Who makes a good CRF builders action these days?

[Rifleman97]

I'm frustrated that people are interested in "yelling loud enough". They offered it for years, it didn't sell. They never sell, that's why few people make one. While we're ranting how do you jump from a $1700 action to a Ruger American for comparison. Winchesters are not made well enough to build a quality custom off of without several hundred in machining anyway so nobody will buy them either.

It definitely sold, probably just not well. But the thing with customs is, they already had the capability to do it, and you could pay extra to make any action CRF with full length extractor. What they did is they removed the option. They didn’t need to keep a bunch of them in stock, they’re made to order anyway outside of a few models they batch out for midway and similar. I don’t see the harm in having it as an option since they are made to order. If someone doesn’t order it, they don’t make it. They don’t need to remove the option. It doesn’t hurt them in any way to have the option, since if no one orders any it’s not like they’re all of a sudden sitting on a stockpile of unsellable actions. At worst they sit on a stockpile of a few hundred dollars worth of extractor claws.

But anyways, at least they have a CRF option that I did not know about at the time of the posting. When I was searching then I found a post from a couple years ago saying how they were permanently discontinuing them and one guy bought a crap ton of CRF deviant hunters to build custom rifles with for his customers, not knowing what he would use when he ran out.

Winchesters used to be built well enough to build off of with only some trueing needed. After watching desert dogs video today I stopped by my local gun store and was saddened to see several Winchesters like he and you describe. Obvious machining marks, poor crowns, sloppy bolt, even some blotchy blueing on the floor plate on one. So I rescind my ask for Winchester to offer a builders action unless they fix their crap in Portugal and start making quality products again.

 

[Wyfox]

I'm frustrated that people are interested in "yelling loud enough". They offered it for years, it didn't sell. They never sell, that's why few people make one. While we're ranting how do you jump from a $1700 action to a Ruger American for comparison. Winchesters are not made well enough to build a quality custom off of without several hundred in machining anyway so nobody will buy them either.

I don't believe that is why they discontinued it. Defiance was ran into the red on a bad business model. They were bought by Bob and they had to restructure, discontinue models, raise prices, etc. The cost and time to build the CRF was prob the deciding factor since they were building per order and not inventory. I know for fact they were losing money on many of their actions before the buyout, this was the reason for the dramatic price increase after. They have obviously redesigned the CRF based on customer/builder feedback, and prob machine time.

 

[Choupique]

They don’t need to remove the option. It doesn’t hurt them in any way to have the option

In terms of profits and losses, it probably does. It costs money to maintain the supplies and tooling and knowledge on staff to make stuff. They have to turn a profit. If your widgets arent selling at the price it takes to make a profit, you gotta find a different widget to sell.

The reality is that Americans buy more hunting rifles than anyone else by far, and Americans like cheap. If it can be cheaper and accurate, so much the better.

 

[RedTag]

I think the whole controlled round feed versus push feed debate is mostly blown out proportion. I prefer controlled round feed in general principle but have honestly never had a problem with any of my push feed rifles. To split hairs, the debate ought to be framed around extraction rather than feeding. Neither design, property executed, is likely to have any problems with feeding. The claw extractor is arguably less likely to experience any failures of extraction.
The trigger system is a bigger issue for me. Most of the few current offerings with controlled round feed happen to feature enclosed trigger assemblies. These type of triggers, while easy to adjust and great on the target range, simply can’t be considered as robust as the open trigger designs found on the original Mauser, Springfield, and Winchester rifles.
Case in point, given the choice between a post ‘64 push feed M70 with the open trigger versus a newer FN model with CRF and enclosed MOA trigger, I’d actually prefer the push feed with open trigger. That being said, I would ideally prefer a pre ‘64 Winchester over any later iterations.
Back to the original question, I think the dearth of CRF options exemplifies how the industry has shifted from hand fitted quality to mass production profitability, but this is, of course, old news.
As far as the “no one bought them” narrative goes, I think that plays into the industry striving to sell more cheaply made products at higher prices. Every thing ever made was sold. It’s not like there are thousands of brand new pre ‘64 Winchester rifles and fixed power Leupold scopes sitting in stores and warehouses because no one ever bought them. We bought all of them. The manufacturers decided they needed to cut costs to increase profit and maintain competitiveness, all the while advertising their transgressions as innovations. The people knew no better, and here we are.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I think Montana Rifle Company will sell CRF actions

 

[Javaman]

I have built two (2) .300 WM plains game/deer/elk rifles on Zermatt SR3 actions and have found them to be smooth feeding with never an extraction problem. I’ve also built a .375 H&H DG/PG rifle on the Zermatt SR3 action and it performed flawlessly. Zermatt customer support is excellent. All three built using the “Remage” system with a barrel nut - easy peasy. I try to be precise when I’m reloading for these rifles, which I’m sure contributes to the smooth function. BUT, my experience is these rifles are all “systems” that are a sum of their parts, of which the action is only one part. Any of these rifles needed the right barrel (Shilen), stock (bedded Manners), trigger that I like (TriggerTech), good recoil pad (Decelerator) installed to proper length of pull, etc. to work in harmony to yield the results we are looking for. Each rifle was a journey.

For Factory, I have a Model 70 in .375 H&H and also in .416RM which I hand-load for. Both have taken DG and PG without a hitch and I’ve not needed to look further for an excellent performer.

Caliber aside, which do I prefer for DG? The Model 70’s with wood stocks because they are quieter in the bush.

 

[Rifleman97]

I don't believe that is why they discontinued it. Defiance was ran into the red on a bad business model. They were bought by Bob and they had to restructure, discontinue models, raise prices, etc. The cost and time to build the CRF was prob the deciding factor since they were building per order and not inventory. I know for fact they were losing money on many of their actions before the buyout, this was the reason for the dramatic price increase after. They have obviously redesigned the CRF based on customer/builder feedback, and prob machine time.

Bingo, the problem wasn’t that it’s selling, the problem was they weren’t charging enough. It’s only really a negative if you can’t charge enough to make it worthwhile.

I think the whole controlled round feed versus push feed debate is mostly blown out proportion. I prefer controlled round feed in general principle but have honestly never had a problem with any of my push feed rifles. To split hairs, the debate ought to be framed around extraction rather than feeding. Neither design, property executed, is likely to have any problems with feeding. The claw extractor is arguably less likely to experience any failures of extraction.
The trigger system is a bigger issue for me. Most of the few current offerings with controlled round feed happen to feature enclosed trigger assemblies. These type of triggers, while easy to adjust and great on the target range, simply can’t be considered as robust as the open trigger designs found on the original Mauser, Springfield, and Winchester rifles.
Case in point, given the choice between a post ‘64 push feed M70 with the open trigger versus a newer FN model with CRF and enclosed MOA trigger, I’d actually prefer the push feed with open trigger. That being said, I would ideally prefer a pre ‘64 Winchester over any later iterations.
Back to the original question, I think the dearth of CRF options exemplifies how the industry has shifted from hand fitted quality to mass production profitability, but this is, of course, old news.
As far as the “no one bought them” narrative goes, I think that plays into the industry striving to sell more cheaply made products at higher prices. Every thing ever made was sold. It’s not like there are thousands of brand new pre ‘64 Winchester rifles and fixed power Leupold scopes sitting in stores and warehouses because no one ever bought them. We bought all of them. The manufacturers decided they needed to cut costs to increase profit and maintain competitiveness, all the while advertising their transgressions as innovations. The people knew no better, and here we are.

I agree. The push part isn’t as important, and it’s mostly cost cutting. The extraction with mechanical ejector is what I like most about CRF. Especially being able to grab the brass as you pull the bolt back slowly and it ejects slow enough to grab it without damaging the piece of brass, or the ejector dropping the piece into the action needing to dig it out.

 

[Javaman]

The whole CRF/PF debate can be resolved in one very simple way … Ruger No 1!!!

 

[charlieb]

Just saw this after I left my previous comment. with desert dog talking about the decline of Winchester 70’s recently I might skip my plan to buy a safari express this fall and put a deposit down on a defiance in the next few weeks instead to build a 416 Rigby on, thanks for reaching out

I don't believe that is why they discontinued it. Defiance was ran into the red on a bad business model. They were bought by Bob and they had to restructure, discontinue models, raise prices, etc. The cost and time to build the CRF was prob the deciding factor since they were building per order and not inventory. I know for fact they were losing money on many of their actions before the buyout, this was the reason for the dramatic price increase after. They have obviously redesigned the CRF based on customer/builder feedback, and prob machine time.

Nailed it!

 

[uplander01]

Dakota/Parkwest

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Personally I prefer working up something that is buggered a bit. Turns out the bolt on the Brno vz.24 I was building had been warped slightly by previous owner when he overheated it welding on an aftermarket bent bolt. Probably explains the low price for the action. I'm sure most guys would have given up at that point. Slim prospects of finding another bolt so I went to work and made it work. May as well try. It required some heavy duty thinking outside the box but I got it fixed by slightly thinning the striker rod and trueing the threads on bolt shroud. It cycles slick as snot. Very satisfying to know I did the work. Or I could pay $5K more and wait five years longer for a perfect new custom action that cycles just as nice (hopefully). I'm already age 72. Maybe my estate would have fun putting a fancy name rifle action on the auction block after it's finished. Pfft.

 

[WAB]

That’s a cool build and a cool story. But I personally want something that, as far as I know, doesn’t really exist. I want a stainless action and barrel. No reason really, I just like that look and want the option to be able to make one, and then make my own stock for it that is a perfect fit for me, physically but also visually

The only thing I could suggest is one of the stainless M70’s. My .375 began life that way many thousands of dollars ago!

 

[CoElkHunter]

I think the whole controlled round feed versus push feed debate is mostly blown out proportion. I prefer controlled round feed in general principle but have honestly never had a problem with any of my push feed rifles. To split hairs, the debate ought to be framed around extraction rather than feeding. Neither design, property executed, is likely to have any problems with feeding. The claw extractor is arguably less likely to experience any failures of extraction.
The trigger system is a bigger issue for me. Most of the few current offerings with controlled round feed happen to feature enclosed trigger assemblies. These type of triggers, while easy to adjust and great on the target range, simply can’t be considered as robust as the open trigger designs found on the original Mauser, Springfield, and Winchester rifles.
Case in point, given the choice between a post ‘64 push feed M70 with the open trigger versus a newer FN model with CRF and enclosed MOA trigger, I’d actually prefer the push feed with open trigger. That being said, I would ideally prefer a pre ‘64 Winchester over any later iterations.
Back to the original question, I think the dearth of CRF options exemplifies how the industry has shifted from hand fitted quality to mass production profitability, but this is, of course, old news.
As far as the “no one bought them” narrative goes, I think that plays into the industry striving to sell more cheaply made products at higher prices. Every thing ever made was sold. It’s not like there are thousands of brand new pre ‘64 Winchester rifles and fixed power Leupold scopes sitting in stores and warehouses because no one ever bought them. We bought all of them. The manufacturers decided they needed to cut costs to increase profit and maintain competitiveness, all the while advertising their transgressions as innovations. The people knew no better, and here we are.

I think when Remington came out with their revolutionary push feed Model 700 in 1963 at a very reasonable cost point, Winchester had to compete financially so went with the cheaper to manufacture push feed action Model 70? It's too bad both manufacturers didn't keep/manufacture CRF actions for their DG Safari model rifles going forward from that point. Winchester of course eventually did in '89 and Ruger, Interarms and CZ before that, but that was just a handful of rifles compared to what Winchester and Remington manufactured.

 

[CoElkHunter]

In terms of profits and losses, it probably does. It costs money to maintain the supplies and tooling and knowledge on staff to make stuff. They have to turn a profit. If your widgets arent selling at the price it takes to make a profit, you gotta find a different widget to sell.

The reality is that Americans buy more hunting rifles than anyone else by far, and Americans like cheap. If it can be cheaper and accurate, so much the better.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of Americans your last sentence rings true on everything we buy.

 

[leslie hetrick]

The whole CRF/PF debate can be resolved in one very simple way … Ruger No 1!!!

yep.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I think when Remington came out with their revolutionary push feed Model 700 in 1963 at a very reasonable cost point, Winchester had to compete financially so went with the cheaper to manufacture push feed action Model 70? It's too bad both manufacturers didn't keep/manufacture CRF actions for their DG Safari model rifles going forward from that point. Winchester of course eventually did in '89 and Ruger, Interarms and CZ before that, but that was just a handful of rifles compared to what Winchester and Remington manufactured.

I think it's no coincidence that John Olin stepped down from effective management of Olin Corp (Winchester parent company) in 1963. Besides being an effective businessman he was a smart guy with at least 24 patents to his name, most for firearms inventions ... including the famous 3-position side safety. He had moved from CEO to head of the executive committee in 1957 and I suspect not too pleased with the wild expansion during baby boom years into all manner of stuff (pulp/paper, camping, property development, skiing, bowling equipment, scuba gear, etc.) After 1963 the company was forced to return to its "core industries." 1964 also marked a turn to cheap manufacturing of Winchester products, probably out of desperation. Model 12 gave way to stamped metal Model 1200, Model 70 became push feed, etc. John Olin was a dedicated outdoorsman and I'm sure he disagreed. Probably why he was shelved as "honorary" head of the board in '63. It is worth noting that Ithaca and Ruger never had to abandon quality manufacturing to stay in business in the 60s. I think Winchester and Remington were forced into it due to over expanding horizontally into too many other ventures.

 

[Rifleman97]

I think the whole controlled round feed versus push feed debate is mostly blown out proportion. I prefer controlled round feed in general principle but have honestly never had a problem with any of my push feed rifles. To split hairs, the debate ought to be framed around extraction rather than feeding. Neither design, property executed, is likely to have any problems with feeding. The claw extractor is arguably less likely to experience any failures of extraction.
The trigger system is a bigger issue for me. Most of the few current offerings with controlled round feed happen to feature enclosed trigger assemblies. These type of triggers, while easy to adjust and great on the target range, simply can’t be considered as robust as the open trigger designs found on the original Mauser, Springfield, and Winchester rifles.
Case in point, given the choice between a post ‘64 push feed M70 with the open trigger versus a newer FN model with CRF and enclosed MOA trigger, I’d actually prefer the push feed with open trigger. That being said, I would ideally prefer a pre ‘64 Winchester over any later iterations.
Back to the original question, I think the dearth of CRF options exemplifies how the industry has shifted from hand fitted quality to mass production profitability, but this is, of course, old news.
As far as the “no one bought them” narrative goes, I think that plays into the industry striving to sell more cheaply made products at higher prices. Every thing ever made was sold. It’s not like there are thousands of brand new pre ‘64 Winchester rifles and fixed power Leupold scopes sitting in stores and warehouses because no one ever bought them. We bought all of them. The manufacturers decided they needed to cut costs to increase profit and maintain competitiveness, all the while advertising their transgressions as innovations. The people knew no better, and here we are.

I forgot when I first responded to this to say that I absolutely 100% do not actually “need” a CRF rifle, and perhaps no one truly does if they get a quality push feed and learn how to use it in a way that they don’t let it cause them issues. But I like CRF and I will continue to buy CRF rifles when I have the option because they are what I like.

And for the trigger system, unfortunately you are right, the triggers today have a lot more moving parts with tighter tolerances, giving you adjustability at the cost of reliability in extreme environments.

The whole CRF/PF debate can be resolved in one very simple way … Ruger No 1!!!

Very true, but I just love racking a bolt! I want to get a ruger No 1 someday, no idea what chambering however. Awesome guns, super short with no action length to speak of, just great guns.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I think it's no coincidence that John Olin stepped down from effective management of Olin Corp (Winchester parent company) in 1963. Besides being an effective businessman he was a smart guy with at least 24 patents to his name, most for firearms inventions ... including the famous 3-position side safety. He had moved from CEO to head of the executive committee in 1957 and I suspect not too pleased with the wild expansion during baby boom years into all manner of stuff (pulp/paper, camping, property development, skiing, bowling equipment, scuba gear, etc.) After 1963 the company was forced to return to its "core industries." 1964 also marked a turn to cheap manufacturing of Winchester products, probably out of desperation. Model 12 gave way to stamped metal Model 1200, Model 70 became push feed, etc. John Olin was a dedicated outdoorsman and I'm sure he disagreed. Probably why he was shelved as "honorary" head of the board in '63. It is worth noting that Ithaca and Ruger never had to abandon quality manufacturing to stay in business in the 60s. I think Winchester and Remington were forced into it due to over expanding horizontally into too many other ventures.

I agree. The death knell for the Winchester Model 12 shotgun is when Remington came out with their 870 Wingmaster in 1950. During WW2, Remington learned that many firearm parts could be stamped and still provide reliable service. The result was a modern, reliable firearm that could be taken apart and cleaned easily and was relatively inexpensive comparatively to the Winchester Model 12. Winchester was still using forged firearm parts which are great but much more costly to manufacture and resulting in costlier and heavier firearms. Hunters bought the 870 by the millions and never looked back at the Model 12.

 

[HankBuck]

Not sure I agree with your point about the Zermatt actions. The majority of CRF actions will snap the extractor over a chambered case, so in theory they could slip over the rim upon extraction. I don't own or know much about the Zermatts but if that is your reason for disqualification most of the other actions you are mentioning would also be disqualified as not being "true CRF".

I disagree as well with your assertion that double feeding is impossible with a CRF. It certainly is possible, and in some situations (short stroking the bolt short of the standing ejector, picking up new round with round still on bolt) it is more likely.

I agree it is a shame that more new options are not available, but as long as there are cheap and plentiful 1917/P14 actions available not an issue for me. They can be made into beautiful and reliable DG rifles.

@roklok - i agree that the advantages of a CRF are very few over a good push feed. When I had a .375 custom built I also purchased a Winchester 7mag and threw out everything except the CRF action & nice wood stock. I regret Not building on a push feed action - really like Sako’s push feed, short rotation bolt, and also Browning A Bolt & XBolt actions…plus their clips “Snap in” very securely. I usually always carry an extra loaded clip when hunting even though I’ve never needed one.
The safety “logic” of using a CRF for dangerous game makes sense but even CRF is not infallible and I had a “jam” on my 2nd shot while on Grizz hunt in Alaska - I likely short-stroked it but it still failed and that has Never happened in 100s of shots with my Browning & Sako push feeds. Lastly, the accuracy and fast cycling of my push feed Bolt actions has been excellent and I enjoy those features with “every shot” on “every hunt”.

 

[HankBuck]

I forgot when I first responded to this to say that I absolutely 100% do not actually “need” a CRF rifle, and perhaps no one truly does if they get a quality push feed and learn how to use it in a way that they don’t let it cause them issues. But I like CRF and I will continue to buy CRF rifles when I have the option because they are what I like.

And for the trigger system, unfortunately you are right, the triggers today have a lot more moving parts with tighter tolerances, giving you adjustability at the cost of reliability in extreme environments.


Very true, but I just love racking a bolt! I want to get a ruger No 1 someday, no idea what chambering however. Awesome guns, super short with no action length to speak of, just great guns.

@Rifleman97 - can’t argue with your point - you’ve got to buy what you like and want..!!