Why doesn't Savage go with their old CRF on all their rifles?

[nsaqam]

We hear all the time here about ejection issues with the plunger ejector Savages.

I'm wondering why Savage doesn't go with the CRF system they developed for their initial short fats?

The system is the model of simplicity, can't be very expensive, and it works great. The force of ejection is directly controlled by the amount of force the user works the bolt with.
It would work on cartridges of any length and makes it possible for the handloader to pluck the cartridges from the action if he so desires.

I like my CRF Savages.

Does anyone know the reason Savage doesn't adopt this across the board?

[BobT]

I would say that cost is the primary reason. For the record, I have never had an ejection issue that I can recall and the only extraction problem was an over pressure hand load in my 7MM Mashburn:(. I do like the one example of the CRF I do have though.

Bob

[nsaqam]

Comparing my CRF actions to my PF actions I see that eliminating the plunger would reduce the part count in the bolthead by three (the plunger, spring, and pin) and eliminate the machining of the plunger hole and the pin hole. With the CRF bolthead you'd have one extra machining operation, the machining of the ejector slot.
On the action itself you'd have two extra machining steps, the slot for the ejector and for its pin. Those two parts would also need to be added to the action part count.
I guess I just don't see where any appreciable extra expense is involved in making a CRF action.

[devildogandboy]

maybe Savage has so many that they are obligated to use the old parts before they consider a changeover.

[ellobo]

With everything being made by CNC machines there is no excuse for out of tolerance parts. The changes in machining are simple software changes. There is no redesign of parts required For CRF, simple changes to existing blueprints and the software to make the changes in machining. In my day, any changes needed to be documented, approved, new tooling or reworked tooling and the parts were fed by hand intothe fixtures in most cases. A highlight of my life was being interviewed by Bill Ruger about 30 yrs ago in Newport, NH. At that time he was looking for men who were expert in CNC machines and unfortunately I had none. He was a grand and gracious old man, crippled by arthritis back then. It was a time when CNC was in its infancy and Mr. Ruger was definately looking ahead. Lack of foresight by some old famous makers like Colt, Winchester and others almost put them out of business. The best and most accurate equipment in the world will not make up for misuse.

El Lobo

[nsaqam]

I agree EL and hence my feeling that going to CRF across the entire line would be both a marketing and a functional advantage.

[geargrinder]

The way the CRF was designed, it only worked for the magnum bolt heads. It would take a re-design to work with the standard and small bolt heads.

At that point, it would probably only work as well as the pre-67's with standing ejectors. Poorly.

[nsaqam]

And there ya go!

Thanks GG.

[rusty815]

I feel that they don't want to go away from pf because they are already set up for it, and moving to crf would alienate its older generations of rifles. I personally wouldn't want interchangability between parts to be worse than it already is.

[ellobo]

I agree EL and hence my feeling that going to CRF across the entire line would be both a marketing and a functional advantage.

AS geargrinder has stated, perhaps a redesign of the bolt heads may be required. I am not familiar with the CRF design to the extent I can suggest any redesign.
But, Savage redesigns stuff all the time most good, some stinkers, like the original accustock with the wedge. The basics of the CRF bolt head are established and it still only requires what I would call a minor redesign and software changes to the CNC machines. I can see where having to stock old style boltheads and new CRF boltheads may be a logistics pain in the butt. None of this is what I would call major redesigns unless there are factors I am not aware of. Only Savage can say why they would not do it. Thier answers would be enlightening.

El Lobo

[cgeorgemo]

I can see where having to stock old style boltheads and new CRF boltheads may be a logistics pain in the butt.
El Lobo
No more of a pain than they already have since they stock both now...

[ellobo]

I agree EL and hence my feeling that going to CRF across the entire line would be both a marketing and a functional advantage.

AS geargrinder has stated, perhaps a redesign of the bolt heads may be required. I am not familiar with the CRF design to the extent I can suggest any redesign.
But, Savage redesigns stuff all the time most good, some stinkers, like the original accustock with the wedge. The basics of the CRF bolt head are established and it still only requires what I would call a minor redesign and software changes to the CNC machines. I can see where having to stock old style boltheads and new CRF boltheads may be a logistics pain in the butt. None of this is what I would call major redesigns unless there are factors I am not aware of. Only Savage can say why they would not do it. Thier answers would be enlightening.

El Lobo

[nsaqam]

No more of a pain than they already have since they stock both now...

Good point.

[nsaqam]

AS geargrinder has stated, perhaps a redesign of the bolt heads may be required. I am not familiar with the CRF design to the extent I can suggest any redesign.
But, Savage redesigns stuff all the time most good, some stinkers, like the original accustock with the wedge. The basics of the CRF bolt head are established and it still only requires what I would call a minor redesign and software changes to the CNC machines. I can see where having to stock old style boltheads and new CRF boltheads may be a logistics pain in the butt. None of this is what I would call major redesigns unless there are factors I am not aware of. Only Savage can say why they would not do it. Thier answers would be enlightening.

El Lobo

Yep, it seems like only a minor redesign would be required to make the CRF work with the .473" and .378" rim sizes.

[BobT]

With everything being made by CNC machines there is no excuse for out of tolerance parts. The changes in machining are simple software changes. There is no redesign of parts required For CRF, simple changes to existing blueprints and the software to make the changes in machining.
El Lobo

Well, not exactly that simple. It is very much simpler and takes less time to drill and ream 2 holes than to cut 2 slots. In addition there is the cost involved with the cutters used, the wheel cutters used to cut the slots won't last as long as a drill and they are more expensive to replace. We are not talking about a lot here but it adds up in a manufacturing environment, and the Savages are manufactured with an eye toward economy so every penny counts.

Bob

[redie fredie]

Darn good discussion, never shot a CRF yet, but if'n it works as good as stated and could be added for little I would be for it. I'm guessing, the Axis and Stevens would have to do without, thus:
1) Would have to make and stock two type of parts.
2) on the plus side, could be a bonus for those paying the extra for the upper level rifles. (prices are creeping ever closer to big guys)

[nsaqam]

Given the multiplicity of Savage boltheads it doesn't seem that stocking different parts is much of a concern.

The Savage CRF system does work well. It has on the two I've owned at least.

[efm77]

I'd like to see it to but won't lose any sleep over it if they don't. I've always been a CRF fan but like the PF's too. Winchester made both for a while so it can be done but I can see how it would cost a little more to be tooled for both. Of course Winchester basically went belly up, at least they're not made in the New Haven plant anymore but that was for far many more reasons than the two action types. Anyway, I haven't worried about it too much. If I want CRF I buy Ruger or Winchester. There are others out there too but those are my preferences.