The old crf vs prf debate....

[Ray B]

The experience that I have with both CRF & PF are from actual hunts but they were for elk, hardly a situation involving a charging lion or cape buffalo; but for whatever they are worth:

1. PF first year issued Remington 700 308. It was only a year or two old when my cousin was using it. He was unloading the rifle when he returned to camp. The ADL model had a blind magazine so he was cycling the rounds through the action. The last round was pushed into the chamber but the extractor didn't snap over the rim. He worked the bolt a few times, so thinking the rifle was empty, pointed it into the air and snapped the trigger. To everyone's surprise, the rifle fired. A CRF would have effected the cartridge without the need to completely chamber it so the extractor could snap over the rim.

2. CRF '98 Mauser (uncertain which specific factory). My uncle had this rifle and went to load a cartridge directly into the chamber (rather than into the magazine). The bolt pushed the cartridge into the chamber but there was insufficient clearance for the extractor to snap over the rim so the bolt wouldn't close. My uncle had to use a cleaning rod to knock the cartridge out of the chamber. He then snapped it down into the magazine and pushed the bolt forward. the cartridge snapped up with the rim behind the extractor and it closed easily. I have read about some '98s being machined to such tight tolerances, but I've also read that most gunsmiths and factories trim the extractor down so that it will snap over a cartridge chambered ahead of it.

As noted, neither of these were life and death situations, but they could have been, so it is something to consider when choosing a rifle or your loading technique for a DG hunt.

 

[IvW]

I know it has been debated endlessly. What is your experience?

Pushfeeds inability on more than one action type to eject a unfired round. It extracts the round but cannot eject it out of the action.

Small weak extractor claw, slipping off the case rim on more than one 458 WM in the Valley with high temps, leaving the client with a bat in his hands and forcing me to intervene when it would not have been necessary had they been using a CRF rifle with a proper extractor claw.

The main issue with push feed actions arises from the extraction process rather than the feeding process.

The extractor claw is just too small and the spring is just not designed to eject a fully loaded cartridge. A proper CRF action will eject even a fully loaded round clear of the action.

If the ejection spring is even slightly weak it means problems.

Having to tilt the action to get rid of a round or cartridge just does not do it for me on a DG rifle.

Weatherby's I have seen used with factory ammo fail to extract on more than one occasion in calibers, 460, 340 and 416.

Remington M700 broken extractor claws, 375 and 416, they are just too small for the job.

Ruger M77, jams many times and fail to eject when operated at speed in calibers 458, 416 and a rechambered one to 458 Lott.

Compare the size of the extractor claws below.

It has to be mention that some CRF actions also give problems due to bad design.

 

[IvW]

This is a very interesting topic for me and my comments are for M70 CRF actions only. The majority of my hunting rifles are M70 Controlled Round Feed actions and they make the most since to me. They positively control the round both in feeding from the magazine and extraction.

In a dangerous situation you have the ability to rapidly drop a round directly in the action and close the bolt snapping the extractor over the rim of the case like a PF.

This isn’t the best practice but could save your a$$. There is much debate over this feature even from those keyboard operators at Winchester. There are good reasons for the Winchester CRF actions popularity.

To be quite honest that is a very poor reason or excuse to want a DG rifle with a push feed action.

Take a old BRNO ZKK or CZ if you have to. In 375 H&H it takes 5 in the mag and one in the chamber, my 500 Jeff on a ZKK 602 action takes 3 in the mag and one in the chamber. If you cannot sort out what you have to with that and feel the need to have the ability to drop one on top of the mag "in a dangerous" situation, you should probably not be hunting DG to start with.

If you do get to the dire straights with a CRF action you could do this and it will work although you may damage the extractor but truly if you could not sort out the issue with 6 x 375 H&H rounds, 5 x 458 rounds or 4 x 500 Jeff, you should rather change to hunting with a bow from a blind and leave the DG hunting on foot with a rifle to somebody who can shoot a bit better.

 

[IvW]

As mentioned earlier, when reading about the differences and considering the mechanical aspects logic leans toward CRF. I've only owned close to 20 different centerfire rifles in my 64 years and the majority of the time a PRF was in my hands.
Having been a lifelong WV resident hasn't put me in a "dangerous game" mindset . Reading this website has caused me to ask the question where I previously didn't know there was a question to be asked. My only FTF issues came on two rifles and they were the Ruger 77 (and my brother-in-law's Ruger 77) and my Kimber Montana.........all 3 CRF.
These may have been side rail or magazine well issues. I really should find the problem with my Kimber, just haven't taken the time.
At any rate I would like to see what the more experienced have to say and to see if anyone knows of sources of statistics that relates to occurrences of mechanical failure that has lead to, or could have lead to "unfortunate / unfavorable endings."

A M77 is a poor choice as a DG rifle rather find a Mauser actioned or a ZKK 602 Brno for back up work on DG.

 

[Rule 303]

I would like to ask one question.

Controlled feed actions:
Do they count only as mauser 98 type actions (and clones) with long mauser extractor, or do you guys could consider some other types as well?

For example, sako 85 is advertised as CRF, and in my opinion is mix between CRF and PRF?

So what do you guys consider a CRF, apart of maser 98 clones? Are there any other non-98 examples, or no other types at all?

I consider CRF to be what I describe earlier. The others are part CRF part Push feed. Take the SMLE. The rim slips up under the extractor as it clears the magazine lips or just on clearing, as far as I can tell.

Just a side note. Rotating extractors do wear and this can lead to them jumping rims, breaking etc. The Rem 700 extractor has as much grip area as the sako does-measured them- but the Rem bites into the rim to stop it jumping the rim. If it jumps the rim it is worn. I have seen a rem extractor pull through a rim. This be what they are designed to do if the cartridge is well and truly stuck. This is why the wider extractor claw of the Mauser design is better in my opinion. Less likely to put through the rim.

 

[Bas]

A M77 is a poor choice as a DG rifle rather find a Mauser actioned or a ZKK 602 Brno for back up work on DG.

Thanks for your input, Bob

 

[Bas]

Longtime Field & Stream gun writer Dave Petzal made a short video on this subject:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/blog...deo-controlled-feed-vs-push-feed-bolt-actions

Thanks for your help, Bob

 

[Bas]

In my experience that is bull. Most CRF types I know can't wait to justify why CRF.

I have said it before and will keep saying it till the day I die CRF are fallible just like any other feed just less so. After my early experience in the shooting game with CRF I would not spit on them for 20 years. Several friends had CRF rifles and they stuffed up more than the first two rifles I bought, a Win 94 and Rem 700. Along with others I saw at the range there were fail to feed, fail to extract and double feeds. Took awhile but I latter learnt most of these were due to poor time of the bolt/extractor and mag problems.

I have had an M17 where the extractor would jump over the rim if there was the slightest bit of resistance in the extraction. Replaced extractor, no more problem. I have had a rem do the same thing, replaced the extractor, no more problem. I have had two Rem 788's where the Cir clip of the extractor was broken but they stayed in place and extracted. Took me awhile to figure out why a case would drop out into the action every now and again.

To me the extra width of the extractor claw on the M98 and its derivatives is what help ensures the more reliable extraction.

BAS CRF is where the rim of the case is picked up by the extractor as the case is coming up from the magazine. The rim of the case should be engaged by the extractor before the case has cleared the magazine to be a true CRF.

Thank you, Bob

 

[Bas]

don't know that rifle. somebody here does tho!

It was the US Army weapon before the .30-06 was adopted.

 

[Bas]

Pushfeeds inability on more than one action type to eject a unfired round. It extracts the round but cannot eject it out of the action.

Small weak extractor claw, slipping off the case rim on more than one 458 WM in the Valley with high temps, leaving the client with a bat in his hands and forcing me to intervene when it would not have been necessary had they been using a CRF rifle with a proper extractor claw.

The main issue with push feed actions arises from the extraction process rather than the feeding process.

The extractor claw is just too small and the spring is just not designed to eject a fully loaded cartridge. A proper CRF action will eject even a fully loaded round clear of the action.

If the ejection spring is even slightly weak it means problems.

Having to tilt the action to get rid of a round or cartridge just does not do it for me on a DG rifle.

Weatherby's I have seen used with factory ammo fail to extract on more than one occasion in calibers, 460, 340 and 416.

Remington M700 broken extractor claws, 375 and 416, they are just too small for the job.

Ruger M77, jams many times and fail to eject when operated at speed in calibers 458, 416 and a rechambered one to 458 Lott.

Compare the size of the extractor claws below.

It has to be mention that some CRF actions also give problems due to bad design.

Very informative, appreciate your time and help , Bob

 

[Hank2211]

In my experience that is bull. Most CRF types I know can't wait to justify why CRF.

I have said it before and will keep saying it till the day I die CRF are fallible just like any other feed just less so. After my early experience in the shooting game with CRF I would not spit on them for 20 years. Several friends had CRF rifles and they stuffed up more than the first two rifles I bought, a Win 94 and Rem 700. Along with others I saw at the range there were fail to feed, fail to extract and double feeds. Took awhile but I latter learnt most of these were due to poor time of the bolt/extractor and mag problems.

I have had an M17 where the extractor would jump over the rim if there was the slightest bit of resistance in the extraction. Replaced extractor, no more problem. I have had a rem do the same thing, replaced the extractor, no more problem. I have had two Rem 788's where the Cir clip of the extractor was broken but they stayed in place and extracted. Took me awhile to figure out why a case would drop out into the action every now and again.

To me the extra width of the extractor claw on the M98 and its derivatives is what help ensures the more reliable extraction.

BAS CRF is where the rim of the case is picked up by the extractor as the case is coming up from the magazine. The rim of the case should be engaged by the extractor before the case has cleared the magazine to be a true CRF.

Exactly what part of my post is "bull"? My opinion that I've never felt the need to justify my choice of controlled feed to anyone? I assure you, this is not bull. I really feel that way. Even if I didn't, I'm not sure how you would know it was bull.

Maybe it's the part where I say that I've never heard anyone justify crf, but lots justify prf. I guess you know that could be bull, because you've likely heard every conversation I've ever had on the subject, or more likely, you think I'm listening in on those which you have. Either way, you are wrong.

My "Bose" theory? Guess what, it really is a theory, and it really is mine, and I really did hear the conversation on the airplane. So that can't be the bull part.

So what's left? The fact that your view is different than mine and, rather than just disagree with me, as anyone is entitled to do, you decide that my post is "bull."

Well, just to be clear, in case there is any doubt in your mnd, I give what comes out of the back of the bull about what you think of my opinion.

 

[Bas]

E


Exactly what part of my post is "bull"? My opinion that I've never felt the need to justify my choice of controlled feed to anyone? I assure you, this is not bull. I really feel that way. Even if I didn't, I'm not sure how you would know it was bull.

Maybe it's the part where I say that I've never heard anyone justify crf, but lots justify prf. I guess you know that could be bull, because you've likely heard every conversation I've ever had on the subject, or more likely, you think I'm listening in on those which you have. Either way, you are wrong.

My "Bose" theory? Guess what, it really is a theory, and it really is mine, and I really did hear the conversation on the airplane. So that can't be the bull part.

So what's left? The fact that your view is different than mine and, rather than just disagree with me, as anyone is entitled to do, you decide that my post is "bull."

Well, just to be clear, in case there is any doubt in your mnd, I give what comes out of the back of the bull about what you think of my opinion.

Please guys, nothing to bicker over , just a gathering of each person's experience and opinions. I'm grateful to receive information from everyone's perspective, no two individuals have had exactly the same backgrounds and hardware, so let's find out what we can share as well as learn.

Thanks, Bob

 

[Hank2211]

Please guys, nothing to bicker over , just a gathering of each person's experience and opinions. I'm grateful to receive information from everyone's perspective, no two individuals have had exactly the same backgrounds and hardware, so let's find out what we can share as well as learn.

Thanks, Bob

Sorry Bob. Nothing to do with you. Just tired of a certain style of discourse. Most people wait to know me a bit before they insult me.

 

[Rule 303]

The

Exactly what part of my post is "bull"? My opinion that I've never felt the need to justify my choice of controlled feed to anyone? I assure you, this is not bull. I really feel that way. Even if I didn't, I'm not sure how you would know it was bull.

Maybe it's the part where I say that I've never heard anyone justify crf, but lots justify prf. I guess you know that could be bull, because you've likely heard every conversation I've ever had on the subject, or more likely, you think I'm listening in on those which you have. Either way, you are wrong.

My "Bose" theory? Guess what, it really is a theory, and it really is mine, and I really did hear the conversation on the airplane. So that can't be the bull part.

So what's left? The fact that your view is different than mine and, rather than just disagree with me, as anyone is entitled to do, you decide that my post is "bull."

Well, just to be clear, in case there is any doubt in your mnd, I give what comes out of the back of the bull about what you think of my opinion.

Sorry, thought I made that clear with what I wrote straight after I said Bull. The part about CRF owners not feeling the need to justify why CRF. to quote " You will never hear a person with a controlled feed action defending why he bought that action". That part is out right bulldust. You hear and read it all the time. Most I know, as I said can't wait to justify why CRF. I did not in any way say "You" I said "most that I know". Fairly straight forward I would think. Now if you want to get your knickers in a knot over something you said that is said as a definite maybe reconsider what you say. Should add here that yes I am as guilty as anybody of doing this at times.

As to the rest of your post I thought it had merit.

 

[Eric Anderson]

I guess i’ll Throw my 2 cents in.
I only own 2 CRF actions, a 1903 and a Ruger M77 mrk II.
For 90% of my hunting needs, I grab my Carl Gustaf 30-06 which is a PRF.
I have never had a failure to extract or eject either of my CRF rifles, and have only had one PRF give me issues, an AR-10.
The AR-10 was extracting but not ejecting. I ended up solving the problem by supergluing a nylon washer to the back of the buffer. The bolt was traveling way to far to the rear, and the spent casing was hitting the ejection port right next to the neck of the cartridge and bouncing back in.
Not convinced a CRF could have ejected a spent cartridge through that geometry either.

I have read lots of stories on this site about cases getting stuck in hot weather.
Do Americans not test their rifle and ammunition before heading to Africa? It’s 98 degrees out right now, leave your ammunition out in the sun for 15 minutes and it will get to Africa Hot. Unless you live in Alaska, you can test your ammunition in the summer rather easily.

Are these European Hunters?

 

[CTDolan]

Pushfeeds inability on more than one action type to eject a unfired round. It extracts the round but cannot eject it out of the action.

Small weak extractor claw, slipping off the case rim on more than one 458 WM in the Valley with high temps, leaving the client with a bat in his hands and forcing me to intervene when it would not have been necessary had they been using a CRF rifle with a proper extractor claw.

The main issue with push feed actions arises from the extraction process rather than the feeding process.

The extractor claw is just too small and the spring is just not designed to eject a fully loaded cartridge. A proper CRF action will eject even a fully loaded round clear of the action.

If the ejection spring is even slightly weak it means problems.

Having to tilt the action to get rid of a round or cartridge just does not do it for me on a DG rifle.

Weatherby's I have seen used with factory ammo fail to extract on more than one occasion in calibers, 460, 340 and 416.

Remington M700 broken extractor claws, 375 and 416, they are just too small for the job.

Ruger M77, jams many times and fail to eject when operated at speed in calibers 458, 416 and a rechambered one to 458 Lott.

Compare the size of the extractor claws below.

It has to be mention that some CRF actions also give problems due to bad design.

Bingo.

 

[CTDolan]

The experience that I have with both CRF & PF are from actual hunts but they were for elk, hardly a situation involving a charging lion or cape buffalo; but for whatever they are worth:

1. PF first year issued Remington 700 308. It was only a year or two old when my cousin was using it. He was unloading the rifle when he returned to camp. The ADL model had a blind magazine so he was cycling the rounds through the action. The last round was pushed into the chamber but the extractor didn't snap over the rim. He worked the bolt a few times, so thinking the rifle was empty, pointed it into the air and snapped the trigger. To everyone's surprise, the rifle fired. A CRF would have effected the cartridge without the need to completely chamber it so the extractor could snap over the rim.

2. CRF '98 Mauser (uncertain which specific factory). My uncle had this rifle and went to load a cartridge directly into the chamber (rather than into the magazine). The bolt pushed the cartridge into the chamber but there was insufficient clearance for the extractor to snap over the rim so the bolt wouldn't close. My uncle had to use a cleaning rod to knock the cartridge out of the chamber. He then snapped it down into the magazine and pushed the bolt forward. the cartridge snapped up with the rim behind the extractor and it closed easily. I have read about some '98s being machined to such tight tolerances, but I've also read that most gunsmiths and factories trim the extractor down so that it will snap over a cartridge chambered ahead of it.

As noted, neither of these were life and death situations, but they could have been, so it is something to consider when choosing a rifle or your loading technique for a DG hunt.

The M98 is designed such that the extractor will not snap over an already chambered cartridge because Mauser wanted certainty with regard to extraction (further, the extractor is designed such that, as the bolt attempts to extract a case, the extractor takes an even firmer bite).

Push feed rifles often feed more easily than controlled feed rifles. This is because the cartridge basically floats into the chamber. But, as mentioned by @IvW , extraction/ejection is equally as important and this is where a push feed is more prone to fail.

 

[MS Hitman]

Say what you want to about a PRF not making a good DG rifle, but some of the most dangerous game in the world has been hunted by military and police snipers using a Remington 700 platform.

 

[IvW]

Say what you want to about a PRF not making a good DG rifle, but some of the most dangerous game in the world has been hunted by military and police snipers using a Remington 700 platform.

We are not talking sniping here but rather hunting which may include DG.

The Remington Model 700 is probably one of the worse platforms to use as a DG rifle or even a African PG rifle.

 

[Rule 303]

We are not talking sniping here but rather hunting which may include DG.

The Remington Model 700 is probably one of the worse platforms to use as a DG rifle or even a African PG rifle.

Maybe, but all current military rifles, assault rifles, machine guns are push feed and the military do go after the most dangerous of animals...Man.

I would like to know why you consider the M700 to be one of the worst platforms for hunting.