cast versus forged receivers

[jumpluff]

O.K.....I am trying to get the straight scoop on the old cast versus forged reveiver issue....which is stronger.

I know that Ruger uses cast recievers...and has a reputation for strength and durability.

I read recently where an "expert" advised that one should shy away from Springfield M1A's...as they have cast receivers...not forged like the original GI guns.

Are any of our members engineers or experienced metal workers.....such that they can speak with authority on this subject?
Any insights much appreciated! :wacko:

[bubbagump]

Forging of metal is usually stronger than casting. With forging, you take a piece of metal, heat it up and shape it with a form/press or hand tools. With casting, the metal is heated until it is molten (liquid) and then poured into a mold. There is alway a chance of getting impurities and air pockets in a casting, which will weaken it. As a machinist/die maker, I have work with both forging and casting. Hope this answers your question.

[gunrun45]

From what I understand (only trade mags, etc... no personal "forging" or "casting") new methods of casting duplicate and exceed the old forging methods. Some makers even cryo treat their frames like Ruger does with their P series pistols. Guns and Ammo did a really cool article on the then "new" process back in the mid 1990's sometime. Ruger now makes many frames and slides for several other companies as a result of their high quality control and flexible manufacturing methods (see their corporate page).

I would not "shy-away" from a new M1a for this reason. The only reason I don't own a new one is becasue I can't afford one right now!

[jumpluff]

Thanks gentlemen! I appreciate your insights....but this has only piqued my curiosity....any advice on resouces I might want to consult to expand my understanding? :)

Of couse...I am not a metal working professional/engineer....so they would have to be something I could understand at the novice level...though I am not the dullest pencil in the can....I am certainly not looking for mathematical proofs. :wacko:

Some time back I got all hot and bothered about stainless steel....and was able to glean significant insight from the web site managed by the spokes-organization for U.S. stainless steel manufacturers...but alas....I have found no such resource for the casting or forging "industries". :rolleyes:

Sign me....
needs to find something important to worry about
a.k.a. Jumpluff :blink:

[Ghost Tracker]

Once upon a time casting had a well-deserved, low-quality reputation for porosity (air pockets), inconsistancy (density) & impurity that hot, heavy pounding (forging) could help remove. That's why horseshoes were formed with by heating & pounding rather than simply pouring molten metal into a "horseshoe mold". Technology & capitalism kicked-in when the rush of the Industrial Age was being held-up by the slow, steady speed of the blacksmith. Casting was faster & cheaper so it then HAD be made more durable & consistant. Now, from auto racing components to firearm frames to golfclub heads to aircraft landing gear, casting technology allows for parts to be even MORE durable & consistant than forging. And with the continuing development of metal injection molding (MIM) parts are proving to be ever-more precise without the previously required post-cast machining. Kimber, etc. uses MIM parts in their 1911s and have a well earned hell-for-tough reputation. Forging, of itself, is nothing to bet the farm on. When's the last time you actually KNEW (no internet "rumor") of a Springfield or Ruger failing because of a bad casting? The odds are quite low because the Quality Control (and potential liability) is so incredibly high. Talk to people who've put thousands upon thousands of rounds down-range through these guns. And ignore armchair opinionators. Honestly, the Internet seems to spawn self-inflated know-nothings. A little information is a bad thing.
Regards, Ghost Tracker.

[bubbagump]

Referring to my first post, I was comparing the two from a professional point of view and trying to explain about each process. I have made metal stamping dies, investment casting molds, and have had to forge hard to get parts. Yes casting has come along way and is alot better. I can remember the cast pot metal lawn mowers that would break easy. Quality control and modern techniques have come along way. Hopefully no one takes what I posted the wrong way.

history of casting site
http://www.hitchiner.com/HIMCO/History.html

forging information
http://www.forging.org/facts/wwhy6.htm

[Ghost Tracker]

Heck no Bubba,
Machinist/die makers know metal like bo-weevels know cotton. And I most certainly WASN'T referring to you as a "know-nothing". In fact, I watch for your posts & enjoy your opinions. It was directed more toward the "expert" who told jumpluff to shy-away from Springfield M1A's. I, like you, have decades of professional experience turning raw stock metal into tight-tolerance tooling (Automotive/Aircraft Gages & Fixtures). I just thought a quick history lesson might help explain the difference between yesterday's truths & today's reality. In general, today's modern, well-casted gun part is as stout & more dimentionally consistant than yesterday's forging. Wouldn't you agree?

[bubbagump]

Yes I do agree that modern casting are done to tight tolerances. I enjoy watching Berretta 92's being made from a cast piece. It sure beats all of the long hours of machining and hand filing/fitting of parts. And thanks for the compliment. :D

[Dorkface]

Go to http://www.m-14forum.com/ and do some searches. :)

[1raeb]

when the steelmills were closing in pgh, pa. in the 80`s they refurbished braddock steel mill for the new process for making steel. the oldest steel mill in the country. they scrapped so many RUNS because they layed off all the old open hearth steel makers. worked in homestead steel. where i took my machinist trade. over the years i got to see forgeings pressed , some large forgeings that took 2 train flatbed cars. WESTINGHOUSE still uses forgeings for their armatures, i see them pass our shop.i think it would be the makers quality of castings, they may be better today than 20 some years ago. i had to machine some forged stainless a few weeks ago from a pgh. co. i call them meatloaf bars, weight, finished product still weighs twice as much as a casting. like bubba, i machine the metal, but there is a difference. also on the LEARNING CHANNEL they are showing a program on forgeing. not an expert, just 28 years machineing. rich

[Dorkface]

Heres a good thread that just popped up with some really good info.

http://www.m-14forum.com/upload/showthread.php?t=25962

[Ghost Tracker]

Y'all are completely correct. If money is no object, a high-quality forging is "better" than a high-quality casting. Caspian Arms (A+ grade .45 slides & frames) will sell you either, charge you more for the forged models & provide the same warranty on both. In reality, you can buy anything from trash to treasure in a forged OR cast component (just like anything else). My simple suggestion continues to be...find people who've shot multiple thousands of rounds & have a face-to-face conversation. Ask if they've ever even HEARD of a Springfield or Ruger cast receiver failing because of a strength issue or manufacturing defect. Then calculate their answer against the hundreds of THOUSANDS of frames these two companies have produced. Internet debate, advice & theory are great but it's genuine experience, not "what I've heard" or "I read somewhere", that carries real weight. I would listen to a USMC Master Gunny MUCH CLOSER about the M1A than any Gun Magazine writer who might decide he has an opinion. The impersonal, secretive nature of the internet makes me even more cynical of the source.

[gunrun45]

+1 for Ghost tracker