How Does It Work: Push Feed vs Controlled Feed 

"...are of long standing debate within some of the firearms community." Translation: Here's two different feed systems, but only the real nerds argue over them.

Didn't even knew that differences between feed system exist. Thank you, Ian

I love this "How Does It Work" episodes. make one about handgun safety mechanisms

Thanks for the little break down I love these short educational videos that illustrate different operating mechanisms and not just the guns as a whole

I only had one instance where I thought controlled feed was an advantage. Feeding a round extremely slowly while trying to be extremely quiet, I was on my back and the rifle was upside down. It was a real incident and I was armed with a control feed which fed the round properly. Back in camp and while later demonstrating it with a push feed the round failed to feed.

Back in the day when millions of cheap surplus Mausers were being sporteried, three things were almost always done to the bolt. 1 Bend the bolt handle down for use with a scope. 2 Change the safety lever to clear a scope. 3 File the end of extractor so that it would "Pop over" a cartridge that had been dropped into the chamber. This last part was so that one could load 5 in the magazine, drop a 6th round in the chamber and close the bolt. Unmodified, the Mauser bolt would not close on a carriage that was just dropped into the chamber because it had to slide up and under the extractor lip before entering the chamber. This filing had to be done carefully as too much filing and the extractor could fail to grab the rim of the cartridge and thus not extract it reliably. Too little filing and it would not "Pop over" the rim when closing the bolt. done correctly, it would still control feed from the magazine, and also close on that 6th round. Most of the guys having these rifles modified had just fought a war with them and I guess they considered 5 plus 1 was better than just 5. Maybe when they were in battle, they had sometimes wished that they had just that one extra round. I've seldom needed more than one round or maybe two rounds when hunting, but for some reason it always felt like my rifle was half empty without that extra round in there. Two other things done to the action were to file down the "Hump" around the clip feed slot on top of the action to mount a scope. Also file a little off the rear of the magazine follower to get rid of the last round lock open so you could close the bolt on an empty chamber without having to hold the follower down by hand.

I thought I was going to learn how to make my kids eat their vegetables...dang

* casually sneaks french rifle into general info video *

The thing about controlled feed is that if the case somehow jumps ahead of the extractor (such as on Mausers with worn feed lips), it becomes impossible to then lip the extractor over the rim when turning the bolt to lock. This can result in a similar double-feed situation if you haven't realized what's happened. I've had this happen on my 98k, and Bloke on the Range has also had it happen to his Manky Mauser.

The controlled round feed still has its place in dangerous game shooting.

I liked that and now I want more clear and concise "How Does It Work" episodes !

I would love to see one of these episodes on push-through vs pull-out belt feed mechanisms.

When I am Bench rest shooting ( sliding a single round) at a time into the chamber, I prefer a push feed. When I am hunting bear solo. I feel better having controlled feed.

Now, being that I own a Mauser, and, a MAS-36, I'm going to have to get 'em out of the gun safe, and, check this out myself. I never really noticed the difference before.

But what if I want to chamber my bolt action while repelling upside down during my super awesome tactical raid to my refrigerator? Surely a control feed would be the only practical option?!?!

I do really appreciate you work on these kinda videos Ian! They simple explain things in a very understandable way, so even novices in gun-mechanics can understand more of this great field of knowledge! Great job

Do more of those and pack them in a playlist. Make it a video encyclopedia, with lots of tags.

One of the arguments like this was between Double Rifle, and bolt actions for Safari. Dangerous game, .375H&H belted magnums, and up. If I remember right, the Bolt Actions were Controlled Feed, while I guess I could be in the double rifle, drilling, and combination gun camp, mostly because I find them beautiful. (The Kreighoff international site is some of my favorite gun porn, even though I have neither the budget, nor any use for a "Big 5" rifle/shotgun combination.) I kinda understand the argument that nothing is faster, and more positive on a second shot than another barrel.

One thing I like about this channel is coming to the comments. Everyone here is so knowledgeable and experienced, and it makes a great compliment to the video to learn a bit more!

I love that the example of push feed that Ian used, out of all of the vast multitude of possible examples, was a MAS-36. Of course!

For our next firearms nerd debate : leather sling vs. cloth sling.

Already knew the difference,but wanted to get your take on the subject. Agree with you, wouldn’t be a factor on choice of rifles. Way more important things to worry about.

I was expecting a joke about bolt action being obsolete and how it makes no difference because it's obsolete.

One difference i can really see come up is that single feeding loose rounds into the chamber or in front of an open bolt and closing can damage a control freed, while a push feed calls it another Wednesday

I feel like an opportunity was missed in the discussion when it comes to machine guns. There you see the dynamic flipped as the higher rate of fire presents a greater opportunity for double feeds and other ammunition malfunctions. Of course both styles are in wide spread use, but I figured it would be germane to today's topic.

The only arguments I ever heard in favor of controlled feed over push feed were from early military / dangerous game perspectives. For the early military (WW1 era, the concern was if you got a damaged / non standard / oversized round that won’t fit in the chamber, you can pull it back out of the chamber and for dangerous game if a rhino is charging at you and you get excited and short stroke the bolt, you won’t jam the rifle.

I was JUST looking this up yesterday. I wanted a controlled feed due to me being left handed and push feeds arent left handed ejecting friendly if I tilt the gun. Controlled feed is the best also cuz mauser, k98k and others are famous for a reason

Ok, Mauser is the controlled feed and MAS-36 is the push feed, near as I can tell. Love the video, but next time could you introduce the players (firearms used). Otherwise, the Firearms Actors Guild will want to have a chat with you...

Excellent video as always. I might add an anecdote. I shoot a Yugo M48, controlled feed. I shot a Swedish Mauser 96 which is also controlled feed. The difference is that the M48 is cock on open, where the 96 is cock on close. Not much force is needed to cycle the M48 but when closing an Mauser 96 action you are pushing against the full force of the spring, which completely throws off your muscle memory if you are not prepared for it. I must say the 6.5x55 is a fantastic cartridge, shooting it after shooting my 8mm brought me great joy.

I jammed up a rifle with control feed by single loading a cartridge without pushing it down into the magazine. The bolt pushed it forward enough for it to get stuck in the chamber, but couldn't go into battery because the extractor wasn't over the lip of the cartridge. Ended up having to remove the bolt and push the round out with a cleaning rod 😂

What a missed opportunity. I agree with the conclusion, that for most people it will never mater. And given that modern controlled feed firearms are about 2x the cost (Canada, should be a similar ratio elsewhere), and that push feed are often more accurate, though often to an irrelevant degree, push feed are great. Of course, there are still some relatively inexpensive surplus controlled feed guns out there. But the issue is basically bolt action battle rifles, that on a historic and military interest channel should be of some interest. And the principles for battle rifles are also relevant to dangerous game, or home defense type applications. For myself, I don't want to go afield in even deer hunting applications without a controlled round feed (CFR) gun. The main advantage is that you can't lock up the gun with CRF; it can be operated from weird positions, or even while under assault, and still feed; and the extractor is usually large enough to reliably extract somewhat jammed ammunition. There are no compensating advantage to push feed in the situation for which CRF was designed. The reference to sniper rifles is very misleading. Probably most sniper rifles in history were CRF, but today they are largely an outgrowth of benchrest and varmint technology, and then went off in their own direction. It turned out that the cheap to manufacture Model 700 was also very easy to machine to perfection, and it was controlled round feed. Today we can get mechanical perfection in oddly shaped parts with CNC. We probably could make CRF rifles that would perform as well as those that have evolved from the 700, but nobody cares, which is fine. But it is not the lack of CRF that makes these rifles better or more accurate. They are the result of a path that did not evolve from CRF rifles, and is not badly hampered by that. If you are shooting targets at 2500 yards, or even from 250 yards, unless you get overrun at some point, you don't really need a CRF gun. It would still be an advantage. And it would not need to be a Mauser pattern rifle. If the great amount of energy that has been applied to micro innovation in sniper rifles were applied to making the ammo stay on the bolt face, would there not be a good solution? Would such a rifle not be better?

I've seen push feeds fail to eject a loaded round (ie a dud) with heavier calibers such as 300 Win Mag. Which is one reason a lot of dangerous game hunters insist on using control feed.

First time I've ever seen a snap cap in 7.5 French. Didn't even know such a thing existed :P

In practical terms - push feeds are cheaper to make and tend to be more accurate, and controlled feed tends to be more reliable.

One downside to controlled feed, at least in some experience, is inability or difficulty single loading. Not a deal breaker, but worth pointing out.

Push feed master race!!!

could you make one of those "how does it work" to explain how burst fire works. For instance a 3 round burst. Thanks

Work at an ffl, had a guy that came in and made a point to see our control feed bolt action rifles. Which consisted of a Winchester model 70 and a kimber Hunter. I would venture a guess and say that they are not very common in today’s firearms

For me, I still like controlled feed on bolt action more simply because from the engineering aspect it is a robust system!

Push feed isn't when you push a spoon of food into your mouth? Force feed is when im force fed/Control feedfor being anorexic? I'm confused... Just a random Californain that can only own Airsoft Rifles and Nerf. Dont mind me guys...

Good inside baseball stuff.

The comment on modern adoption of push feed rifles, particularly in the US, is a bit misleading. The US sniper rifle WAS controlled round feed (the M1903) until Vietnam following the failure of the M14 sniper derivatives to live up to DMR level precision. The US military was on the verge of adopting another controlled round feed rifle (the Winchester M70) when two things happened, both related to labor costs. Winchester reworked the M70 and produced a completely new, push feed action still called the M70 to save labor costs while Remington addressed that issue with a new push feed design, the M700. Both rifles served as sniper rifles in Vietnam, but the Remington was formally adopted as the M24 (Ian has a great video on an M70 Vietnam era sniper rifle with a Unertl 8x scope that will cause you to appreciate whatever scope and mount system you have). Perhaps most confusing, the difference between the M70 and M700 when the US adopted the M700 was NOT CRF vs push feed. M700 saved on cost by machining its receiver from a cylindrical steel tube and a separate recoil lug ( a thick washer with one side protruding) sandwiched between the barrel and receiver. Winchester never moved away from a one piece receiver with an integral recoil lug, and eventually went back to a controlled round feed rifle after CNC machining made the labor cost difference negligible (though they use metal injection molding for their extractors, which is a problem in its own right). Dakota Rifles currently makes two CRF models, the 76 and 99, which differ only in that the 76 uses a one piece receiver while the 99 uses the M700 style tube receiver/washer recoil lug system. I agree that in most contexts the difference is negligible, but when the rifle MUST fire repeatedly as a safety issue, CRF has two advantages. First, it is possible to short stroke a bolt action when working it quickly as covered in the video. Second, a Mauser claw will pull off the case rim before failing. A truly stuck case will remain in the barrel of a push or controlled round feed gun, but the CRF rifle can nearly always be fixed by running a rod down the barrel whereas the push feed rifle likely has a broken extractor from the frenzied efforts of its operator. This has led to the popularity of M16 style extractors as a modification for the M700, though their installation requires the removal and reattachment of the bolt head.

Controlled feed has many potential upsides, all else being equal I'd likely take controlled over push.

Ooooh, there are going to be some salty comments from Mauser fanboys now!

I was always told growing up that controlled feed is better, but from this demonstration, it looks like they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. Thanks for doing quick, straight to the point videos like this Ian!

love this series, it gives answers to questions i didnt even know existed

I am still a fan of belt feed.

I have a Remington 22 LR bolt action with a tube magazine from the 1930's that has a really interesting elevator system that can run 22 short, long, or LR. It lifts the cartridge inline with the barrel then the bolt pushes it directly into the barrel. There are no ramps so the nose of the bullet can't get deformed, and there is no way to double feed.

Funny that I just ran into this issue the other day, I was shooting a couple of old WWII bolt action guns. My Yugo 24/47 Mauser was control feed. I noticed that it would not close bolt on a round slipped into the chamber, so that doesn't allow a +1 load since it can only feed from the mag. I think some would consider that a disadvantage. Good info in the video, as always!!

"Theres no real difference..." oh dear! I can hear the whining of Mauser Simps everywhere..."But...but...controlled feed is Mauser. Say it"s superior or I'll run off to my safe space & cry."

Please make one about how sniper scopes work

That was excellent, I finally understand the difference between the pros and cons. Controlled feed is what I'd prefer, I'd hate to get nervous around a big, brown bear and experience a double feed malfunction with a push feed action. I'm now old enough to understand how dumb/accidental things happen.

Manky Mauser...can be a problem...I have a similar problem with the interupter on my Rattletrap Mosin M39.

I didn't even know these existed, but that was interesting.

2:29 checks Mosin's bolt face... Well, I still miss my M39

Nice video. Thanks for making it. Wasn't sure I'd find a video on this. It sure helped me to understand all the details vs. just reading about it.!!

Still looking for a modern controlled feed (lefty bolt) with iron sights pre installed. So far, no go. I do enjoy the feed on many WW2 surplus rifles, but want something with modern manufacturing techniques *cold hammer forged barrel. *sigh* I love bolt guns. It’s a shame more ppl don’t share this interest

2:50 gun markings: Danzig 1918 = Gdańsk 102 lata temu (years ago), I am in Gdańsk right now :D

What the problem? No problem? WE find it, and start bitching about! Thank you Gun Jesus, I didn't realize that there is an minor difference in feed systems.

Hey Ian, I have a Savage 99 which is a controlled feed although it's not a bolt action. It is an amalgam of kinda falling block and lever, but it works well. I also have a Sako 85 which they claim some kind of controlled feed but many people just call it a push feed plus. Which would you call the Sako 85. Can you do a video on the Savage 99 please?

Only time I could justify the cost difference between the two is if I am dangerous game hunting. Otherwise, I don’t think it is worth it.

One other benefit of CRF over PF is the ability to reliably control ejection of a spent case. Push feed pretty much goes on its own, and often with "gusto." If I want to keep spent cases from flying out of the rifle, CRF makes that easier, by executing a slow pull backward when cycling the bolt. Other than that they are both very useful and workable action types for a bolt action.

Push feed is great, however you wont find a African PH hunting with one. The dubble feed is an issue often under pressure. Like a Cape buff bearing down on you. But... you need practice with a controlle feed and technique is important. Any upward pressure on the bolt and things get unstuck real quick lol

Cool video 👍. I have several turn bolt rifles, all mixed actions. No issues! Of course I polished all sliding and bearing surfaces, and I hard cycle the actions. No short stroking allowed!

Slow feeding short cartridges with a Push Feed system is very prone to jams. Quick feeding is less of a problem. Slow feeding cartridges from the magazine are less of problem with a Controlled Feed system, and slow extraction allows the shooter to drop the empty case nearby, or fast extraction will kick the case quite a way. With Push Feed the case ejects under spring pressure with both slow and fast extraction forcing a target shooter to using 2 hands to keep the case from flying all over the place. Push Feed is just a Bean Counters way to more profit.

I minor feature of controlled feed is that it is easy to quickly empty the magazine by quickly cycling the action halfway (enough to grab round from mag, then pull back and eject).

That being said, why do you think that the majority of high end hunting rifles (safari) hyem, Rigby etc use control feed mechanisms over pushfeed and would these larger calibers benefit from controlled feed over push feed?

Interesting, I didn't know there was different feeding mechanisms. Please do one for thumb mag release vs heel mag release

One factor with push feed (plunger eject) is you can't just 'ease the bolt back' and pick up the empty out of the action (for re-loaders in particular, or for just 'policing' your brass), the empty is always thrown a 'way over yonder' if you want to or not, with a CRF you can throw them a mile and a half, if you want, or you can keep them nice and handy. As for accuracy differences, I don't think that there is more than 'half a blond one' between the two (I have both in the safe) and I think there is too many other factors with much bigger influences on accuracy to determine if one is better than the other in 'normal use' situations, yes the dedicated bench rest set-up may be able to tell if there is any difference, but they don't have magazines (for the most part) so it is a moot point anyway. Ian, from one long haired, lefty, gun person to another, keep up the good work and keep the videos coming.

This was a great graphic example of the differences between the systems. I have to wonder if it's more of an issue with less well trained users and those under the strain of combat and dangerous game hunting, where the benefit of controlled round feed would prevent mishaps? (Similar to the popularity of double rifles for dangerous game) Issues which are not often faced by today's soldiers with automatic/semi/burst fire mechanisms, but still faced by danger game hunters who still favor CRF bolt guns.

Why aren't controlled feeds used more in modern sniper rifles and competitions? It seems to fix the downside of a push-feed and not bring any more downsides...

For ye olde military and Bubba purposes, I can understand a desire to not have to fully chamber a round in order to unload the magazine, thus theoretically preventing a situation in which someone could have an oopsie in those circumstances. In practice, nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool, and a 3-position safety, or one that doesn't lock the bolt handle, is a better, simpler, and cheaper CYA measure for a manufacturer to take.

Hey Ian, Brandon Herrera said if he could get a hold of the owner of that super shitty Krinkov AK, he'd fix it for free. Let's make it happen!

Having used a push feed rifle extensively, the most annoying thing about it is the plunger ejector, specifically when shooting at the bench. As a reloader, I like to catch my brass as it comes out of the gun which the plunger ejector makes difficult to do. I have just recently been shooting a swedish mauser with the controlled feed and I find it much nicer to be able to control the ejection of the brass by how I pull the bolt back. In practical hunting applications though, the plunger ejector works wonderfully to get that fired brass out of there as quickly as possible.

That's interesting that the military prefers push feed. If I'm understanding the controversy correctly, it's speed vs reliability. It sounds like if you were in a life or death situation the military prefers speed over what appears to be an unlikely malfunction.

Professional hunters in African safari companies generally prefer control feed actions because they are more foolproof under stress, something learned by militaries of the early twentieth century. Also, with controlled feed, you can clear a loaded magazine without having to push the bolt fully into battery by simply pushing the bolt back and forth, something I used to demo in class.

I prefer controlled feed because ejecting brass 20 feet away with a bolt gun makes me feel powerful

I'm going to respectfully disagree, controlled feed is superior. It might not be mind blowingly superior, but it is an overall superior design, and there are hunters who will only use such a rifle with dangerous game, and for good reason. Excitement or panic can cause a short stroke double feed on the a push feed, but is not possible with a controlled feed.

Why dont semiauto rifles have controlled round feed? my m16a1 converted to a2 had problems with ejection. i had an empy case jam between bcg and the receiver preventing me from clearing the action and loading new round.

I love this video explaining obscure mechanism in the firearm lol Maybe next video could be about why sears came to prominence

Maybe i just dont understand physics that well but wouldn't a push feed have the danger of rounds falling out in awkward positions due to gravity?

Didn't even know there were two feed/extract/eject systems. Thanks for the inside-skinny Ian.

Wouldn't a controlled feed be less likely to have a broken extractor because the way the cartridge cases rim slides into the extractor thus preventing wear and damage in the long run?

I have heard that rifles like my Mauser have it was so that the gun could be cycled in any position or while moving around. But like you said no longer a problem as soldiers don't use bolt actions and if they do they certainly aren't running and shooting often.

I love the idea that I watch this channel to decide which firearms to purchase. I'd need a time machine to purchase 99% of the guns featured on this channel 🤣

Years ago a gun shop owner showed me practically the same thing. No matter how slow or even upside down controlled feed will function.

I love that any time I hear a term about firearms I don’t know or understand, Forgotten weapons has me covered

Huh the ar15/m16 is a push feed but the dae woo k2 is controlled fees?

Anyone know where to get those 7.5 French dummy cartridges Ian is using here on the MAS36?

Great explanation. What would help me, and possibly others, is a list or examples of the two feed systems in rifles we magic the familiar with.

Then there is the Nagant. Push feed but ejector is in the rear and has a small claw extractor. Kinda has too because of it's rimmed cartridge.

Great explanation Ian, thanks for your contribution to my education,

Now that you have explained it, it does sound like controlled feed is a better choice for a shooter that is less practiced as there is only one way to properly operate the gun and one problem that could be have to deal with for a less experienced shooter is eliminated. I will admit that it sounds pretty marginal, but when dealing with people and guns, a slight bit more of safety is always appreciated.

I think that you should also make an additional note on the operation of a controlled feed system. You cannot just drop a cartridge on to the follower and chamber it due to the fact that the extractor cant snap over the rim of the case. The only way to get the cartidge to feed correctly is when it comes from the magazine. I think this in some ways is a detriment to an internal magazine since you can only have a maximum capacity of what the magazine was designed for.

Been posted 3 minutes and 392 comments. Come see gun jesus and behold his knowledge

I mean demolition ranch and all these other fun gun channels are nice because you can laugh and have a good time but every time after I listen to Ian's voice I feel educated. You can be in to firearms for quite a time but still this channel teach you some new stuff you didn’t know that as existed. I love this channel go on Ian

I love guns but you might love them more. I really love guns...

Controlled feed is recommended for dangerous game hunting here in Africa.

Love having things explained and Ian is always very thorough with his vlogs.

I'd love to see more tutorial/learning videos like this one. Keep them coming!