JR said:
I was talking about generalizations. There are any number of automotive "forgings" that are machined billets. I believe that it was also brought out that one of the earlier manufacturers "forged" receivers were actually machined from bar stock. How does one produce bar stock? By the way, a couple of the smaller AR companies are supposedly maching lower receivers out of bar-stock aluminum.
No argument on most of your points but lets be realistic. Machining a billet of steel (possibly a forging but most probably an
extrusion) into a receiver is more cost prohibitve than machining a shape specific forging. So if there is quantity involved, you better start with a forging.
Aluminum is a softer material and exposes the milling machines and blades, planes, bits, and routers to much less wear and tear. In this instance it may be a wash but my guess is some are machining AR15's from billet soley for the "novelty" of it, to offer something "different". I don't see any advantage whatsoever. In fact, I personally would take the forged receiver before the billet receiver. I don't really care for the "space age" machining look of the billet AR15 receivers.
JR said:
Your comment about other means of producing firearms already shows your bias. Investment casting is another viable method.
I'm speaking of military issue type weapons, not "sporting" weapons. It is not a bias on my part, there just doesn't appear to be any cast military receivers, and
no one has come up with any examples.
JR said:
If castings are a thing of the past for firearms, why are so many small parts, even in military weapons, cast? Why would you dismiss Ruger's weapons? They are the largest manufacturer of weapons in the United States. Several thousands of their KP95 pistols have already been accepted by the Automotive Tank Command, and are in-country in Iraq. Ruger's rifles and pistols are the benchmark in durability in commercial weapons. I'd say that the majority of America cares, even if you don't. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell so much, nor enjoy the reputation for durability that they have.
If some military small parts are made from casting they are most likely low stress items. I don't see any receivers made from castings.
Hey, Ruger makes a great firearm for certain cirucmstances and relatively speaking are inexpensive compared to some other manufacturers weapons. Most are considered "sporting" and that is Ruger's stance. Remember old Bill Ruger and his help to Clinton with the so called Assault Weapons Ban? He didn't give a damn about anyone as long as
his business wasn't affected. He didn't care about yours, mine, or anyone elses Second Amendment rights as long as he could continue to peddle his wares. That is where my bias to Ruger comes from.
Ruger got the contract primarily because they were cheap and maybe there was a little return favor in there from the Clintonistas.
I would take a nice Glock over a Ruger KP95 which is a boat anchor in my opinion.
JR said:
The military still uses any number of castings for major, and critical parts of systems. Armor plate is cast, ceramics are cast. What process does injection molding most resemble, casting or forging? What is it an outgrowth of?
Armor plate is cast? I think you will find that much of the steel used in armor is rolled plate, kind of a forging. The plasiticized steel is rolled by heavy presses into shape. It is not cast in a mold like we have been discussing unless perhaps it is some specialty item and a shape specific type piece. I will give you that.
Ceramics is a whole nother issue and doesn't belong in this discussion. Injection molding is another issue also. MIM parts in most circles seemed to be frowned upon in a similar fashion as is casting. Perhaps it is traditionalism or if given a choice, people would rather have forged or milled barstock. I personally don't have a problem depending on their useage and correct heat treatement which ultimately may be more important to any part than method of manufacture. I can say though I don't think you will see MIM receivers in the near future.
JR said:
Casting is used in any number of other weapons, from frames and slides, to shrouds and sights. In all too many cases, forging is what's dying away.
Please name some military weapons using cast frames and/or slides. As far as weapons sytems are concerned, the only reason forging is dying is because of steel stampings and plastics.
JR said:
As for the reasoning that led to the M14 being forged, I don't believe that it was an anti-cast bent at all. The men in charge of the rifle were simply not worried about changing materials. After all, "we know that this will work", is a simple reason given by many, instead of thinking. What's the reason some people buy a Ford? "My dad had one" is something often heard, in lieu of true research. Unless you know someone from the team, you're guessing as much as to the sequence of events as anyone else is.
They used forgings because they work.
JR said:
Your discussion of delays does more to bear out what I said than it does to disprove it.
?
JR said:
Just for the sake of injecting logic into the discussion. The M1A cast receiver, by Sa, Armscorp, et al, was to allow them to be built economically. It wasn't a military venture. After over 20 years of service, I'd be guessing that the receivers have proven themselves as far as reliability and durability go. No, the government didn't use casting, but the success of the cast receivers, some of which are now in government service, is a telling point.
FLAG!! What cast receiver is in government service? What is your source for this information? I think everyone on this site would like to hear this.
JR said:
Armasteel was not brought on line to have anything NOW. It wasn't developed until 1943. The use of Armasteel was only allowed in the case of existing contracts having beem filled, and new ones issued. The 1918A2 was a time intensive process, much like the Thompson, and limited facilities were available for their production. Accordingly, the ability to speed production by a factor of six was deemed efficient. Garands, and Carbines were another matter. There had been no research done as to what mods would be needed to use Armasteel. This would have had to been done prior to the change-over, as well as the casting facilities produced and brought on line. Current casting production was already being utilized in the production of armor, artillery, and other critical efforts. If you really think that the military will change from the tried-and-true to a new technology in the middle of a maximum effort, you're delusional.
You made the argument for the ArmaSteel in the 1918A2 receiver. I made the statement it passed muster I believe primarily because of the mass of the receiver. As I stated, millions of other weapons were made and none had cast receievers. In fact, back in the day almost all parts were forged or machined from barstock. I wasn't until later in WWII that stampings came on line. Didn't see much in the way of casting though.
JR said:
This has zero to do with the strength of a forging. That is the ONE thing in favor of an antiquated process. Even at that, it's a dying attribute, as casting closes in on it. It's expensive, wasteful of resources and energy, and, with the advent of other processes, becoming more and more replaceable.
Perhaps you could expound on this for us. Do you have any experience in a foundry or forge? Do you have any formal training in metalurgy, physics, and/or chemistry? Any experience with alloys? Have you ever examined cost analysis on cast versus forged anything? Most importantly, have you ever participated in testing or read any documents comparing one type to the other? Superiority or inferiority? The resultant end product?
I have limited experience but by extrapolation can see that casting of high stress receivers for weapons platforms appears to be nonexistent.
JR said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the K-frame S&W revolvers are forged. They have since been replaced with the L-frame revolver, as durability was lacking. The Ruger Security-Six has never had these durability issues, is the same size as a K-frame, but is cast. The GP100 wasn't a durability replacement, but a move to simplify the inventory, being based on the Redhawk system.
In that case, the "ultimate strength" of the forging obviously mattered little in the end. Oh, and the cast Rugers were taken into service with the military.
The K frame was designed in the early part of the 20th century. The only problems with the K arose when magum loads started being used. They weren't even in existence when the pistol was orignially designed! Hardly a valid comparison between a modern Ruger that was designed to handle magnum loads from the outset.
The main reason Smith came out with the L frame (which is larger than the K by the way) is to have a rounded butt for the large frame pistols.
Through all this discussion JR I have yet to have you give us an example of a vialble weapon fielded by any military made with a cast receiver. I have posed this question several times and the only thing I can ascertain at this point is the reason no attempt has been made to answer the question is because no one can come up with an example. All I am getting is smoke and mirrors.