Mauser Controlled Round Feeding
I have been wondering for a lot time why is it that many people think the Mauser type action, with the "controlled round" feeding is the best and most reliable feeding method for a rifle. Especially a big, dangerous game rifle wheres if your gun malfunctions you might be killed. It would make sense that as long as the controlled round feeding worked perfectly each and ever time then of course there is your answer. It is best because it works perfectly and every time. But I don't believe any machine works perfectly each and every time.
So, if you have a feeding malfunction with the Mauser type action, You would have a terminal problem if a Cape Buffalo was bearing down on you. Reason being that with the Mauser type feeding you cannot just pick out/dump out the malfunctioning round being fed, and chamber another round (since apparently a Mauser type actions can only feed from a magazine, not a single round by hand). Whereas with the push type feeding of say the Remington model 700, you possible could quickly remove the malfunctioning round by hand and feed a fresh round into the chamber by hand.
Also, if controlled feeding is the best method for a Bolt Action rifle, then why is it also not the best for a semi-auto or pump rifle?
And why isn't controlled round feeding also best for semi-auto handguns?
Sounds funny, but these are honest questions.
So, if you have a feeding malfunction with the Mauser type action, You would have a terminal problem if a Cape Buffalo was bearing down on you. Reason being that with the Mauser type feeding you cannot just pick out/dump out the malfunctioning round being fed, and chamber another round (since apparently a Mauser type actions can only feed from a magazine, not a single round by hand). Whereas with the push type feeding of say the Remington model 700, you possible could quickly remove the malfunctioning round by hand and feed a fresh round into the chamber by hand.
Also, if controlled feeding is the best method for a Bolt Action rifle, then why is it also not the best for a semi-auto or pump rifle?
And why isn't controlled round feeding also best for semi-auto handguns?
Sounds funny, but these are honest questions.
0
-
You are working a bolt rifle MUCH slower then a semi auto rifle. A push feed has time to fall completely out of the receiver if during working the action the rifle is subject to a bump or turned onto its side or heaven forbid upside down . As far as semi auto pistols go a 1911 and many other pistols having internal extractors and are at least in my opinion CONTROL FEED the case slides up the breach face of the slide with the extractor holding the round in place. "PRAISE THE HARD-BALL GUN" 0 -
I think much of the Mauser benefit comes from the extraction too. The grip on the case rim is thought to be more secure than the Remington type. This allows more reliable follow up shots. At least this is what I've read about it. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I have been wondering for a lot time why is it that many people think the Mauser type action, with the "controlled round" feeding is the best and most reliable feeding method for a rifle. Especially a big, dangerous game rifle wheres if your gun malfunctions you might be killed.
I think in fact, that double rifles are generally the most prized for hunting dangerous African game, not bolt-action guns.
quote: But I don't believe any machine works perfectly each and every time.
Then no rifle will ever be good enough for you, will it? [}:)]
quote:So, if you have a feeding malfunction with the Mauser type action, You would have a terminal problem if a Cape Buffalo was bearing down on you. Reason being that with the Mauser type feeding you cannot just pick out/dump out the malfunctioning round being fed, and chamber another round (since apparently a Mauser type actions can only feed from a magazine, not a single round by hand). Whereas with the push type feeding of say the Remington model 700, you possible could quickly remove the malfunctioning round by hand and feed a fresh round into the chamber by hand.
See above.
The double rifle (like a double-shotgun) is generally considered the best action for dangerous game, because
-Its the fastest to load a second round (ie its already loaded into its own separate chamber) and
-Its functionally is two separate rifles linked together. . .that's about as reliable a "backup" as your going to get.
Its also about as easy to remove a bad round and insert a new one as you can get.
Speaking of backup, that's why if you're going to hunt dangerous game, you generally bring along at least one (and ideally more than one) backup rifleMAN with you, in case things get hairy.
quote:Also, if controlled feeding is the best method for a Bolt Action rifle, then why is it also not the best for a semi-auto or pump rifle? And why isn't controlled round feeding also best for semi-auto handguns?
First of all, just because something is the "best" functionally, doesn't make it the best from a design or cost-effectiveness standpoint. There is still such a thing as "good enough".
As Perryshooter says, I believe most conventional semi-auto pistols DO functionally have controlled round feeding because the round loads right into the extractor from the magazine, which them holds them against the breechface until ejected.0 -
tr fox,
I think you really need to do some searching, and figure out what controlled round feeding of the Mauser style action really is, and what it does. But I will attempt to give you a brief version here.
Most real dangerous game professionals carry double rifles. It is those who might hunt dangerous game once or twice in their lifetime, are the ones that will take a gamble on a bolt rifle anyway.
quote:Reason being that with the Mauser type feeding you cannot just pick out/dump out the malfunctioning round being fed, and chamber another round (since apparently a Mauser type actions can only feed from a magazine, not a single round by hand).
Glad to see you done some reading...but you still lack the total concept. Yes you can load one singly by hand. It in not a practice that is advised to do on a constant basis, but it can be done. They, in a jam can be fed singly.
Yes, you can take the cartridge out/off of the bolt face by hand. It is not chemically or mechanically bonded to the boltface. It is merely mildly held in place by the claw extractor, so you can work the action standing onyour head, and not have to worry about the round falling out, in theory.
In the meantime, try to find a little more on different designs, of extraction/feeding systems.
Best0 -
a. extration; the extractor has a 'cam' built in, the more force applied to the bolt handle, the harder the extractor 'grips' the cartridge.
b. ejection; just pull the bolt handle back, the cartridge is gripped by the extractor from feeding from the magazine on. any other type bolt (rem., win. (post 64, pre classic), ect.) you have to COMPLEATLY chamber a cartridge First.
c. double rifle; sure, best of the bunch but at about 10x the cost of a GOOD bolt gun.0 -
tr fox,
Getting down to the nitty-gritty difference of the two (actually three) types is why the controlled round feed is better.
The Rem 700 push round feed does not engage the case head until it is bottomed out in the chamber. The little 'clip thingy-dinghy' that is the extractor in Rem 700's is not real strong, nor does it cover a whole lot of physical area on the case it's trying to extract. Physically, the Mauser 'Claw' which the pre-'64 and post-'94(?) Winchesters have has about 10 times as much area on the case to grab. It also 'cams' in toward the shell if it's difficult to pull out of the chamber, as Mike Whiskey noted. The bolt pulling back with resistance causes the connection to the claw to dig in. Not pop back over like a Rem 700. The post-'64 extractor won't dig in as hard as the claw will. But, it is much better than the Rem 700.
One reason this difference is so noted is because oftentimes in the long ago past, people would go to Africa with ammunition that was made for their cooler climate. The heat made the ammunition hotter. This made it stick in chambers much more often than we see it today. I have seen it advertised in a number of places that if you bring reloads make sure they are loaded to minimum where you are at. They will shoot normally in the higher heat. And you will need to test them when you get there. With these newfangled temp sensitive powders, this won't be such a problem.
Feeding singly is easily done with a claw type extractor. A hard shove forward on the bolt and the claw goes right over the case head. It scratches it up a bit and makes it harder to reload, but fires just fine. Also, if there is that split second, learn to flop the bullet up on the feed ramp and then depress the head so either the claw goes over it, or it catches in the feed rail. It will feed just fine.
The reason a 'controlled round feed' is better, I Think, (may not work in your neck of the woods) is because with a magazine full of ammunition it will load at any speed, at any angle. A push round feed will not do that. A normally chambered round is controlled all the way from the magazine into the chamber.
And, FWIW if you look at semi-auto pistols you will see they have an extractor that pretty much does what the claw does on a bolt action. For all intents and purposes they ARE controlled round feed. So, is the M249, M60, and M240 machine guns (full auto examples). There is no way they would feed reliably without them being 'fully controlled feed'. There is just too much reciprocation going on not to have full control of the rounds.0 -
Yeh. Back to ammo..the big boomers of yesteryear fired using cordite. Cordite was veeeery (excuse the Boer accent) touchy vis-a-vis heat. So..
H&H (the company) made generous chamberings, with lots of room to ease extraction, and found the Mauser Claw to be most reliable.
Notice I didn't say reliable..I said most reliable. Anything is prone to failure.
I have a .375 H&H with original chamber dimensions. The 'tropical' chambering, and, I think, it is more generous than the modern SAAMI dimensions for the same round, but it is what was used in 1913 when the round was introduced. Shot in the dark, here, but I think with modern powders, the chamber was tightened somewhat, and is what is normally available today for the chamberings that originally took cordite.
Check old H&H literature. 'Tropical' chambers were a feature in their sales brocures back in the day. Best, Joe0 -
One explanation of the original "controlled feed" Mauser was that an excited conscript private soldier would be less likely to short stroke the bolt and generate a "double feed" malfunction. Naturally that would apply to a hunter with buck fever, too.
More positive extraction is a real bonus, too.
But the Defense Department seems to get by with those Remington spring clip extractors in sniper rifles. Of course a sniper gets more training and practice than an infantry trooper or the average hunter.
Old Peter Paul Mauser was no dummy, he had other designs seldom or never used. The 1891 Mauser had a hook extractor picked up with almost no change by Sako; although they later went with a separate spring instead of a flexible shank. He had a spring clip extractor different in design but not function to the Remington. He also patented a sliding plate in the front face of the locking lug like post 1964 Winchester and current Savage except it was held by a screw instead of a detent plunger.0 -
A friend of mine, and his buddy, went to Africa for Cape Buffs. They went to the range to sight in their 416 Rem Mag, Rem. M-700 Safari rifles. After sighting in, they took their brass and reloaded them without running it throught the full length resizing die. They assumed that neck sizing was adequate since the rifles were consecutively numbered and the chambers "had" to be identical.
Well, the first shot in Africa wounded the buff and they crawled in to the brush to finish it. Chambering the second round failed and the round got stuck in the chamber. They had to use a cleaning rod to tap out the round from the front. Lucky for them, the buff did not charge them and the round did not go off while being removed.
So those are the facts. Whether a controlled round feeding of Winchester M-70 or a CZ/Bruno would have made a difference in this situation is subject to debate, but I don't think I would put my self in the same position with a Remington.0 -
I tried that trick with a Springfield one time.
The big licensed Mauser claw just pulled right off the rim and I had to rod out the oversize cartridge.
So that instance was more likely a case of poor reloading practice than a fault of the action.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments