Push feed vs the Claw...

[Murphy]

Rather than further pollute Beartooths post with this feeder discussion, let's hash it out here.

Lets hear it, which do you prefer and why? Give details don't just parrot what someone has written. Break out your guns and look them over, be knowledgable about the differences between the two action types. I'll give you a hint the most useful and reliable difference isn't the claw.

[Murphy]

Mule Muffins and other trail markers....

To say that; If it doesn't have a Mauser claw extractor it can't be reliable, is just mule muffins.

I challenge anyone to write there own discription of why the Mauser M98 is such a wonderful reliable machine and anything with any other extractor is just useless. It is easy to say that the Mauser is great because we've heard that so many times....but why? What are the features that make it so great? It is the controlled round feeding that makes it so reliable. Well the claw extractor makes the CRF so.....

If it is the claw extractor that makes the controlled round feed so reliable then any and all with this claw will be as reliable. Right?

If it is the claw extractor and CRF that makes it so great then anything with a claw would be equally great, right? So the Springfield model of 1903 or the Enfield of 1917 or even the Winchester model 54 would all be the equal of the great Mauser.

Mule Muffin # 1
The claw extractor was used on all military rifles so it must be the most reliable.

Wrong, on two points. First it was used only on military rifles for countries that bought or stole designs from the Mauser brothers of Germany. It was not use on the longest running of designs of the bolt action. Namely the 1891 Mosin-Nagant rifles of Russia and Finland (1891 thru 1977). It was not used on the British Lee-Enfield (1879 thru 1954), 303 caliber. There was no claw extractor on the Krag-Jorgenson (1889 thru 1908) rifles used by the USA, Denmark and Norway. Neither the Berthier or the MAS (1936) French rifles used the claw extractor. And there were many others.

I also would like to point out that rarely ever, in any battle, did the ulta reliable, claw extrator endowed model 98 Mauser reign victorious over the ubiquitous British Enfield rifle, and certainly not over the non claw extractor, non reliable action of the Garand rifle in the hands of expert American marksmen. The very notion that the model 98 Mauser or any Mauser with the famous claw extractor was used because it was simply the most reliable of all designs is absolutely ludicrous. In those days it was built in Germany and used by Germany and sold the world over because the Germans wanted allies and they whored out there military hardware to anybody with money.

Mule Muffin #2
The Mauser 98 is the best because it it the only rifle used by African professional hunters (PH) for dangerous game.

One of the reasons why the Mauser rifles are held in such high esteem by African folks of the southern countries is because of an incident involving a company of British Khaki's and a few farmers, who were expert marksmen, carrying accurate model 1895 7x57 caliber rifles. These Boer Farmers who were used to taking game anmals at great distance with their rifles who were very familiar with lead and hold over and the use of elevator sights. The British had no training with long range shooting and were trained only to use volly fire to disuade their opponents, not methodically aimed fire to kill them. The British came in second at Spion Kop in an area known now as Qua Zulu-Natal, South Africa and the farmers loved their Mausers but marksmanship saved the day. The Mauser model model 95 may be found with the OVS brand in the stocks. These were the rifles used by the Bore farmer militia. (OVS is Orange Free State In African)

It is true that the Mauser has proven itself with the reliable claw extractor through out those countries of southern Africa where it was used but it is important to understand that in German West Africa (Namibia), hunting rifles came from Germany. In British East Africa, hunting rifles came in from Great Britian who used Mauser actions to build them. The rights to the spoils of war (WWI) gave Britian carte blanche access to (steal) German patents and technology, which they did.

As a result of this, many Mausers were in African countries and were the only non military bolt action rifles available there for decades. They were reliable and with the rich rewarding history (see Spion Kop) with the Mauser for the white tribe of Africa, they were not about to give them up.

Now onward to a more sensible discussion about the many attributes of the Mauser model 98 as a sporting rifle as it compares to the various other designs available. Who wants to be first?

[Murphy]

Most commercial controlled feed rifles will close on a cartridge dropped into the chamber - the orginal mausers had to fed through the magazine. I haven't tried the Winchester "controlled push feed" yet. I'm not sure which one you have. Push feed rifles by design must close on an cartridge in the chamber by design.

A cartridge will not jar out a controlled feed even if it is upside down etc. - that is one advantage of the controlled feed. I've gotten used to pushing a cartridge in the magazine so I even do it even on push feeds. It becomes second nature like thumbing back the hammer on a 1911.

One major curse of a push feed is that they can be "short stroked" - if under stress, in a comfined space i.e. heavy brush, on your back ,etc. one can pull the bolt back on a fired case until the case is ejected and then close the bolt on an empty chamber. This doesn't happen on a controlled feed because the case isn't ejected until the bolt is in position to pick up the new cartridge out of the magazine. "Short stroking" can happen and has happen even with the best training under stress and less than idea conditions. It is not a myth.

You can also push a cartridge into the chamber with a push feed and then pull the bolt back and pick up a fresh cartridge and jamb it into the one in the chamber. This can happen if you drop the gun or get it knocked from your hands. This malfunction can't occure with a controlled feed.

It is interersting to note that Ruger changed theie Md 77 design to a true controlled feed from a push feed with a claw extractor and that Winchester brought back the Classic controlled feed due to consummer demand. CZ has also had a brisk trade in controlled feed rifles in the heavy calibers. Everyone including myself can't be "wrong, wrong, wrong"!

As to advanges of the push feed: they are cheaper to manufacture and in the case of the Weatherby have a shorter bolt lift - 60 deg vs 90 deg. They probably have a bit less bolt drag without the extractor but I've never seen that as much of an advantage.

Controlled feeds generally cost more to manufacture due to the extra machining involved in the extractor and receiver or barrel breeeching. Remington, Ruger, and Savage designed their rifles to be cheaper to manufacture - there is no escaping that fact.

I believe you are mostly correct here but if you'll stop by I have some questions for you.

1. If you can drop a round in the chamber of a rifle and close the bolt on it can it still be a CRF?

1b. Why is this important and how does it increase reliability?

2. What is the secret that prevents the CRF from being short stroked? (important part)

2b. Can a push feeder have this secret?

3. Would a rifle with a safety that doesn't lock the bolt be less reliable/dependable?

I have more.

[TWB]

Murphy, I honestly had no opinion either way and have been extremely enlightened by your response in such a way that I feel schooled, and I had to argument...and I mean that in a very good way.

[brav01]

Mauser

I'm not familiar with every form of mauser rifle that has been manufactured. But, the ones I have now which are based on 98 patterns have a claw extractor which both encases a large portion of the case rim and holds the round in apposition to bolt face.
The mauser extractor certainly engages more rim area than the Sako sytle extractors on my bench rifles; this might give better extraction on sticky cases or rounds which go into the chamber with debris. It certainly does less damage to the empty cases that are ejected, than the extractor on my AR based rifle which engages a very small area on the rim. It is bigger and beefer this reduces chance of breakage in the field under less than perfect conditions.
I'm not sure what kind of extractors that are used by the AKs and SKSs but you would have to look very hard to find an extractor that will work any better; as these rifles have been used on every major field of battle on earth.
The round being held next to the bolt face as it exits from the magazine reduces noise as the round is chambered.

This being said I've never had a failure to extract on any centerfire rifle I've owned; unless the extractor broke.

[tvfinak]

Definitions

1) I guess this according to whose definition of CRF you use. In the general terms - but not Mausers- I think most would say yes. Reference the Mdl. 70, 03's, commerical mausers etc. Mausers were made to be loaded with clips - I guess he figured a soldier should never have loose cartridges.

2) "it" = CRF? Not sure of the question here - does CRF increase reliability or the ability to drop a round in the chamber. As to CRF - it help mitigate some consequences of mis-operation like short stroking or trying to feed another cartridge with one already fed in the chamber wihout the bolt being closed in the chamber.

3) On all my CRF's they can't be short stroked AND then closed with a spent shell because the empty case doesn't feed into the chamber - the empty case mouth hits the end of the barrel. The natural instinct is to work the bolt again- at least you don't think you have an loaded gun when you don't. Perhaps some CFRs will re-chamber the empty cases but mine won't.

4) No secret - but I mentioned push feeds with spring loaded plunger extractors in the bolt face. The Enfields for one have a solid extractor but most don't consider them true sporting rifle. I need to check my Sako's - I haven't shot them in a while. The Weatherby MK 5s have spring plungers.

5) Rifles that don't lock the bolt tend can tend to get the bolt knocked open in heavy brush of course - we have all had that experience.. I like the 3 position safeties personally.

I believe you are mostly correct here but if you'll stop by I have some questions for you.

1. If you can drop a round in the chamber of a rifle and close the bolt on it can it still be a CRF?

1b. Why is this important and how does it increase reliability?

2. What is the secret that prevents the CRF from being short stroked? (important part)

2b. Can a push feeder have this secret?

3. Would a rifle with a safety that doesn't lock the bolt be less reliable/dependable?

I have more.

[tvfinak]

Headspace also

The claw extractor will also allow you to feed and fire cartriges which may have excessive headspace. This may or may not be a good thing! I can fire 7.62 Nato rounds - but not .308 - in my stock '03 Springfield as the bolt will hold the cases tight enought against the bolt face to fire.

The excess headspace discussion came up on a post of failures to fire .35 Whelen rounds with excess headspace. With a claw extactor and controlled feed the headspace isn't an issue - the round will feed out of the magazine and get held by the extractor snuggly against the bolt face and fire. With a push feed this may not be possible- at least it was reported as a problem.

I'm not familiar with every form of mauser rifle that has been manufactured. But, the ones I have now which are based on 98 patterns have a claw extractor which both encases a large portion of the case rim and holds the round in apposition to bolt face.
The mauser extractor certainly engages more rim area than the Sako sytle extractors on my bench rifles; this might give better extraction on sticky cases or rounds which go into the chamber with debris. It certainly does less damage to the empty cases that are ejected, than the extractor on my AR based rifle which engages a very small area on the rim. It is bigger and beefer this reduces chance of breakage in the field under less than perfect conditions.
I'm not sure what kind of extractors that are used by the AKs and SKSs but you would have to look very hard to find an extractor that will work any better; as these rifles have been used on every major field of battle on earth.
The round being held next to the bolt face as it exits from the magazine reduces noise as the round is chambered.

This being said I've never had a failure to extract on any centerfire rifle I've owned; unless the extractor broke.

[Murphy]

OK. I'm glad you stopped by.

In response to your;
#1. Use your CRF definition, and let us know what it is. I'm asking is the ability to close or not to close the bolt on a round in the chamber, good, bad or ugly, on a sporting DG rifle. (First tell us why a military Mauser will not close on an empty magazine with or without a round in the chamber.)

#2 (my 1b) Why would not being able to close the bolt on a chambered round be or not be a good thing?

#3.(my#2) You're still missing an important part of the operation. Any CRF can be short stroked if we don't pull the bolt back far enough to clear the empty or bad round from the mouth of the chamber, the empty/bad round wil go back in. ( I don't know what idiot would do that but I suppose stress could be a factor.) This secret is the name of the part and the type used on some rifles. You're missing what makes the biggest difference in reliability of feed than everything else about a rifle.

#4. (my 2B) It is big secret!

You're beating around the edges here of what may very well be the most important thing.

#5 (my#3) Operation of the bolt and yanking the trigger repeatedly will not allow the rifle to fire, with the safety on, on certain rifles. Namely the Remington 700. I watched as one individual empty his M700 as he stared into the yellow eyes of a lion at about 20 paces and never fired a shot but cycled all rounds out on the ground and never even knew his rifle failed to fire. The lion walked away and four new shiney unfired rounds of 375 H&H lay neatly at the feet of our hero, the lion hunter. He then turned and asked his PH. Did I hit him? This solicited a chuckle from the PH and on lookers. Until his question we could have thought all rounds were misfires.


I won't discuss the rhyme or reason of Paul Mausers M98 for military applications. But for sporting, DG applications. Or simply the most serious of uses, why is the ability to close, or not close, the bolt on a round thrown in the chamber an issue? Here is the answer:

For a Mauser claw extractor to close over a round, the extractor must have some room to spring open enough to get over the rim of the cartridge. If the extractor can do that, it could then spring back slightly and slip off a very tight round we are trying to extract. We all recognize that as being a bad thing. To allow this claw extractor to slip over a chambered round, metal must be removed from the raceway in the extractor slot in the receiver or we must thin down the extractor to allow it to spring over. In other words to make room for it to move out enough to go over the cartridge rim. This is considered to lessen the extraction effectiveness of the Mauser claw extractor. Personally for me I absolutely want to be able to close the bolt on a chambered round and consider any slight loss of extraction effectiveness to be inconsequential.

A military M98 will not do this, but there is another important thing about the military M98 that prevents this. #6 What is it? I want this modified as well.

Please answer #4 above and this #6.

1) I guess this according to whose definition of CRF you use. In the general terms - but not Mausers- I think most would say yes. Reference the Mdl. 70, 03's, commerical mausers etc. Mausers were made to be loaded with clips - I guess he figured a soldier should never have loose cartridges.

2) "it" = CRF? Not sure of the question here - does CRF increase reliability or the ability to drop a round in the chamber. As to CRF - it help mitigate some consequences of mis-operation like short stroking or trying to feed another cartridge with one already fed in the chamber wihout the bolt being closed in the chamber.

3) On all my CRF's they can't be short stroked AND then closed with a spent shell because the empty case doesn't feed into the chamber - the empty case mouth hits the end of the barrel. The natural instinct is to work the bolt again- at least you don't think you have an loaded gun when you don't. Perhaps some CFRs will re-chamber the empty cases but mine won't.

4) No secret - but I mentioned push feeds with spring loaded plunger extractors in the bolt face. The Enfields for one have a solid extractor but most don't consider them true sporting rifle. I need to check my Sako's - I haven't shot them in a while. The Weatherby MK 5s have spring plungers.

5) Rifles that don't lock the bolt tend can tend to get the bolt knocked open in heavy brush of course - we have all had that experience.. I like the 3 position safeties personally.

[Murphy]

Well since this just seems to be an educational thread I thought I 'd describe what in reality is short stroking an action and why it happens as well as how to avoid it.

Obviously short stroking an action means making a shorter bolt stroke than is needed to reload a rifle form the magazine. The question is really why would we do that? To answer with: Well it may happen during periods of mild stress, is likely true but there has to be more than that. Further it would seem to be simple to remedy by just making sure the bolt comes to the rear until it hits the stop. Another obvious answer but there is more to it than that. We react during periods of mild stress as we have trained for the event, assuming there is actually some training, which may be part of the problem.

It is more a matter of conditioning. As we use our rifle loading and shooting and reloading we train our muscles to do the same thing each time. Obviously we train muscles to do certain things with certain stimuli. We pull the trigger then the reloading memory says cycle the bolt, so the bolt cycling memory grabs the bolt handle and moves it up then back. (This is my problem with a Blaser, you just pull back no lift, it really screws things up for me) This is easy to comprehend when we study the action of a shotgunner who always shoots a pump shot gun. Hand this guy an autoloader and he will yank the forend completely off the shotgun due to this muscle memory response.

Now we've grabbed the bolt and at some point there is some subconscious stimuli to push the bolt forward and bring home a new round. Oddly enough no matter how many times you do it, the stimuli to push forward is the eyes seeing the empty brass fly from the action. (Remember we're under stress here) Well when I see the brass fly I send the bolt home and grab the trigger for another shot at the charging beast. No problem, right? Wrong! My push feeder has a spring loaded plunger ejector. I was almost to the rear with the bolt when my keen reflexes responded to the stimuli (quicker than ever before) and shoved the bolt home. The plunger ejector ditched the spent case in a timely manner as soon as the case mouth cleared the receiver ring. Zingggg!

If we had been using a mechanical ejector fixed at the rear of the bolt travel, when we saw the brass fly, the bolt would be in position to strip a fresh round form the magazine and send it home with the forward bolt stroke and we would have heard another bang instead of a click. This is the case be it CRF or push feeder. This is called positive ejection. Positive extraction is when we can always remove the spent case from the chamber everytime we draw the bolt rearward after firing. These two positives make controlled feeding even though the slow loading of the rifle doesn't use an extractor to hold the case on the bolt during the loading process. A push feeder with a positive mechanical ejection is not the same as the CRF where the round is held captive by the bolt but it is a big step toward more reliable functioning and certainly will minimize the possibility of short stroking a round. Actually the round held captive by the claw extractor is of dubious value where the positive mechanical ejection is often of much greater value since we rarely swing from trees while shooting. Also from an awkward on the back position, or side prone many of the push feeders work just as well as the CRF actions.

So in summary it is the positive mechanical ejection of the action that that prevents short stroking under stress.

Does this mean we cannot be effective with a plunger ejector? No it doesn't. All this may just depend on how well you can keep you witts about you when you need it most. A very important thing here is to be very familiar with your rifle with many muscle memory training sessions. Don't train with one rifle then buy a new one for the big hunt, you might end up like our lion hunter.

Question #7. Name one push feeder with positive mechanical ejection, past or present.

[MontanaRifleman]

Great post Murphy, very interesting. Here's what goes on with me. I don't see brass fly. I only see an animal, and my vision is focused completely on my POI/POA. When I work the bolt, I bring it back forcefully to it's stop and that's my que to send it home.


Oh yeah.... and I have never failed to break the trigger unless there is good reason not to...

[TomM]

Sako 85

[tvfinak]

Push Feeds etc.

I had mistakenly included the Sako in with the others having a spring loaded extractor- I guess it has been a long time since I have shot mine! I should have included the Weatherby MKV instead! I don't recall all the other guns with spring pluger extractors - I'll have to look. I would put the Sakos in the premium push feeds for certain but I still wouldn't hunt dangerous game with one.

In addition to the short stroking the other obvious flaw with push feeds is jamming a cartridge into one already in the chamber. This can happen if you don't close the bolt fully and engage the extractor over the rim of the round and then pull the bolt back to feed another. This can happen if are in the loading process and get interrupted by dropping the gun, get it knocked from your hand etc. Then you are in the situation of having to dig out the second cartridge because the extractor hasn't engage it either, and hold down the shells in the magazine while you close the bolt and engage the shell in the chamber. Not a choice chore in a dangerous situation.

The 98 military mauser are actually cut sufficently for the extractor to ride over the rim of a cartridge in the chamber- the hook just isn't beveled. It is an old trick to "spring" the extractor by pressing in the portion back of the collar enough to get it to ride over the rim -the slot in the receiver doesn't have to be relieved. I grasp my hand around the receiver and stock and press in on the extractor with my finger tips.

Of course the other obvious thing in a military rifle - and my sporting rifles -is the non-beveled magazine follower. I want to know absolutely when my gun is empty and not close on a empty chamber.

[Doc]

I understand the differences between CRF and push-feed bolt actions.

It just happens that all of my bolt actions are push feeds, not because I don't like CRF's, but because I'm a south paw and options get limited. Even so, I feel very comfortable carrying my push-feeds into dangerous game country. I've carried a Browning A-Bolt in .375 H&H for nearly 20 years in Alaska. I have taken many animals with it, and I have never short-stroked the bolt on that long action when taking quick follow-up shots on bear, moose, etc. I also have never had a failure to extract. I do own one Remington 700, which is custom chambered in .257 Weatherby, so the bolt face has been widened, and I did have a Sako extractor installed. I do admit that the factory extractor on the 700's is a fairly flimsy piece of metal.

I guess my point is to say that I certainly don't agree with the point of view that a push-feed has no place in dangerous game country, and one must carry a CRF...I'm not buying it. To each his own.

[Brian Richardson]

Push & pull or 'control' the two...

Hey Murphy - Hope all is healing well w' the broken limb.

Not 100% sure of what the emphasis is here as well as the other thread concerning advantages or disadvantages with push vs. control feeding rifles... histories of both to reliability advancements on the two action types.

For example - give 'me' a reasonably good bolt action of any reputation that I'm quite familiar with in an effective for use cartridge/caliber (in good working condition), and I'll consistently demonstrate very little real world difference in day to day reliability from turn of the century bolt guns to fresh out of the modern factory rifles. Most certainly some rifles of reputable manufacture are more reliable in whatever conditions/circumstances...

However, that being said an old M39, K31, m-96, K98, P14 or p17, Brit Enfield to American Springfield to Danish Madsen... all of these old-school actions will do most anything we ask today of our Sako, REM., WBY., WIN., Ruger, CZ actions, etc. carrying out pretty much same tasks dependably on a regular basis.

Alaska, Africa, to throughout the globe --- dangerous game(s) to not not too demanding scenarios --- can be won (or lost) just the same by any one of these technologies and features (old to new school --- push or control feed) in different hands, with diverse experiences, using relatively similar methods. In short - folks would live to fight any foe big or small conquering dangerous situations or defending whatever concern on most any other day shouldering far less.

So to 'me' push or control feed in a bolt gun makes absolutely very little difference 'to me' just as it is well documented and exhibited throughout the mix of technologies, features, and applications/tactics of worldwide military and sporting carry throughout the past century.

Here is the main thing with Bolt guns and some proven piece of mind ---- WHEN people rush things is when people make mistakes! Additionally, bolt gun technologies and features of the past century are developments that do not quite reinvent the way we shoot things about the world with our sporting arms.

[Rufus]

the Sako AV