"...are of long standing debate within some of the firearms community." Translation: Here's two different feed systems, but only the real nerds argue over them.
Literally, millions of dollars have been sent on the differences in the last, say 50 years in the sporting community (which is the vast majority of the users of bolt actioned rifles in the world since the 1950's). In sporting rifles, as much of the concern is the inherent accuracy and safety of the bolt and receiver, not so much the speed and security of the feed mechanisms, as Ian mentioned controlled feed in military circles is not much of an issue. Why the concern over the feed mechanism for safety? Other than some really significant and successful modern examples of controlled feed, the 'push feed' has a fully and supported case head surrounding the brass case head with the steel of the bolt face and the receiver. This is important as many modern rifle rounds are operating at pressures far in excess of the typical cartridges of the 1910s and 20s. For example, a .300 Winchester Magnum is operating at pressures far in excess of say a .303 British or even a 30-06. The extra support of the fully enclosed case head by the bolt might be considered to be a safety factor. (Yes, I know the .300 Winchester Magnum was initially chambered in the 'old' Winchester Model 70, a rifle with 'controlled feed') Also, in sporting rifles, most consider controlled feed an important concern when hunting 'dangerous game' such as bears and other large animals that could take exception to being hunted. Why is the push feed often considered to be important to accuracy? I have no direct experience, but I have been told and read that the fully supported chamber of most push feed bolt actions may provide a better seal and more consistent fit, helping eliminate some variables that might contribute to greater or lesser accuracy.
There is an actual, valid reason to argue about this, in long-range shooting because a push-feed can slightly shift the bullet in the case, which can very slightly shift its POI- which is inconsistent, and thus will expand groups. Of course, this is such a slight issue it's literally not worth fretting about unless your group sizes are in the 0.2x" range.
No, it isn't an argument between nerds. There is a very real danger, in a stressful situation, such as combat or when facing dangerous game, that you short-stroke a bolt action resulting in a jam that can't be cleared by re-cycling the action. The CF (Mauser 98 System) largely prevents short stroking. Not entirely but for the most part. PF actions on the other hand are a serious jam just waiting to happen. So, if you need a second shot on a charging animal and you jam a spent cartridge in the chamber you may end up dead. That is why a Mauser 98, or derivative, is the most trusted of rifles (aside from a double) by professional hunters and guides in Africa.
i prefer pull feed for one reason. My .460 rowland converted 1905 spring can shoot .45 acp as well. If it was push feed it would end up lost in the chamber trying to shoot .45acp
I'm interested in trigger safeties. I've heard a lot of different things about them and my own experiences are more than a little skewed, since it was with the Walther PPQ and that trigger is already featherweight.
@@petedejong6252 lol I'm a patreon subscriber so I get early access to most videos. Sometimes a few days early sometimes almost a month. For me it works out nice i can binge a couple videos and not have to try and stay caught up daily
Back in the day when millions of cheap surplus Mausers were being sporteried, three things were almost always done to the bolt. 1 Bend the bolt handle down for use with a scope. 2 Change the safety lever to clear a scope. 3 File the end of extractor so that it would "Pop over" a cartridge that had been dropped into the chamber. This last part was so that one could load 5 in the magazine, drop a 6th round in the chamber and close the bolt. Unmodified, the Mauser bolt would not close on a carriage that was just dropped into the chamber because it had to slide up and under the extractor lip before entering the chamber. This filing had to be done carefully as too much filing and the extractor could fail to grab the rim of the cartridge and thus not extract it reliably. Too little filing and it would not "Pop over" the rim when closing the bolt. done correctly, it would still control feed from the magazine, and also close on that 6th round. Most of the guys having these rifles modified had just fought a war with them and I guess they considered 5 plus 1 was better than just 5. Maybe when they were in battle, they had sometimes wished that they had just that one extra round. I've seldom needed more than one round or maybe two rounds when hunting, but for some reason it always felt like my rifle was half empty without that extra round in there. Two other things done to the action were to file down the "Hump" around the clip feed slot on top of the action to mount a scope. Also file a little off the rear of the magazine follower to get rid of the last round lock open so you could close the bolt on an empty chamber without having to hold the follower down by hand.
Very cool stuff, thanks. I will make one minor comment.. most of the guys having those rifles modified had just fought a war against people with them ;)
@@zacht9447 Some would, but few, and I tend to think they were worn just enough, or someone tinkered with them in the past. The extractor didn't have much of a bevel in the edge and the face of it stuck out too much and tended to hit flat on face of cartridge head with too much area to slip over the edge. You had to file the edge of the extractor back slightly and file a sharper bevel in the edge. You had to be careful to not file it too far or it would sometimes slip past the rim when trying to eject the empty case. I know how to do it, having filed more than a few while sitting around my uncle's gunsmithing shop while he did important stuff like rebarreling actions drilling scope mount holes, his brother did the stock work. I still have a couple of the custom guns they made for me over the years, built on wildcat calibers. 338/300, 405/300. 300 win mag case is longer than the other belted magnums so you could put in more of a slower burning powder to increase velocity with less chance of over pressure. 338/300 was basically 300 Weatherby ballistics without having to buy overpriced weatherby rifles and ammo. The 405/300 was one step in making something to compete with the 416 Rigby in a standard length action. Besides I always wanted something different than just an "Off The Rack" rifle like everyone else had. I spent the 70's trying to get him to build something in 50 caliber on a bolt action rifle. Why? Well, when asked why he carried a Colt .45 the old cowboy Answered "Because they don't make a Colt .46.." I got over the Wildcat faze, but I never got over the Big Bore faze. My elk rifle is a .416 from Remington's Custom Shop. I've shot elk at 400 yards with it, I've never had to shoot one twice, and I've never had to go looking for one that I shot.
@@zacht9447 Standard loading procedure for the 1903 Springfield rifle with the magazine cutoff engaged was to drop the round into the chamber with the muzzle held slightly down and close the bolt. It always worked just fine on mine, no "lot of force" was needed.
I only had one instance where I thought controlled feed was an advantage. Feeding a round extremely slowly while trying to be extremely quiet, I was on my back and the rifle was upside down. It was a real incident and I was armed with a control feed which fed the round properly. Back in camp and while later demonstrating it with a push feed the round failed to feed.
@@nunyabeeswax2575 I've pretty much said it all, if not for my in camp demonstration I never would have experienced the failure with push feed. Odd how things work out, I carried a controlled feed and I'm now retired with grandchildren. I wonder how it would have gone if that round had dropped and someone heard it? I will say this discussion of push or controlled feed makes me think about the current debate over the new 6MM ARC cartridge for the AR platform. That debate seems to leave out many aspects of the rifle as a tool.
why would you ever be shooting your bolt gun upside down? youd think in a critical situation like that youd want as many elements on your side as possible, but thats kinda going out of the way to make it more difficult for yourself
@@davidmilisock5200 I would also be interested in the specifics of the incident that forced you to feed a round extremely quietly while the rifle was upside down...
The thing about controlled feed is that if the case somehow jumps ahead of the extractor (such as on Mausers with worn feed lips), it becomes impossible to then lip the extractor over the rim when turning the bolt to lock. This can result in a similar double-feed situation if you haven't realized what's happened. I've had this happen on my 98k, and Bloke on the Range has also had it happen to his Manky Mauser.
@@zacht9447 With mausers, or at least the ones I've shot, you can load 5 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. There's enough give in the magazine to get part of a sixth cartridge in. Then, while holding down the sixth cartridge down with your thumb, you can push the bolt forward and it'll strip it from the top of the magazine like normal. You can also just drop the round in and single load it like a push feed system. The extractor is bevelled at the front to allow it to snap over the rim of the cartridge. This isn't recommended though because doing it too much can damage the extractor
Good observation. I have had two CRF rifles do this from the factory! A Ruger M77 and a Winchester M70. I've also had a Kimber 84 that had a poorly-tensioned extractor that would not eject. I've never had a push-feed that had feeding issues.
In addition to wear, the MIM extractor claw used on modern Model 70s also has quite a bit less spring tension and fracture resistance than the solid machined parts from the older generations of guns. Williams firearms makes a billet claw that you can install easily, but a requirement to replace critical parts on a new gun is unseemly. The MIM extractors work fine most of the time, but when the advertised utility of a design is it's "failsafe reliability" vs the easier/cheaper option, that seems like an odd place to cut costs. The MIM extractors are worked significantly closer to their plastic range when snapping over single-fed cartridge rims, which has the potential to cause a failure at the worst possible time. I own only one Model 70 because the effort involved in making a Winchester factory rifle perform as advertised is expensive and time consuming. You'll get very little help from the majority of smiths who these days seem to know how to work on only ARs, M700s and Glocks.
Excellent video as always. I might add an anecdote. I shoot a Yugo M48, controlled feed. I shot a Swedish Mauser 96 which is also controlled feed. The difference is that the M48 is cock on open, where the 96 is cock on close. Not much force is needed to cycle the M48 but when closing an Mauser 96 action you are pushing against the full force of the spring, which completely throws off your muscle memory if you are not prepared for it. I must say the 6.5x55 is a fantastic cartridge, shooting it after shooting my 8mm brought me great joy.
One thing I like about this channel is coming to the comments. Everyone here is so knowledgeable and experienced, and it makes a great compliment to the video to learn a bit more!
The only arguments I ever heard in favor of controlled feed over push feed were from early military / dangerous game perspectives. For the early military (WW1 era, the concern was if you got a damaged / non standard / oversized round that won’t fit in the chamber, you can pull it back out of the chamber and for dangerous game if a rhino is charging at you and you get excited and short stroke the bolt, you won’t jam the rifle.
I do really appreciate you work on these kinda videos Ian! They simple explain things in a very understandable way, so even novices in gun-mechanics can understand more of this great field of knowledge! Great job
One of the arguments like this was between Double Rifle, and bolt actions for Safari. Dangerous game, .375H&H belted magnums, and up. If I remember right, the Bolt Actions were Controlled Feed, while I guess I could be in the double rifle, drilling, and combination gun camp, mostly because I find them beautiful. (The Kreighoff international site is some of my favorite gun porn, even though I have neither the budget, nor any use for a "Big 5" rifle/shotgun combination.) I kinda understand the argument that nothing is faster, and more positive on a second shot than another barrel.
I have also heard it said that a properly designed double can essentially be two entirely separate rifles, so even if one suffers some sort of catastrophic breakage and won't fire, all you have to do is pull the trigger of your "other" rifle.
Where dangerous game is concerned it's not about 'action speed'. It's about the potential to short-stroke the action in a highly stressful situation where a second or third shot is required. If you do this with a push-feed action you will in all probability render the firearm 'inoperable' at a critical moment, and end up dead.
@@haroldgodwinson832 That was another part of the age old argument. Seriously, guys sat around the lodge, smoking pipes, and arguing over what was better when it was Bow, or Crossbow.
@@ScottKenny1978 That's not true, but it's largely academic for self-loading firearms where the bolt operates under constant spring pressure, unlike a bolt-action. The possible advantages or disadvantages of these actions really only manifest when the shooter operates the bolt abnormally. As an example, most semi-automatic pistols use controlled feed. (then there is the Boberg, some blowback pistols with no extractors at all and other curiosities) Edit: Deleted a quip, added pistols as an example.
It's traditional for them to be used, and the people who can make a hunting trip or two to Africa can afford to buy guns which might as well be controlled feed for the purpose. Is it a really significant advantage with at least one guy backing you up with a Mauser-pattern or double rifle? Nah, it's not going to get you killed. If I had the money I'd go with whatever I could run smoothest and shoot most efficiently.
I was always told growing up that controlled feed is better, but from this demonstration, it looks like they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. Thanks for doing quick, straight to the point videos like this Ian!
When I am Bench rest shooting ( sliding a single round) at a time into the chamber, I prefer a push feed. When I am hunting bear solo. I feel better having controlled feed.
Funny that I just ran into this issue the other day, I was shooting a couple of old WWII bolt action guns. My Yugo 24/47 Mauser was control feed. I noticed that it would not close bolt on a round slipped into the chamber, so that doesn't allow a +1 load since it can only feed from the mag. I think some would consider that a disadvantage. Good info in the video, as always!!
What a missed opportunity. I agree with the conclusion, that for most people it will never mater. And given that modern controlled feed firearms are about 2x the cost (Canada, should be a similar ratio elsewhere), and that push feed are often more accurate, though often to an irrelevant degree, push feed are great. Of course, there are still some relatively inexpensive surplus controlled feed guns out there. But the issue is basically bolt action battle rifles, that on a historic and military interest channel should be of some interest. And the principles for battle rifles are also relevant to dangerous game, or home defense type applications. For myself, I don't want to go afield in even deer hunting applications without a controlled round feed (CFR) gun. The main advantage is that you can't lock up the gun with CRF; it can be operated from weird positions, or even while under assault, and still feed; and the extractor is usually large enough to reliably extract somewhat jammed ammunition. There are no compensating advantage to push feed in the situation for which CRF was designed. The reference to sniper rifles is very misleading. Probably most sniper rifles in history were CRF, but today they are largely an outgrowth of benchrest and varmint technology, and then went off in their own direction. It turned out that the cheap to manufacture Model 700 was also very easy to machine to perfection, and it was controlled round feed. Today we can get mechanical perfection in oddly shaped parts with CNC. We probably could make CRF rifles that would perform as well as those that have evolved from the 700, but nobody cares, which is fine. But it is not the lack of CRF that makes these rifles better or more accurate. They are the result of a path that did not evolve from CRF rifles, and is not badly hampered by that. If you are shooting targets at 2500 yards, or even from 250 yards, unless you get overrun at some point, you don't really need a CRF gun. It would still be an advantage. And it would not need to be a Mauser pattern rifle. If the great amount of energy that has been applied to micro innovation in sniper rifles were applied to making the ammo stay on the bolt face, would there not be a good solution? Would such a rifle not be better?
Already knew the difference,but wanted to get your take on the subject. Agree with you, wouldn’t be a factor on choice of rifles. Way more important things to worry about.
You are correct Ian, in the fact that neither the Push, or Control feed is any better, or worse than the other. Such as was the case with model 70 Winchester rifle when they switched over to push in 1964. This was a money saving and ease of build reason by Olin Arms. The shooters who preferred a Mauser style Control-Feed screamed from the heights how terrible and inferior the Push-Feed was. They sighted many "Opinions" and, or made up reasons like how if you turned the rifle upside down with a push how the cartridge would fall out when the bolt went forward, while the control type would hang on to it. It was all basically a lot non-sense. I have my Grandfathers Pre-64 model 70 Sporter in .270 Winchester, a Post-64 model 70 XTR in .270 Winchester and a Post-64 model 70 "Classic" Feather-Weight with Claw-Extractor in .308 Winchester. They all handle and feed flawlessly and with proper ammunition all shoot well under 1-minute of angle at 100-yards. and that is all that matters in the end.
I have a Remington 22 LR bolt action with a tube magazine from the 1930's that has a really interesting elevator system that can run 22 short, long, or LR. It lifts the cartridge inline with the barrel then the bolt pushes it directly into the barrel. There are no ramps so the nose of the bullet can't get deformed, and there is no way to double feed.
I've seen push feeds fail to eject a loaded round (ie a dud) with heavier calibers such as 300 Win Mag. Which is one reason a lot of dangerous game hunters insist on using control feed.
Now, being that I own a Mauser, and, a MAS-36, I'm going to have to get 'em out of the gun safe, and, check this out myself. I never really noticed the difference before.
@@zacharyrollick6169 I'm sure I probably noticed some small difference, but, I never really thought about it. I always concentrated more on the MAS' lack of any type of safety.
Thank you for a very informative video, I don’t see either one having an advantage in all situations and now I have more information about it. I enjoy these types of videos and look forward to seeing more of them from you.
For being a mechanically include gun enthusiast i was not aware of these two different systems. Thank you for continuing to be incredibly informative and entertaining.
I really like this series. It´s very informative on the mechanics and also very to the point without any rambling about as well as clear demonstrations of what is explained. Really educational.
Having used a push feed rifle extensively, the most annoying thing about it is the plunger ejector, specifically when shooting at the bench. As a reloader, I like to catch my brass as it comes out of the gun which the plunger ejector makes difficult to do. I have just recently been shooting a swedish mauser with the controlled feed and I find it much nicer to be able to control the ejection of the brass by how I pull the bolt back. In practical hunting applications though, the plunger ejector works wonderfully to get that fired brass out of there as quickly as possible.
One other benefit of CRF over PF is the ability to reliably control ejection of a spent case. Push feed pretty much goes on its own, and often with "gusto." If I want to keep spent cases from flying out of the rifle, CRF makes that easier, by executing a slow pull backward when cycling the bolt. Other than that they are both very useful and workable action types for a bolt action.
I mean demolition ranch and all these other fun gun channels are nice because you can laugh and have a good time but every time after I listen to Ian's voice I feel educated. You can be in to firearms for quite a time but still this channel teach you some new stuff you didn’t know that as existed. I love this channel go on Ian
Cool video 👍. I have several turn bolt rifles, all mixed actions. No issues! Of course I polished all sliding and bearing surfaces, and I hard cycle the actions. No short stroking allowed!
Great timing, I came across the two different types last night and you have answered the question I hadn’t had the time to look up, hopefully you answer what I’m wondering about today😃
I feel like an opportunity was missed in the discussion when it comes to machine guns. There you see the dynamic flipped as the higher rate of fire presents a greater opportunity for double feeds and other ammunition malfunctions. Of course both styles are in wide spread use, but I figured it would be germane to today's topic.
Except Ian's wrong about this. CF is a vastly superior 'combat/dangerous game' action than a push feed. On the range it makes no difference but in stressful situations the CF is much less prone to jamming.
The other thing to note for some push feeds in this case the Remington 700, the bolt "frees" the round from the magazine fairly early. Thus charging the gun sideways or in odd postions the round can literately fall out or miss place to jam up.
One difference i can really see come up is that single feeding loose rounds into the chamber or in front of an open bolt and closing can damage a control freed, while a push feed calls it another Wednesday
In some cases, perhaps. But this is very easy to mitigate through design. For example, the original 1911 design included a spring steel internal extractor, with a bevel on the front face of the extractor claw. So, normally a controlled feed design (when using magazines with the original style taper feed lips) but, thanks to the spring steel, capable of flexing to slip over the rim to allow fallback to push-feed function. This is typically forgotten on modern 1911s, because the anachronistic obsession with wadcutter- or hybrid-style feed lips on magazines (itself the legacy of early "flying ashtray" type hollow points with an ogive drastically different from 230gr ball) turns it into an exclusively push-feed design where the round is released prematurely by the magazine feed lips and allowed to "jump" up into the extractor claw, being uncontrolled during that interval. It is this inadvertent change in design which is responsible for most of the 1911's diminished reputation for reliability.
Some (Jerry M with the really fast finger) would argue that this can cause issues (damaged case heads/broken extractors/Failure to extract), but a properly designed firearm will accommodate the single loading, especially for military use. Why? Hand loading special cartridges on top of the normal ammo for one (rifle grenade launching/ line throwing). Yes, there is the risk of a failure, but any mechanical system can fail. Properly maintain the firearm, and replace the worn parts, and it should last for a long time.
@@HansengineeringFWIW my defensive handloads use 230 gr. Sierra GameKing JHP and they feed better out of tapered feed lips than hybrid. Which begs the question exactly what hell hybrid feed lips are for anymore.
In the early stage of WWI most rifle have magazine cutoff for soldiers to single load a round, so I think the controlled feed on military bolt action rifle is totally fine because they were also design to do so!
Slow feeding short cartridges with a Push Feed system is very prone to jams. Quick feeding is less of a problem. Slow feeding cartridges from the magazine are less of problem with a Controlled Feed system, and slow extraction allows the shooter to drop the empty case nearby, or fast extraction will kick the case quite a way. With Push Feed the case ejects under spring pressure with both slow and fast extraction forcing a target shooter to using 2 hands to keep the case from flying all over the place. Push Feed is just a Bean Counters way to more profit.
I was JUST looking this up yesterday. I wanted a controlled feed due to me being left handed and push feeds arent left handed ejecting friendly if I tilt the gun. Controlled feed is the best also cuz mauser, k98k and others are famous for a reason
Work at an ffl, had a guy that came in and made a point to see our control feed bolt action rifles. Which consisted of a Winchester model 70 and a kimber Hunter. I would venture a guess and say that they are not very common in today’s firearms
It's still very common, just not as much in bolt action rifles (even though you see more of even those in Europe). Outside of bolt action rifles however, you'll find controlled feed for example on almost every semi-automatic pistol on the market.
I jammed up a rifle with control feed by single loading a cartridge without pushing it down into the magazine. The bolt pushed it forward enough for it to get stuck in the chamber, but couldn't go into battery because the extractor wasn't over the lip of the cartridge. Ended up having to remove the bolt and push the round out with a cleaning rod 😂
I have heard that rifles like my Mauser have it was so that the gun could be cycled in any position or while moving around. But like you said no longer a problem as soldiers don't use bolt actions and if they do they certainly aren't running and shooting often.
The main advantage of a CF action like a Mauser 98 is that it largely eliminates short-stroking induced jams that will render a firearm totally inoperable. Short stroking is much more likely, in a stressful situation, when using a PF action. Why Ian doesn't understand this I don't know.
Professional hunters in African safari companies generally prefer control feed actions because they are more foolproof under stress, something learned by militaries of the early twentieth century. Also, with controlled feed, you can clear a loaded magazine without having to push the bolt fully into battery by simply pushing the bolt back and forth, something I used to demo in class.
The only bolt guns I own are hunting rifles, having said that I prefer the controlled feed design like the Ruger m77 for unloading the magazine by running the bolt back and forth without locking it into battery. Just a preference.
Odd. The Springfield '03 is controlled feed and is intended to be single fed. I've also not had any issues with a Pre-64 Winchester Model 70. Possibly a per-rifle basis on this issue?
Yes, it can be easily overcome with extractor design. There is nothing magical on push feed rifles that allows their extractors to spring over the cartridge.
Don't you just put the round into the magazine and load it? I was told just setting a round in there and having the lips snap over it is not the best. At least my rifle makes a horrible snap when that happens. But it works.
That was pretty interesting. It's something I thought about once or twice but never something I ever really cared to understand. So it's cool to see that there IS a difference but that it really isn't that important. Good stuff, Ian!
Actually, there is a difference and it IS important. In a combat or dangerous game scenario CF actions largely eliminate short-stroke induced jams. They also provide much more positive and reliable extraction/ejection of spent cartridges.
The comment on modern adoption of push feed rifles, particularly in the US, is a bit misleading. The US sniper rifle WAS controlled round feed (the M1903) until Vietnam following the failure of the M14 sniper derivatives to live up to DMR level precision. The US military was on the verge of adopting another controlled round feed rifle (the Winchester M70) when two things happened, both related to labor costs. Winchester reworked the M70 and produced a completely new, push feed action still called the M70 to save labor costs while Remington addressed that issue with a new push feed design, the M700. Both rifles served as sniper rifles in Vietnam, but the Remington was formally adopted as the M24 (Ian has a great video on an M70 Vietnam era sniper rifle with a Unertl 8x scope that will cause you to appreciate whatever scope and mount system you have). Perhaps most confusing, the difference between the M70 and M700 when the US adopted the M700 was NOT CRF vs push feed. M700 saved on cost by machining its receiver from a cylindrical steel tube and a separate recoil lug ( a thick washer with one side protruding) sandwiched between the barrel and receiver. Winchester never moved away from a one piece receiver with an integral recoil lug, and eventually went back to a controlled round feed rifle after CNC machining made the labor cost difference negligible (though they use metal injection molding for their extractors, which is a problem in its own right). Dakota Rifles currently makes two CRF models, the 76 and 99, which differ only in that the 76 uses a one piece receiver while the 99 uses the M700 style tube receiver/washer recoil lug system. I agree that in most contexts the difference is negligible, but when the rifle MUST fire repeatedly as a safety issue, CRF has two advantages. First, it is possible to short stroke a bolt action when working it quickly as covered in the video. Second, a Mauser claw will pull off the case rim before failing. A truly stuck case will remain in the barrel of a push or controlled round feed gun, but the CRF rifle can nearly always be fixed by running a rod down the barrel whereas the push feed rifle likely has a broken extractor from the frenzied efforts of its operator. This has led to the popularity of M16 style extractors as a modification for the M700, though their installation requires the removal and reattachment of the bolt head.
Yes, I agree entirely. I would add one other reason a CF is superior. The CF (Mauser 98 system) incorporates a fixed blade ejector which is far less likely to fail than is a mechanical (spring activated) button ejector typically found on PF actions.
I would like to add that there are push-feed rifles with the ejector fixed in the receiver. One example of this besides the MAS 36 are all the Schmidt Rubin rifles.
One factor with push feed (plunger eject) is you can't just 'ease the bolt back' and pick up the empty out of the action (for re-loaders in particular, or for just 'policing' your brass), the empty is always thrown a 'way over yonder' if you want to or not, with a CRF you can throw them a mile and a half, if you want, or you can keep them nice and handy. As for accuracy differences, I don't think that there is more than 'half a blond one' between the two (I have both in the safe) and I think there is too many other factors with much bigger influences on accuracy to determine if one is better than the other in 'normal use' situations, yes the dedicated bench rest set-up may be able to tell if there is any difference, but they don't have magazines (for the most part) so it is a moot point anyway. Ian, from one long haired, lefty, gun person to another, keep up the good work and keep the videos coming.
Love these! I'm watching this after watching the other info video on how to unload various weapon platforms, honestly I'd dig an entire series explaining how various mechanics of guns work.
I'm not trying to controversial, but why would anyone use leather? I was trained with a Vicker's sling, and all I can see are disadvantages for leather. Teach me! I wanna learn. :D
That was excellent, I finally understand the difference between the pros and cons. Controlled feed is what I'd prefer, I'd hate to get nervous around a big, brown bear and experience a double feed malfunction with a push feed action. I'm now old enough to understand how dumb/accidental things happen.
I minor feature of controlled feed is that it is easy to quickly empty the magazine by quickly cycling the action halfway (enough to grab round from mag, then pull back and eject).
But what if I want to chamber my bolt action while repelling upside down during my super awesome tactical raid to my refrigerator? Surely a control feed would be the only practical option?!?!
A lot of bench shooters like push-feed actions as they can drop one round into the action and easily feed it into the chamber. Reloaders like control-feed so that they can slowly pull the action back and the empty brass falls right beside the rifle on the bench, so as to not have to hunt down brass, and risk having it dinged up from being ejected.
Actually it isn't. Ian doesn't appear to understand why controlled-feed is used almost exclusively by dangerous game hunters (and obviously is better in combat for the same reasons). There are three reasons 1) it eliminates short-stroke jamming which will render a firearm inoperable, 2) the fixed blade ejector on a controlled feed action can't be jammed by mud/sand etc. and 3) the extractor claw on a controlled-feed action grips almost half the circumference of the rim ensuring more positive extraction. Push-feed extractors are typically half the size or smaller.
I think that you should also make an additional note on the operation of a controlled feed system. You cannot just drop a cartridge on to the follower and chamber it due to the fact that the extractor cant snap over the rim of the case. The only way to get the cartidge to feed correctly is when it comes from the magazine. I think this in some ways is a detriment to an internal magazine since you can only have a maximum capacity of what the magazine was designed for.
I have a pushfeed rifle that don’t really like my cheap dummy rounds i have som problem with them not ejecting so that’s just one thing to think about when you choose another type of ammo to check if it ejects and feeds right
"...are of long standing debate within some of the firearms community."
Translation: Here's two different feed systems, but only the real nerds argue over them.
Literally, millions of dollars have been sent on the differences in the last, say 50 years in the sporting community (which is the vast majority of the users of bolt actioned rifles in the world since the 1950's).
In sporting rifles, as much of the concern is the inherent accuracy and safety of the bolt and receiver, not so much the speed and security of the feed mechanisms, as Ian mentioned controlled feed in military circles is not much of an issue.
Why the concern over the feed mechanism for safety? Other than some really significant and successful modern examples of controlled feed, the 'push feed' has a fully and supported case head surrounding the brass case head with the steel of the bolt face and the receiver. This is important as many modern rifle rounds are operating at pressures far in excess of the typical cartridges of the 1910s and 20s. For example, a .300 Winchester Magnum is operating at pressures far in excess of say a .303 British or even a 30-06. The extra support of the fully enclosed case head by the bolt might be considered to be a safety factor. (Yes, I know the .300 Winchester Magnum was initially chambered in the 'old' Winchester Model 70, a rifle with 'controlled feed')
Also, in sporting rifles, most consider controlled feed an important concern when hunting 'dangerous game' such as bears and other large animals that could take exception to being hunted.
Why is the push feed often considered to be important to accuracy? I have no direct experience, but I have been told and read that the fully supported chamber of most push feed bolt actions may provide a better seal and more consistent fit, helping eliminate some variables that might contribute to greater or lesser accuracy.
I think the time could be better spent practicing practical shooting.
@@charlesadams1721 Excellent job of proving OP's point.
There is an actual, valid reason to argue about this, in long-range shooting because a push-feed can slightly shift the bullet in the case, which can very slightly shift its POI- which is inconsistent, and thus will expand groups.
Of course, this is such a slight issue it's literally not worth fretting about unless your group sizes are in the 0.2x" range.
No, it isn't an argument between nerds. There is a very real danger, in a stressful situation, such as combat or when facing dangerous game, that you short-stroke a bolt action resulting in a jam that can't be cleared by re-cycling the action. The CF (Mauser 98 System) largely prevents short stroking. Not entirely but for the most part. PF actions on the other hand are a serious jam just waiting to happen. So, if you need a second shot on a charging animal and you jam a spent cartridge in the chamber you may end up dead. That is why a Mauser 98, or derivative, is the most trusted of rifles (aside from a double) by professional hunters and guides in Africa.
Didn't even knew that differences between feed system exist. Thank you, Ian
i prefer pull feed for one reason. My .460 rowland converted 1905 spring can shoot .45 acp as well. If it was push feed it would end up lost in the chamber trying to shoot .45acp
@@Burritoswithfritos Nice bit of info
I own both and it never even occurred to me. Shame on me.
@@Burritoswithfritos So does the bolt reach halfway into the chamber when using .45 acp?
It's a big thing with hunters and whichester model 70 collectors.
I love this "How Does It Work" episodes. make one about handgun safety mechanisms
Yes, and transfer bar vs hammer block safety systems.
I'm interested in trigger safeties. I've heard a lot of different things about them and my own experiences are more than a little skewed, since it was with the Walther PPQ and that trigger is already featherweight.
Not necessarily just about handguns, but the various forms of safeties of weapons, perhaps separated into videos on "manual" and "passive" safeties.
Thanks for the little break down I love these short educational videos that illustrate different operating mechanisms and not just the guns as a whole
How is this comment 2 days ago
@@petedejong6252 damn time travelers!! They were their when JFK was in Dallas man, I know it man...
Lol
@@petedejong6252 patreon pre-play?
@@beek014 yeah i pay the $20 a month to get early access. Some videos can be over a month in advance
@@petedejong6252 lol I'm a patreon subscriber so I get early access to most videos. Sometimes a few days early sometimes almost a month. For me it works out nice i can binge a couple videos and not have to try and stay caught up daily
Back in the day when millions of cheap surplus Mausers were being sporteried, three things were almost always done to the bolt.
1 Bend the bolt handle down for use with a scope.
2 Change the safety lever to clear a scope.
3 File the end of extractor so that it would "Pop over" a cartridge that had been dropped into the chamber.
This last part was so that one could load 5 in the magazine, drop a 6th round in the chamber and close the bolt. Unmodified, the Mauser bolt would not close on a carriage that was just dropped into the chamber because it had to slide up and under the extractor lip before entering the chamber. This filing had to be done carefully as too much filing and the extractor could fail to grab the rim of the cartridge and thus not extract it reliably. Too little filing and it would not "Pop over" the rim when closing the bolt. done correctly, it would still control feed from the magazine, and also close on that 6th round.
Most of the guys having these rifles modified had just fought a war with them and I guess they considered 5 plus 1 was better than just 5. Maybe when they were in battle, they had sometimes wished that they had just that one extra round.
I've seldom needed more than one round or maybe two rounds when hunting, but for some reason it always felt like my rifle was half empty without that extra round in there.
Two other things done to the action were to file down the "Hump" around the clip feed slot on top of the action to mount a scope. Also file a little off the rear of the magazine follower to get rid of the last round lock open so you could close the bolt on an empty chamber without having to hold the follower down by hand.
Very cool stuff, thanks. I will make one minor comment.. most of the guys having those rifles modified had just fought a war against people with them ;)
Oh they will close on a cartridge ahead of the extractor just be prepared to use a LOT of force
@@zacht9447 Some would, but few, and I tend to think they were worn just enough, or someone tinkered with them in the past. The extractor didn't have much of a bevel in the edge and the face of it stuck out too much and tended to hit flat on face of cartridge head with too much area to slip over the edge. You had to file the edge of the extractor back slightly and file a sharper bevel in the edge. You had to be careful to not file it too far or it would sometimes slip past the rim when trying to eject the empty case.
I know how to do it, having filed more than a few while sitting around my uncle's gunsmithing shop while he did important stuff like rebarreling actions drilling scope mount holes, his brother did the stock work. I still have a couple of the custom guns they made for me over the years, built on wildcat calibers. 338/300, 405/300.
300 win mag case is longer than the other belted magnums so you could put in more of a slower burning powder to increase velocity with less chance of over pressure.
338/300 was basically 300 Weatherby ballistics without having to buy overpriced weatherby rifles and ammo. The 405/300 was one step in making something to compete with the 416 Rigby in a standard length action. Besides I always wanted something different than just an "Off The Rack" rifle like everyone else had.
I spent the 70's trying to get him to build something in 50 caliber on a bolt action rifle.
Why?
Well, when asked why he carried a Colt .45 the old cowboy Answered
"Because they don't make a Colt .46.."
I got over the Wildcat faze, but I never got over the Big Bore faze.
My elk rifle is a .416 from Remington's Custom Shop.
I've shot elk at 400 yards with it, I've never had to shoot one twice, and I've never had to go looking for one that I shot.
@@zacht9447 Standard loading procedure for the 1903 Springfield rifle with the magazine cutoff engaged was to drop the round into the chamber with the muzzle held slightly down and close the bolt. It always worked just fine on mine, no "lot of force" was needed.
@@johnkelinske1449 that's a 1903 not a k98 it's got a smaller hook easier to snap over a rim
I only had one instance where I thought controlled feed was an advantage. Feeding a round extremely slowly while trying to be extremely quiet, I was on my back and the rifle was upside down. It was a real incident and I was armed with a control feed which fed the round properly. Back in camp and while later demonstrating it with a push feed the round failed to feed.
You're leaving us hanging here old boy. Quite piqued right now.
@@nunyabeeswax2575 I've pretty much said it all, if not for my in camp demonstration I never would have experienced the failure with push feed. Odd how things work out, I carried a controlled feed and I'm now retired with grandchildren. I wonder how it would have gone if that round had dropped and someone heard it?
I will say this discussion of push or controlled feed makes me think about the current debate over the new 6MM ARC cartridge for the AR platform. That debate seems to leave out many aspects of the rifle as a tool.
why would you ever be shooting your bolt gun upside down? youd think in a critical situation like that youd want as many elements on your side as possible, but thats kinda going out of the way to make it more difficult for yourself
@@davidmilisock5200 I would also be interested in the specifics of the incident that forced you to feed a round extremely quietly while the rifle was upside down...
Were you in combat or hunting?
The thing about controlled feed is that if the case somehow jumps ahead of the extractor (such as on Mausers with worn feed lips), it becomes impossible to then lip the extractor over the rim when turning the bolt to lock. This can result in a similar double-feed situation if you haven't realized what's happened. I've had this happen on my 98k, and Bloke on the Range has also had it happen to his Manky Mauser.
Does it result in a double feed?
And you can't single feed the rifle or load 5 in the mag and one in the chamber
@@zacht9447 With mausers, or at least the ones I've shot, you can load 5 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber.
There's enough give in the magazine to get part of a sixth cartridge in. Then, while holding down the sixth cartridge down with your thumb, you can push the bolt forward and it'll strip it from the top of the magazine like normal.
You can also just drop the round in and single load it like a push feed system. The extractor is bevelled at the front to allow it to snap over the rim of the cartridge. This isn't recommended though because doing it too much can damage the extractor
Good observation. I have had two CRF rifles do this from the factory! A Ruger M77 and a Winchester M70.
I've also had a Kimber 84 that had a poorly-tensioned extractor that would not eject.
I've never had a push-feed that had feeding issues.
In addition to wear, the MIM extractor claw used on modern Model 70s also has quite a bit less spring tension and fracture resistance than the solid machined parts from the older generations of guns. Williams firearms makes a billet claw that you can install easily, but a requirement to replace critical parts on a new gun is unseemly. The MIM extractors work fine most of the time, but when the advertised utility of a design is it's "failsafe reliability" vs the easier/cheaper option, that seems like an odd place to cut costs. The MIM extractors are worked significantly closer to their plastic range when snapping over single-fed cartridge rims, which has the potential to cause a failure at the worst possible time.
I own only one Model 70 because the effort involved in making a Winchester factory rifle perform as advertised is expensive and time consuming. You'll get very little help from the majority of smiths who these days seem to know how to work on only ARs, M700s and Glocks.
Excellent video as always. I might add an anecdote. I shoot a Yugo M48, controlled feed. I shot a Swedish Mauser 96 which is also controlled feed. The difference is that the M48 is cock on open, where the 96 is cock on close. Not much force is needed to cycle the M48 but when closing an Mauser 96 action you are pushing against the full force of the spring, which completely throws off your muscle memory if you are not prepared for it.
I must say the 6.5x55 is a fantastic cartridge, shooting it after shooting my 8mm brought me great joy.
I liked that and now I want more clear and concise "How Does It Work" episodes !
One thing I like about this channel is coming to the comments. Everyone here is so knowledgeable and experienced, and it makes a great compliment to the video to learn a bit more!
I would love to see one of these episodes on push-through vs pull-out belt feed mechanisms.
The only arguments I ever heard in favor of controlled feed over push feed were from early military / dangerous game perspectives. For the early military (WW1 era, the concern was if you got a damaged / non standard / oversized round that won’t fit in the chamber, you can pull it back out of the chamber and for dangerous game if a rhino is charging at you and you get excited and short stroke the bolt, you won’t jam the rifle.
I love that the example of push feed that Ian used, out of all of the vast multitude of possible examples, was a MAS-36. Of course!
I do really appreciate you work on these kinda videos Ian! They simple explain things in a very understandable way, so even novices in gun-mechanics can understand more of this great field of knowledge! Great job
One of the arguments like this was between Double Rifle, and bolt actions for Safari. Dangerous game, .375H&H belted magnums, and up. If I remember right, the Bolt Actions were Controlled Feed, while I guess I could be in the double rifle, drilling, and combination gun camp, mostly because I find them beautiful. (The Kreighoff international site is some of my favorite gun porn, even though I have neither the budget, nor any use for a "Big 5" rifle/shotgun combination.) I kinda understand the argument that nothing is faster, and more positive on a second shot than another barrel.
I have also heard it said that a properly designed double can essentially be two entirely separate rifles, so even if one suffers some sort of catastrophic breakage and won't fire, all you have to do is pull the trigger of your "other" rifle.
Where dangerous game is concerned it's not about 'action speed'. It's about the potential to short-stroke the action in a highly stressful situation where a second or third shot is required. If you do this with a push-feed action you will in all probability render the firearm 'inoperable' at a critical moment, and end up dead.
@@haroldgodwinson832 That was another part of the age old argument. Seriously, guys sat around the lodge, smoking pipes, and arguing over what was better when it was Bow, or Crossbow.
The controlled round feed still has its place in dangerous game shooting.
And yet all semi autos (that I know of) use push feed, and military use is definitely the most "dangerous game"
Why's that?
@@ScottKenny1978 That's not true, but it's largely academic for self-loading firearms where the bolt operates under constant spring pressure, unlike a bolt-action. The possible advantages or disadvantages of these actions really only manifest when the shooter operates the bolt abnormally.
As an example, most semi-automatic pistols use controlled feed. (then there is the Boberg, some blowback pistols with no extractors at all and other curiosities)
Edit: Deleted a quip, added pistols as an example.
But Seriously
How many people actually shoot dangerous game when not on their keyboard.?
It's traditional for them to be used, and the people who can make a hunting trip or two to Africa can afford to buy guns which might as well be controlled feed for the purpose. Is it a really significant advantage with at least one guy backing you up with a Mauser-pattern or double rifle? Nah, it's not going to get you killed. If I had the money I'd go with whatever I could run smoothest and shoot most efficiently.
I was always told growing up that controlled feed is better, but from this demonstration, it looks like they both have their own advantages and disadvantages.
Thanks for doing quick, straight to the point videos like this Ian!
When I am Bench rest shooting ( sliding a single round) at a time into the chamber, I prefer a push feed. When I am hunting bear solo. I feel better having controlled feed.
* casually sneaks french rifle into general info video *
next level indeed
Funny that I just ran into this issue the other day, I was shooting a couple of old WWII bolt action guns. My Yugo 24/47 Mauser was control feed. I noticed that it would not close bolt on a round slipped into the chamber, so that doesn't allow a +1 load since it can only feed from the mag. I think some would consider that a disadvantage.
Good info in the video, as always!!
What a missed opportunity. I agree with the conclusion, that for most people it will never mater. And given that modern controlled feed firearms are about 2x the cost (Canada, should be a similar ratio elsewhere), and that push feed are often more accurate, though often to an irrelevant degree, push feed are great. Of course, there are still some relatively inexpensive surplus controlled feed guns out there.
But the issue is basically bolt action battle rifles, that on a historic and military interest channel should be of some interest. And the principles for battle rifles are also relevant to dangerous game, or home defense type applications. For myself, I don't want to go afield in even deer hunting applications without a controlled round feed (CFR) gun.
The main advantage is that you can't lock up the gun with CRF; it can be operated from weird positions, or even while under assault, and still feed; and the extractor is usually large enough to reliably extract somewhat jammed ammunition. There are no compensating advantage to push feed in the situation for which CRF was designed.
The reference to sniper rifles is very misleading. Probably most sniper rifles in history were CRF, but today they are largely an outgrowth of benchrest and varmint technology, and then went off in their own direction. It turned out that the cheap to manufacture Model 700 was also very easy to machine to perfection, and it was controlled round feed.
Today we can get mechanical perfection in oddly shaped parts with CNC. We probably could make CRF rifles that would perform as well as those that have evolved from the 700, but nobody cares, which is fine. But it is not the lack of CRF that makes these rifles better or more accurate. They are the result of a path that did not evolve from CRF rifles, and is not badly hampered by that. If you are shooting targets at 2500 yards, or even from 250 yards, unless you get overrun at some point, you don't really need a CRF gun. It would still be an advantage. And it would not need to be a Mauser pattern rifle.
If the great amount of energy that has been applied to micro innovation in sniper rifles were applied to making the ammo stay on the bolt face, would there not be a good solution? Would such a rifle not be better?
Already knew the difference,but wanted to get your take on the subject. Agree with you, wouldn’t be a factor on choice of rifles. Way more important things to worry about.
love this series, it gives answers to questions i didnt even know existed
You are correct Ian, in the fact that neither the Push, or Control feed is any better, or worse than the other. Such as was the case with model 70 Winchester rifle when they switched over to push in 1964. This was a money saving and ease of build reason by Olin Arms. The shooters who preferred a Mauser style Control-Feed screamed from the heights how terrible and inferior the Push-Feed was. They sighted many "Opinions" and, or made up reasons like how if you turned the rifle upside down with a push how the cartridge would fall out when the bolt went forward, while the control type would hang on to it. It was all basically a lot non-sense. I have my Grandfathers Pre-64 model 70 Sporter in .270 Winchester, a Post-64 model 70 XTR in .270 Winchester and a Post-64 model 70 "Classic" Feather-Weight with Claw-Extractor in .308 Winchester. They all handle and feed flawlessly and with proper ammunition all shoot well under 1-minute of angle at 100-yards. and that is all that matters in the end.
Love this format, short enough to watch at work when there's a few minute gap in things, and well explained.
I have a Remington 22 LR bolt action with a tube magazine from the 1930's that has a really interesting elevator system that can run 22 short, long, or LR. It lifts the cartridge inline with the barrel then the bolt pushes it directly into the barrel. There are no ramps so the nose of the bullet can't get deformed, and there is no way to double feed.
I've seen push feeds fail to eject a loaded round (ie a dud) with heavier calibers such as 300 Win Mag. Which is one reason a lot of dangerous game hunters insist on using control feed.
Love having things explained and Ian is always very thorough with his vlogs.
This was wonderful, i noticed the different feeding actions along time ago and just never thought about it again. I would love to see more.
This is the kind of video I love to see on RUclips. Actually useful and informative. Well done Ian.
Now, being that I own a Mauser, and, a MAS-36, I'm going to have to get 'em out of the gun safe, and, check this out myself. I never really noticed the difference before.
I have a Yugo Mauser and a Mosin. I noticed this, but at the same time I didn't.
Sounds like a good excuse for a range day!
@@zacharyrollick6169 I'm sure I probably noticed some small difference, but, I never really thought about it. I always concentrated more on the MAS' lack of any type of safety.
I thought I was going to learn how to make my kids eat their vegetables...dang
Belt feed works best!
That'd be the "push feed" option.
"Controlled feed" is when your wife makes you eat yours.
@@williamtrencher2052 I was thinking stripper clips, but now I see your point. I will attempt this tomorrow, follow up comment asap
Old school, ramrod.. Zero failure to feed!
@@bassassassinnn7459 Push feed. You don't want his food to go back with the spoon, do you?
I never really thought about this and really didn’t know it was an issue. This was great little “gold nugget” you shared today. Very cool 🤘
Thank you for a very informative video, I don’t see either one having an advantage in all situations and now I have more information about it. I enjoy these types of videos and look forward to seeing more of them from you.
For being a mechanically include gun enthusiast i was not aware of these two different systems. Thank you for continuing to be incredibly informative and entertaining.
I love that any time I hear a term about firearms I don’t know or understand, Forgotten weapons has me covered
Nice video. Thanks for making it. Wasn't sure I'd find a video on this. It sure helped me to understand all the details vs. just reading about it.!!
I really like this series. It´s very informative on the mechanics and also very to the point without any rambling about as well as clear demonstrations of what is explained. Really educational.
I'd love to see more tutorial/learning videos like this one. Keep them coming!
Having used a push feed rifle extensively, the most annoying thing about it is the plunger ejector, specifically when shooting at the bench. As a reloader, I like to catch my brass as it comes out of the gun which the plunger ejector makes difficult to do. I have just recently been shooting a swedish mauser with the controlled feed and I find it much nicer to be able to control the ejection of the brass by how I pull the bolt back. In practical hunting applications though, the plunger ejector works wonderfully to get that fired brass out of there as quickly as possible.
One other benefit of CRF over PF is the ability to reliably control ejection of a spent case. Push feed pretty much goes on its own, and often with "gusto." If I want to keep spent cases from flying out of the rifle, CRF makes that easier, by executing a slow pull backward when cycling the bolt.
Other than that they are both very useful and workable action types for a bolt action.
I mean demolition ranch and all these other fun gun channels are nice because you can laugh and have a good time but every time after I listen to Ian's voice I feel educated. You can be in to firearms for quite a time but still this channel teach you some new stuff you didn’t know that as existed. I love this channel go on Ian
I've heard debates on the two, but I never thought that much of it to debate the subject. Thank you for this informative video.
Cool video 👍. I have several turn bolt rifles, all mixed actions. No issues! Of course I polished all sliding and bearing surfaces, and I hard cycle the actions. No short stroking allowed!
Thank you papa Ian, learned something new about firearms today, and I wasn't sure there was much more I didn't know! You are my favorite person.
Great timing, I came across the two different types last night and you have answered the question I hadn’t had the time to look up, hopefully you answer what I’m wondering about today😃
I have to admit I truly enjoy your content. All of it. You continue to broaden the knowledge base of so many people daily. Thank you
I feel like an opportunity was missed in the discussion when it comes to machine guns. There you see the dynamic flipped as the higher rate of fire presents a greater opportunity for double feeds and other ammunition malfunctions. Of course both styles are in wide spread use, but I figured it would be germane to today's topic.
Hi, Ian. Very clearly explained. Well done. I had no clue before you brought it up. Thanks for sharing! Stay healthy!
The best explanation on RUclips - Thanks.
I really like your how does it work short videos. it’s nice to point novices to a explanation that is correct, unbiased, and easily demonstrated.
Except Ian's wrong about this. CF is a vastly superior 'combat/dangerous game' action than a push feed. On the range it makes no difference but in stressful situations the CF is much less prone to jamming.
The other thing to note for some push feeds in this case the Remington 700, the bolt "frees" the round from the magazine fairly early. Thus charging the gun sideways or in odd postions the round can literately fall out or miss place to jam up.
Learned something new today. Thank you Ian for you interesting work!
One difference i can really see come up is that single feeding loose rounds into the chamber or in front of an open bolt and closing can damage a control freed, while a push feed calls it another Wednesday
In some cases, perhaps. But this is very easy to mitigate through design. For example, the original 1911 design included a spring steel internal extractor, with a bevel on the front face of the extractor claw. So, normally a controlled feed design (when using magazines with the original style taper feed lips) but, thanks to the spring steel, capable of flexing to slip over the rim to allow fallback to push-feed function.
This is typically forgotten on modern 1911s, because the anachronistic obsession with wadcutter- or hybrid-style feed lips on magazines (itself the legacy of early "flying ashtray" type hollow points with an ogive drastically different from 230gr ball) turns it into an exclusively push-feed design where the round is released prematurely by the magazine feed lips and allowed to "jump" up into the extractor claw, being uncontrolled during that interval. It is this inadvertent change in design which is responsible for most of the 1911's diminished reputation for reliability.
Some (Jerry M with the really fast finger) would argue that this can cause issues (damaged case heads/broken extractors/Failure to extract), but a properly designed firearm will accommodate the single loading, especially for military use. Why? Hand loading special cartridges on top of the normal ammo for one (rifle grenade launching/ line throwing). Yes, there is the risk of a failure, but any mechanical system can fail. Properly maintain the firearm, and replace the worn parts, and it should last for a long time.
@@marshaul It was my understanding quality hybrid lipped magazines were still entirely controlled feed.
@@HansengineeringFWIW my defensive handloads use 230 gr. Sierra GameKing JHP and they feed better out of tapered feed lips than hybrid. Which begs the question exactly what hell hybrid feed lips are for anymore.
In the early stage of WWI most rifle have magazine cutoff for soldiers to single load a round, so I think the controlled feed on military bolt action rifle is totally fine because they were also design to do so!
2:50 gun markings: Danzig 1918 = Gdańsk 102 lata temu (years ago), I am in Gdańsk right now :D
Slow feeding short cartridges with a Push Feed system is very prone to jams. Quick feeding is less of a problem. Slow feeding cartridges from the magazine are less of problem with a Controlled Feed system, and slow extraction allows the shooter to drop the empty case nearby, or fast extraction will kick the case quite a way. With Push Feed the case ejects under spring pressure with both slow and fast extraction forcing a target shooter to using 2 hands to keep the case from flying all over the place. Push Feed is just a Bean Counters way to more profit.
Great info video - helped me with my decision to go with push feed.
Years ago a gun shop owner showed me practically the same thing. No matter how slow or even upside down controlled feed will function.
2:29 checks Mosin's bolt face... Well, I still miss my M39
I was JUST looking this up yesterday. I wanted a controlled feed due to me being left handed and push feeds arent left handed ejecting friendly if I tilt the gun. Controlled feed is the best also cuz mauser, k98k and others are famous for a reason
Work at an ffl, had a guy that came in and made a point to see our control feed bolt action rifles. Which consisted of a Winchester model 70 and a kimber Hunter. I would venture a guess and say that they are not very common in today’s firearms
No, not very common at all. Mauser actions are the only one you didn't mention that I know of.
It's still very common, just not as much in bolt action rifles (even though you see more of even those in Europe). Outside of bolt action rifles however, you'll find controlled feed for example on almost every semi-automatic pistol on the market.
I jammed up a rifle with control feed by single loading a cartridge without pushing it down into the magazine. The bolt pushed it forward enough for it to get stuck in the chamber, but couldn't go into battery because the extractor wasn't over the lip of the cartridge. Ended up having to remove the bolt and push the round out with a cleaning rod 😂
Didn't even know there were two feed/extract/eject systems. Thanks for the inside-skinny Ian.
I have heard that rifles like my Mauser have it was so that the gun could be cycled in any position or while moving around. But like you said no longer a problem as soldiers don't use bolt actions and if they do they certainly aren't running and shooting often.
The main advantage of a CF action like a Mauser 98 is that it largely eliminates short-stroking induced jams that will render a firearm totally inoperable. Short stroking is much more likely, in a stressful situation, when using a PF action. Why Ian doesn't understand this I don't know.
More "How does it work" please. Great content as always Ian.
Always some amazing rifles paired with good information!
Do more of those and pack them in a playlist. Make it a video encyclopedia, with lots of tags.
Pretty sure he has
Exactly!
He has.
ruclips.net/video/Ga4uoWmfEt4/видео.html
I like these videos explaining how. I didn't know this. Thanks.
Professional hunters in African safari companies generally prefer control feed actions because they are more foolproof under stress, something learned by militaries of the early twentieth century.
Also, with controlled feed, you can clear a loaded magazine without having to push the bolt fully into battery by simply pushing the bolt back and forth, something I used to demo in class.
Such a great video. Thanks Ian!
The only bolt guns I own are hunting rifles, having said that I prefer the controlled feed design like the Ruger m77 for unloading the magazine by running the bolt back and forth without locking it into battery. Just a preference.
One downside to controlled feed, at least in some experience, is inability or difficulty single loading. Not a deal breaker, but worth pointing out.
Odd. The Springfield '03 is controlled feed and is intended to be single fed. I've also not had any issues with a Pre-64 Winchester Model 70. Possibly a per-rifle basis on this issue?
@@Kattbirb yeah, it comes down to the firearm, as it's all in the extractor design.
Yes, it can be easily overcome with extractor design. There is nothing magical on push feed rifles that allows their extractors to spring over the cartridge.
Don't you just put the round into the magazine and load it? I was told just setting a round in there and having the lips snap over it is not the best.
At least my rifle makes a horrible snap when that happens. But it works.
@@Kattbirb The SMLE is also controlled feed, yet early ones had a cut off for single loads.
That was pretty interesting. It's something I thought about once or twice but never something I ever really cared to understand. So it's cool to see that there IS a difference but that it really isn't that important. Good stuff, Ian!
Actually, there is a difference and it IS important. In a combat or dangerous game scenario CF actions largely eliminate short-stroke induced jams. They also provide much more positive and reliable extraction/ejection of spent cartridges.
The comment on modern adoption of push feed rifles, particularly in the US, is a bit misleading. The US sniper rifle WAS controlled round feed (the M1903) until Vietnam following the failure of the M14 sniper derivatives to live up to DMR level precision. The US military was on the verge of adopting another controlled round feed rifle (the Winchester M70) when two things happened, both related to labor costs. Winchester reworked the M70 and produced a completely new, push feed action still called the M70 to save labor costs while Remington addressed that issue with a new push feed design, the M700. Both rifles served as sniper rifles in Vietnam, but the Remington was formally adopted as the M24 (Ian has a great video on an M70 Vietnam era sniper rifle with a Unertl 8x scope that will cause you to appreciate whatever scope and mount system you have).
Perhaps most confusing, the difference between the M70 and M700 when the US adopted the M700 was NOT CRF vs push feed. M700 saved on cost by machining its receiver from a cylindrical steel tube and a separate recoil lug ( a thick washer with one side protruding) sandwiched between the barrel and receiver. Winchester never moved away from a one piece receiver with an integral recoil lug, and eventually went back to a controlled round feed rifle after CNC machining made the labor cost difference negligible (though they use metal injection molding for their extractors, which is a problem in its own right). Dakota Rifles currently makes two CRF models, the 76 and 99, which differ only in that the 76 uses a one piece receiver while the 99 uses the M700 style tube receiver/washer recoil lug system.
I agree that in most contexts the difference is negligible, but when the rifle MUST fire repeatedly as a safety issue, CRF has two advantages. First, it is possible to short stroke a bolt action when working it quickly as covered in the video. Second, a Mauser claw will pull off the case rim before failing. A truly stuck case will remain in the barrel of a push or controlled round feed gun, but the CRF rifle can nearly always be fixed by running a rod down the barrel whereas the push feed rifle likely has a broken extractor from the frenzied efforts of its operator. This has led to the popularity of M16 style extractors as a modification for the M700, though their installation requires the removal and reattachment of the bolt head.
Yes, I agree entirely. I would add one other reason a CF is superior. The CF (Mauser 98 system) incorporates a fixed blade ejector which is far less likely to fail than is a mechanical (spring activated) button ejector typically found on PF actions.
The Remington action dates to long prior to Vietnam, it arrived with the 721/722 series in 1948.
I would like to add that there are push-feed rifles with the ejector fixed in the receiver. One example of this besides the MAS 36 are all the Schmidt Rubin rifles.
The Daewoo K2 and every AK are also examples of this
Great explanation Ian, thanks for your contribution to my education,
I really love this types of videos!
One factor with push feed (plunger eject) is you can't just 'ease the bolt back' and pick up the empty out of the action (for re-loaders in particular, or for just 'policing' your brass), the empty is always thrown a 'way over yonder' if you want to or not, with a CRF you can throw them a mile and a half, if you want, or you can keep them nice and handy. As for accuracy differences, I don't think that there is more than 'half a blond one' between the two (I have both in the safe) and I think there is too many other factors with much bigger influences on accuracy to determine if one is better than the other in 'normal use' situations, yes the dedicated bench rest set-up may be able to tell if there is any difference, but they don't have magazines (for the most part) so it is a moot point anyway.
Ian, from one long haired, lefty, gun person to another, keep up the good work and keep the videos coming.
Love these! I'm watching this after watching the other info video on how to unload various weapon platforms, honestly I'd dig an entire series explaining how various mechanics of guns work.
i did not know about this kind of feeds... very informative...
For our next firearms nerd debate : leather sling vs. cloth sling.
I'm not trying to controversial, but why would anyone use leather? I was trained with a Vicker's sling, and all I can see are disadvantages for leather. Teach me! I wanna learn. :D
I never even realized this existed. Show how much I know about the esoterica of bolt action rifles. . . a little more today than yesterday.
That was excellent, I finally understand the difference between the pros and cons. Controlled feed is what I'd prefer, I'd hate to get nervous around a big, brown bear and experience a double feed malfunction with a push feed action. I'm now old enough to understand how dumb/accidental things happen.
I love this video explaining obscure mechanism in the firearm lol
Maybe next video could be about why sears came to prominence
Thanks for the tutorial!
Good stuff!
Thank you , Ian .
Great explanation, as always.
I minor feature of controlled feed is that it is easy to quickly empty the magazine by quickly cycling the action halfway (enough to grab round from mag, then pull back and eject).
But what if I want to chamber my bolt action while repelling upside down during my super awesome tactical raid to my refrigerator? Surely a control feed would be the only practical option?!?!
Thank you for your videos!
Great little video!
A lot of bench shooters like push-feed actions as they can drop one round into the action and easily feed it into the chamber. Reloaders like control-feed so that they can slowly pull the action back and the empty brass falls right beside the rifle on the bench, so as to not have to hunt down brass, and risk having it dinged up from being ejected.
Had several Remingtons, just pull the bolt back slowly and the empty case just falls out on the bench.
In practical terms - push feeds are cheaper to make and tend to be more accurate, and controlled feed tends to be more reliable.
First time I've ever seen a snap cap in 7.5 French. Didn't even know such a thing existed :P
This is an excellent introduction to the concept.
Actually it isn't. Ian doesn't appear to understand why controlled-feed is used almost exclusively by dangerous game hunters (and obviously is better in combat for the same reasons). There are three reasons 1) it eliminates short-stroke jamming which will render a firearm inoperable, 2) the fixed blade ejector on a controlled feed action can't be jammed by mud/sand etc. and 3) the extractor claw on a controlled-feed action grips almost half the circumference of the rim ensuring more positive extraction. Push-feed extractors are typically half the size or smaller.
That is very interesting. Thanks Ian
I didn't even know these existed, but that was interesting.
I think that you should also make an additional note on the operation of a controlled feed system. You cannot just drop a cartridge on to the follower and chamber it due to the fact that the extractor cant snap over the rim of the case. The only way to get the cartidge to feed correctly is when it comes from the magazine. I think this in some ways is a detriment to an internal magazine since you can only have a maximum capacity of what the magazine was designed for.
I have a pushfeed rifle that don’t really like my cheap dummy rounds i have som problem with them not ejecting so that’s just one thing to think about when you choose another type of ammo to check if it ejects and feeds right
I've never gad a problem with real ammo but sometimes my extractor fails to grab the snap cap I have.
Yes. I did learn something new today. Thank you.
.