Discussion in 'Articles' started by Kawshik Rahman, Nov 18, 2019.
Yep! It sure would!
Very interesting! Not knowing anything about the Blaser rifles, are they all push feed actions? I see here on AH, many people think they’re the best rifle available, I just thought they were a CRF style action? Not that it really matters?
I find it interesting that my Sig Sauer p226 is a controlled round feed in the sense that as soon as the round is stripped from the magazine is is sliding under the extractor. Not much different than a Mauser.
Not that one would have trouble with half stroking the slide, but it’s neat how it slides up from underneath instead of the extractor having to snap over the rim.
Interesting? But unlike the Mauser, you could place a round in the chamber and the bolt would close on the round? Not that it makes any real world difference? But with a pistol, the real test is being able to load a magazine and chamber a round with your “weak” hand in a combat situation when your strong hand has become disabled? Takes some practice! Then try the same with your hunting rifle when your strong hand has been bitten by a black mamba and a Cape Buffalo is charging at you! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Yes, the extractor is spring loaded, but I’ve never felt the need to top off an 18 round mag after I chamber a round. And no, I see no real real world difference in that vs a push feed semi auto. It’s just interesting.
Interested in the opinion of @Montana Rifle Company on their ideas on this, I think the manufacturer would be definitive
The R8 is a push feed.
Co Elk Hunter
It would be my pleasure .
I will attempt to list them out below :
Push feed configuration :
One Remington model 700 , calibrated for .375 Holland and Holland magnum.
One Remington model 700 , calibrated for .458 Winchester magnum
One Remington model 700 , calibrated for .30-06 Springfield cartridge .
Two Winchester model 70 rifles , calibrated for the .458 Winchester magnum cartridge .
Two Winchester model 70 rifles , calibrated for the .308 Winchester cartridge .
One Weatherby rifle , calibrated for the .300 Weatherby magnum cartridge .
One Belgian Browning Hi Power rifle ( l understand that this is what you genltemen refer to , as FN mauser ) calibrated for the .458 Winchester Magnum cartridge.
. The trap door hatch on the under side of the rifle sprang open after the first shot was fired , making all the left over cartridges fall out on to the ground .
Control round feed configuration :
More than a dozen " custom " pieces made by gun-smiths using salvaged military surplus mauser mechanisms , with new barrels put on them .
The most feeding issues would occur with large calibre cartridges , such as .458 Winchester magnum and .375 Holland and Holland magnum .
Lets not forget "new kids in the block", after so detailed analysis of old mauser system.
(beating mauser to death, actually and forgetting new designs)
New kid in the CRF block is sako 85. Advertised by maker to be controlled round feed.
Short extractor, easy and (mechanically) safe "+1" option, bolt operation mimics mausers operation, in a way that linear action of bolt is sufficient to extract chambered round, without need for locking the bolt by turning. (it has to be turned and locked for firing, of course)
But.... there is no long mauser extractor and no wide extractors claw.
In my view for better part of cartridge travel to the chamber it is still on push feed.
So, can it be described as CRF or not, in your view - especially in a perspective of DG hunt requirements?
Photo of bolt head from internet.
Another question: is there any other rifle on the market, CRF of non-mauser type, worthy of consideration?
Your level of foresight regarding human behavior is most impressive. It ended up just the way you predicted.
Winchester made what they called a controlled round push feed for a few years. It had the standard push feed extractor, but the bottom of bolt head was not enclosed allowing it to act like a controlled round feed. It was very similar to Sako, but the Sako extractor is better.
I don’t think they made very many like that.
I’m surprised it hasn’t come up yet so I will bring it up. One of the main advantages of a push feed is the enclosed bolt head. It make it safer for the shooter when he has a catastrophic failure, such as a case head separation or a plugged barrel or something.
If I were to have one of those failures happen I would rather have it happen while I’m holding a Remington 7oo than my pre 64 M70
Thank you so much Kawshik!
Thanks! Didn’t know that?
This is a screenshot off the internet of the above described “controlled round push feed”
It is push feed and it works with absolute reliability. The design allows the cartridges in the magazine to align exactly with the bore. The rear of the bullet is inclosed by the bolt head as it exits the magazine. I haven’t tried it, but I am confident you could operate it without a bobble hanging upside down in a sandstorm.
From a dangerous game perspective, the rifle’s short action gives you three inches more or less barrel length depending upon preference for the overall length of the rifle. And where a second shot is needed on either an exiting (most likely) or inbound animal, nothing but a double is quicker from the shoulder while maintaining target acquisition. Setting aside the fabulous ergonomics, trigger, and transportability of the R8, that latter attribute of being able to quickly and accurately “double tap” a still functioning duga boy is far more important to me than any traditional perceived advantage of CRF.
And look, I own and shoot a lot of ‘98 based designs. I love them. I have killed a bunch of African game with them. My Rigby .275 is my constant deer hunting companion these days. But only one of my doubles is as fast for a second aimed shot (and I deliberately used the term “as fast” rather than “faster”).
Somehow all of those attributes (or of any other push feed design) need to be also considered in weighing the value of that long extractor.
Thanks for posting the pic Wyatt. Your comment on the Sako extractor being superior is spot on. I believe it would be difficult to identify an extractor with a worse design than the one shown, CRF or PF.
Thank you for explaining this. I’ve never seen one in person since the early 90s (maybe?) at a Sportsmans Expo. Next time I see one I’ll check it out! Thanks!
Does controlled round feeding (CRF) require a Mauser-style external claw extractor?
To address the question prompted by Wyatt Smith in regard to the Winchester "Controlled Round Push Feed" design (circa late 2000's if memory serves?) and mark-hunter regarding the Sako 85, let us continue our discussion - with the full acknowledgment that its interest is more academic than it is practical, because darn few of us are going to rush to replace our battery regardless of which conclusion we draw from our virtual fireside electronic discussion...
What defines controlled round feeding is NOT the SHAPE ("claw", "C clip", etc.) NOR the LOCATION ("external" to the bolt, "internal" to the bolt head, nested in the lug, etc.) of the extractor, it is the FUNCTION of the extractor. The one question that defines controlled round feeding is simple: does the bolt & extractor CARRY the round into the chamber?
If the answer is yes, the rifle is a controlled round feeding (CRF) rifle, REGARDLESS of whether or not it has a Mauser-style external claw extractor. For example, my Steyr Mannlicher Luxus rifle (circa 1970's) IS a CRF rifle despite looking anything like a Mauser rifle:
This is because the bolt on this generation of Steyr Mannlicher Luxus (not true in later generations) CARRIES the round from the magazine into the chamber, i.e. it "controls" the feeding of the round:
And it does this because the bolt has three characteristics:
It has a cut-out at the bottom of the bolt head in order to allow the cartridge to slide under the extractor as the cartridge comes out of the magazine;
It has an extractor wide enough and tensioned enough to secure and hold the cartridge as it comes out of the magazine;
It does not have a spring-loaded ejector protuberating from the bolt that would prevent the cartridge from sliding under the extractor, and that would prevent the extractor from holding the cartridge.
Notice how the Steyr bolt above, and the Sako 85 and the Winchester bolts (below) illustrated by Wyatt Smith and mark-hunter offer the same characteristics and perform the same function, even though each of the three features a distinct engineering solution, all three different from the Mauser engineering, to accomplish the same function:
So, the answer to the question is "no". Controlled round feeding does NOT require an external Mauser-style claw extractor
As to whether Winchester clarified or muddied the issue by calling their design "Controlled Round Push Feed," everyone will have their own opinion. It seems to me that, by definition, any bolt "pushes" the cartridge forward, whether it controls it or not
As to "one of the main advantages of a push feed (being) the enclosed bolt head" as questions wisely Wyatt Smith, I submit to the readers' consideration that this is a legend born of Remington's clever "3 rings of steel" marketing, when they had to come up with a rationale for their design, which would not simply acknowledge a cost-cutting focus...
As illustrated in the following cut-out picture, in reality, where a push-feed (PF) bolt head fully encloses the cartridge head, is where it is the least likely to rupture, below the powder chamber, around the rim, itself separated by a lot of case material from the primer pocket:
I personally suspect that a CRF or PF bolt head is not going to make much of a difference one way or the other in case of cartridge casing rupture. Where and how the jet gases resulting from a ruptured case are redirected away from the shooter's face and hand is likely much more important (another issue about which the Mauser design shines, but this is for another thread ).
Thanks for clearing it up @One Day...
Separate names with a comma.