Is the Ruger a True Controlled Feed

Not! My MKII 77 stainles(boat paddle) handled .260 is a pushfeed. I thought Rugers were CRF? At any point in the cycle I can back the bolt and the shell stays where I stopped forward motion. I'm talkin 3/4's of the way closed and then some? Are all rugers like that? What about the new Hawkeyes? help me understand!

CRF will work even when the rifle is upside down. Push feed the cartridge will fall on the ground. Remington, savage and Sako, are generally all push feed. One downside to control feed is when inserting a cartridge in the chamber and then cycling the bolt causes the extractor to eventually break off. Age old arguement which is better. Never ending story.

CD:

Rugers need to be tuned to get the true CRF feature going.

It can and has been done.

That said, CRF v. PF is WAY overblown.

As in all things, the OPERATOR is the key.

Newbhies with Mausers have jammed cases.

Dogzapper has stopped a charge with a PUSH FEED SUCKS 700.

It worked well because HE WORKED IT WELL.

Nuff said.

BMT

Mk1 M77's and early Mk11 were push feed, but the Mk11,s have been CRF for a number of years now..As already mentioned, some CRF rifles need their timing tuned before the CRF function works properly..

or the extractor is already broken off. Did you get a good deal on it?

The M77 Mark IIs are CRF. Pre-mark II M77s are push-feed.

I currently own 3 mark IIs (CRF) in calibers 6.5x55, 7x57, and 280. They are all extremely smooth-feeding. The rim of the case feeds under the extractor when the bolt is pushed forward. The only force necessary when closing the bolt is that force acting against the striker spring during the final chambering of the cartridge. Considerable mechanical advantage is employed at that point, so very little effort is required.

I also currently own 3 pre-mark IIs (push feed) in calibers 7x57, 7mm Rem mag, and 35 Whelen, and have owned many others. These push-feed M77s feed reliably, but not as smoothly as the mark IIs. It takes a little more effort to turn downward the bolt handle on the push feeders because the downward stroke of the bolt handle is when the extractor snaps over the rim of the case. It works, but not as smoothly as the CRF mark IIs.

I consider both the mark II and the pre-mark II Ruger M77s among the best production hunting rifles ever made in America.

Hope this answers your question.
_

How do I know what year the gun was made?

Ok, Got it. It was born in 1999. That mean's it should or shouldn't be CRF?

If the safety is a sliding button on the tang, above the pistol grip, it is a pre-mark II push feeder. If the safety is up near the right side of the bolt shroud, it is a mark II CRF.

The bolt face on the push feeders completely surrounds the cartridge rim. The bottom half of the bolt face of the CRF rifles is cleared to allow the rounds to feed up under the extractor.

It shouldn't be too hard to tell the differences.
_

I consider both the mark II and the pre-mark II Ruger M77s among the best production hunting rifles ever made in America.

Hope this answers your question.
_

Until Ruger started making their own barrels (around 1990, IIRC) their accuracy was really erratic; some good some bad and some impossible to clean.

Basic design and build quality has always been good though, and I agree on that point.

Push feed the cartridge will fall on the ground.

It won't with a M700--try it some time.......I didn't know it until somebody said you could do it 25 years ago. I promptly went home and cycled shells through a half dozen upside down M700's while on my back..........

Casey

Well there you go, I've learned something tonight.

My Ruger 77 Mk II in 280 is a "wanna be" CRF. It's CRF when the bolt has moved the cartridge about a 1/2" or so. That first 1/2" it's just pushing but for some reason, at around the 1/2" mark it "grabs" the cartridge. This doesn't bother me as I have no desire to hunt cape buffalo or man eating bears with my 280. I haven't had any problems with it feeding or extracting/ejecting so I leave it alone.

That is typical of CRF actions, even 98 Mausers: The cartridges does not pop up under the extractor IMMEDIATELY when the bolt moves forward. The round needs to move forward along the taper of the feed rails. In fact, only moving half an inch before the extractor engages is VERY fast for a CRF. Depending on the action and cartridge, sometimes the bolt has to move a couple inches forward before the rim slides up under the extractor.

The CRF feature was phased into the 77 after the Mark II started being made. Originally the Mark II just had the safety different than the tang-safety model, but it was still a push-feed.

I have owned a bunch of 77 Mark II CRF's, and all fed CRF-style except my present .204. Apparently the little round is just too small; it pops up ahead of the bolt and the exractor doesn't jump the rim until the round is chambered--just like any push-feed action. Despite this, it has fed rounds perfectly from the magazine ever since I bought it maybe 3 years ago.

The story about how push-feeds (and almost always, for some reason, the Rem. 700 is mentioned) are not able to feed upside-down has been disproven for many years now.

They will also feed when held sideways, and will generally feed cartridges of a much wider array in shape and length than most CRF actions. I once loaded the magazine of a Rem. 700 in .30-06 with a .300 RUM round, a .257 Roberts round, and a.30-40 Krag round. It fed them all--though obviously the .300 RUM would not go into the .30-06 chamber. But it went right up the feed ramp and partway into the chamber with no problem....

The big thing to remember about any of them, CRF or PF, is that if the bolt consistently chambers cartridges and ejects them, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

Back when I first started using bolt-action rifles, in the Medium Dark Ages, appartently nobody knew the difference between CRF and PF, since it was almost never mentioned in magazine articles. Back then the Remington 700 was by far the most popular factory rifle, followed closely by the Ruger 77 tang-safety push-feed. The Winchester Model 70 had been a push-feed for several years. The Weatherby, Sako, etc. were all push-feeds. Yet somehow people went out and shot game, targets, etc., with no real hassle.

Then about 1990 Winchester brought back the CRF system in the Model 70. All of a sudden every article in every magazine was talking about CRF and how essential it was to Western civilization. Then Ruger turned the 77 into a CRF, and other companies such as Kimber brought out CRF actions, and now you apparently can't kill a whitetail or prairie dog without a CRF action--or at least not a charging whitetail or prairie dog.

All of which is one of the reasons I frequently hunt deer and prairie dogs with Ruger No. 1's.

Mr. Mule Deer:
Thanks for the information. You sir, do tend towards enlightening writing.

As to stopping a charge, I�ve only been charged by a porcupine so far. It�s a long story, but I was able to ascertain that swift and proper placement of my cowboy hat to his upper torso was able to allow him to see things our way.

As to the Ruger #1 issue, I�m starting to believe that single shots are the only reliable controlled round feed!

Thanks again for the perspective.
Dwayne

The concept of CRF is largely misunderstood. It was designed for military use and when working properly it keeps the operator from double feeding the rifle. The real difference to me is you have to turn the bolt handle down to get the extrctor to grab the case with a push feed and you don't with the CRF.

I have hunted dangerous game in Africa with both PF and CRF rifles, and hunted with PHs also with both types of rifles. One Zim PH used a LH Remington M700 .458 Mag, and another had an older M70 also a .458 Mag. You can hunt with either variety, but you need to know your rifle and be able to handle events (such as loading while running after a Cape buff, or running the bolt while moving the rifle from one side of an obstruction to another.)

Rifle makers today are figuring how to modify their actions to claim controlled feed as Winchester did with their PF M70, converting it to a "Controlled Round Push Feed". Heck I just read some ad copy for the T/C Icon claiming that capability.

jim

Heck I'll add some more gack. I have at present:

Savage M110 (push feed)
Ruger M77 Mk II (1/2 inch or so CRF)
Winchester 1917 Enfield (CRF and cock on closing)

So I have three very different bolt guns. Heck one has a three position tang safety, one has a three position wing type (or whatever Ruger calls it), and one has a two posistion safety behind the bolt handle. I plan to hunt with all three this year and won't worry about a thing. I also have Remmy pump gun in '06 but that's a push feed (grinning)

You guys got me wondering so I pulled my stainless MKII .35 Whelen (original barrel was a .30-06). The bottom of the bolt head hasn't been milled out, it has the claw extractor and it feeds "push-feed" style. It just pushes the shell out of the mag until its in the chamber than the claw "clicks" over the groove. According the serial number it's a '91. I guess it's normal then? MD said that they phased in the CRF after their introduction so I must have one of those "in between" MKII. I've heard that your not supposed to push feed cartridges in rifles with claw extractors but I'm assuming it's fine with these because it's the only way you're going to feed it! Anybody else has one of these in between MKII?

Yeah, my son has left hand early M77 Mark II 30-06 thats a push feed, my later model M77 Mark II in .223 is CRF. Now I'll really confuse some people by adding that the newer Savage short actions for the WSM cartridges are CRF. I've got a 300 WSM like this.

Send it back to Ruger for adjustment. A 7 mag I have was doing that. The round is not being held by the extractor against the bolt face when its picked up and drops off.

Or use a good gunsmith. Mine was perfect when I got it back from Ruger. Good luck with it.

My -06 featherweight grabs and controls the shell the second that shell pops up. Controlled feed from the get go. I might call Ruger about this. If I'd wanted a push feed I'd bought one. Not saying anything is wrong with them. just like the idea of a CRF. On average I'd prolly bet push feed barreled actions are lighter? No?

I like the gun! I like the .260!. It is a shooter! But I thought all MKII's and MOD 70's were CRF.

I just stoped typing and cycled a few more rounds. When I push the bolt forward slowly the claw dosen't grab the shell clear until it's almost outa site. But when I quickly force the bolt forward it has total control buy the halfway point maybe sooner.

Looks like the quicker I cycle the bolt the quicker it picks up the shell. So If I'm being charged and runnin that thing full speed it totally apears to be CRF. But when slowly running it through the cycle it's a push feed? guess it's both?

Creepingdeath, that's been my experience exactly. If you soft stroke the bolt, it's PF. But give it some force & it's CRF. I was thinking of sending it back to ruger & having them tweek it. My father's Springfield 03-A3 sporter grabs the cartridge immediately upon being stripped from the magazine. Go figure!

That said, CRF v. PF is WAY overblown.

As in all things, the OPERATOR is the key.

+1... what bmt said....

hey cd,

there really is no reason to close a bolt softly...

Creepingdeath, that's been my experience exactly. If you soft stroke the bolt, it's PF. But give it some force & it's CRF.

Yup, that's pretty much the way mine work as well. Ruger can fix the "problem" if you want to bother them.

FWIW, my pushfeed Win70 will feed upside down and sideways from both directions without dropping any rounds on the floor.

I never had a feeding problem with a CRF rifle, but have had plenty of trouble with push feeders. The common problem with my PF rifles has been rounds popping up too high when leaving the magazine, thus tying up the action until I retract the bolt a little and then ram the round home.

My brand new M7 just would not feed at all. Every time I tried to chamber a round from the magazine it would pop up out of the magazine too hard and too far, and the bolt would not close. I had to do a lot of work on that rifle to get it to feed, but now it appears to be OK. The work included reshaping the magazine box, partially filling-in the low side of the follower, and reshaping the feed lips of the receiver. It actually feeds quite well now.

A pre-MarkII Ruger 338 had the same problem - rounds pop up too high oout of the magazine, jamming the bolt. I sold that rifle.

CRF rifles do not allow rounds to pop up higher than the bolt. They can't. The round is controlled by the bolt when it leaves the magazine. Also, CRF rifles require less effort on the bolt handle because it doesn't require muscle power to snap the extractor over the rim. Consequently, they feel smoother. I have two Weatherby PF rifles that the bolt will not even start to close until I thump the bolt handle forward with the heel of my hand to engage the extractor over the rim.

I know a lot of guys own PF rifles (including me) and have success with them. I just prefer CRF. My Ruger CRFs are the smoothest I've experienced, and my 03A3 is slick as h-well. Pre-64 M70s and M54s I've owned were also very smooth. My Kimbers are not too bad, but I'd like to see them tighten-up the tolerances and put a smoother polish on the receiver and bolt, and install a metal follower. I have owned several 98 Mausers but have yet to experience the storied smooth feeding commonly read about. My current one was made by FN for Harrington & Richardson.

During PH qualifications testing at Rifa, Zimbabwe, the glaring deficiencies of the PF 700s, specifically in 416 Remingtons became readily apparent and with more than one rifle. When the bolt was cycled with the barrel at port arms or a higher (circa 90deg angle to the deck) with a full magazine, the next bullet in line tended to fall out. Also there were a few extractor issues as a result of the puny extractor. Then there's the issue of the safety. But yes the PF/CRF debate is a bit overblown. I love my PF Weatherbys and would have no issues hunting DG with one, but given a choice, I'll take a well tuned CRF anytime. And yes the MKIIs are CRFs. jorge

A few years back I got treated with scorn for suggesting that Ruger�s M77 MkII (yes, the nominally CRF one) is a bit lacking in the �C� part of the CRF. Specifically, it is my impression that Ruger puts a very pronounce bevel on the extractor so that it will easily snap over a cartridge rim when some yokel drops a round on the feed rails and slams the bolt home. I can�t say that I entirely blame Ruger for doing so as I would not enjoy the prospect of repairing hundreds or thousands of extractors so damaged. However, the result is a less-than-positive engagement of the extractor to the case.

I�ve owned three Ruger M77 MkII�s (yes, again, the nominally CRF one. It�s important to emphasize that as when this issue is brought up people somehow always assume you don�t know a push-feed from a Mauser). Anyway, they are good rifles and a good value, but a pristine example of a well-tuned CRF they ain�t. And I�m a Ruger fan, by the way.

Wismon: My 416 Ruger is. If you go back and read Muledeer's post, he gives a very good definition of the CRF process, point being ALL CRFs don't engage the case head immediately. THere is about 3/8- 1/2" of forward travel before the head's engaged. The bevel on the extractor is now common to all modern hunting CRFs including M98s. That is to facilitate putting a round directly into the chamber. jorge

hey cd,

there really is no reason to close a bolt softly...[/quote]

the only reason I soft stroked it was I was trying to see at what point it was picked up(the shell). When strokin the bolt under feild(huntin) conditions it sends that shell into a controled feed with a quickness!!

JorgeI,

I don�t doubt that your 416 works well, that rifle is a $1,500 semi-custom version of the M77 MkII, which was most likely hand-tuned. To see what I�m referring to you�d have to examine one of the standard $500 versions in a deer rifle caliber. Of the three such rifles I had none gripped the case nearly as well as my mil-surp Mausers or CZ-550�s.

As for the bevel, yes, I know it�s to facilitate putting a round directly into the chamber � I discussed that in my prior post. And I could be mistaken but I think even my mil-surps had bevels; however, they sure fed differently. My point regarding the bevel is that the bevel on the Ruger seems more pronounced then on other brands and, though I didn�t mention this earlier, I think the portion that holds the rim isn�t configured well for proper engagement.

On all three of the ones I had I could half-way feed a round, pause, withdraw the bolt, and the round would remain right there on the feed rails. I had to work very hard to make my Mausers or CZ�s do that.

Again though, to use a $1,500 safari rifle as the basis for comparison is to stack the deck in Ruger�s favor. A safari rifle ought to function better than a deer rifle, otherwise what was that extra $1,000 for?

I�ve never discussed this issue without folks getting upset. But I sure didn�t pay creepingdeath to bring up this topic and I�ve seen others bring it up as well. Apparently there are some of us out here who feel this way. Dismiss us if you like but I believe that where there�s smoke there�s fire. Thankfully this �fire� isn�t of any particular significance and they are still dandy rifles; but that doesn�t mean they are without flaws.

I just gave my new Ruger Hawkeye African a try, and the cartridge rim snaps under the extractor as it leaves the magazine. I compared it to the one Mauser I have on hand ( a commercial M98 design from Heym), and if anything the Ruger controls the round sooner.

The CRF feature was for military reasons: to prevent double feeding, thus hanging up the rifle. If your CRF rifle will leave a cartridge loose in the action when you pull the bolt back part-way through the feed cycle, it isn't working properly.

I would also say there is too much bevel to the extractor tip if you are breaking them, and I don't know that Ruger is having that problem. You can help an unbeveled extractor to pop over the rim of a loose cartridge (i.e. one dropped in and not fed from the magazine) by reaching your fingers around the bottom of the action and pushing down on the middle of the extractor. The tip will be forced open enough to ride over the rim without touching it.

jim

Wismon,

One of the supposed advantages of the pre-'64 Model 70 Winchester was that the extractor was designed (beveled) to snap over a round already in the chamber. This was perceived as an advantage by many hunters, especially those with experience with the 98 Mauser, which would NOT do the same thing unless the extractor was modified. PH's in Africa were particularly happy with the M70 because they then had a bolt-action that would never, ever end up with a round in the chamber and no way to get out out except with a cleaning rod.

This is exactly why many gunsmiths have beveled 98 extractors over the past century or more, and why Ruger designed theirs to. I have always modified my R98 extractors to jump a chambered round's rim, and have never had one break. Have never had a Ruger's break either, or a Model 70's--and I have shot and hunted a lot with all three. Not that it is impossible to break them, but it appears the odds are against it.

Is the Mark X, Daly, Rem 798 et al DESIGNED to jump the rim of a chambered round? Had a 25-06 MkX that would (did it 1 time)but felt awfully hard. Have several others I have always just fed from the mag.

PH's in Africa were particularly happy with the M70 because they then had a bolt-action that would never, ever end up with a round in the chamber and no way to get out out except with a cleaning rod.

Per Jack Belk, Peter Paul Mauser designed the M98 so that it wouldn�t have this problem either and the operating manual issued to troops included instructions on how to address the situation. If you have a round in the chamber with the bolt open just push on the side of the extractor as you close the bolt and the engaging end of the extractor will jump the rim. But you don�t have to believe me, just try it yourself. I have; it works.

All the best.

Hunter Jim, JorgeI, and other satisfied customers,

I�m glad your rifles work to your liking. I, too, like Ruger products including, nay, especially, the M77 Mk II and its variants and descendants. (You can have their push-feed predecessors, though, regardless of how nice their early craftsmanship was.) But by and large I like Ruger products. It�s a likeable situation and I like that.

But I also stand behind my statements as I�ve done on previous occasions when this topic was broached. And I�m sure we�ll have this discussion in the future as well as I know from before that on this topic neither side will convince the other. But, like, you know, that doesn�t mean we can�t like each other.

No problem Wismon I never doubted your words for a second. BTW, I had to spend some money to get the Ruger to feed to my liking but it was well worth it and it now feeds slicker than whaleshit jorge

The CRF feature of my new Ruger Hawkeye 7mm-08 works just fine.

Well thanks, sir. That 416 sounds nice, very, very nice. I�ve always thought that Ruger Express model was a jewel and a steal in terms of value. I guess also this discussion is a reminder that there are rifles that are good enough for most folks but aren�t up to par for us rifle loonies. Of my rifles most feed well enough to satisfy me, though most certainly aren�t what anyone would call �slick.� One, though, has feeding problems and is therefore at the back of my gun cabinet awaiting a trip to the gun doctor for the old turn-and-cough routine.

Wismon,

If you have tried the "press on the extractor" method on many 98's, you will find that some do not do it. It is also somewhat distracting to try it while something large is charging. Evidently one reason African PH's liked the M70 is that it was particuylarly easy to throw another round in the chamber without having to press it into the magazine, or push on the side of the extractor.

I have also seen some military 98's that would not even feed the round they were chambered for. While a really good 98 is a fine action, they are far from the infallible machine many make them out to be.

shootem,

Many of the Mark X's I have seen will jump the rim of a round in the chamber, but some will not. I have not had enough time with the 798 to say one way or the other.

A little polishing of the extractor bevel will often help the extractor to jump the rim a little easier.

This matches my experience.

My FN Browning Safari is a wonderfully smooth and reliable feeding rifle (but heavy). My current FN-actioned H&R Ultrarifle works pretty well but is not particularly smooth. Then there's CZ: I will only have a CZ 550 if given to me, and I would sell it to buy another Ruger.

All of which is one of the reasons I frequently hunt deer and prairie dogs with Ruger No. 1's.

Is that No. 1 a TPF or a TF-CRF?

TPF = Thumb Push Feed.

TF=CRF = Three finger controlled round feed.

BMT

Back in the late '80's and early '90's, Ruger M77 MK-II rifles were push-feed, except that they still had the claw extractor like a Mouser action. Some writers complained and asked Ruger why not going the additional step and make the MK-II a CRF action, and that's how it began. I purchased a push-feed M77 MK-II in 1992, and back then Ruger was modifying such rifles. I shipped mine to Ruger, and they worked it into a CRF. The cost was $75.00. They sent me the rifle with two bolts, a CRF, and the original push-feed bolt. I only use the CRF one, but there is nothing wrong with the push-feed. However, I can jam the action with the push-feed bolt, not with the CRF.

Big Redhead,

I may have asked this before, but what specific problems have you had with CZ's?

Well then it sounds to me like what those PH's really wanted was a push-feed.

If they expended a full magazine and were resorting to throwing a round into the chamber without being able to simulaneously depress it into the magazine then any failures they had probably had more to do with the fact that at the time they were climbing a tree with soiled britches.

Also, any large sample of mass-produced anything will have bad examples. Such examples neither prove nor disprove the merits of a particular design.

But I suppose that if a hunter can't learn to use a CRF rifle he probably is better served with a pushfeed. But I prefer the former. I wonder though if PH's did in fact prefer that their clients use push-feeds? I'm just asking.

They don't care what type of rifle, but they really like to see a client who can deliver the shot to the proper place in timely fashion.

jim

Wismon,

Believe me, the PH's in question know a lot more about working a CRF rifle than most anybody you will ever meet.

None of the PH's I have hunted with have been very concerned with much about my rifles except the bullets used, and whether I could shoot. Two were quite happy to guide me even though I was using a single-shot, and one of those was on a buffalo hunt.

I know it's not a bolt rifle but when I went to the range the first time with my newly aquired .300 Savage Model 99 levergun I tried to drop a round in and chamber it without first pushing it down in the magazine and it wouldn't chamber as the extractor wouldn't jump the rim!... It was then I discovered that the Savage 99 is a CRF levergun!... I played around with it and can reliably chamber rounds from any angle...The extractor on my 99 engages the rim immediately upon picking the round up in the magazine... I have little recent experience with other leverguns... Is the Savage 99 the only CRF levergun or do others like the Winchester 88 operate the same?
Anyone?... The Savage 99 a DG levergun!...LOL

rodriguezessity.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/printthread/Board/34/main/139981/type/thread

Is the Ruger a True Controlled Feed

0 Response to "Is the Ruger a True Controlled Feed"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel