Lee-Enfield No. 1, 4 and 5 rifles - Controlled Round Feed or Push Round Feed ?

[Snowy Owl]

Question for the experts here :

For years, I have been reading on different forums that the Lee-Enfield No. 1, 4 an 5 rifles are Controlled Round Feed rifles - well, most of the time.

Today, I have found exactly the opposite opinion on another forum : now, those rifles are Push Round Feed rifles - or so they say.

So, what gives ? Controlled Round Feed or Push Round Feed ?

Expert opinions - and even facts - are very much welcome.

TIA

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Sentryduty]

My understanding, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am amiss, was that if the round was not gripped entirely by the bolt face it was not a controlled feed system. The flat bolt face of a LE would to me be considered a push feed system.

A bolt face that has a recessed design to fully capture and support the cartridge base should be a controlled feed system.

That has been my understanding at least.

[Peter Laidler]

I've been in the small arms business in a sort of roundabout way since January 1963. Done a course or two including the weapon design course at a reasonably high technical level but guess what? I've never heard of nor encountered these phrases in respect of small arms. Is it something technical or dynamic I/we should of heard about? Does anyone else know about this. Is it something to do with magazine feed where for an instant in time or distance, where the round is not under the control of the barrel, the magazine or the breech block.

[Sentryduty]

Peter, I have heard this term in US shooting magazines and discussions and it has be come somewhat of a popular topic. The basic discussion from my understanding, is the assumption that a controlled feed rifle is more accurate/consistent because it grips the round whereas a push feed may somehow chamber differently one each cycling.

Other discussion follows about "damaging" the round with loading in a push feed whereas a controlled feed is less abusive under loading.

There might be some other suppositions about feeding reliability but I don't put my stock in the whole topic.

It is often quoted along the barking that Mauser actions are better than everything, in every way, et all.

I don't see much value in the topic, it is more just a design aspect of an action in my opinion, the various gas operations systems seem to have a greater impact on weapons design than how a round is fed from a box magazine in a manually operated bolt gun.

Field and Stream Magazine elaborates further on the topic:

A blogger of my acquaintance asked me to explain the difference between controlled-feed bolt-actions and push-feed bolt actions, and the importance thereof to shooters.

Controlled feed refers to the system developed by Peter Paul Mauser for his Model 98 bolt-action. When the bolt is cycled, a cartridge rises up from the magazine and the extractor—that long, flat piece of metal that rides alongside the bolt—snaps onto the rim of the cartridge and holds it in a death grip on its trip into the chamber. When the round is fired, it pulls the case clear until it is kicked out of action by the ejector, a small, unattractive piece of steel that is fixed in place behind the follower and rides through a slot in the bolt face. So, controlled feed: Each round is held in place throughout the firing cycle.

Push feed was introduced by Remington in 1949 in the Model 721 (which eventually became the Model 700). Here, as a cartridge rose up out of the magazine, the bolt simply pushed it forward into the chamber without holding on to it. As the case chambers, a small unattractive clip snaps onto the rim, and pulls the case out when the round is fired. The shell is kicked clear by a spring-loaded plunger in the bolt face.

The advantages to push feed are that it’s cheaper to manufacture than controlled feed, and that the bolt face can be made to completely enclose the case head, so that if the case ruptures, you won’t be blown up as badly.

Controlled-feed fanatics snort and fart and claim that push-feed is unreliable; that without firm guidance, rounds will not find their way into the chamber consistently. The truth is that push-feed is just fine if the magazine rails fit the case correctly. Trouble comes when manufacturers try to make guns on the cheap and the rails fit poorly.

They further claim that the big extractors on controlled-feed bolts pull stuck cases better than the small extractors on push-feed bolts. Again, not so. A full-length extractor can slip off a case rim given enough force, and a push-feed extractor can either shear through the case rim or break.

In a properly-made rifle, either system works fine, and there are better things to worry about.

Upon a careful re-read of my own article posting, I see F&S magazine claims that Remington introduced push-feed in 1949, I think Mr. Lee would have something to say about that.

[Ridolpho]

Regarding this subject, on pg 3 of "The Bolt Action- a design analysis", Stuart Otteson, 1976, the author says, regarding Mauser Model 98's: "......a positive grip is achieved as cartridges leave the magazine and before being thrust into the chamber, thus avoiding any possibility of double loading. Today, double loading is an almost forgotten design factor. It was considered important in the military bolt rifles, and involves a cartridge inadvertently jamming into one in the chamber. This can occur where the bolt/ extractor combination fails to grip the cartridge rim until the bolt is locked. In this type of setup, found in most current bolt designs, if the bolt is withdrawn before fully closed, the just fed cartridge is left stranded in the chamber to jam the next cartridge stripped from the magazine". I have had this happen with a Mosin Nagant and, over on Gunboards a while back, someone appears to have had the chambered round go off after attempting to ram home the following cartridge.

Ridolpho

[Sentryduty]

However, in that regard it seems like the fault is in the operator, not entirely in the design. Part of the action cycling is reliant on the bolt being operated properly; opened, fully withdrawn, fully forward and rotated closed. There should be no good reason to short cycle a bolt in that manner, even if unloading live rounds the rifle there is a hinged floorplate in a MN design to facilitate this.

While having an out of battery firing is certainly a bad thing, it really appears to either be an unfamiliarity with the equipment or someone using it improperly.

Having a few MN myself, I really had to think about what I would have to be doing to cause a loaded round to be in the chamber, while ramming another into the primer. My only conclusions were the above. I suppose, it could happen in any design if an extractor were to break or fail to withdraw a live round, and the action were unwittingly cycled without caution. Seems like a very uncommon occurrence.

[Ridolpho]

In my case, with the MN, the rifle I was using wasn't feeding well and I suspected it hadn't picked up a round. Without fully closing the bolt I pulled it back and nothing ejected. I slowly eased the bolt forward to pick up a round and then felt the new round contact the one in the chamber. Lesson learned. Just had a look at my No. 4 Skeleton with dummy rounds- I would suggest the LE is actually characterized by a type of controlled feed. The rim engages the extractor with the bolt only about an inch forward. A little further along the rim is fully engaged and the case held solidly against the contour of the left receiver wall. My operator error with the MN was due to being far more experienced with the LE. regards.

Ridolpho

[Sentryduty]

Good photos and nice skeleton as well. Since magazines in the MN's do sometimes act up, I can certainly understand doing a "press-check" or similar, just a little bit of bad luck on the fact it hadn't engaged the extractor yet. I follow you there.

I think on the double feed detonation, the user must have really been running the bolt with aggression, or the primers were exceptionally soft in the cartridge, a serious bit of bad luck and operator error.

The LE design does seem to do a better job of grabbing the round early in the forward cycle, from your photos it looks like the bolt has only travelled about 0.5" and you already extractor engagement on the round.

Is a LE a controlled feed or push-feed because of that? I am unsure, I suggest that if a bolt head when removed from the rifle could have a round "clipped" into the face and be held securely than it could be considered controlled feed. I think that if this test were conducted on a LE the round could be shaken loose, which would cause me to call it a push feed. A controlled feed gun generally needs a dedicated ejector to kick the casing clear of the face, whereas a LE will eject (empty) brass without an ejector screw in place.

All that said though, I think it is excellent discussion and mental exercise, but I don't think the CFeed vs PFeed is a very important designation on any Lee-Enfield, they just work well as delivered.

[Peter Laidler]

Phew......., all I can think is that I must have nodded off in that part of my studies or taken the afternoon off to do something interesting. But if it is to do with the TOTAL control of the round by the magazine, the breech or the bolt then this has been discussed here as I recall mentioning a feature we call 'the twilight zone'. That's where there is a moment in time or movement/distance during the feed part of the cycle where the round is NOT under full control. And in that case, if it can misfeed or malfunction, IT WILL

[Parashooter]

A "double feed" can occur in most "push feed" designs when the shooter fails to fully close the bolt on a round and cycles again, feeding another cartridge from the magazine and jamming it into the previous round. While this carries some hazard of igniting the first cartridge, the main military objection is that it takes the rifle out of action until the firer recognizes and corrects the problem - not an assured outcome for a stressed recruit in a firefight. (The push-feed Mosin employs a magazine interruptor that prevents the next round rising absent full bolt closure.)

"Controlled feed" designs force the cartridge rim under the extractor claw as it rises from the magazine. If the bolt is cycled before full closure, the unfired cartridge is safely ejected, eliminating a possible interruption of fire. This has obvious advantages in combat - or when hunting dangerous game.

Attachment 69665

It should be obvious to any experienced British service Lee user that the cartridge rim rises behind the extractor claw and is controlled between extractor and left receiver wall during feeding (and extraction). This was one of the earliest effective controlled feed bolt-actions, pre-dating the Mauser '93 by several years. Unlike the Mauser, the Lee design doesn't require a partially-recessed bolt face for effective cartridge control.