Push-fed action features?

[labnoti]

I'm only familiar with Mauser actions and slight variants like the Model 70 where the ejector blade is clocked down to move it out of the lug. I understand the basic difference with push fed actions how they surround the case head with an inlet bolt face, how they use a plunger for ejection and so forth, and how they have a shorter bolt rotation and can feature more lugs. But what really distinguishes one push fed action from another? In my mind, the Remington 700 is the classic push fed action. How is a Weatherby Mark V any different? What about a Howa? I understand some might be milled from bar stock, others forged, and still others investment cast, but I don't know which is which or what other distinguishing features they have from one another.

 

[jmr40]

The biggest difference between Remington and most others is that Remington uses a much weaker extractor. To my knowledge Remington is the only one who uses that style. It is basically a sheet of stamped sheet metal inside the bolt face. They do have a reputation for breaking more easily than most others and dirt, crud, and brass shavings can get behind it making it inoperable.


Remington bolt handles are soldered onto the bolt and also have a reputation for falling off.



All of the other push feed rifles have better designs in those regards. The Howa, Bergara, and Weatherby are basically the same action as Remington with improvements to the Remington design. Some scope mounts are interchangeable and stocks are interchangeable between Bergara and Remington.

Remington also uses a washer between the action and barrel that serves as a recoil lug. It is for cost savings, but as long as it is installed correctly works just fine. Most the others have the recoil lug milled from the bottom of the action. Tikka uses a simple metal bar that fits into a slot in both the bottom of the action and stock. Looks cheesy, but it works.

The actions with 2 lugs have the same bolt rotation as a CRF rifle. Some have multiple lugs which can have a shorter bolt throw. That may help with the bolt handle clearing the scope, but don't really make it faster to cycle the action. While the distance is shorter, there is more resistance. It ends up being a wash. Accuracy and strength can be the same.

Savage uses a floating bolt head and a barrel nut to attach the barrel to the action. Both are cost savings procedures, but result in a very accurate rifle that does not need as much precision machining.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

These Remington problems are a highly emotional hot button topic. I give a home to unwanted and dangerous Remington 700's. I gladly give these push feed, weak extractor rifles, with and without a bolt handle, a good home. You'll never have your friends at the range laugh at you for having one of these rifles again. Those things are jokes that are passed off as hunting or target rifles. Save face, Send me those junk Remington's.

 

[MistWolf]

Some have multiple lugs which can have a shorter bolt throw. That may help with the bolt handle clearing the scope, but don't really make it faster to cycle the action. While the distance is shorter, there is more resistance.

A shorter lift does let the shooter work the bolt faster. Just ask the British.

I have an old Remington 788 which has multiple lugs and a short lift. There is no more resistance than a 90 degree lift bolt action and it can be worked pretty dang fast.

 

[Varminterror]

It’s pretty simple, mechanically, to compare a 90* two lug bolt throw with a 60* three lug bolt throw. If you have the same striker spring strength and same cocking distance, then the shorter shorter bolt throw has to have greater cocking force (per degree of rotation) than the longer rotation. Held side by side, the difference can be felt. Some guys don’t care for that increased bolt resistance because they lose sensation for heavy bolt lift from sticky extraction, or jammed bullet/crushed shoulder in the case of a cock on close action. Ran on the clock, the extra resistance doesn’t outweigh the shorter throw, and the 60* three lug is faster.

Pick your poison - there’s generally far more different about the CRF and PF actions on the market besides their feeding mechanism, so you cannot compare the rifles by feeding alone.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

I only got three or four thee lug rifles. I'd suggest you take a look and get a feel for yourself. You may note the length of the bolt handle on these rifles. Also, these actions appear to be super smooth. What contributes to the smoothness is not having a follower press on the bottom of the bolt. Also. check out the entry level rifles. That what's coming next generation but better finished and more expensive. Well, maybe just more expensive Still have slots open for those trashy Remington;s.

 

[old heeler]

I'm only familiar with Mauser actions and slight variants like the Model 70 where the ejector blade is clocked down to move it out of the lug. I understand the basic difference with push fed actions how they surround the case head with an inlet bolt face, how they use a plunger for ejection and so forth, and how they have a shorter bolt rotation and can feature more lugs. But what really distinguishes one push fed action from another? In my mind, the Remington 700 is the classic push fed action. How is a Weatherby Mark V any different? What about a Howa? I understand some might be milled from bar stock, others forged, and still others investment cast, but I don't know which is which or what other distinguishing features they have from one another.

You might want to take look at this Win rifle.
http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/rifles/xpr.html

 

[Varminterror]

What contributes to the smoothness is not having a follower press on the bottom of the bolt.

For clarity to other users, the next round in the mag is pressing on any bolt out there, regardless of lug orientation.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

For clarity to other users,

What an insight. We all need help with clarity. My three lug rifles are magazine fed and the contact with the bolt is minimal. This not true of all rifles. The magazine is the plastic thing the drops out of the bottom of the rifle that hold the cartridges. Does that help you with clarity.

Addendum. I went and looked at my other rifles. Something must be wrong. The rounds in my rifle a held down by that big metal thing where the bolt moves back and forth. My rounds don't make full contact with the bolt. The rifle, a Remington is going back on Monday.

 

[Alaskan Ironworker]

Sounds like a good decision lol

 

[Varminterror]

The magazine is the plastic thing the drops out of the bottom of the rifle that hold the cartridges. Does that help you with clarity.

All of my rifles must be defective - none have have any plastic thing which drops out of the bottom.

 

[Alaskan Ironworker]

Mine dont have any plastic at all anywhere! Lol

 

[Varminterror]

In case others haven’t looked inside of their rifles - even remingtons, the top round in the mag is touching the bottom side of the bolt. This is necessary to ensure the round will rise high enough to rise PAST the bottom of the bolt when the bolt is drawn to the rear, to be picked up by the bolt face for feeding. Mag lips shouldn’t touch the bolt - and they do in many rifles, but the rounds in the mag must.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

For clarity to other users, the next round in the mag is pressing on any bolt out there, regardless of lug orientation.

Uncle Mo, the guy in the picture, said that I was not to argue with my seniors. He said the guy would probably have a YouTube presentation on how the bolt rubs rounds on Mauser 71-84's Kropatschek, Lebel and Mosin Nagant and some others. You really need to listen to these guys who have all the technical things down pat.

 

[Varminterror]

You really need to listen to these guys who have all the technical things down pat.

And some old guys just refuse to admit when they are wrong.

Here’s a pic of a Rem 700 3006, one Win BST in the mag and the bolt moving backwards as if I were cycling out a fired empty and about to load the round pictured.

As promised, the round is pressed against the bottom of the bolt.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Your magazine thing is defective. Send the rifle back with a note and include the picture!

 

[labnoti]

So I understand some Weatherbys have 6 and some have 9 lugs. The three holes for gas are also obvious.

Do practically all modern push feeders use a square breech?

Any differences in anti-binding? Are they all jiggly bolts, or are some better than others?

 

[Varminterror]

Your magazine thing is defective. Send the rifle back with a note and include the picture!

Either sarcastic, or completely ignorant to how bolt action feeding happens.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Uncle Mo said that rifle was all wrong and needed to go back. He also said the first person to directly in indirectly name call had lost the discussion. That rifle looked like it was in terrible condition. That clip is bad. You can see how the bolt would slide over the bullet!

 

[Varminterror]

You might inform Uncle Mo, Rem 700’s don’t use clips.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Yes they do. That's where the bullets feed up into the barrel. Mo said that bolt looked like Bubba had sanded it to make it work better.

 

[Varminterror]

You and Uncle Mo really aren’t contributing any good information, and frankly, are either lying for attention, or have no idea how these rifles feed. I’ve seen your posts often, and unfortunately, can’t bring myself to put you on my ignore list, as I’d feel bad for any unwitting reader who doesn’t know any better and believed your nonsense.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Chief, let you fingers do the walking. Bet I beat you to it. Take care and be safe.

 

[Varminterror]

Do practically all modern push feeders use a square breech?

Square breech? Ejection port or actual barrel breech? Oval or rounded rectangles make the most sense for ejection ports, so there isn’t usually much deviation from there.

Any differences in anti-binding? Are they all jiggly bolts, or are some better than others?

Different brands will have different tolerances, some better than others. Custom actions are typically tighter than any factory action.

As for the Weatherby 6 and 9 lug boltheads, they’re really not so different than other 60* 3 lug actions, but with two or three rows (respectively) of smaller lugs, instead of 3 thicker lugs. The Seekins Havak is similar in that it has 4 lugs, two rows of two lugs on opposite sides from each other - so effectively just another 90* bolt-throw action (albeit their lugs are rotated differently than conventional Rem pattern lugs. I remain undecided about multilug designs. They obviously work, but truing and lapping the multiple rows of lugs just doesn’t feel as reliable as doing so with conventional lug designs.

I played a bit with a GAP Tempest last season and was very close to converting over to have two of them built for match rifles - the 60* throw is FAST.

There are applications where a controlled round feed is an advantage, and applications where it’s a distinct disadvantage. I’ve shot Ruger M77 MkII/Hawkeye and Win 70 actions for my entire life, and played a bit with a Bighorn TL3 last season also - it’s just not as easy to drop a round into the port in a hurry, they’ll close, but they really don’t want to feed as well as a push feeder would. Alternatively, folks always talk about running their bolt upside down with a lion on your chest and needing a CRF. It’s a heck of a lot faster to empty a CRF blind mag than a push feeder, and they don’t require the risk of ND because you don’t have to actually chamber the rounds. Horses for courses.

I’m not sure I think a push feeder HAS TO HAVE a plunger ejector, and could run either a fixed or mechanical ejector, but it’s sure a lot cheaper to use plungers in the boltface. Since most are just copies of the Rem action, most use plunger type ejectors.

There really are too many differences between different brands and models to say the feeding paradigm is a deciding factor. Floating bolt head vs. one pc bolt, three lug vs. 2, barrel nut vs. shouldered barrel, polymer stock vs. wood, integral rail vs. bolt on, integral recoil lug vs. pancaked, blued vs. stainless, barrel length, muzzle threading, magazine type, brand reputation.... other than Defiance Deviants which offer both push feed and controlled round feed, I’m not sure there’s any other two actions out there where you can set the exact same features side by side, only differing in feeding type. So you’re choosing between a total package, not just the feeding type.

 

[Slamfire]

I'm only familiar with Mauser actions and slight variants like the Model 70 where the ejector blade is clocked down to move it out of the lug. I understand the basic difference with push fed actions how they surround the case head with an inlet bolt face, how they use a plunger for ejection and so forth, and how they have a shorter bolt rotation and can feature more lugs. But what really distinguishes one push fed action from another? In my mind, the Remington 700 is the classic push fed action. How is a Weatherby Mark V any different? What about a Howa? I understand some might be milled from bar stock, others forged, and still others investment cast, but I don't know which is which or what other distinguishing features they have from one another.

You really need to read two books by Sturat Otteson" The Bolt Action Vol 1, and The Bolt Action Vol 2. Volume one has the Mauser and Mr Otteson spends a lot of text explaining basic concepts of feed, extraction, case head protrusion. All actions are compromises. Mauser built a very safe action, and a very reliable action, but it was a military action. His early rifles, including the M71 Mausers, used push feed extractors, they worked well. But German troops had double feed accidents with the GEWM88 push feeds, and Mauser came up with an excellent extractor that prevented that. However, there are lots of military actions with push feed extractors.

The inprint literature is the primary source of this dispute. What you read is marketing material, all designed to educate you on what to buy. So minor things get blown up into major controversies, because it helps sales. While the Mauser extractor is stronger than the Rem M700, the strength is such, it will just break a little later, if you use the rifle extractor to remove stupid high pressure rounds. A extractor is a thin piece of metal, if you want it to last, you will not load ammunition that "clings" to the chamber after firing. Even in my controlled feed rifles, I always load from the magazine so my extractor won't have to snap over the rim. That will make it last longer. Push feed extractors will always snap over the rim, and in time, they will wear. That was common on push feed M70's and M700's, but I am talking about across the course rifles where the barrels were shot out in 16 months. For the typical owner who shoots no more than 50 rounds, or even a couple of hundred on the high end, with ammunition that does not stick in the chamber, extractor life will be acceptable.

The M700 action is a very good action. Mike Walker the designer decided to emphasize safety over extractor lifetime, and there are literally thousands of reloaders who still have eyeballs because he did so. The enclosed bolt face really protects the shooter in a high pressure incident.

By the way, my M1 Garand's have push feed extractors, and I had one break. So what. My M1a's have push feed extractors,



so do my AR15's, my Anschutz target rifles, my M700's, my Sako's. I believe the push feed extractor is cheaper to make and given that gun owners will buy the $5.00 cheaper weapon, that sort of explains why there are more push feed hunting rifles than controlled round feed.