Controled round feeding.. Is it important in a rifle?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Controled round feeding.. Is it important in a rifle?

Posted: 12/30/2005 6:49:04 AM EDT

On big game rifles you see a plethora of Control fed rifles. In the .mil high speed low drag world its dominated by the push feed design?

ETA: stolen images died!!

In a control feed system the extractor is in constant contact with the round, through out the closing of the bolt.
In a push feed system The round is pushed out of the mag and is free to do as it pleases as the bolt is closed.
Why wouldn't the .mil use a reliable controlled feed design?

I have 15 years exp working with both systems and neither is more accurate than the other. So this is not a factor.

Posted: 12/30/2005 6:56:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Its pretty much known that CRF is more reliable.

And its pretty well known that push feed is cheaper to produce.

So when the SHTF and a big nasty is charging you, do you want a CRF or a push feed?

However, PF is certainly easier to shoot from the bench as you don't have to load the rounds down into the mag.

The .mil make lots of changes to thier designs to speed or cheapen production. And I dont think I've ever seen a semi-auto that was CRF.

Posted: 12/30/2005 6:56:23 AM EDT

[#2]

I believe the reason the .mil does not use controlled feed is two-fold:

1) They nearly all use the Remington 700 as a starting point. So by default...
2) Controlled feed must feed from the magazine, you can not drop a round in the action and chamber it properly.

Posted: 12/30/2005 6:59:21 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I believe the reason the .mil does not use controlled feed is two-fold:

1) They nearly all use the Remington 700 as a starting point. So by default...
2) Controlled feed must feed from the magazine, you can not drop a round in the action and chamber it properly.

I must disagree on point #2.. If the extractor is tuned properly you can feed single rounds into the chamber! Riding the extractor over the case rim, on bolt close.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:00:43 AM EDT

[#4]

CRF is considered essential by those of us that have hunted/or are hunting dangerous game.

IIRC it was part of the mil-spec for the 1903 springfield rifle, and every mauser has it as well, and so do every mosin nagant come to think of it.

Course the Rem M700 on which the M24(military Sniper Rifle not sure if I have the correct designation) is based on is push feed....

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:03:01 AM EDT

[#5]

True, but it's hard on the extracter. CRF is more reliable. Too many stories of push/spring extractors breaking at the wrong time. Not sure how Remington got so in tight on the sniper rifle angle, but I've got a Model 70 in .300 H&H that'll shoot .8 MOA all day long. Makes for a dandy sniper rifle right there.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:06:49 AM EDT

[#6]

Basically I hold the opinion that Peter Paul Mauser 'got it right' back in 1898 (though it took him like 30+ years refining that design).

The Enfield, Mosin, Springfield, etc all had CRF as well.

Fast foward to the post war world, and you have Big Green and Winchester trying to fatten the bottom line so they come out with the cheaper push feed. Of course now, most rifle buyers have no clue and many have never seen or used a CRF gun.

The military didn't design a sniper rifle, they adopted a civilian gun to the purpose. It just so happens that civvie gun was a push feed.

Isn't the Accuracy International a CRF? The FN SPR is.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:08:38 AM EDT

[#7]

I prefer breast feeding.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:08:42 AM EDT

[#8]

For most people, it matters not one bit. For the .mil, it probably doesn't matter at all, but it's just a little piece of insurance that there won't be feeding problems. Dangerous game hunters probably make the best case for CRF, since they are most likely to try to chamber a round with the rifle at the odd angles likely to produce a jam in a bolt rifle.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:16:26 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the reason the .mil does not use controlled feed is two-fold:

1) They nearly all use the Remington 700 as a starting point. So by default...
2) Controlled feed must feed from the magazine, you can not drop a round in the action and chamber it properly.

I must disagree on point #2.. If the extractor is tuned properly you can feed single rounds into the chamber! Riding the extractor over the case rim, on bolt close.

Which is hard on the extractor, which will ultimately degrade reliability.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:18:47 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the reason the .mil does not use controlled feed is two-fold:

1) They nearly all use the Remington 700 as a starting point. So by default...
2) Controlled feed must feed from the magazine, you can not drop a round in the action and chamber it properly.

I must disagree on point #2.. If the extractor is tuned properly you can feed single rounds into the chamber! Riding the extractor over the case rim, on bolt close.

Which is hard on the extractor, which will ultimately degrade reliability.

Didnt we do this dance once before?

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:19:19 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the reason the .mil does not use controlled feed is two-fold:

1) They nearly all use the Remington 700 as a starting point. So by default...
2) Controlled feed must feed from the magazine, you can not drop a round in the action and chamber it properly.

I must disagree on point #2.. If the extractor is tuned properly you can feed single rounds into the chamber! Riding the extractor over the case rim, on bolt close.

Which is hard on the extractor, which will ultimately degrade reliability.

Didnt we do this dance once before?

So why is it then that the 03 and 03A3 Springfields are made with the ability to flip a lever and fire rounds singly without being loaded from the mag? Certainly they didn't expect most rounds to be loaded and fired that way, but I do not think they would have left that capability on the rifle for all those years if extractor breakage was major concern. The chamber was cut to allow for the extractor movement (over the rim).

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:27:24 AM EDT

[#12]

The problem I have with CRF guns? They're CRF guns.

They're an excellent design. They work reliably, repeatably, etc.

But then you come down to the redundancy factor. What happens when you start to wear the receiver? Or damage it somehow? What happens when you get a tweaked feedlip, on those guns that are designed to use a detachable box of some sort?

It quits working. It spits a round out ahead of the bolt, and suddenly, you can't close the bolt. (And yes, I know you can 'tune' the gun to close on a loose round. But this is not how the majority of them are designed. You're essentially modifying the gun to work incorrectly.)

This, in my thinking, is the idea behind push feed for the military. Magazine, no magazine, single rounds, etc... You drop it in, you close the bolt. Gun goes boom. Military looks for lowest cost, and lowest common denominator. Joe can tear up anything, so they like it as simple (and inexpensive) as possible.

ETA: I do like CRF guns. I have a safe full of Enfields, 03s, and Mosins. But I also like my Remmys. They all have their pros and cons.

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:31:17 AM EDT

[#13]

Only thing that matters to me is that the round enters the chamber and the bolt locks in place to fire, and extracts to do it over again.

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:36:43 AM EDT

[#14]

I've got a CRF 03A3, and I like it's feeding better than my Browning PF A-bolt. Same thing goes for my dad's CRF Ruger.

On another note, the 03A3 and Ruger have Int Box magazines, the Browning has a detach. box magazine. That too could be a contributing factor. The feedlips of the stamped DBM are nowhere nearly as sturdy as those of the IBM.

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:37:53 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

This, in my thinking, is the idea behind push feed for the military. Magazine, no magazine, single rounds, etc... You drop it in, you close the bolt. Gun goes boom. Military looks for lowest cost, and lowest common denominator. Joe can tear up anything, so they like it as simple (and inexpensive) as possible.

What about the k98? If Gerry the German in WW2 could not screw it up I don't think Modern G.I.Dont-know IS really going to break it.

I think its more down to the Cheap-ist bidder on a contract. Remmies are cheap so there fore the .mil uses them..

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:38:30 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
So why is it then that the 03 and 03A3 Springfields are made with the ability to flip a lever and fire rounds singly without being loaded from the mag? Certainly they didn't expect most rounds to be loaded and fired that way, but I do not think they would have left that capability on the rifle for all those years if extractor breakage was major concern. The chamber was cut to allow for the extractor movement (over the rim).

Actually, the way I've heard it told they did expect most rounds to be fired single load.
The Magazine was intended as a backup for emergencies.

The mag cutoff was added because the brass felt that the average joe would fire ammo too quickly using the magazine.

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:45:03 AM EDT

[#17]

I've also heard, but not yet tried it, that even though the Remington 700s are push fed, you can turn it upside down and shake it while loading another round and it'll still feed the round same as a controlled feed. I do dislike that itty bitty springy extractor thingy.

But then, I don't like Remingtons anyway so I still wont get another one.

Posted: 12/30/2005 9:57:04 AM EDT

[#18]

One of my friends had a push feed rifle fail to extract during a once in a lifetime free ranging bison hunt. That sucked. Fortunately, the bison was not heading our way. He eventually got one, but it was a lesser animal. CRF probably would have made a difference.

That was the only failure I have witnessed though. I think for anything but dangerous game, push feed works fine.

All but one of my Winchesters will let you chamber a round in the chamber directly (that one came screwed up in more than one way

). I have been loading rounds directly into the chamber for years, and have never had a problem. In any case, in non-magnum Winchesters your can put 5 rounds in the magazine.

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:14:37 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe the reason the .mil does not use controlled feed is two-fold:

1) They nearly all use the Remington 700 as a starting point. So by default...
2) Controlled feed must feed from the magazine, you can not drop a round in the action and chamber it properly.

I must disagree on point #2.. If the extractor is tuned properly you can feed single rounds into the chamber! Riding the extractor over the case rim, on bolt close.

Which is hard on the extractor, which will ultimately degrade reliability.

What part of "If the extractor is tuned properly" did you not understand?

The pre-64 Model 70 and the Ruger M77 MK II are both set up with a significant, radiused bevel at the front of the claw to allow the extractor to smoothly slide over the rim of a chambered cartridge. Correct CRF extractors are made of spring steel, properly annealed. MY M70 target rifle has had several hundreds of rounds fed directly into the chamber during prone slow fire. Extractor still works fine. The action dates from 1959, so there's no telling how many more rounds have been fed that way by previous owners.

CZs, OTOH, do not have that bevel and are NOT meant to ROUTINELY close over chambered cartridges. You can still do it in a pinch and the extractor will last a lifetime. Just don't make a practice of it.

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:18:05 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
The problem I have with CRF guns? They're CRF guns.

They're an excellent design. They work reliably, repeatably, etc.

But then you come down to the redundancy factor. What happens when you start to wear the receiver? Or damage it somehow? What happens when you get a tweaked feedlip, on those guns that are designed to use a detachable box of some sort?

It quits working. It spits a round out ahead of the bolt, and suddenly, you can't close the bolt. (And yes, I know you can 'tune' the gun to close on a loose round. But this is not how the majority of them are designed. You're essentially modifying the gun to work incorrectly.)

This, in my thinking, is the idea behind push feed for the military. Magazine, no magazine, single rounds, etc... You drop it in, you close the bolt. Gun goes boom. Military looks for lowest cost, and lowest common denominator. Joe can tear up anything, so they like it as simple (and inexpensive) as possible.

ETA: I do like CRF guns. I have a safe full of Enfields, 03s, and Mosins. But I also like my Remmys. They all have their pros and cons.

I don't see the point in yoiur arguments. There are thousands and thousands of war suprlus Mausers of German, Czech, American, and even Yugoslav manufacture that are still feeding exactly as they did when they left the works.

Paul Mauser designed his action so that the feed lips were machined as part of the receiver. Other, cheaper adaptations have sheetmetal feedlips. If the design is executed faithfully and without shortcuts, it will work reliably for virtually forever.

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:18:37 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Which is hard on the extractor, which will ultimately degrade reliability.

Didnt we do this dance once before?

I think you posted the last thread that discussed push vs controlled too.

So I'm pretty certain we have done this.

Want me to be honest:

If in a situation where I absolutely need to KNOW that the rounds will work when I need them, no matter which way I am facing, oriented or on what planet -- I will have a Merkel Double.

That way, if the first barrel doesn't go, the second one certainly will.

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:21:16 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
What part of "If the extractor is tuned properly" did you not understand?

The pre-64 Model 70 and the Ruger M77 MK II are both set up with a significant, radiused bevel at the front of the claw to allow the extractor to smoothly slide over the rim of a chambered cartridge. Correct CRF extractors are made of spring steel, properly annealed. MY M70 target rifle has had several hundreds of rounds fed directly into the chamber during prone slow fire. Extractor still works fine. The action dates from 1959, so there's no telling how many more rounds have been fed that way by previous owners.

CZs, OTOH, do not have that bevel and are NOT meant to ROUTINELY close over chambered cartridges. You can still do it in a pinch and the extractor will last a lifetime. Just don't make a practice of it.

So there was no absolute statement you made there -- some can, ~~some can't~~...some shouldn't be. They need to be "tuned" in order to do so.

Bottom line is you act like a dick, then say the same thing.

Good job!

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:24:24 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
True, but it's hard on the extracter. CRF is more reliable. Too many stories of push/spring extractors breaking at the wrong time. Not sure how Remington got so in tight on the sniper rifle angle, but I've got a Model 70 in .300 H&H that'll shoot .8 MOA all day long. Makes for a dandy sniper rifle right there.

Moot point for the .mil, Remmy is on their way out now, Knights is on the way in...

New spec calls for a semi, so that by nature basically means push feed...

P.S. IIRC, the USMC at one time used a Winchester M70 as the basis for their sniper weapon...

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:31:07 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
What part of "If the extractor is tuned properly" did you not understand?

The pre-64 Model 70 and the Ruger M77 MK II are both set up with a significant, radiused bevel at the front of the claw to allow the extractor to smoothly slide over the rim of a chambered cartridge. Correct CRF extractors are made of spring steel, properly annealed. MY M70 target rifle has had several hundreds of rounds fed directly into the chamber during prone slow fire. Extractor still works fine. The action dates from 1959, so there's no telling how many more rounds have been fed that way by previous owners.

CZs, OTOH, do not have that bevel and are NOT meant to ROUTINELY close over chambered cartridges. You can still do it in a pinch and the extractor will last a lifetime. Just don't make a practice of it.

So there was no absolute statement you made there -- some can, ~~some can't~~...some shouldn't be. They need to be "tuned" in order to do so.

Bottom line is you act like a dick, then say the same thing.

Good job!

The Winchester and Ruger extractors come set up FROM the factory to snap over the rim REPEATEDLY without causing any stress. They don't need any ADDITIONAL tuning. Even if an extractor doesn't come with a bevel, they will STILL snap over a chambered cartridge if the need arises WITHOUT damage, as long as it doesn't become a habit.

I've read your responses in other gun-related threads here, and it is YOU who is always a dick, running your mouth like you know everything.

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:32:49 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
True, but it's hard on the extracter. CRF is more reliable. Too many stories of push/spring extractors breaking at the wrong time. Not sure how Remington got so in tight on the sniper rifle angle, but I've got a Model 70 in .300 H&H that'll shoot .8 MOA all day long. Makes for a dandy sniper rifle right there.

Moot point for the .mil, Remmy is on their way out now, Knights is on the way in...

New spec calls for a semi, so that by nature basically means push feed...

P.S. IIRC, the USMC at one time used a Winchester M70 as the basis for their sniper weapon...

Are the Marines going to follow the Army on this, or go their own way?

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:36:31 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
The Winchester and Ruger extractors come set up FROM the factory to snap over the rim REPEATEDLY. They don't need any ADDITIONAL tuning. Even if an extractor doesn't come with a bevel, they will STILL snap over a chambered cartridge if the need arises WITHOUT damage.

I've read your responses in other gun-related threads here, and it is YOU who is always a dick, running your mouth like you know everything.

Spring steel, repeatedly articulating in as fashion it was not meant to, will utlimately suffer a degradation in reliability.

Why would you use a weapon in a fashion for which is was not designed?

I can also place a round in a 1911 chamber, drop the slide home and the extractor will pop over the rim of the case.

Repeated use in this fashion leads to premature wear on your extractor, ultimately leading to a reduction in extraction force -- potentially leading to reliability issues.

I won't mention the two Rugers returned for failed extractors, due to "improper" chambering of rounds. My best friend's and mine. It's OBVIOUSLY not germane to the discussion.

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:41:31 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Want me to be honest:

If in a situation where I absolutely need to KNOW that the rounds will work when I need them, no matter which way I am facing, oriented or on what planet -- I will have a Merkel Double.

That way, if the first barrel doesn't go, the second one certainly will.

LOL Me too! Its nice having a second shot at your finger tips!

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:45:19 AM EDT

[#28]

Anyone seen the G.A. Precision Mag/Rigby Rem 700 mod that incorporates an M16-style extractor on the stock Rem700 bolt?

Posted: 12/30/2005 10:50:16 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Anyone seen the G.A. Precision Mag/Rigby Rem 700 mod that incorporates an M16-style extractor on the stock Rem700 bolt?

www.gaprecision.net/images/boextr/1.jpg
www.gaprecision.net/images/boextr/3.jpg

I would be worried of a spring failure like what happens on the ar15 from time to time. Can ya get the D rubbers for it?

Looks just like a re hash of the Sako Extracor mod.

Posted: 12/30/2005 12:09:42 PM EDT

[#30]

CRF is installed so you can work the bolt while holding the rifle upside down.

The popular thinking for its use in a dangerous game rifle is that the bolt is always in control of the cartridge in case you short stroke the bolt. 'Course, by the time you recover you might be pink goo anyway.

Posted: 12/30/2005 12:36:34 PM EDT

[#31]

And there's a reason Winchester decided to start making the "Classic" Model 70 with the pre-64 bolt. 'Cause it's better. ;)

And the Weatherby Vanguard (which is a great rifle) uses a clone of the AR 15 bolt.

Posted: 12/30/2005 2:33:16 PM EDT

[#32]

Controlled feed is better, on push feeds, the damn thing jams faster the quicker you work the bolt!! I have had the jams but i've seen guys trying to work their bolts fast on push feeds that have lterally folded over the cartridge in half between the the bolt face and the breech trying to get a shot at a running deer!!!

There is a real reason behind both my hunting guns having Mauser Claws!!!!

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:01:16 PM EDT

[#33]

The cause of most injury or death to hunters is a double feed which disables the rifle and the hunter is mauled. The good CRF rifles which function properly eliminate this possibility (the double feed), it is an operator induced error but the cost can be high and it is easily avoided by useing a good CRF rifle. One may panick and short stroke the bolt, try to run, freeze up and/or do nothing or handle the situation well but this is a person problem and has nothing to do with the rifle. I like some of the PF rifles they are slick and smooth but I never, ever carry one in the Bush without carrying a Revolver also. I think it depends on where you are (not where you live), what kind of animals are in your area (have you ever felt threatened by a 100 lb Antelope

) and the climate (Mausers and pre 64 Model 70s love mud, ice, snow and brutal temps.)

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:18:06 PM EDT

[#34]

Here is how I see it.

Both actions have their merits and faults. That said, I prefer the controlled round feed.

For high-risk tactical shooting, when possibly under enemy observation, you don't want empty casings flying from your rifle. The push feed rifles in general don't allow for a shooter to let the casing pop out an inch from the rifle reliably. The controlled round feed does. This has more to do with the ejector than the extractor, but I'm just using the example of the Remington 700 vs. the Winchester 70.

For highpower shooters in the rapids, a bolt gun has got to cycle perfectly. I have seen on many occasions shooters using a push feed rifle ( M700 ) cycle the bolt quickly, and the ass end of the cartridge bounce out of the magazine lips, and hang halfway out the magazine well. This will kill your time in the highpower arena. All M70 users I've seen never have any problems with quick or slow bolt cycles.

As far as reliable feeding goes, yes, I would prefer a controlled feed rifle such as the Winchester 70. Lets face it - not too many people here single load their bolt rifles unless using handloads or some other reason. That argument gets mitigated. It doesn't take much effort to snap the round into the magazine. Pus, what happens when you drop a round into a 700, and then have to move the rifle suddenly for whatever reason? The round can fall out.

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:27:02 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
True, but it's hard on the extracter. CRF is more reliable. Too many stories of push/spring extractors breaking at the wrong time. Not sure how Remington got so in tight on the sniper rifle angle, but I've got a Model 70 in .300 H&H that'll shoot .8 MOA all day long. Makes for a dandy sniper rifle right there.

Moot point for the .mil, Remmy is on their way out now, Knights is on the way in...

New spec calls for a semi, so that by nature basically means push feed...

P.S. IIRC, the USMC at one time used a Winchester M70 as the basis for their sniper weapon...

Are the Marines going to follow the Army on this, or go their own way?

Own way for now, but they'll probably end up with the Mk11 (Another Knight's SR-25 product) or the new Army rifle eventually...

Basically, the reasoning was that the current environment requires fast engagement of multiple targets at closer ranges, something that a 20rd-mag semiautomatic handles better than a 5-rd bolt action... They came to the conclusion that a semi was much more suited to sniping in urban combat, and that there wasn't enough lost between the Knight's rifle and the M-24 to present 'issues' with more traditional employment...

Posted: 12/30/2005 7:50:18 PM EDT

[#36]

I never had single problem with my M70 PF., i have never shot a CRF.

Posted: 12/30/2005 8:00:32 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Repeated use in this fashion leads to premature wear on your extractor, ultimately leading to a reduction in extraction force -- potentially leading to reliability issues.

You can condescend as much as you want; but please explain why the 03 Springfield has such a design flaw that has its preferred method of operation as a single shot rifle.

Posted: 12/30/2005 8:12:20 PM EDT

[#38]

I was of the understanding that all things being equal a push feed is inhertely more accurate
more ridgid or something
there has to be a reason none of the really high accuracy guns are built on controled round feed guns

Posted: 12/30/2005 8:24:57 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I was of the understanding that all things being equal a push feed is inhertely more accurate
more ridgid or something
there has to be a reason none of the really high accuracy guns are built on controled round feed guns

More rigid? That has to to more with the metals and geometry construction than it does with feed type.

The reason the high-end guns are built on push feed designs is because a controlled round feed design offers less case ( at the ass end ) support than the push feed design, which in most cases completely encircles the head of the case.

However, to the best of my meager knowledge, it doesn't really matter as to the difference in case support, as long as the chamber is nice and tight and the headspace is correct.

That said, it is completely proven that a Winny action is more rigid than a Remmys.

Posted: 12/30/2005 8:34:11 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I was of the understanding that all things being equal a push feed is inhertely more accurate
more ridgid or something
there has to be a reason none of the really high accuracy guns are built on controled round feed guns

More rigid? That has to to more with the metals and geometry construction than it does with feed type.

The reason the high-end guns are built on push feed designs is because a controlled round feed design offers less case ( at the ass end ) support than the push feed design, which in most cases completely encircles the head of the case.

However, to the best of my meager knowledge, it doesn't really matter as to the difference in case support, as long as the chamber is nice and tight and the headspace is correct.

That said, it is completely proven that a Winny action is more rigid than a Remmys.

Ok the reason that comp/accuracy rifles are built on push feed is...

They use a push feed due to the rifle being shot in a single round dropped into the action method. On a control feed system the extractor when closed on a round that is hand fed into the chamber, bumps over the ass end of the round upsetting both the shooters mojo and maybe twisting the cartridge. This is pretty much it!