Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Gunsmithing
Bias towards the Mauser action for long range hunting?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="benchracer" data-source="post: 903568" data-attributes="member: 22069"><p>If one is using a CRF type rifle as a single shot, I don't see the extractor as an issue. As you mentioned, the extractor can be beveled to allow it to snap over the cartridge rim. The only CRF rifles that even have that issue are the military mausers. Commercial mausers, Ruger 77's, and Winchester Model 70's can be used in push feed mode with no issues. If one has concerns along those lines, there is such a thing as a single shot follower available for mausers. Moreover, even if one loads rounds far longer than magazine length, one only has to snap the rear of the round into the magazine with the bullet laying on the feed ramp and close the bolt. It is not appreciably slower to do that than it is to just drop the round in the action.</p><p> </p><p>The whole CRF extractor causing alignment thing is a theoretical argument I have heard many times without ever having seen anyone produce proof that such a thing actually happens. The same argument can be made about the plunger ejector in a push feed action, but that tends to get glossed over.</p><p> </p><p>If there is any valid argument to be made regarding superior accuracy in push feed actions, it has to do with the fact that the push feed actions are generally tubular in nature, which makes precise machining and concentricity of the barrel, bolt, and receiver easier to achieve. </p><p> </p><p>The rest of the arguments are marketing hype designed to paper over the fact that the push feed actions were engineered to be produced more cheaply, not for greater strength or accuracy. In a production rifle, it is questionable whether any of the theoretical design advantages of a tubular action are even realized. As evidence of this, I point to the lengths Savage went to in their action design to make precise machining less important in the performance of the rifle (the floating bolt head is a good example of this).</p><p> </p><p>One reason I stopped buying push feed rifles is that I found the fit, finish, and overall quality of workmanship on CRF actions to be superior to that of most of their push feed counterparts. I don't consider that difference to be something inherent in the design. I suspect that it probably has more to do with the price point to which the CRF actions are being made.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="benchracer, post: 903568, member: 22069"] If one is using a CRF type rifle as a single shot, I don't see the extractor as an issue. As you mentioned, the extractor can be beveled to allow it to snap over the cartridge rim. The only CRF rifles that even have that issue are the military mausers. Commercial mausers, Ruger 77's, and Winchester Model 70's can be used in push feed mode with no issues. If one has concerns along those lines, there is such a thing as a single shot follower available for mausers. Moreover, even if one loads rounds far longer than magazine length, one only has to snap the rear of the round into the magazine with the bullet laying on the feed ramp and close the bolt. It is not appreciably slower to do that than it is to just drop the round in the action. The whole CRF extractor causing alignment thing is a theoretical argument I have heard many times without ever having seen anyone produce proof that such a thing actually happens. The same argument can be made about the plunger ejector in a push feed action, but that tends to get glossed over. If there is any valid argument to be made regarding superior accuracy in push feed actions, it has to do with the fact that the push feed actions are generally tubular in nature, which makes precise machining and concentricity of the barrel, bolt, and receiver easier to achieve. The rest of the arguments are marketing hype designed to paper over the fact that the push feed actions were engineered to be produced more cheaply, not for greater strength or accuracy. In a production rifle, it is questionable whether any of the theoretical design advantages of a tubular action are even realized. As evidence of this, I point to the lengths Savage went to in their action design to make precise machining less important in the performance of the rifle (the floating bolt head is a good example of this). One reason I stopped buying push feed rifles is that I found the fit, finish, and overall quality of workmanship on CRF actions to be superior to that of most of their push feed counterparts. I don't consider that difference to be something inherent in the design. I suspect that it probably has more to do with the price point to which the CRF actions are being made. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Gunsmithing
Bias towards the Mauser action for long range hunting?
Top