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.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Because it is Cost Prohivitive, let me see you wear out a Cast Receiver! report back to me in about 70 Years!BGRIN1
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#5 ·
Price. LRBs standard offering is 2k+. A SAI NM can be had for $1700 new. A National Match style rifle built on a LRB receiver might approach 3 grand. It's a numbers game.

On the other hand, I've been shooting SAI products for YEARS and never had an issue. There is nothing wrong with a quality cast receiver, and I only hope my LRB holds up like a Springer, or other good cast receiver. I would not hesitate to invest in a Springfield, Fulton or Armscorp. I, for one, am not hung up on the fact that the LRB is forged, more so that is built to exacting service rifle specs.
 
#6 ·
Forged Receiver Production

The primary reason no American manufacturers other than LRB Arms has produced commercial forged M14 receivers is economics. It has nothing to do with quality. Cast receivers are cheap to produce. Two companies have made receivers from bar stock. Smith Enterprise and Entreprise Arms. Smith were high quality and expensive. Entreprise were poor quality, but more reasonably priced. Most shy away from forgings do to the high start up cost which includes making forging dies and machine set up. Bar stock receivers avoid the die cost, but machining cost are about the same. Cast receivers require master molds, but much less machining is required.
The market was established early on for cast receivers and it has taken this long to develope the demand for higher quality forged receivers. Many shooters just wanted something better!
 
#7 ·
The only reason more manufacturer's would start making forged M14 receivers was if the market really demanded it.
After that there really isn't a reason. Not that any of us would ever see. Nobody has even ever worn out an M1A receiver that I've heard of.
Every engineer I've asked about casting and the subject said the same thing, that modern casting is atleast 90% to as strong as a forging.
Even if one receiver was 90% as strong as a forged to usgi spec receiver what does that mean?
USGI receivers were rated to go to 400,000 rounds and TRW to 450,000.
At 90% would that give it till 360,000 rounds. That is pretty damn strong and a round count I can't even imagine having enough rounds and time to put down my M1A receiver.

What would really matter more would be the dedication to exact usgi spec with the forging.
LRB seems to be very dedicated with exact machining also and that can mean less of a chance of a possible headache.
The mounting fit problems some people have had with their M1A receivers or the fit of their cast op rod could be one headache. That's what would matter more today I think, but if anyone has a problem like that Springfield would make it right regardless, so that's not really as much of a worry to happen to be one of the unlucky minority that runs into a problem and the majority certainly don't seem to.

Closer to usgi authenticity is what you get with a LRB I think and if others made forged receivers, that were forged and held tightly to spec, that's what you could expect to get also I hope.

Will it do anything though or last longer than another quality commercial M14 that is cast, not really. Not anything we'd probably ever be around to see.
As long as it's made and machined right, it will serve true and outlast all of us.DI5
 
#8 · (Edited)
Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A receivers have extra steel compared to a USGI receiver, e.g., wider op rod rail, thicker receiver heel rear wall and the right side rear area.

Dimensional geometry and heat treatment are important as well as the material and its method of forming.

How well the receiver is machined is a much better measure of the quality from a buyer/user view point.
 
G
#9 ·
Many can not , our chose not to, distinguish the difference between the old cast ( pot metal ) and investment casting. We are talking apples and oranges here. It would be a mistake to even try to compare the two.

Chief
 
#10 ·
Something else to consider is the fact that investment casting to high quality is a process that didn't appear until well after the M14 had come into service. The ONLY way to make a receiver that strong was to forge it. Forgings were machining intensive, and used up cutting tools. The machines required skilled machinists as long as they were running. The idea of CNC and CAD/CAM was a science-fiction writer's dream in those times. One machine, one machinist, for the critical dimensions.

Today, the Investment casting process is a fact of life. It's strong, taking into account proper dimensioning, requires less finish machining, and is therefore less expensive. The fact that some dimensions had to be changed, due to the nature of the material, is a given. That manufacturers of scope rails and mounting systems stuck with the MilSpec dimensions is more their fault than the manufacturers of the receivers.

The question of ultimate strength comes up frequently in handgun discussions. While a comparable forging will win the ultimate strength contest, that's a mythical necessity. If forged frames were absolutely mandatory, why are there so many successful polymer framed pistols out there? Similiarly, if a forged receiver were a necessity, why are there so many successful cast receivers in use, many decades old?

Forging was the best of the best, in the 19th century.GI7
 
#13 ·
Added information: The US 1918A3 BAR MG in 3006 is a cast receiver. Ruger's P series pistols (frames) are all cast alloy. Ruger is known to made very tough, strong frames/receivers. If cast works for them, and it worked for the BAR MG, I am sure cast M14's would work just fine. And as Different and others have said, proper material, machining, and heat treating matter more. Look at the low serial number Springfield 03's The receivers were all soft and would fail in short order. Those receivers were forged. After proper heat treating, the receivers were fine.
 
#15 ·
Actually, I believe low SN '03's were brittle, not soft. That's why, when they failed, they shattered.

I took a materials class as part of the requirements for my engineering degree, and it was really helpful in understanding the crystalline structure of metals and the different types of heat treatments that are used to refine them. Basically, solid metal has a crystalline structure. Cast metal has an unrefined grain structure, meaning that the different types of crystals within the grain are completely random and have very little, if any order. Which is why cast parts are, or were in the past, prone to being brittle and breaking. Forged parts start out as a hunk of metal, which was probably cast, but then the hunk is literally pounded into a certain shape by a press or hammer that exerts several tons worth of force. This pounding action refines and lines up the crystalline structure. The part is then machined to final dimensions, and heat treated.

Heat treating, however, can do wonders for a crystalline structure, or lack thereof. A fairly soft receiver, which is needed for machining, after being finish machine and going through the heat treat process, will be hard on the outside while still ductile at the core of the metal. This was the problem with the '03's, no ductility. It can also create or refine a crystalline structure where there was none before, which is what they do for cast parts.

FWIW, I don't like cast parts. However, I see that it is the way things are going in the future, especially with the prevalence of MIM, which is basically a fancy form of casting/sintering. I'll still go forged is I have the option or money.
 
#16 ·
b1richards said:
Added information: The US 1918A3 BAR MG in 3006 is a cast receiver. Ruger's P series pistols (frames) are all cast alloy. Ruger is known to made very tough, strong frames/receivers. If cast works for them, and it worked for the BAR MG, I am sure cast M14's would work just fine. And as Different and others have said, proper material, machining, and heat treating matter more. Look at the low serial number Springfield 03's The receivers were all soft and would fail in short order. Those receivers were forged. After proper heat treating, the receivers were fine.
Are your refering to the BAR's that Ohio Ordnance is assembling? If so, they are not machineguns. Secondly, Bob is not gonna invest the money to forge a semi-auto receiver that has limited sales potential.

On a final note, M16 receivers are forged, not cast. Imagine that.
 
#17 ·
Thanks for the correction on the 03 receivers. The point was they were forged and they failed.

Regarding the 1918A3 BAR - I was referring to the Fullauto USGI ones. The point here is if they were using cast back then for a full power cartridge (30-06) in a MG, I am sure with proper methods, the cast M14's are just fine. At this point it is just a matter of taste.

This is just like those who poo-poo on Fed Ord M14s. Mine shot very well at our last match. Different witnessed this feat. Again, it is just a matter of taste and quality control at the time the receiver was mfg'd.
 
#18 ·
b1richards said:
This is just like those who poo-poo on Fed Ord M14s. Mine shot very well at our last match. Different witnessed this feat. Again, it is just a matter of taste and quality control at the time the receiver was mfg'd.
True, I was in the pit scoring his target, 9s and 10s consistently at 200 yards with a rack grade Federal Ordnance M14. Let me know if you want to sell it. GI1
 
#19 ·
b1richards said:
Thanks for the correction on the 03 receivers. The point was they were forged and they failed.

Regarding the 1918A3 BAR - I was referring to the Fullauto USGI ones. The point here is if they were using cast back then for a full power cartridge (30-06) in a MG, I am sure with proper methods, the cast M14's are just fine. At this point it is just a matter of taste.

This is just like those who poo-poo on Fed Ord M14s. Mine shot very well at our last match. Different witnessed this feat. Again, it is just a matter of taste and quality control at the time the receiver was mfg'd.
b1richards - you need to brush up on your history. NO issue weapon that I know of has ever been made with a cast receiver. The casting technology to make a receiver didn't even exist in the BAR era.

There never was a 1918A3 military BAR. That is the name for the semi-auto reproduction built by Ohio Ordnance as I asked you about in my preivous post.

The three US issue models were the 1918, 1918A1, and 1918A2.
 
#20 ·
I'm probably going to get jumped on for this one but here goes.

I think the biggest problem with getting the deminsions right on M-14 recievers is the over use of CNC machines. They try to do to many things with one machine.

The way they did it with the real deal was to have a different machine for every machining operation. When they had a machine set up they could make hundred of cuts knowing the results would be right.

That is why it takes millions to do things right and only the Gov has the bucks to do that.
 
#23 ·
Ok, here's the scoop.

From the book 'Rock in a Hard Place The Browning Autoumatic Rifle' Collector Grade Publication ISBN#0-88935-263-1. On page 168 Quote "In 1943, due to a critical shortage of strategic material, the Research Department of the Saginaw Malleable Iron Division of General Motors Corporation developed a product....."ArmaSteel" .As noted in the IBM Supplemental Report, IBM successfully pioneered the use of ArmaSteel castings in the production of the M1918A2 BAR receivers:" unquote.

Oh well, I have been wrong before.....
 
#24 ·
With Springfield Armorys close ties to Imbel, I dont understand why thy didnt have rough forging from Imbel imported and finish machine them here (as in there 1911A1 frames).

If i had to guess why others dont make a forged M14 type reciever It would be initial start up cost.

In my view of working with steel for over 20 years, and forging steel for 10+, there is not a better way to rough shape a part. This said, as with ANY steel working process, basic shop and metalurgy rules must be followed.

Of course a cast reciever will be better IF the forging process was not done correctly, thats a no brainer. If all process are done in the appropriate manner, a forging will have a greater strength/weight ratio than a casting. There are many principles that come into effect, one the biggest being grain structure.
 
#25 ·
b1richards said:
Ok, here's the scoop.
Oh well, I have been wrong before.....
Well, you aren't wrong, and I stand corrected. I briefly contacted Frank Iannamico - author of the mentioned text - and he concurred that IBM did in fact make some cast 1918A2 receivers. The number made was not immediately available nor how many if any actually saw service. I will look into it further.
 
#26 ·
Lamey said:
With Springfield Armorys close ties to Imbel, I dont understand why thy didnt have rough forging from Imbel imported and finish machine them here (as in there 1911A1 frames).

If i had to guess why others dont make a forged M14 type reciever It would be initial start up cost.

In my view of working with steel for over 20 years, and forging steel for 10+, there is not a better way to rough shape a part. This said, as with ANY steel working process, basic shop and metalurgy rules must be followed.

Of course a cast reciever will be better IF the forging process was not done correctly, thats a no brainer. If all process are done in the appropriate manner, a forging will have a greater strength/weight ratio than a casting. There are many principles that come into effect, one the biggest being grain structure.

Great point! I wonder why they don't do that!
 
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