77...Controlled round feeding?

[Bloodhound]

I have red pad, tang safety 77 in .338 WM. I was talking to a friend about it the other day and he responded, "...that would be a better rifle if it was a controlled round feed". Now I thought it was a controlled round feed....this guy is very sharp on his Winchester, Mauser and Remington info....is he right about the Ruger.

I looked at my gun, the big claw extractor, I chambered a round...it looks like a controlled feed....am I missing something.

Its not a big issue, because I love this rifle and it feeds just fine...so it won't make a difference but I would like to know.

Thanks

Scott

 

[Alan in GA]

I believe all the tang safety were push feed. Mark II were controlled feed. There MAY have been a few CF in the last tang safety's made OR there may be a few of the first Mark II's with push feed - I forget. A picture of your bolt face may reveal which you have. If you cycle your bolt and push a live round (careful!) into the chamber ALMOST all the way in but stop about an inch short of all the way in, then pull back the bolt, a controlled feed will have the case rim under the extractor and pull the round back out. A push feed will not yet have control over the round and it will still be loose of the extractor.

 

[buckeyeshooter]

Sounds like a 'Winchester' guy. I have been shooting 77's for 40 years. I have a set, 30-06, 338 and 458 for any game. I have never had a feeding of chambering problem with any of them. You know the AK-47, M-16 and many other military rifles are push feed. If it was a design flaw, they would be controlled round feeding. :wink:

 

[Mtneer]

Sounds like a 'Winchester' guy. I have been shooting 77's for 40 years. I have a set, 30-06, 338 and 458 for any game. I have never had a feeding of chambering problem with any of them. You know the AK-47, M-16 and many other military rifles are push feed. If it was a design flaw, they would be controlled round feeding. :wink:

:lol: Yeah Buckeyeshooter, Bloodhound's friend does indeed sound like a 'Winchester' guy, of which I AM one. Or to be more specific, a Montana Rifle Company guy, because I love my custom, controlled round feed, Montana Rifle Company .308 Norma. However, unlike many "controlled round feed vs. push feed arguers," I'm not obstinate about it. What I mean is, I like controlled round feed, but it's not the bottom line as to whether or not I'll buy a rifle. I bought my M-77 30-06 push feed used, somewhere back in the late '70s, and it's never failed me. My wife bought a M-77, 7mm-08 push feed in 1983. As far as I know, it's never failed either, and our oldest grandson laid claim to it 10 or 15 years ago after my wife bought herself a controlled round feed M-70 Winchester feather-weight. She didn't buy the M-70 for the controlled round feed though. She bought it for it's looks (mostly, I think) and it's 3-position swing safety.

I doubt your M-77 is controlled round feed Bloodhound. But here's a good link that will explain the differences between controlled round and push feed, as well as the advantages/disadvantages of each. http://www.chuckhawks.com/controlled_push_feed.htm

 

[SonofBassMan]

I have 2 M77 MKII's that are push feed, the bolt face is enclosed at the bottom. These 2 rifles have the long non-rotating extractor and blade ejector but being push feed the extractor snaps over the cartridge rim upon closing the bolt. Not being a fan of the diagonal bedding screw arrangement of the M77, I converted both of these to single shot rifles by restocking them and drill/tap a hole in the bottom of the receiver ring flat 1/4 inch aft of the recoil lug for the front stock screw. The magazine boxes, spring, follower, and floor plate went into the spare parts bin.

As for the other MKII's they are all controlled feed and feed rounds very well from the magazine including .204's, .22-.250's, .243, short .30 Mags, and belted mag cases - no problems.

Should you ever handle a M98 Mauser, military type you will see many similar features. One, not liked by civilian shooters is that the extractor will not snap over the cartridge rim - all loading must be from the magazine - a true controlled feed rifle.

Take a look at your tang safety M77, if it has an ejector in the bolt face, a rounded spring loaded plunger, at 4 o'clock in the bolt face your rifle is a push feed. This tosses the brass out of the receiver diagonally at 10 o'clock upon drawing the bolt back.

Nothing especially bad about push feed actions. They have been proven to work even when the rifle is operated upside down. Winchester did, or still might make a push feed M70. Some real pricy bolt action rifles are of the push feed type.

 

[gtxmonte]

Never understood the big debate myself. They both function just fine. Personally I prefer "push feed" as I am not a hunter and nearly always single load anyway. I don't want my rifle stripping my precision ammo from a magazine well. Most dangerous game hunters prefer controlled feed, because even in the most extreme cases, such as having to quickly swing the rifle, there is no danger of the round flying out of the port, because it is not locked to the bolt. Also push feed, cycles quicker because it requires less bolt lift

 

[SonofBassMan]

Back when I was into NRA Hi power, we shot rapid fire at 200 yards (60 seconds for 10) and 300 yards (70 seconds for 10). Ammo was contained in 5 round stripper clips. I had a pre 64 Win M70, .308 Win controlled feed, some other rifles on the line were push feed Win M70's. Both types scored well. Both push feed and controlled feed shot approximately the same rapid fire scores.

At 600 yards - 20 rounds, 20 minutes, I started by loaded each round in the magazine then up into the chamber. At first I used the same ammo for the entire match. Then I started using 180 grain Sierra Game Kings at 600 yards loading them as push feed making the extractor snap over the rim. My scores were slightly better. I was sort of concerned about the bullets slamming into the feed ramp and edge of the chamber, increasing bullet run out or changing the amount of neck tension from shot to shot. The 180's went through the wind better; despite being intended for hunting the 180 Si GK is a good target bullet.

As far as I can remember all the rifles that were used had 2 opposing locking lugs and required a 90 degree bolt lift. The Winchester M70 push feed rifles commonly used a spring loaded plunger ejector and a non rotating extractor. Possibly the resistance of dragging both ejector and extractor over the brass case increased resistance required to unlock the bolt but I never heard any complaints about it or experienced any problems with the push feed rifles

 

[gtxmonte]

Controlled round feed requires a 90* bolt lift to cycle. Push feed can have as little as a 55* bolt lift and virtually eliminates any chance of ever "short stroking" the action and resulting in a failure to feed.

 

[SonofBassMan]

Good point, but any controlled feed rifle having double opposed locking lugs will position the bolt to allow the cartridge rim to slide under a non-rotating extractor before the bolt is rotated 90 degrees for lock-up. The double lug push feed types are like Rem 700's and others where the extractor snaps over the cartridge rim require a 90 degree lift.

Considering the maximum amount of available rotation to be 180 degrees to open a bolt with a fixed magazine located below the bolt, a one lug rifle would require 180 degrees, a 2 lug rifle 90 degrees, and a 3 lug rifle 60 degrees. The rifles having multi lug bolts would be less.

I would expect that the 3 or multiple lug varieties that by their very nature would be push feed types. I remember those old Weatherby's, the multiple bolt lugs sort of looked like a gear. In a factory produced rifle just how many of those lugs would contact the bearing surfaces inside the receiver if these rifles did not have lapped bolt lugs. I cannot visualize any rifle having 3 forward located bolt lugs being of the controlled feed type - how would the cartridge rims pass under the extractor without contacting a locking lug?

I still am confused about the "short stroking" business. In both controlled and push feed the bolt would need to be pulled back far enough to strip a round from the magazine. The amount of bolt lift required, 90 or 60, or less degrees would be independent of rearward bolt travel allowing the bottom edge of the bolt face to contact a round in the magazine. A cartridge could flip out of the magazine without being stripped out and cause a double load situation - to prevent this much thought has been given to magazine widths and receiver rail dimensions used for various cartridges; possibly this is why the 7.92X57 and .30-06 round have almost identical rim diameters.

Again, I have seen both controlled and push feed rifles work very well using stripper clips for rapid fire. This is not a new subject and dates back to pre 1898 and that Mauser guy was sort of a genius equal to Browning.

Not ever used one, I understand the magazine cut off feature found in Springfield bolt action (U.S. Caliber .30) rifles allowed the weapon to be used as a single shot, but without using any of the rounds contained in a full magazine. To me this provides the best features of push and controlled feed.

 

[WAYNO]

I started to post my input to this recurring discussion, but it was easier to post a link to a previous discussion. :mrgreen:

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=163784&p=1644351&hilit=push+feed#p1644351


WAYNO.