleman prodding to convince the shell towards the general direction of travel. Only after several years did I really take notice that I was guiding the shell into the chamber with my right thumb (I am not right handed), something I never have to do with my other bolt rifles. So, to this blog I say, push feed be damned. I want my controlled round feed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bellringer wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

I have been shooting a Ruger M-77 for so long I cannot remember when I got it, only once have I ever had a failure to chamber a round, the result of an extremely slow working of the bolt, combined with a short stroke and a second pull back which effected the release of two cartridges from the magazine. I just turned the rifle upside down, dropped the free cartridges out and cycled it again, made my shot, picked up the unifired shells, reloaded the gun and went on my way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

As for accuracy, there is no advantage between controlled vs Push-Feed, period!

Good receivers with proper care and maintenance will function like a Swiss Watch, provided your not hanging by your toes from a tree!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 47 weeks ago

davidvlane,

Do you have some Mossberg shotguns, too?

Another reason not to buy entry-level anything.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment