| Ripp |
| (.577 member) |
| 09/06/13 11:57 PM |
Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Just read in Outdoor Life--June/July issue page 43--they did a brief test loading 2 push feed, a Remington in 375H&H and Winchester in 30-06 along with 2 CRF's.. a Ruger Hawkeye in .416 Ruger along wiht a Mauser-action Pasadena Arms in 6mm..they ran full magazines at normal hunting speed..first upright, then at a 90degree agle and finally upside down...the 6mm CRF twice popped a cartridge our of the magazine without engaging the extractor..both times the cartridge slid into the chamber ahead of the bolt but the extractor would not pass over the rim so the bolt could not be closed..per the article, does this settle the debate..probably not, but makes one feel better about push feed actions..
Ripp
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 10/06/13 01:37 AM |
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Using a defectively feeding CFRF action kinda screws with the validity of the test, doesn't it?
My M98 and the M96 Mausers I had were all been altered slightly, and will all push feed - best of both worlds? You can throw a round into the action and chamber it - NP.
- AND - I've not broken an extractor yet.
| Tentman |
| (.300 member) |
| 10/06/13 07:07 AM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
This sort of argument kinda makes me chuckle. As I understand CRF was to prevent a soldier to jambing his rifle by short stroking the bolt. Supposedly as hunters CRF is going to save our hides by ensuring our rifle will feed even if we do something stupid with the bolt. In both cases if the soldier/hunter is "rattled" enough so that he does not "follow his drill" then his chances of making a useful shot is about zip anyway.
I've seen a few cases of "buck-fever" and had it myself, and no amount of CRF will change the outcome !!
I only hunt with Mauser 98's but its nothing particularly to do with them being CRF.
| Rule303 |
| (.416 member) |
| 10/06/13 08:21 AM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
I have seen a few CRF stuff up and do what they are not susspose to do. Have seen PF stuff up as well. If the rifle is defective or the shooter is defective then the required outcome is not going to happen.
Not sure why you need a rifle to cycle upside down!
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 10/06/13 08:40 AM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Quote:
Using a defectively feeding CFRF action kinda screws with the validity of the test, doesn't it?
My M98 and the M96 Mausers I had were all been altered slightly, and will all push feed - best of both worlds? You can throw a round into the action and chamber it - NP.
- AND - I've not broken an extractor yet.
+ 100
Well Said
Most Mausers have been modded to close over the round.
A badly set up Mauser 98 Magazine WILL pop cartridges out
before the bolt grabs hold of them.
And I agree, who loads upside down !!!
My Win Mod 70 Push Feed 30.06 functions flawlessly, whatever I do to it.
| tinker |
| (.416 member) |
| 10/06/13 09:45 AM |
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
For whatever it's worth, I've hung from a tree limb from my knees upside down and fired through a magazine with my Whitworth 458 - just to know I could.
Cheers
Tinker
| tophet1 |
| (.400 member) |
| 10/06/13 10:54 AM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Yes, its an old argument.
Tentman has it exactly right. It was designed for soldiers in the heat of battle so they couldn't stuff it up in extreme conditions. 500Nitro is also on the money when he says most Mauser '98's have been modified, to such an extent that the true CRF features are nullified.
The 6mm sounds like a simple re-barrel and not properly checked by a knowledgeable gunsmith. If it popped rounds then it should not have left the shop.
As a hunting rifle the Mauser brings one more aspect of reliability to the argument that many push feeds and modern Mauser '98 clones don't have. Slop in the bolt to eliminate jamming from ingress of debris. This only becomes apparent if you are hunting in really harsh terrain.
I only realised the importance of this after experiencing action clogging myself, from a severe dust storm. My CZ550 .308 became hard to cycle (due to its closer tolerances) and had to be wiped out. My son's .243 Parker Hale Mauser '98 kept working.
Reliability ? ex-mil Mauser '98 all the way for me, but not just because of CRF.
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 10/06/13 05:10 PM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
tophet
Yes, that point re Mauser 98's is a good one.
Also agree that the gun was not checked by a gunsmith
as it should have been.
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 11/06/13 01:13 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Good points all. I've merely used Mauser actions on my rifles because they are - or used to be cheaper to obtain & I was told by the 'old guys' that Mausers had terrific gas handling properties in the event of a 'problem', not because they were of one feeding design or another.
| bonanza |
| (.400 member) |
| 11/06/13 02:06 AM |
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
I think the CRF is overly played, but one cannot deny the mauser claw extractor is the best on any firearm.
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 11/06/13 02:07 AM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Daryl
Agree. Mauser gas removal system down the
mag well is very good.
| Tentman |
| (.300 member) |
| 11/06/13 11:40 AM |
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
The trouble with the claw extractor is there is the Mauser and Brno claw then the rest. All of the clones including the BAS and Win Model 70 lack the dovetail that locks the extractor to the bolt body. When "in extremis" extraction is required they will pull over the rim - don't ask how I learnt this, very embarrassing and spoils your entire day. Needless to say I let my pre64 and BSA Hunter go, dammed shame.
| Marrakai |
| (.416 member) |
| 21/06/13 12:45 PM |
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Quote:
I've hung from a tree limb from my knees upside down and fired
Hey Tink:
I reckon all the guys on here could probably toss in a few bucks and buy you a tree-stand for Christmas.
That should improve your blood-pressure, at least.....
How far did the "human pendulum" swing after firing the .458, BTW?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Its such a silly argument anyway. Shame on you, Ripp!
| rigbymauser |
| (.400 member) |
| 23/06/13 01:44 AM |
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
70% of my guns I have in my safe are all CRF guns. 10% are PF and the last 20% are backaction Jones underlever doubles. The 1(10%) PF I have is a Weatherby Mk V works very well.
| tinker |
| (.416 member) |
| 23/06/13 10:13 AM |
|
|
|
Re: Push Feed vs CRF..which is more reliable..
|
Marrakai
No swing to speak of at all - and I have no plans to repeat the stunt. It was fun for what it was, and at least I can say 'I've been there..."
On the tree-stand offer, I will gladly accept!
I think first we'll need to install a fitting tree somewhere in this high-desert setting. Perhaps something up on the rim rock in the canyon out back.
Cheers
Tinker