roscoedoh Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 What's all the hubbub about cast receivers? I have read volumes on why they shouldn't be...but they are, and mostly they work. Everything Ruger makes is cast... The new Montana action is cast... Both of them are safe and work just fine; or at least with no fewer problems than other commercial actions. So, why then is cast a bad thing? I think the steel, properly machined and heat treated aught to work just fine. So why is forged better than cast? Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doble Troble Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 So why is forged better than cast? I don't have an answer, but I do have a prejudice. This opinion is based on a problem I had with the first cast triggerguard that I tried to install on my flintlock. After spending hours filing and sanding it to look pretty I started to bend it a bit to fit the contour of the stock. With just a little tweak it snapped in two. Within the fracture was a piece of slag inclusion that weakened the part at a critical point. I can't say that bar stock lacks similar inclusions, but I've machined a bit of it now and have never seen such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorgansBoss Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 I'm no authority but I do know... well, assuming DT's trigger guard is like most M/L parts that is, that we're talking about two very distinctly different casting processes. Old style casting as used in most M/L parts and in fact most "cast" parts is not the same or nearly as controlled as modern "investment casting" methods. Hence the quality of the products produced is very different as well. Sorry, I don't know enough about it to explain the differences but I do know it ain't the same animal. There is good and bad in each (as in everything) and you could get unusually lucky or unlucky respectively. Someone posted a link to a blown Sako receiver some time back - the result of an apparent a flaw in the casting. By the same token Ruger actions are frequently touted as among the strongest and in this age of litigation paranoia, Ole Bill sure wouldn't have pioneered using investment casting to produce them if it wasn't a reliable process. Of course as with ANY action the proper heat treatment received (or not) will make all the difference in the world assuming the best of both cast or forged receivers is the subject at hand. In short, I personally have NO QUALMS about investment cast parts from a reliable source. My personal opinion and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indian Creek 1 Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 Most all military receivers made now I think are investment casting. I wouldn't put the 03-A3 down. It's a time and cost saving process in production. I don't know what the strength difference is but I'm sure they are perfectly safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnutty Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 I have no issues with investment cast receivers. Sako and Ruger have certaily been pioneers in the casting field, and I'd feel safe behind any of their products. What does investment casting offer the consumer? At least some cost savings on the product. To the manufacturer? Reduced time needed to finish the product, and reduced expense in finishing machinery. The process involves using centrifugal force to move the molten metal into the mold; slag and lighter impurities "stay on top" so to speak and shouldn't enter the mold. Porosity or air entry is not an issue either. Every nook and cranny in the the mold is completely filled. The grain structure is VERY uniform and controlled. Parts need little, if any, final finishing. I think most of today's mass-produced bolt-action recievers with "flat" bottoms are probably investment castings. Round bottom recivers start as tubes. Winchester refers to their receivers as "precision forged". I suspect that that's another way of saying investment cast, or the action starts as a casting prior to forging.. The rear underside of the reciever on post-64 Mod 70s looks like a casting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailormilan2 Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 My understand is, the Santa Barbara Muaser 98s were cast also. Which means, Parker Hales, which used SB Mausers, were also cast, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzRednek Posted December 28, 2005 Report Share Posted December 28, 2005 The key is investment cast, the molds are injected with alot of pressure vs something that is cast by simply pouring the molten metal. I dealt with the debate many years ago while working in the auto/truck parts business. There was alot of argument about engine pistons. They were available cast, investment cast or forged. There was no clear winner. Cast pistons were made larger for their strength. Investment cast pistons was a new technology then and were claimed by the manufactures as superior to forged but there was a great variation in quality from various companys. From what I recall reading the quality of the investment cast depended alot on the amount of pressure the mold was injected, the alloy used, the fluidity, temperature and cooling/quenching process of the molten metal. Real high perfomance rated (not stock items put in a box marked HP or HD) forged pistons, usually five times or more the cost of cast were about as good as one could get but stock replacement forged pistons had the same quality variables as investment cast. Certain brand's forged pistons were tested to be not as strong as the larger and heavier gravity cast, the factor from what I recall seemed to be the amount of pressure used to forge it. Just speculating on the numbers and process, could the item have been forged by a guy swinging a sludge hammer or a ten ton press, either way it could be sold as forged. I've been out of the business for close to 30 years but I've heard recent investment cast bolts and studs are proving to be as strong and hard and in some applications superior to forged. To get a comparison with guns, compare the investment cast frame of a Ruger handgun compared to an AMT 45 auto frame and slide. Both are investment cast but the AMT is junk compared to a Ruger. IMHO investment cast is ok but I would look for brand name recognition to speak for the strength and quality of the manufacturing process of the investment cast receiver. Incidently the two Santa Barbara receivers I have were sold to me as being forged. I looked for the paperwork, found the box but the paper insert is missing. Anybody know how to tell the difference by eye-balling it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnutty Posted December 28, 2005 Report Share Posted December 28, 2005 I think that the factory that made SB actions also made the military 93s/98s. If that's the case, I doubt that they would have converted to an investment process. They are probably straight millings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailormilan2 Posted December 28, 2005 Report Share Posted December 28, 2005 "The receiver, bolt, and other larger parts appear to me to be investment castings, although I am not sure." Frank de Haas, BOLT ACTION RIFLES, EXPANDED 3RD EDITION, p. 306. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmall Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 A few things about investment casting... The material is important. Some materials cast better than others. Some materials are modified to cast better (slightly different alloy) which can lead to lower strength parts... All things being equal (a 4140 forging vs. a 4140 investment casting), the investment casting material strength will be around 95-97% of the forging (rule of thumb from the lips of an investment caster). Also, good investment cast parts start with designs optimized for the process. Ruger came along when there were many more manufacturing processes available than in Mauser's day. Ruger simply took good designs and optimized them for the least expensive manufacturing process that would yield acceptable results. Given another fifty or sixty years of life, Paul Mauser would've done the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z1r Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 First and foremost casting came about as a cost savings measure pure and simple. It was designed to minimize the number of machining steps needed to produce a completed product. At least in regards to the gun industry. In aerospace there are parts that are cast simply because they are too complex to be machined. Cast receivers are strong, but that strength usually comes at the price of bulk. Look at the Ruger blackhawk compared to the Colt SAA. They are much bigger. Inherently there is no reason to not use a cast receiver as they are plenty strong, assuming of course a soundly designed product. That said, if there is a forged machined version available it would be my preference. I have had dozens of Ruger Blackhawks and would buy an MRC action should I require a receiver for a project I felt the Mauser was unsuited for. So I an't afraid on no cast receivers when the maker is one of quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrMesser Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 When I used to work in the steel mill (we made mill rolls) the forgings had much better tensil strength than the cast as the molecules are arranged differently. The forging also greater elastisity to regain its shape after twisting depending on the alloy Rad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts