Controlled round "grabs hold" of the cartridge, picking it up from the magazine and controls and holds it while being pushed forward into the chamber. Push feed is just that ... just giving forward motion to the cartridge as it is chambered.
Some prefer one over the other. It is said by some that in a dangerous game weapon that controlled round feed is better.
I prefer it myself, but for no other reason than the majority of my favorite rifles are Mauser 98 variants and I've just grown accustomed to its characteristics.
With a controlled round feed you can theoretically be upside-down and cycle your rifle without losing the cartridge to gravity. In other words a controlled round feed rifle is supposed to be in control of the hot cartridge and the spent casing from the moment you guide the bolt forward to chamber a round to the last second when you have withdrawn the boltfull back and have ejected the spent round.
I can't think of too many negatives or positives to either. They are just different.
Its possible to short stroke a push feed(partially chamber a round) then pull the bolt back and try to chamber another which would jam everything up good- atleast this is the best argument I've heard for a controlled feed and Ireally don't think its a very good one.
More likely to happen is to have a custom rifle build off a mauser 98 action (controlled feed) by a basement gunsmith or a hack who happenstohave a 'gunsmith' shop and find that the new chambering doesn't feed from one side or the other from the magazine- jamming it up solidly. Mauser actions have to have their feed rail and feed ramp geometry to be very precise in order to get the level of reliability that they are famous for. Unfortunately what often happens is thta Joe Huntergets his new mauser actioned rifle from the local gunhacker, goes to the range, single feeds it and is happy with the way it shoots, then takes it hunting. On a full magazine, the frst round will feed because it was on the same side of the magazine as being single-fed, but the second round will hopelessly jam the rifle up.
BTW: I'm a huge fan of the mauser design for a lot of other reasons than the controlled feed and prefer it over modern push feeds.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
they are both good types. depending on what you will be hunting might make a difference. if im hunting anything in North America other than bears, i would take the action that shoots the most accurate and gun feels the best. If bear or african dangerous game was on the list, id take a controlled round feed action. But that said, i have a couple of each kind and like them both.
what is the differences? is one better than the other in certain calibers?
When Paul Mauser switched the extractor setup on his bolt action rifle design from push feed to controlled round feeding, it was considered a great improvement in the design.
I think it still is. But CRF is much more important on a military rifle than on one used for hunting or other sporting applications (except for hunting dangrerous game!!).
__________________
"Bitte, trinks du das Wasser nicht. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen."
My understanding is on big/dangerous game the pro's prefer a controlled feed because of reliability. Maybe today that's not as much of the case as it was back int he day, but that's still how I view it.
Controlled feed will always load, always shoot....might not be MOA accurate, but at 50yds, what's that matter to a charging animal?
Push feed I think of like a remington action, accurate.
Maybe that's an older view, and I'm sure some guns can be controlled and very accurate, as well as some push feeds can be less accurate.
I believe I read its easier to make a push feed accurate, than it is a controlled feed.
Controlled should be quieter to chamber/throw a round.
controlled/push round feeding
