I have in my safe, or I have tried practically all modern bolt action types.
I dont have favourite. Except, I am biased against straight pull. And this is psychological, not based on some fact.
When using a straight pull, I always feel like I will get a bolt back in my head. When I lock the bolt by fwd push only, I just feel, I am missing something!
But it doesnt mean nothing actually, as those modern straight pulls blasers, merkels, etc ... have been proven by many in the field.
However, there are slight differences in the rest of bolt actions.
- Closed bridge over the action, only with ejection port (lika Tikka T3): although can be loaded directly by putting round throught the ejection port, it requires removable mag.
Pro: nice for shooting single shots on range. Action is probably stiffer beacuse of the bridge, and arguably for that reason manufactirers claim better precision.
Con: removable mag can be lost in the field, during the hunt. And that is bad. (can ruin a day)
- Open top actions that allows feeding from top:
Pro: easier loading in the field, no messing with changing and reloading mags.
Con: cannot think of any.
Locking:
front bolt locking:
- Pro: allows aluminium receivers, if the locking is done inside the barrel, so this means possible lighter rifles. Precision shooters in some cases claim it is most accurate system of locking.
- Con: cannot think of any
Rear locking:
- Pro: cannot think of any
- Con: if action is open top to allow loading mag from top, arguaby with many thousands of shots action can get loose. In order to make stiff durable action, this will require closed bridge of the receiver, only with ejection port. (like steyr SSG) - in that case removable mag is must, with my previous comment, on removable mags.
Mount systems:
My personal taste is: if the action is with closed bridge, then piccatiny raily is acceptable - thus probably the cheapest option.
On open top receivers, "closing" the action by putting full lenght piccatiny rail, I dont like. It is like tempering with design. (My view only, arguably).
So for open top receivers I use two bases and rings.
For bridged action - piccatiny rail with single base rings.
Piccatiny I also find "modern", so will put it on a rifle which I consider "modern". For the rifles I consider "classic", will install some classic mount system, or makers proprietary mount system.
On classic rifle I will never put NV or similar optics.
On modern hunting rifles, I will.
Finally: CRF vs PF
No, I will not say one is better then another (I have both types in my locker)
CRF is very well accepted in hunting community, for reliability and dependability. This has been discussed in detail on other threads. But, for shooting long range matches were shooters prefer (or are obliged by rules) to load one by one round in a chamber, CRF is not prefered as it is not reccomended to load directly in the chamber like can be in any PF action, but has to be first loaded in mag, by pushing down, then loaded to chamber by working the bolt.
On the other hand, for precision shooters in prone position, world wide, PF is favorite type, and for target rifle remington 700 action is frequently copied. One of (or the main) reason is easy loading directly to chamber round by round, in prone position, without issues that mauser extractor brings with its nature of design if the round is not loaded in mag, first.
So, in conclusion of CRF vs PF:
For hunting, both types are accepted, and worthy.
For target shooting, PF is preferred.
Both very dependable.