Quote:

---

As stated in earlier posts, the round from the magazine does not slip under the extractor claw until it is totally pushed forward out of the magazine and is central to the bore and half way into the chamber.

The extractor on my CZ550 is cut away so much at the bottom that this very thing described above is exactly what happens to mine. Whereas on my other "real" Mausers, the rim slides under the extractor and becomes controlled by it before it has popped out of the magazine, on my CZ550, the round sort of pops out of the magazine and slides under the extractor as a fast "1,2" series of events.

However, the round cannot be extracted until it is almost all the way in the chamber. In fact, if the bolt is herky-jerky thrust forward, it is possible to get the round to get ahead of the extractor and then jam in the chamber without being grabbed by the extractor. Pressing on the side of the extractor allows it to snap over. This is a rare occurence in normal operation but can and has happened.

I consider my CZ more a controlled extraction than controlled feed.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have a ZKK602 375H&H and a CZ550 'Magnum' (so marked on side of reciever) in 416Rigby. Both extractors look the same and function exactly alike. As the round is withdrawn from the magazine by the bolt the rim enters the extractor as soon as the round starts to leave the magazine,ie: as soon as the rails release it to rise into the extractor. This means the rim is completely under the extractor for at least half the length of the case. I don't know how much more 'controlled' the round could be.

---

Thanks Zimhunter!

What you describe is what my 98's do.

I suspect "the cartridge was under the control of the magazine or the bolt at all times?" The rounds are not on my 550, tho I can on my 98 and 96.

Since CZ describes the action as a controlled feed action, and since they have told me the extractor is NOT supposed to snap over a chambered round, and since yours seem to function properly, I can only surmise that Tatume's and mine are the result of QC problems and are not designed to function/misfunction as they do.

Now, to go make some lemonade with my lemon...

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Edited by 9ThreeXFifty7 (01/09/08 01:39 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I guess it still comes down to the 'Nut Behind The Butt".

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

some MKII's do, some don't,

---

9Three,
MK11 Ruger 77's were not all controlled feed.
The early MK11's were a push feed system, and the extractor and feed worked in a similar way to the the MK1 77's.

Regarding the Brno's, I've owned a couple of 602's and they were definately controlled feed.



Edited by 4seventy (01/09/08 07:54 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

some MKII's do, some don't,

---

9Three,
MK11 Ruger 77's were not all controlled feed.
The early MK11's were a push feed system, and the extractor and feed worked in a similar way to the the MK1 77's.

---

4seventy:

So, you are saying there are three Ruger extractor systems:

1} M77 {push feed, which we are not discussing}
2} Early M77MKII {push feed}
3} Current M77MKII {controlled feed}

What year is the is the break off point between MKII push feed and MKII CF?

Also, SAKO modified their own system and produced what they initially called controlled feed or some such but though I have never operated one...I think it is on the SAKO 95?...an article said it was a system that really did not take control of the round till just about all the way in the chamber {similar to my CZ}. Parenthetically, tho the old SAKO AV action does not have a CF extractor, the extractor on mine {.375 H&H} has been dead reliabled and due to the Mauser-type ejector does control the extracted round til the shooter wants to get rid of it, either by zinging it off yonder or for finger picking as when taking out a live round. It is a good system.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Edited by 9ThreeXFifty7 (01/09/08 10:29 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

4seventy:

So, you are saying there are three Ruger extractor systems:

1} M77 {push feed, which we are not discussing}
2} Early M77MKII {push feed}
3} Current M77MKII {controlled feed}

---

Quote:

---

What year is the is the break off point between MKII push feed and MKII CF?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

470,I believe the model Ruger you are refering to had a tang safety.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Lazzeroni made a modified feed action to "emulate" controlled feed by modifying a Savage 116 Safari action.It may be somewhat like you describe--see photos--

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Fellas, take a look at Hoppdoc's previous pic showing his bolt.

Here's mine, showing the angled cut at the bottom that prevents the rim from being secured before the case leaves the magazine.

Thanks very much, Hoppdoc, for posting your .505 bolt pic previously.

Here is the bolt from my CZ550, 6.5x55.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Well I got out my CZ550 .308 and Parker Hale '98 in .243 and cycled it upside down, slowly muzzle down, sideways, fast every way I could. Everything but take it to the loo with me. Not a single round lost.

If Huvius and I end up hunting together upside down, we will still be able to send rounds down range.

---

Post Extras:

You've lost me on this somehow.
I was referring to this quote which I thought was describing the exractor.

Quote:

---

Fellas, take a look at Hoppdoc's previous pic showing his bolt.

Here's mine, showing the angled cut at the bottom that prevents the rim from being secured before the case leaves the magazine.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Regarding the way that the lower part of the extractor is ground away, here are a couple of thoughts.

First, is that these rifles use a staggered cartridge positioning in the magazine, meaning that the cartridges do not slide straight up the center of the bolt face as they are being fed into the chamber.
Each cartridge will come up out of the mag off center and at an angle due to their staggered magazine position.

All Mausers with box mags similarly feed, but the extractors on them are not so ground. This confused me and the g-smith as to why CZ would do this.

Second, is that while the '98 style bolt diameter remains the same for different chamberings, the diameter of the cartridges and the cartridge heads do change.
The different diameter cartridges can lead to different width magazine boxes.
This can effect how far off center the cartridge is when it needs to slide up the bolt face and under the extractor claw during controlled feeding.

Third, is that CZ's are mass produced and would require the easiest method to obtain some degree of reliability with feeding as the come from the factory.
I think this could be the reason for that relief at the bottom of the extractor claw.
It could allow the cartridges to feed better from the right side of the magazine, allowing the rim to more easily find its way under the extractor claw as the cartridge is released from the magazine.

Your second and third points are probably near the mark, tho still, other makers have not taken this approach. Post '93, "cheap" Ruger MKII's for example, seem to provide pretty good CRF, at least the ones I've checked mostly do. The CZ gunsmith did tell me that the extractor for the 6.5x55 is the same part as the extractor for .308/.30-06, i.e., "8x57mm Basic Case".

From what I was told some time ago by CZ, tho, CZ550's are NOT supposed to be "snap over" 98's and extractors for the 550 series normally need modification in order to reliably snap over. Thus, we have an extractor grind that may allow the case to pop forward of its grip, but an extractor that isn't really designed to snap over in this event.

It seems that the best normal practice might be to have the extractor altered {if need be} in order to snap over. The gun would then possibly not have CRF, but would at least not allow rim-forward jams. The gun would then function in effect like a SAKO AV; snap-over, non-CRF, but with the controlled-ejection feature common to the Ruger MKII and Win 70 {a feature I have personally always thought was more important than CRF anyhow.}

I myself may look for other extractors that might be "drop-in's" for the CZ550 or able to be altered to fit the CZ action. I have no idea if there are any.

Keep in mind, all this applies especially to the small-caliber guns. The gunsmith told me that the larger calibers {not sure which all are involved here} normally are CRF. This seems to make sense in light of Hoppdoc's pic of his .505 bolt.

Rule of thumb seems to still apply: Check ALL rifles for reliability, especially DG rifles.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Edited by 9ThreeXFifty7 (08/09/08 12:48 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

the so-called dreaded "short-stroke", another overblown issue IMO. When I work a bolt fast I'm always more afraid of wrecking the bolt stop than pushing back before I hit it...

---

I totally agree, as that is exactly how I work a bolt as well.

You know, one of the best and most reliable feeding/extracting/ejecting rifles I've ever used was a "tang safety" push feed Ruger in 300 Win mag.
It didn't come that way out of the box but needed some modification.
I used it a lot right through the 1980's, and also lent it to hunting clients on a regular basis.
It was super slick and totally dependable in all the situations that we put it through.
I foolishly sold it, and later replaced it with a CRF Mk11 stainless synthetic in the same caliber.
The Mk11 was accurate, fed well, and was reliable, but it wasn't half the gun my old original M77 300 mag was.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

.
The Mk11 was accurate, fed well, and was reliable, but it wasn't half the gun my old original M77 300 mag was.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You know, one of the best and most reliable feeding/extracting/ejecting rifles I've ever used was a "tang safety" push feed Ruger in 300 Win mag.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, IMHO, I think the same can be said about a lot of what is being sold today--yes, they are very accurate but the overall quality of yesteryear just isn't there...economically it probably can't be I suppose...would be far to cost prohibitive...which is why the really good ones now cost what they do...

Ripp

---

True enough!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I fixed my CZ extractor to snap over dropped in rounds. I simply took it off the bolt, pressed hard on the buffing wheel for a few seconds and replaced it on the bolt. Now it snaps over.

So much for the incredible amount of skill it takes to make one of these things do so...

---

Apparently your gunsmithing skills know no bounds....


It is unfortunate they just can't do that correctly the first time right at the factory...


Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Apparently your gunsmithing skills know no bounds....


It is unfortunate they just can't do that correctly the first time right at the factory...

---

Oh, yeah, just call me Mr Rigby...

One more thing. My gunsmith told me it is common to remove that triangular portion of the lower claw when bevelling for snap-over. Why CZ would remove that portion but not go whole hog on every extractor to ensure snap-over is beyond me.

This whole issue has been a real eye-opener to me and I'm thinking it finalizes my feeling that the best overall action type I've ever used is the SAKO AIII/AV, with pushfeed and controlled ejection.

Having said that, certainly there are many Mausers that function 100% CRF, and there is nothing wrong with that! As a matter of fact, my son's FN .270 and 1903A3 Springfield are absolutely dead-reliable CRF, and I cannot get them to miss a shell loaded from the mag. Pointed straight down and jiggling the bolt back and forth and feeding slowly, an extreme test, nevertheless results in a totally controlled round as the shell pops up out of the mag and under the extractor every time.

This project has also exposed the importance of the magazine in Mauser CRF, and truth be told, it could be the attempt to make mags semi-universal that is causing most of the mayhem, not the extractor claw per se. IIRC, per Speed, Original Mausers had specific mag box and feed lips engineered to every cartridge. Most if not all susequent commercial mass producers do not. Just exactly when and how the case leaves the mag makes a big difference in the extractor's ability to grab it correctly.

No wonder many of the mass producers dumped the Mauser claw and went to variations of push feed...

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Edited by 9ThreeXFifty7 (09/09/08 11:58 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Apparently your gunsmithing skills know no bounds....


It is unfortunate they just can't do that correctly the first time right at the factory...

---

Oh, yeah, just call me Mr Rigby...


No wonder many of the mass producers dumped the Mauser claw and went to variations of push feed...

---

Me thinks you hit the nail on the head right there---with the cost of manufacturing, labor costs involved, etc..it is just cheaper to do it half-hazardly...or not at all as we witnessed in Winchesters dumb move in 1964....

No doubt the CRF action is preferable in DG hunting...BUT, one better check it out completely before thinking all is well...IMHO....

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have no problem with my CZ 550 in 375 H&H feeding. Mine is of recent vintage and has the non-detachable magazine. It's not a push feed (like my Rem 700) so it wants to be fed from the magazine. Mine feeds flawlessly both during rapid fire where I'm cycling the action hard and fast, and normal operation. I believe it is a true CRF rifle. It's not a pre-64 Model 70 and if that's what you want, nothing else will do. It is a true magnum length mauser-variant action machined from forged steel (not investment cast), a nice trigger and accurate out of the box. It's pretty hard to argue with that in Safari calibers for under $1000.

Chuck

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have a newer M77 in .458 lott and a Hawkeye African and both pick the round off the magazine and hold it firmly. However, it will close over a round dropped into the barrel. Works very well for me.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

cartridge feed from both sides of the magazine.

---

Sorry, I assumed all were trying it with a whole magazineful.

Mag spring tensions seems to effect rim slip under the extractor, too. Some guns may feed some rounds better than others depending on which side of the mag box they are feeding from and depending on where they sit in the stack.

Interesting to me that the "poorest-made" gun, my sons' 03A3 Springfield, with its crude finishing and obvious mass-production external QC, is the most dead reliable gun we have. It is absolutely positve, with a click as the rounds slip under the extractor and no amount of shaking, jiggling or herky-jerky bolt operation can prevent a solid feed.

I've been trying lots of guns with this test lately and there aren't many I can't make hick-up. I've gotten good at making a Mauser jam.

But that rascally Springfield just defies my efforts!!

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I spoke to Ruger, and 4seventy has the thing about nailed.

From release in '89 till a changeover occuring in '92-'93, the MKII's were NOT CRF. From there on, they were.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Are you sure the gun in your production was actually a CRF? The actions look the same and so does the extractor at least from the side. Could it be that people were referring to the gun as CRF just because it had a claw extractor & Win 70-type ejector when in fact the action did not actually control feed? Just wondering.

---

9Three,
Yeah, I'm certain that it was definately controlled feed.
I'd handled quite a few of the original push feed Mk11's which clients were using.
At that time, there were rumours that the Mk11 was coming soon with CRF, and I had also been told this by the gunsmith doing warranty repairs for Ruger here in Oz, but it wasn't supposed to happen for a while.
One of my regular hunter clients came out with a brand spanking Mk11 stainless in .308 and I never paid any attention to it for the first couple of days.
For some reason I ended up having a close look at it and when I saw the bolt face I had to take a step backwards and have another look.
It was definately CRF, and I double checked by cycling all the rounds out of the mag by just working the bolt back and forth.
I'd been around '98 mausers, pre '64 Winchesters, Brno ZG's and 600's and other CRF actions for quite a while back then, and was fully aware of what CRF actually meant and how it operated.
I remember thinking that I should film or photograph the bolt face to verify that I had actually handled a Mk11 with CRF. I cannot remember whether I got around to it though.
If I get time I'll have a look on the camera tapes from that era.

I would still be interested to know when the first Mk11 stainless rifles appeared in Gun Digest.

Post Extras: