In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Cast vs Forged , Which is better?

v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
edited October 2007 in Ask the Experts
If two test specimens of equal size are tested to failure in a Charpy impact test machine, the heat treated cast specimen will fail sooner with less yield than a properly forged and heat treated specimen of the same chemistry.
Hot section buckets in a gas turbine are not submitted to mechanical shock unless they ingest a goose and then the engine explodes.
They are designed to operate at at very high temperature at more or less constant thermal stress. Forging these very high temp alloys
in their plastic range is not practical and investment casting works
satisfactorily. That is not to say it's optimum.
As to gun parts of equal size and crossection, the PROPERLY forged
and heattreated part will always have superior toughness and less brittleness than the cast and heattreated part of equivalent chemistry. Comparing gas turbine parts to gun parts is comparing apples to oranges because guns are subject to mechanical shock.
A better comparison would be to recipricating engine connecting rods, valves, cranks and other stressed parts in aircraft and racing engines.
In combat, bad things happen to equipment that rarely happens in civilian life that's why ordnance parts wherever possible are forged for durability and reliability.
There are aspects to a proper forging that you can bank on when specified and followed on Govt drawings and Spec sheets.
Unless these are followed, a commercially manufactured "Mil Spec" part isn't.

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Interesting post indeed. But since thousands of Ruger cast firearms, in large powerful calibers, are used year in and year out with no large scale complaints I guess they are OK.
  • only winchestersonly winchesters Member Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Good morning v35: While "which is better" is interesting, it really boils down to what the acceptance criteria of the machined part is. This is found on a piece part blue print, as to the requirement the raw material must meet.

    In the "smokeless powder" era 1897-2007, metallurgy has come along way. Since not all firearms makers use the same steel alloy, or aluminum, (yes there are aluminum receivers, they've been around since the 1950s, pioneered by Browning and Winchester). It boils down to cost, which way a manufacturer wants to go.

    Since you can have precision castings and forgings made, with datum targets to aid the machining process today, which reduces waste, not only in machine time, but in material waste too, it come down to DOLLARS period.

    Years ago barrels were forged by Browning, Remington, Winchester, etc. Today they just buy "certified round bar stock" and machine them, it's cheaper, no foundry to maintain, no foundry employee cost, etc etc.

    A firearms manufacturer who is trying to make a profit, and wants to sell guns, is going to go the cheapest route, to get the material that meets there minimum acceptance criteria.

    If one was to impose Aerospace, or Commercial Airline requirements onto the firearms industry, no average guy could afford even the basic firearm.LOL

    The firearms industry as a whole, no longer employs "craftsmen and artists" Gone are the true machinistist, metal smiths, fitters, wood checkerers, carvers, engravers, today since parts are CNC machined, you have machine operaters, the tolerances once seen on pumps and semi-autos, such as the Remingtom Md 31, Winchester Md 12, Browning A-5, Remington Md 11, Winchester Md 50, have given way to the "loose fitting" Md 870, 1100,1187, Mossberg models etc etc. Not that these are not good guns, but the public isn't going to spend thousands of dollars, when a firearm that can serve the purpose can be made for hundreds of dollars.

    Myself I do prefer the "older shotguns" such as a Parker, LC Smith, Winchester, Browning,etc. I appreciate the craftsmanship and what it took to make the firearm. To find that kind of "quality" today, I have to look at a price generally $5000 and above and it's imported from western europe. Today there are plenty of 70-100 year old shotguns to enjoy, they were built to last a lifetime. I really don't think in 50-75 years from now you'll see very many Remington Express's or Mossbergs arounds. They are inexpensive, when they break or wear out, you go buy a new one. One thing you can bet on the raw material met the maunufactures blue print requirement.

    regards Dave
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Notice, I said two test specimens of equal crossection would not fail at the same stress levels.
    Ruger who led in at least in this country, a high quality investment casting operation, has to scale up their dimensions on stressed parts to equal physical properties of forged parts in order to have the same factors of safety. Their early 357s did a lot of stretching and loosening.
    To restate the point simply; a forged alloy steel 44mag revolver could be made of much lighter construction than a cast one of the same material whereas a cast 1911 slide will necessarily fail under
    lower stress levels than a forged slide-and the failures will be brittle failures.
    That is not to say cast guns will not meet a high percent of the environment they are subjected to.
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:a forged alloy steel 44mag revolver could be made of much lighter construction than a cast one

    Yeah, I will take the heavier one, I don't like recoil!

    While you are absolutely correct, it seems something of a moot point in the day in day out world of hunting. Perhaps it would make some difference in competition shoooting though.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    So basically what you are saying means that even with the Ruger GP 100 appearing beefier and more strongly built, because it is cast it might not even be as strong as the more slightly built S&W model 66 which is forged?

    I keep hearing the term "built like a tank" from GP 100 owners. I guess they say that because the GP 100 is so stout looking. But from what you say, it might not be anymore of a tank than the S&W model 66 because of the cast vs forged?
  • gunut 1gunut 1 Member Posts: 359 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    well maybe the S&W 686 VRS the Ruger GP 100....
Sign In or Register to comment.