Cast frames

[GunPoorPaul]

I don't want to start a controversy here, but I've read in the gun rags for twenty-five years that cast frames are somehow inferior to forged. However, I don't ever recall reading where one actually failed or wore out prematurely.

I have a bunch of Ruger revolvers, some with thousands of rounds through them, without ever experiencing the failure of a cast part.

Old wives tale, or Is there really a significant difference in strength/durability (based on FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE) in terms of failures?

TIA,
Paul

[Noklue3]

A good question, however, I am moving it to "General" as it fits in better there.

All the best,

Art

[Gunfandec154]

Originally Posted by GunPoorPaul

I don't want to start a controversy here, but I've read in the gun rags for twenty-five years that cast frames are somehow inferior to forged. However, I don't ever recall reading where one actually failed or wore out prematurely.

I have a bunch of Ruger revolvers, some with thousands of rounds through them, without ever experiencing the failure of a cast part.

Old wives tale, or Is there really a significant difference in strength/durability (based on FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE) in terms of failures?

TIA,
Paul

Dear Paul:

Truth be told, I was speaking with Guy Neill @ CCI-Speer about a week and a half ago about this very subject. He said, " with modern metallurgy, cast frames can be just about as durable as forged. The structural "lattice" can be almost as consistent in either one."

I, for one, prefer my frames to be forged, rather than cast, (modern technology notwithstanding.)

[Seraph]

I too would prefer forged, because I am old-fashioned. I think a pistol's slide at least should be forged, though Sturm Ruger & Co seem to disagree. A fine sword blade is forged, giving it a flexible type of strength, without adding mass, that allows it to survive the harmonics transmitted through the blade when it strikes something hard. On the other hand, an anvil, upon which such things as sword blades are forged, is cast. A casting is less flexible, more rigid than a forging, which, as long as there is enough mass in it, and the specific alloy is not too brittle, allows it to absorb the energy of an object striking it, without flexing and changing shape. This would seem to be a good property for a pistol frame. I have read that Browning Hi-Powers have, for some time, had forged slides and cast frames, and that the cast frames came out of the necessity for a more rigid frame for use with the .40S&W round.

[SockPuppet]

Seen a cast AR-15 lower that broke in two pieces. Never seen that happen on a forged.

[Bullcarver]

And make everybody mad...remember that all forged steel originally started out as being "cast" into rough billets.
The rolling & forging process is supposed to "compact" & give direction to the grain of the steel.
I think that with the super modern steel casting techniques (these days) the cast frames & slides are probably just as serviceable as the "forged & fully machined" parts for firearms applications. But, they sure are not nearly as "romantic" to me.
There is just something about the older forged & machined parts that I just love though. Maybe...it is a keen appreciation of all of the work & countless "machine steps" & labor that went into actually producing those parts.
To me nothing in the world (except my wife of course) is more attractive than an older Colt fully machined (one piece) 1911 trigger or slide or frame.

[Konza]

I've read in the gun rags for twenty-five years

Rule #1, do not believe everything you read. Most of the gun rag articles are just one person's opinion just like the posts on this and other forums. The advantage of the forum is that it does not cost to read and if someone is totally off base someone else will jump in and correct the information. That sort of self-correction is a distinct advantage over magazines IMO.

That said, moden metalurgy and production techniques make any difference between cast and forged recievers minimal at best.

[RickB]

I prefer forged, or barstock, because such parts require machining. Cast parts are supposed be as close to final dimensions as possible, so reducing the amount of machining. The fully-machined part has (should have) nice, crisp edges and sharply defined contours, while cast parts often have "soft" edges and countours, where the casting is left unmachined. For a gun designed to be cast, where the amount and shape of the material accommodates the limitations of casting, I think casting is fine. For a 1911, whose shape is composed of finely drawn lines and curves, the machined part looks better, and forged or barstock components can take a better surface finish.

[SockPuppet]

Originally Posted by Bullcarver

I think that with the super modern steel casting techniques (these days) the cast frames & slides are probably just as serviceable as the "forged & fully machined" parts for firearms applications. But, they sure are not nearly as "romantic" to me.

No matter how you look at, forging is stronger than cast. It offers increased tensile strength and lacks the brittleness of cast.

Regardless of whatever metalurgy techniques come about, cast steel is cast steel and forged steel is forged steel. If cast materials have been improved from metalurgy advances then it only follows that forged materials have improved as well. So no matter how good cast is, forged is still better.

[fxntime]

I prefer forged but in actuality I dont think it makes to much difference anymore. If ruger can cast revolvers that handle the pressures of the 454 and such with no problems associated with it then the lowly 45acp should present no problem. However finish with a casting and a forging usually look much different with forgings having a finer more visually attractive finish. Especially noticeable with bluing.

[marvl]

Originally Posted by SockPuppet

No matter how you look at, forging is stronger than cast. It offers increased tensile strength and lacks the brittleness of cast.

Regardless of whatever metalurgy techniques come about, cast steel is cast steel and forged steel is forged steel. If cast materials have been improved from metalurgy advances then it only follows that forged materials have improved as well. So no matter how good cast is, forged is still better.

You are clearly not a metallurgist (it's "metallurgy", by the way). You might want to check your facts before making these kinds of claims. Also, the application of classical logic to real world scenarios is a slippery slope that often fails to yield valid results.

[hdm25]

Originally Posted by SockPuppet

No matter how you look at, forging is stronger than cast. It offers increased tensile strength and lacks the brittleness of cast.

Regardless of whatever metalurgy techniques come about, cast steel is cast steel and forged steel is forged steel. If cast materials have been improved from metalurgy advances then it only follows that forged materials have improved as well. So no matter how good cast is, forged is still better.

Uh...yeah. That's why Caspian has NEVER had anyone send back a cast frame but has had a few forged frames come back with cracks (as reported straight from Caspian elsewhere in this forum as well as by phone conversation). That's also why there have been problems in the past with the forged frames from Les Baer...

Overall, it shouldn't matter for strength and durability. For aesthetic reasons, forged frames generally finish out better than cast, though.

[Bimmercat]

I prefer forged, but my 1994 Isralei-army issue Hi-Power has a cast frame and I read an article that stated that the cast frames were requested by the Israleis, because they tested harder on the Rockwell scale than the earlier forged frames and the extra hardness was neede so the pistol could withstand the hotter IMI made 9x19mm rounds that were also used in the Uzis.

Makes sense and I have to admit, I have run zillions of rounds of hot ammo down its tube and have seen no isgns of weakness or stress anywhere on the frame ot other parts of this pistol.

Maybe, in the past, cast frames were to be avoided, but these days, I doubt theres much difference.

BTW, Sako went to cast receivers for their 75 series rifles many years ago and actually put machining marks in the casting moulds to throw peopel off, then they admitted that the receivers were cast later on. Funny, I know of noone that has had a Sako rifle receiver crack or blow up. They seem very strong, indeed.

- Bimmercat

[Bullcarver]

Bimmercat
"I have run zillions of rounds of hot ammo down its tube and........."
Are you buying ammo by the railroad car lot?
What is .45 ammo going for "Per Zillion Rounds" these days??
I'll bet about a quadrillion dollars...at least! haha

[stans]

A well made and properly heat treated casting can be very durable. The problem arises when there are serious casting voids or improper heat treatments. You can quickly end up with a part that has weak spots or is brittle. Forgings or bar stock parts do tend to polish better since there is less porosity. Caspian has admited that they have more problems with bar stock receivers than with cast receivers, but they stopped making cast slides because of cracking problems.

[Joe D]

Given the choice I will always take forged. I do feel that slides should be forged rather than cast. In reality there is probably not much difference in quality cast or forged frames.

[Bimmercat]

Definition: Zillions: thousands..too many to count...enough to know that I am not one bit worried about the "inferior" cast frame on my Belgian Beauty.

Hows that for an answer?

- Bimmercat

[GunPoorPaul]

>> "I have run zillions of rounds of hot ammo down its tube and........."
Are you buying ammo by the railroad car lot?
What is .45 ammo going for "Per Zillion Rounds" these days??
I'll bet about a quadrillion dollars...at least! haha <<

A zillion .45ACP's goes for nearly a quadrillion dollars. A zillion 9mm's is $10.99 at Walmart.

[Bullcarver]

Please don't think that I was arguing with you on the issue.
I just got a true "jolt" out the expression Zillions of Rounds.
I just heard that is going to be the new GLOCK PISTOL TEST.
Glock is going to try to run 1 Zillion rounds though a Glock pistol without a single malfunction. They are only going to "field strip" & clean it every trillion rounds.

[Difranco]

Just sent back my Springfield Armory V-16 Longslide because a hairline fracture developed where the disconnector pokes up. The fracture ran the entire flat space from back to front.

I dont know if SA Frames are cast or forged, but that hairline fracture was nearly perfectly straight and precisely in the middle.

[stans]

Springfield's frames are forgings that are made in Brasil. Even forgings can develop problems, nothing is perfect.

[Mustang]

Forged fan here. I avoid cast.

[Renegade360]

It's a funny thing. I have seen at least two posts about modern forged frames breaking and none about cast frames with problems.

I too agree that a Forged frame will probably finish better, but based on this thread there is yet to be any examples of a cast frame failing.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[dnancarr]

The biggest difference you are likely to see between a cast and forged part is the forging is generally smaller dimensionally. Casting technology has come a long way and a given cast part using a suitable alloy can be very strong and flexible if it needs that characteristic. Sure, forgings polish up quite nicely and look wonderful in blued finishes, but castings can also take a beating, but to do so, the part in question is going to be a bit bulkier in every way.

[SockPuppet]

Originally Posted by Renegade360

It's a funny thing. I have seen at least two posts about modern forged frames breaking and none about cast frames with problems.

Problem with your argument is it is completely ignorant of any substance regarding the sample size and the cause of failure.

Some time ago I was on a project where we blew up an M109 howitzer duing live fire breech pressure testing. Doesn't indicate anything about the unreliability of the thousands of other M109 howitzers in use though.