Discussion On CRF vs. PF
While looking into buying a new rifle (375 H&H), I came across the specs for the Sako Hunter 85. Although there is no plan to manufacture them until mid 2007 (at least a year off!), they did have the CRF added to it instead of the PF.
At first I thought the benefits of CRF are so the round would feed not matter if the rifle were upside down or sideways, etc.... But upon further research (from the African forums I visited), the real benefit seems to be when in a serious bind of a charging animal (for instance after shooting a Cape Buffalo), and a hunter is quickly trying to rechamber the second shot and for some reason "short jacks" it, then the bolt may jam because 2 shells a lodged in the chamber.
Now my question is does this really happen on quality PF rifles (like a Sako, Browning, Ruger, etc...). I went home and tried to get this to occur on my Sako 338 WM and no way could I simulate it.
BUT, that does not mean much if in a real-world situation while hunting it REALLY DOES OCCUR.
So, has this happened to any one here with a good quality PF?
NOTE: Definations of CRF = Controlled Round Feed and PF = Push Feed.
Regardles of the type of bolt action, if you short stroke the bolt you will either: a) fail to eject the spent case, or b) fail to feed a new cartridge from the magazine, or c) maybe both. With a Mauser type action if you short stroke, the extractor will still be holding onto the rim of the case and you can vigorously cycle the bolt to the rear to eject the spent case. In a push feed type action a short stroke may cause the empty cartridge to be released from the extracter and leave it laying on top of the magazine setting up a double feed type stoppage. Just cycle the bolt vigorously and you won't have to worry about it.
Hip Hip, Hooray!
Fecampbell gets 100 bonus points for including the defninition of her initialisms!
Originally Posted by fecampbell
Some days I spend half again as long looking up acronyms and abbreviations as I do just reading the posts. And I work in government - so you gotta know I'm good with initials.
Thanks for making that one readable!
I am Frank and I am a Department of Defense contractor so, yes we HAVE to define our terms.
Thanks for the nice post.
CRF vs PF
fec, This one has been discussed a couple of times! I have and have used both types.. a lot. Neither is 100% foolproof. There are more variables than just the feed types: length of magazine in relation to length of cartridge, shape of follower and ramp, shape of magazine fingers (guides, lips, rails), shape of bullet, condition and shape of extractor, habits of the shooter, size and shape of cartridge, size difference between bullet and case, sharpness of shoulder, belted or not, quality of the ammo, etc. A properly fit PF along with a shooter that pulls the bolt back like he (she) means it... is reliable. With ammo that is over-pressure, over-sized or otherwise balky for whatever reason upon bolt lift and extraction then the nod may? go to the CRFs that generally have the larger extractor thus more purchase on the case rim. Anecdotes usually prove little but the only "jam" I've witnessed in the rush to reload was an attempt to single-round-feed directly into the chamber of a CRF- not a problem with the PFs. Short stroking a CRF whose lower bolt face is sharp-edged can catch the belt and partially ram forward a belted case. Regardless of the feed type, large, belted cases with sharp shoulders and extreme bottlenecks can be problematic with smoothness of feed. Good campfire and coffee material!
CRF vs PF
I don't think very many shooters know the difference and I think most of those who use the CRF term don't understand it's true merits.
The greatest benefit of the Mauser action's CRF design is it's mechanical ejection. That is the feature that prevents the short cycled bolt from jamming the action or closing on an empty chamber. With mechanical ejection the empty doesn't fly until the bolt is stroked back far enough to pick up the new round. When the brass flies, the next one goes home. Now whether the next one is picked up by the claw extractor or pushed ahead of the bolt into the chamber has less effect on the reliability of the action than does the ejector. Spring loaded ejectors such as Remington, Savage, PF Winchesters, Brownings, etc. are MORE likely to cause a problem during periods of mild stress than the mechanical ejection used on Mausers, Sakos and Pre-64 type actions. Spring loaded plunger ejectors will flip the case out (or attempt to) when the bolt is about 2/3rds of the way back, not far enough to pick up a fresh round. The bolt must be pulled all the way to the stop to pick up a new round. Well, that's simple enough, just pull it all the way back. Well the human eye sees the brass go and the hurried mind says ok go forward with the bolt, but that is the mistake that causes the mishap. Now it's true that training for the situation under stressful (simulated) conditions will help, but few ever do that. It is easier to just blame the tool or just buy something to compensate for my lack of training (laziness).
The Mauser action was made for rough use in military applications. It would be an ineffective soldier who didn't close the bolt on a live round everytime, and may soon be a deceased soldier. The Mauser also has a magazine follower that blocks the bolt when the magazine is empty. Also the claw extractor will not snap over a chambered round if the bolt is closed on it. This feature and the follower block are features we would NOT want on a hunting rifle. It's strong claw extractor and mechanical ejection are good to have, and many say, must have, on a dangerous game rifle.
Stong positive extraction and mechanical ejection are paramount in a reliable hunting rifle, especiall for some one who doesn't have or take the time to train well in it's use. Sako's AV action and their M75 both have strong reliable extraction and positive mechanical,end of stroke, ejection. I have never under any condition had any Sako rifle fail to feed or extract or eject. The smothness of the action will usually speed up bolt travel to make a full stroke. Just my slightly biased opinion. Good shootin'.
Murph, George, 8x57, Chisana and et al,
I appreciate all the responses (really I do!) because I learn from them. And from the learning I advance my hunting ability. So, I do understand it is the fine details that are usually the determining factors to overall cause/effect of events. In the past, I have always honed my hunting abilities and used what appeared to be equipment that just fulfilled the need to complete the hunting experience.
In fact as Murphy knows, I have been a Remington buyer for years because I appreciate their overall high quality "field" guns. What I mean is I really hate to take a beautifully made rifle into the field, because I start to become overly worried about maintaining it's pristine condition. With Remington, most of their products are very good quality but not too pretty compared to say a Browning, or a Sako, or etc.... exterior finish so I don't mind using it to its full extent. That is why I bought it, to use it and gain a great hunting experience.
Now I am not saying I am hard on items, I am not. What I am saying is I want to experience the hunt and the moment more than I want to monitor my very small and incidental movements in say the brush so I don't cause any damage to a finely made rifle. I do want to monitor ever little detail of my hunting movements so as to bag the game and to remember the hunt.
I truly see both sides of the conversation when I listen to one person mention the love of a finely made blue/wood rifle and the enjoyment of cleaning it, etc... I do too!! I love a beautifully made rifle and I love to clean my rifle after the hunt. To hold and admire the rifle is a great experience.
And then I listen to the conversation about the benefits of a Syn/SS made rifle and all the hardship it has taken. To me that is another way of saying I was out with my close friend (the Syn/SS rifle) and we went thru all this hardship together. Others may be saying it is just a "tool", but I think it may be more of statement of, "I had this great time using this great rifle and together we experienced this great event".
Utlimately to me it is the hunting experience that builds the relationship to a rifle, bow, favorite skinning knife, binocs, etc... As I pick each one up, I really do flash back to great moments I used it plus appreciate its own inherient beauty and that deepens my appreciation of it; thus deepening my thinking that I have a special item to be treasured.
Now, what does that have to do with CRF vs. PF? It has to do with when Murphy said, "Just my slightly biased opinion". Knowning people who seem to be like Murphy a little, I seriously doubt those folks are biased based on perception and emotion. I highly suspect they are driven by a justified and true knowledge of something. What I mean by that is a person can observed something and form a correct opinion (true knowledge). And a person can have an need to know about the topic so as to form a correct opinion (justified in needing to know). But when a person experiences something and has a need to know about the topic AND forms a correct opinion, now that is justified true knowledge and not bias. That is where Murphy's statement about being bias plays into the CRF vs. PF conversation. I know he is not biased but actually has experience using the PF and CRF in harms way.
So I think, most of you guys who have hunted Alaska ongoing may be hunting Caribou, Moose, etc... but there is always that chance you may run into a Brown Bear. Mr. Brown Bear is as dangerous as any of the "Top 5" in Africa. Now are you guys using CRF exclusively? I haven't noticed that mentioned here.
I have hunted dangerous game like wild hogs. In fact, just this last March I shot a wild sow, a wild boar and 2 Axis deer in just three outings. Afterward we trapped their piglets and took them home so one of my hunting friends could raise them for a later meal. The hogs by some may be considered dangerous and I guess I was lucky in shooting them in so few outings with a Sako 338. I say that because I have used a Rem. 308 exclusively before but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE when using a Sako. There is a difference in the manufacturers. There is a diference in caliber. There is a difference in accuracy. And there is a difference in extractions. I personally experienced all those differences.
Now I understand why the strong ejectors of Sako are so highly sought vs. the spring ejectors. Everytime I buy a Remington and have it "tuned" (barrel lapped, lugs lapped, stock bedded, etc...) the gun smith trys to talk me into replacing the Remmy ejector for a Sako ejector. This has happened to me for years and I always declined because I never had a Remmy not feed. But I never had a need for one to be extremely reliable, that is until now.
Also, I don't need to have a Sako's barrel lapped, lugs lapped, etc.... They come straight out of the box as a finely tuned rifle. That is why I have converted from mainly considering Remingtons first to considering Sakos first in rifle purchases.
So in the realm of CRF vs. PF both are mechanical. One (CRF) has the promise of being highly unlikely to jam two rounds in the receiver by design. The other (PF) has the same promise by simplicity, but what seperates them are design, quailty and experience. I know of people whose CRFs functioned poorly so they sold and I know people (most of you folks) who have PFs where they function flawlessly and are used continously. It is a matter of degrees; nether the CRF nor the PF are guaranteed to work. Nothing man made is guaranteed to work. There are just degrees and it appears the difference boil down to design, quality and experience.
Finally, I apologize for the lengthy post. At times I hate them and won't read them. But I did wanted to point out what appears to be the concensus of the conversation. And if it is not obvious, I am "biased" as a hunter first and a rifleman second; hence my outlook given above.
Thanks everyone and please post if there is something still needing discussion.
Last edited by fecampbell; 07-14-2006 at 06:09.