M14 Forum banner

The thread that caused the Forged Vs. Cast discussion to be banned from this board

47K views 106 replies 37 participants last post by  tonyben 
#1 ·
Original Title was "If a forged reciever is better... "

Why isn't anyone else doing it? LRB is pulling it off. Why don't we see anyone else offering a forged reciever.

You'd think that with the resurgence of the M14 in the military it would be profitable for companie to tool up and get started.

It would be nice to see USGI quality parts come back too.
 
#79 ·
I find it interesting that the original design for the M14 called for cast flash suppressors and cast front sights until in 1960 the QA Section of Springfield Armory realized they could do it cheaper with forgings- more than 50% cheaper for the suppressors and 25% cheaper for the sights.
 
#80 ·
Casting was in a state of flux at that time. The investment casting process using inert atmosphere was just being refined. Today, nobody questions the cost of a forged sight or flash supressor over that of casting. There may be small parts that are still cheaper than castings. In fact, I'm sure that there are. However, they'll be relatively rare.GI1
 
#81 ·
Fro said:
Here's an interesting link I found surfing the net. http://yarchive.net/gun/investment_casting.html The gentleman in this post formerly worked for Ruger and details their investment casting process as well forging and stamping. He believes that modern investment castings can be as strong or stronger than forgings and explains the science behind his rationale. It's a good read.

"In my experience I feel that investment casting as done at Ruger is far superior to forging because it reduces the stock removal necessary to make the finished part, and permits use of alloys which cannot be machined by common stock removal
methods."

Looking at the quote above from the link provided, I don't see the science behind his rationale, but the gentleman's opinion of the process of casting done at Ruger. Did I miss something?
 
#82 ·
Jose said:
"In my experience I feel that investment casting as done at Ruger is far superior to forging because it reduces the stock removal necessary to make the finished part, and permits use of alloys which cannot be machined by common stock removal
methods."

Looking at the quote above from the link provided, I don't see the science behind his rationale, but the gentleman's opinion of the process of casting done at Ruger. Did I miss something?

All I see is your opinion TOO! Where is your science?
 
#83 · (Edited)
Jose,

FLAG!!

If you are going to post the gentleman's quote please don't take only the portion you want to present out of context. The full quote reads:

"In my experience I feel that investment casting as done at Ruger is far superior to forging because it reduces the stock removal necessary to make the finished part, and permits use of alloys which cannot be machined by common stock removal methods. Consequently, Ruger can use materials of a very low sulphur or selenium content with a high hardenability which provides greater tensile and compressive strength than the lower alloys other manufacturers much use because their manufacturing processes require use of additives like sulphur or selenium to obtain acceptable machinability. I feel that resulphurized steels should not be used in thin sections or in applications where extensive machining is required, because of their greater notch sensitivity."

That is the science that he bases his opinion on. I don't understand why you insist on continuing to stir the pot. You provide little facts to support your opinon yet you challenge the forum at large to defend theirs. When presented with information that refutes your statements, that info is ignored or your position changes.

From the facts that have been presented so far, I would conclude that a good quality, modern investment casting can be as strong as a comparable forged part if the proper alloys and techniques are used.

BTW, I would like to add the Steyr AUG to the list of weapons with cast receivers currently in military service. It is a pressure die-cast aluminum receiver. It is used by countries worldwide including Australia, Austria, Ireland, and New Zealand.
 
#85 ·
It would be most appreciated if there was a little less "entertainment" and a little more accurate information posted. Also, if you make any quotes, please make sure that they are complete so that they aren't taken out of context. If you post an opinion, please state that it's your opinion. This is getting a bit out of hand at this point. Some very good information has come to light in this thread, which is why I left it running as long as it has. Please don't give me cause nor reason to lock it up.
 
#87 · (Edited)
SS100 said:
In my opinion forged is better if the cast and forged reciever weigh the same , meaning the cast reciever has not been beefed up in the high stress places. If I were SAI and selling all the M1A's I could put togather , I don't guess i'd see any reason for changing.

I have a stantard M1A cast rifle and it doesn't bother me one bit that is's cast. Ruger makes some of the best rifles for the money and they are cast also. Never heard of one of them blowing up.

Been out of the town for a few days and am just catching up on this thread. Don't think I saw this info posted so far so here it is. SS100 made a good point which spurred my memory. IIRC, Bill Ruger tested his Ruger 77 in .458 Winchester Magum by firing a round completely filled with Bullseye powder. The bolt seized, but the receiver did not fail. For those of you not familiar with reloading, Bullseye was the fastest burning smokeless powder available at that time.
Carey
 
#88 ·
The P90 was tested by firing a proof round, with the barrel blocked. There was no failure, and, with another barrel, the weapon was placed back into service. Try that with another brand.

It's fairly obvious that the ancillary question has been answered. There are multiple cast receiver weapons fielded in today's militaries. Oh, and the Philippine Special Forces are using 1911A1 pistols with cast frames, as well.

Now, if we can just agree that a dead man's politics have nothing to do with his designs, we can move on.

Buy what you want, and can afford. Today's investment castings are durable and reliable. Today's forgings are the same as they were in the early 20th century. Durable and reliable. Both require, though, that the materials used be compatible, and the process QC held tightly.GI6
 
#89 ·
Hawk said:
If you post an opinion, please state that it's your opinion. This is getting a bit out of hand at this point. Some very good information has come to light in this thread, which is why I left it running as long as it has. Please don't give me cause nor reason to lock it up.
My opinion is that this argument has been beaten to death repeatedly. I have been on this forum for less than a year and it seems like this turns up over and over and the result is always the same: Everyone decides that you should just buy what you want and enjoy it. Perhaps it's time that this debate joins the AR vs. M-14 debate in the realm of topics to leave alone? Maybe have an information thread that compiles all the FACTS that have been discussed and brought forth so that people can do their own research on the matter without starting a war.
 
#95 ·
desertvet762 said:
Yipes,

Sorry I asked...GI4

LOL!!!! It's actually a good question, and for folks entertaining a new rifle, a pertenant one. Sometimes the Cast vs Forged threads get a little, well, windy.

All in good fun, and hopefully educational!DI5 I can guarantee you any thread that's started that gets 80+ replies in one way or the other will be good! Some of us were racing home from the office so we wouldn't miss out! Good shot DV762!
 
#96 ·
OK.... Since we seem to agree that this issue/thread has run for about all it is worth, I am locking it down and making it a sticky for future reference. If someone wants to do a synopsis of the thread (technical merit only) that could be something that could be added on the end of it later.

Also this is the end of discussing Cast vs. Forged here on the forum and will be shelved next to the AR vs. M14 issue.

Thanks to all who responded....well almost allDI5
 
#98 ·
My limited understanding of the BAR indicated to me the reciever was an extremely difficult machining operation.
If, a suitable cast reciever with the nescessary strenghth could be manufactured simultaneously cutting machine tool time bya large degree manufacturers would jump on this.
Seemingly with todays casting and cnc technology the cast reciever is totally adequate.how many failures have we seen of the reciever that were documented? Very few personally.
Naturally for bragging rights Id prefer the forged LRB product but a cast reciever properly machined and reinforced in the critical areas would be much more preferable to me than a forged reciever with even the slightest machining flaws.My viw on this hasd changed 180 degrees due to my age likely i am suspicious of plastic/aluminum and castings.Child of the 50s
with the prjudices inherent .Us old folks have to learn new tricks sometimes.In fact I was just recently able to get beyond the cast reciever thing and invest in a SAI.Despite many problems with assembly and incorrectly machined reciever/replacement/misindexing /reciever refacing it now runs very well thanks to SAIs service,however 3 trips back and forth were required.far to many IMHO.
 
#99 ·
I love forged things because I understand how you can make the grain in metal go in the right direction most of the time and that can make things stronger like in gear teeth and such.

BUT

Thank God for Investment castings that allow all of us to afford a wonderful rife with a life time of free replacement parts from good old Sa inc.
 
#100 · (Edited)
I've seen forged M1 Garand and real, G.I. M14 receivers fail as well.

Most of the time, it was due to not using good op rod springs or not changing them often enough. In both rifles, the op rod spring serves a dual purpose of loading the next cartridge and more importantly to receiver wear - ensuring the bolt doesn't smack the rear of the heel of the receiver too hard. This is part of the reason I advise changing the op rod spring every 2,000 rounds to ensure it doesn't happen and for any kind of M1 or M14 receiver.

If you have a tanker Garand - made from a forged G.I. receiver, you should change the op rod spring more often than this. I saw one that went from a completely serviceable rifle and in only one year and 2,000 rounds of G.I. ball ammo later, was turned into a hunk of junk along with most of the other parts. Just to be on the safe side, I recommend changing the op rod spring every 500 rounds on them.

I have also noted three M1 Garand receivers that failed due to improper heat treatment of the bottom of the rear receiver legs. The area the trigger guard lugs lock into broke on one side on all three rifles. This is a failure of the heat treating process. There's an amusing story that goes along with this....

While I was Shop Chief of the RTE Shop and had been inspecting/rebuilding the "Navy Garands" we used for Trophy Rifles, one of the Trophy Rifles failed in that manner. This happened on one rifle that had gone to Camp Lejuene as a trophy rifle. When they took the trigger mechanisms out of the rifles to have them engraved. During re-assembly on one rifle, when they attempted to put it back in the rifle and lock down the trigger guard, a chunk of the lower receiver broke off as outlined above. It took two days for them to screw up the courage to call me and tell me what happened. The Head Armorer there was really concerned he was going to get into real trouble. So he was extremely surprised and relieved when I told him, "No sweat, that was a problem with some of the receivers. We will send you another rifle down tomorrow and you can use the trigger housing you already have had engraved." He later told me he had been afraid he was going to be court martialed.

I have not yet seen an LRB receiver fail from use, yet, but I have seen them that were not made correctly and would not work. I already started a list of things to check on them before building them and have recently had to add another thing to the list because the "D" cut sections of the receiver where the trigger guard locks in were not machined correctly. This was on a very early receiver that I've already posted about. I've been told they have corrected this and other problems in current receivers and hope they have done so.
 
#103 ·
Two weeks ago this Saturday, my buddy Andy came down to get my help building his LRB with an all HR rifle kit, barrel also. We had a problem with the bolt going into full battery and the rail had to be ground level to do so. It was showing a hump in the front end, just behind the barrel ring. It appeared to be build up under the knife as the CNC machine cut through, causing the hump in the receiver. This is common in all machined receivers. Humps or unlevel spots will occur in the bolt stop window, the top of the receiver bridge where the stop lies flat at rest, where I just mentioned at the bolt battery position, burrs in the left receiver lug area of the helix cut, and the front of the bridge that makes up the back of the mag well. These come from the operator not keeping a close eye on the process and by not blasting a quick shot of air or fluid media at it to keep it clear while cutting. It begins to chatter and has build up, causing the hump in the receivers.

762MM had some of these also in their early production and I worked hard at identifying these and talking with Chris about cures for the problems. They were each addressed and corrected by much more work by him and his staff. The latest runs are really nice and I would take one over an LRB any day of the week. The value for an lrb is not there for me, when I could save much money and get the same or better for less. Hope this answers your question well enough.

P.S. I have had 14 of the 762mm already, some from each run. I got the very first receiver ever shipped from initial production. So, I know of what I speak.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top