CRF again?

this is a guess. this is only a guess. if this were an actual fact, i would know what i am talking about.

my GUESS is that CRF/mausers were origonally battle rifles, which, by necessity, had chambers which were a bit "loose" in order to have a wide tolerance for inevitable variations in ammunition.

push-feed rifles, if i am correct, were built for hunting/competition, and were designed around tighter specifications which were existant because of the industry standards for factory and handloaded ammunition.

since a tighter chamber seems to lead to greater accuracy, perhaps the push-feed rifles gained a reputation as being more accurate.

as i said, this is only a guess. if it is the case, however, it seems to me that modern, commercial mausers are most likely as good as pushfeeds.


Edited by TasunkaWitko

Push feeds generally permit the round to self-center, so in theory the case is more consistent in the chamber.  CRFs force the case into the chamber at a fixed position and can be out of round/center.

For hunting accuracy it really doesn't matter.  Some push feeds will out shoot CRF, some hunting CRF will out shoot other push feeds.  I suspect the barrel and the bedding are significantly more important IN HUNTING RIFLES. 

Most target and bench rifles are push feed, because the shooter want every last inch of accuracy.

Push feeds are less jamming. But the quality of the respective rifle is more important than the action type.  The more things that must be in tight tolerance the more likely it will jam, ie the reputation of CRFs to jam is a big function of the quality of the manufacture: rails that fit the cartridge perfectly.  The pre-war Mauser's were very finely made and seldom jammed.  the late war models were not as finely fitted.  the Model 70 was a production gun and had problems.

The Push feeds are much easier to manufacture jam free; look to the M1 Garand, Weatherby, Sako, etc.

Disadvantages of the CRF is it is not made to have a shell loaded into the chamber which most all hunters do.  The extractor must jump over the case head, and most were not made to do this.  Some CRF, like the Mauser had the spring on the extractor made so you could push inward on it in a midpoint and that would release the spring pressure so the shell could safely be forced over the case head.  Problem is few American shooters of CRF ever even heard of such a thing much less know how to do it.  I see guys at the range single feed CRF guns all the time.  That is another reason for the less accuracy reputation of the CRF.  When the shell is single fed incorrectly the force to get the extractor to jump actually pushes the case very hard into the chamber, when a magazine round is chambered next the case is held back against the bolt head.  This results in slightly different headspace on the mag fed shells...again inconsistencies.  Some extractors have a slight bevel to held on this function.  Look to an '03 Springfield to see this.  But that practice of beveling the extractor was said to weaken it...go figure.

The only advantage of the CRF is most of them can be cycled up-side-down.  If that is significant to you then a CRF is the way to go.  Push feeds can be short stroked (only and idiot would do it).  This means that if you cycle the action and change your mind as the case is half-way into the chamber; and then reverse the bolt movement rearward all the way; the bolt may pick up another round and if you then try to push forward again the second round will naturally hit the first as you are trying to put two shells in at the same stroke.  Maybe this is a safety feature, anyone that would do that shouldn't be able to shoot any gun.

Just thoughts of an old CRF repair man.

BEAR

KP,

Seien Sie sehr vorsichtiges Hören auf Deutsche

HERR BEAR

Several of my questions in this whole thing are:

1. How many of you have ever needed to cycle a rifle in an inverted position?

2. How many of you have ever tried to cycle a rifle in an inverted position?

3. (If you have, you'd recognize the awkwardness of that process.) And have you ever timed the action of trying to cycle a rifle in an inverted position VS rolling it over and cycling it normally?

Personally I like the great big hunk of metal that a claw extractor provides. I would think it would withstand the needs of pulling a stuck case better than a push feed extractor. I can see where hunting in extreme heat might raise the pressures of a favorite cold weather load to the point where cases might stick. (read dangerous game safari between the lines here. Perhaps this is where the myth originated that you need a claw extractor CRF for dangerous game.) That being said, it's a pain in the ass to have to load, even single shots at the range, into the magazine every time I want to shoot my Mauser. In fact, it's my only complaint about the gun.

If any of you are reloading to the point where you need a claw extractor to pull cases perhaps you should reevaluate your load development process. Otherwise I think this CRF vs push feed arguement is just so much bunk. Our time would be much better spent arguing over the merits of the relative accuracy of Savages over Remingtons. RD  

 The advantage isn't soley from a inverted position, thats a sarcastic example that seems to have taken hold. Whether or not the "claw" was designed soley for extraction doesn't change the fact the crf does feed differently. That difference may not and probably will not ever make much of a difference to any member of this board. I don't buy the only a idiot will short stroke a action. And the crf does offer a advantage here as well.  And perhaps the biggest reason people choose a crf action is that it's  simply the classic action  for nice hunting rifles. Trivial but true and I'm guilty. If I choose to spend a considerable amount of cash on a nice project for hunting it will always be a crf. That being said my go to rifle is a ugly, synthetic, push feed colt light rifle that's bone stock, go figure.

I agree with Rob1, I like the looks of a claw extractor better. I like the mechanicalness (if thats a word) of mechanical things. I prefer to look at something and see how it works rather than to look at something and wonder what is inside that makes it work.

Wing master

rob - have you still got the link to that article which really showcased the difference?

TasunkaWitko wrote: this is a guess. this is only a guess. if this were an actual fact, i would know what i am talking about. my GUESS is that CRF/mausers were origonally battle rifles, which, by necessity, had chambers which were a bit "loose" in order to have a wide tolerance for inevitable variations in ammunition. push-feed rifles, if i am correct, were built for hunting/competition, and were designed around tighter specifications which were existant because of the industry standards for factory and handloaded ammunition. since a tighter chamber seems to lead to greater accuracy, perhaps the push-feed rifles gained a reputation as being more accurate. as i said, this is only a guess. if it is the case, however, it seems to me that modern, commercial mausers are most likely as good as pushfeeds.

 

A couple of things Ron, while the controlled round feed was originally a battle rifle the primary reason was to lessen the chance of a round being jammed during the heat of battle when a soldier was under great stress.  On the other hand CRF requires a lot of hand fitting whereas push feed lends itself to mass production better.  Also actions such as the Remington are very easy to modify, one reason military sniper rifles are based on them.

How the round gets from the magazine to the chamber is mental masturbation for the most part and for the majority of riflemen they don't care nor should they.