Hopefully the Final Word on Cast Parts in Rugers
penultimate
First, as some of you may know, Bill Ruger probably had a bigger
influence on the science and art of modern investment casting
techniques and probably made more money as a provider of investment
casting services than he did designing, manufacturing and selling
firearms. Ruger Investment Castings, Inc. pioneered much of the art
and engineering science of current practice in investment casting and
remains a premier, state-of-the-art, provider for demanding, high-
precision, high-strength, applications including aerospace.
The link below provides a brief, informed, and within the limits of
brevity, very technically accurate review of Ruger's investment
casting process as applied to firearms parts, the result produced, and
why. Skip to the second of the two posts by Ed Harris because it
contains all of the first post and more. Ed speaks with well educated
and experienced authority, not seat-of-the-pants opinion.
http://yarchive.net/gun/investment_casting.html
Hopefully you now recognize that saying two different parts are
investment cast says virtually nothing about their absolute or
relative quality without an awful lot of added detail. Excessive
porosity and "Voids," for example, are not symptomatic of cast parts.
They are symptomatic of a poorly designed or controlled casting
process and/or the quality of the raw materials being cast. If your
idea of a cast steel part is C-clamp made by melting down Chevy's and
other assorted tin cans and dumping the hot liquid effluent
haphazardly into a mould, investment, sand, or otherwise, then you
might consider becoming better informed.
The next link below is to Ruger's investment casting operation, in
particular to the strength specifications for castings formed from a
number of different available alloys. Take a peek at these
specifications. As you do,
1) Keep in mind that in business practice this page constitutes a
legal contractual obligation to deliver product meeting these
specifications and has Ruger's name on it. It is not an anonymous
post from an opinonated gun crank on a bulletin board.
2) The customers reading them are sophisticated engineers and trained
metallurgists.
3) Ruger has the engineers, technicians, and equipment on site to
test product and raw material to these specifications, including a
full metallurgy lab and production parts X-ray equipment, and does
that testing. These are the big boys doing the job according to the
world's highest standards.
4) As a point of comparison while you look at tensile strength
ratings, recognize that German ordinance steel (their "good stuff") in
the mid 1890's had about a 45,000 PSI tensile strength. Swedish steel
was superior at the time (ca 60,000 PSI tensile strength). This is
why the Swedes insisted on rights to make the M96 themselves, dumping
German production as quickly as they could. It is also why Mauser
chose to go to a "large ring" configuration in the M98. The extra
safety margin accomplished by the Swedes with better steel, Mauser
accomplished in Germany using more of what he had. Expectation for
today's better steel, without getting exotic, is better than double
these values. Those that might want to shoot hot loads in your
Obendorf M96 might be well served to remember this little factual gem,
as might those that choose to believe the acme of rifles was attained
in 1898. If Mauser were alive today, the bolt action he designed
would look different because it would be designed to take into account
today's materials and manufacturing processes. In other words, it
might just look a lot like the Ruger version of a Mauser.
Here is the link. Scan the chart remembering 60,000 PSI as a overly
generous estimate for the steel used by Mauser in designing the M98
and knowing that bigger numbers are better.
http://www.ruger.com/Casting/T-Steel.html
The final link is a completely accurate, as opposed to ignorant,
summary of investment cast versus forged parts, recognizing of course
that either might be achieved poorly or well. And here, we are
talking about the good stuff.
http://www.swscc.com/informational/info_cast_vs_forged.htm
Now, let me quote and then comment upon part of what you hopefully
read.
"MECHANICAL PROPERTIES:
Steel castings are ISOTROPIC - meaning "similar properties in all
directions". Steel forgings are ANISOTROPIC - meaning "similar
properties in the direction of flow''. Thus, in the direction of flow
(material deformation), a steel forging's strength is highest along
its longitudinal axis, and DECREASES in the transverse direction.
Whereas, in a steel casting, the properties are similar in all
directions."
In the above, I capitalized "DECREASES" because it is important. In
the old days of an inconsistent steel making process, forging did play
a valuable role in "beating out" and welding inconstant material
inclusions. But we are today talking about pretty good and uniform
stuff as it is poured out of the crucifer.
Given a modern context, shaping a part by forging DOES NOT make a part
uniformly stronger; it makes the part stronger and WEAKER in
combination. If the shape (and manner of forging that shape) is
engineered so that the axis of greater strength corresponds to the
axis of greater NEEDED strength, as the part used, the part is made
stronger by forging. If forging is merely a means of achieving rough
shape in advance of machining (as it often was and is), then that part
may actually be weaker in the direction of most needed additional
strength than it would be in a quality investment casting. Thus,
those that claim a forged part is stronger can be either right or
wrong, depending totally on the part they are pointing at and whether
the manner of forging corresponds to the axis of most needed strength.
As a process, for some parts (like a connecting rod) a forging process
naturally lends strength along the needed axis. For others (like a
receiver!!!!) it does not. Here the greatest concern is along the
circumferential axis referred to as "hoop strength" (after the
strength conferred on wood barrels by the steel hoops). That is the
weaker axis for a receiver machined from a rough forging, a fact that
is particularly ironic given those that rant against receivers being
cast parts.
The good news is that better grade steel formulations are pretty
strong stuff, particularly today, and even in the 1890's with a small
ring receiver good enough to do the job most of the time; all of the
time if the steel was not weakened by a chance inclusion. As long as
you are not straining them with hot loads, the small rings prone to
give way probably already have. So if you are dumb enough to think
the forging process helps where it counts most, you at least are
unlikely to be hurt by your ignorance.
But a particular advantage of investment casting is that it allows
engineered shapes conferring added strength where it is needed without
adding the expense of machining off material that is just weighty
decoration. And if you are capable of casting a finished shape close
to final dimensions after machining, then you can use steel with an
alloy chemistry optimal for strength and hardness rather than
machining ease.
Country gunsmiths like steel that cuts like butter with the tools they
have using an old Bridgeport or drill press or WWII surplus lathe, if
necessary after annealing by eye with a torch, and that (they tell
their customers) they can correctly re-harden by heating up to a
particular color as seen by their possibly color blind eye by
quenching in a bucket of drain oil from their 83 Chevy. In
consequence, having probably screwed up at least one or two Rugers
beyond repair because they did not have the vaguest understanding of
the steel they were dealing with, they don't like them much. It is
absolutely ludicrous to suggest that a Ruger receiver would shatter if
dropped on a concrete floor. It is a little less ludicrous to imagine
a Ruger receiver shattering when dropped if that receiver has been
"annealed" and "hardened" by a mechanic according to principles taught
him by his granddaddy, a blacksmith.
When added to fact that most Ruger rifles came with built in scope
mounts or pre-tapped long before other makers (eliminating lucrative
scope mounting jobs) and that repairs involving certain parts are only
done by the factory (where fitting might be required and that fitting
requires awareness of metallurgy Ruger found lacking in many
gunsmiths), they really did not like them. Hence, BS about "cheap
cast parts" from a few. It should not escape notice that the steel
found in old Mausers is a good fit to their talents and that praise in
excess of justification is sung to the Mauser.
Now, having said all this:
1. I don't and never have worked for Ruger.
2. I have absolutely no financial interest in Ruger or in buying and
selling Ruger products.
3. I am not in any way a Ruger groupie.
4. Save for a custom 270 built on a Ruger #1 receiver, I currently own
no Ruger products.
As rifles go, I view a Ruger as a rifle that will do the job which is
reasonably priced and OK looking. At least until I have tried one of
their new models with the new trigger and learn that it really is
good, I would expect to have a really awful trigger that merits
replacement with say a Timney. At least, this I would have this
expectation more with a Ruger than a Winchester or Remington.
You can choose to like or not like a Ruger on many grounds and, if you
are willing to pay more, you can certainly get more. That includes a
fully machined, possibly forged, receiver that costs a lot more money
to make. If the metal is thicker than normal, it could possibly be
inconsequentially stronger than a Ruger receiver machined in fine
detail from an investment casting. But the Ruger receiver was X-rayed
and ultrasound imaged before machining in search of the slightest
metallurgical defect. How about the billet you more expensive
receiver was made from? Probably not. In this regard and as those old
enough to remember might recall, a Ruger is kind of like Senator
Thomas Eagleton saying after it came out he had once seen a
psychiatrist, "I'm the only candidate that has been actually been
examined and found sane by a trained psychiatrist." If yours isn't a
Ruger, it is very unlikely anyone has looked where the sun don't
shine.
Claiming that Ruger products are in any way defective because key
parts that are investment castings are not strong enough (relative to
the alternative ways by which they can be made) is pure manure. It
deserves to be recognized as such and called exactly that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kepler
"penultimate" <drw...@cimtel.net> wrote in message
news:fffdat$kh2$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# First, as some of you may know, Bill Ruger probably had a bigger
# influence on the science and art of modern investment casting
# techniques and probably made more money as a provider of investment
# casting services than he did designing, manufacturing and selling
# firearms. Ruger Investment Castings, Inc. pioneered much of the art
# and engineering science of current practice in investment casting and
# remains a premier, state-of-the-art, provider for demanding, high-
# precision, high-strength, applications including aerospace.
Not QUITE correct! RIC is Ruger's TITANIUM caster in Prescott, AR, and has
NOTHING to do with firearms. Ruger's ferrous casting division is Pine Tree
Castings in Newport NH! "Beware of small inaccuracies....tiny leaks can
sink a great ship!" B. Franklin
All the other stuff you posted aside, a couple of singular facts remain that
are dictated by chemistry and physics, and simply can't be "engineered out".
An investment casting for the same mass and web-thickness, is going to be
20-40% weaker than a corresponding forging, and can only have equivalent
strength by increasing both the mas and the web-thicknesses accordingly.
This is NOT to say that a perfectly serviceable and function part can't be
made by investment casting.....just that it has to be designed around the
production methodology. This is why Rugers have that distinctive "chunky"
appearance! Also....Ruger/Pine Tree Castings is probably the best
mid-volume investment-caster in the world......and typically makes the bulk
of it's money doing something other than casting firearms parts! There are
a LOT of far less capable firms lower-down on the food-chain casting gun
parts...a LOT of them junk!
The rub comes in when you attempt to cast a part that was DESIGNED to be
forged (like an M1 or M14 receiver), casting the same mass and
web-thicknesses as the forging....and then having what is now a VERY tricky
casting job done by the "lowest bidder" bottom-feeder low-volume job-caster
you can find....you know....that guy casting the "C-Clamps" out of old
Chevy's you were talking about! All job-casters aren't created equal, and
using Ruger/Pine Tree Castings as your model is like saying that every
mechanical wrist-watch made is great because a Rolex is!
John
Clark Magnuson
#
# 4) As a point of comparison while you look at tensile strength
# ratings, recognize that German ordinance steel (their "good stuff") in
# the mid 1890's had about a 45,000 PSI tensile strength. Swedish steel
# was superior at the time (ca 60,000 PSI tensile strength).
So my Oberndorf bolts and receivers made between 1903 and 1906 would
have a RC hardness of ~12?
http://www.varmintal.net/arock.htm
David R. Birch
(snip of an excellent post)
#
# Claiming that Ruger products are in any way defective because key
# parts that are investment castings are not strong enough (relative
# to the alternative ways by which they can be made) is pure manure.
# It deserves to be recognized as such and called exactly that.
I recommend we all save this post. The next time
browningLOWpowerTHEyahoo starts foaming at the keyboard about cast
parts, we should ALL reply JUST TO HIM quoting this post. I would like
to think he still has the ability to learn.
David
browningh...@yahoo.com
Quote from Penultimate wrote::
Excessive
porosity and "Voids," for example, are not symptomatic of cast parts.
Reponse: Bull Crap, just pull back the bolt on a cheap cast Ruger and
look inside at the bolt raceways and by gosh you will see plenty of
porosity (air holes).
John Kelplers post was right on the money. Cheap junk castings have
to be made much thicker to equal the strength of a good forging.
I have a couple of small Star 9mm pistols, FireStar that are have very
thick slides as compared to other small carry guns that I own that are
made of forged or bar stock receivers. This makes the junk cast Star
much more uncomfortable to carry because of its excess weight. Again
the consumer gets shafted because the Star was made of a cheap junk
casting rather than a much slimmer, lighter, and more pleasing to the
eye forging.
Pentulate is also giving you a very misleading story on the Swedish
Mausers as well. Sweden made much of their own Mausers for several
reasons.
1. Nationalism,
2. It was cheaper to make them at home than buy the from Germany,
.3. The Swedish Mauser was made on a small ring receiver and because
the Swedes wanted to stay with this design the Steel "had to be made
stronger" for this type of small ring action and the very hot loads
that they were firing through these guns.
Germany would have done exactly the same thing if they had not
invented the Large Ring Action. In other words using this strong a
steel on the Large Ring Mauser would have been more "costly" and been
a simple case of "over engineering". I might add also that during
WWI the Germans also used a Large Ring Action model 98 and also a
Small Ring Action model 98A in 8x57 that was not "overloaded" and
these guns held up just fine and are still being used today on target
ranges over 100 years after they were made, many being re-barreled
many times.
So was the stronger Swedish steel necessary, absolutely not, it was
simply a fact of over-engineering, pure and simple. The Swedes
wanted to fire hot loads and they felt more comfortable using a
stronger steel. In reality the Small Ring action would have withstood
the firing of many rounds even it were not made of the stronger steel,
the stronger steel just made it last longer before receiver stretch
and excess head space became inevitable.
Now lets take a look at how superior the forged receiver really is
compared to the Junk Cast Receiver. The forged receiver can be made
very hard on the outside and softer on the inside (something not
possible with the junk cast receiver, as a junk casting is the same
hardness all the way through, this is exactly why castings are by
their very nature very brittle. The harder a casting is the more
brittle it becomes and this is definitely not true of a heat treated
forging.
The forged receiver will take not only a tremendous amount of sudden
shock but also will give advanced warning that it is about to "blow"
if constantly subjected to overloads, it eventually will start to
stretch, (something the junk cast receiver cannot do without coming
apart). Now the junk cast receiver will not give such a warning as
when it reaches its limit it suddenly comes apart like a grenade.
A good example of this "grenade effect" is the death at a shooting
range from a junk cast Ruger 40 S&W automatic that blew its slide
sending pieces of it through a nearby shooters head. This was
reported in "Combat Handguns Magazine" a few years ago.
Even the makers of castings will admit they were never meant to be
"quality" in any sense of the word. Castings were and are a "cheap"
manufacturing" "short cut" and no manufacturing short cut ever gave
the consumer a deal, not even in price because the market determines
the price and the profit margin is higher when using the junk
casting. In other words the old bull crap that forged parts would be
to expensive to make to day is pure hog wash. What is really true is
that if "quality forgings" were made then the "profit margin" would be
less, not that they would be un-affordable to the consumer.
Back in the 1970's Smith & Wesson and Ruger got in to an advertising
war on their handguns. In this advertising war the "real truth" about
"junk castings" came out with Ruger getting the very worst of it by
far. Many people at that time got a "real education" on the true
nature of the junk casting.
Anyone who has owned a "non-stainless" casting also knows how fast and
how thoroughly the casting will rust away. This is due to the porosity
(air holes in the metal that suck up water like a sponge) I have
personally seen a Rossi .22 pump gun with a rust hole eaten right
through the thick side wall of the receiver. The gun was modern
production and only a few years old. Now I have seen forged guns that
were 100 years old and covered with rust that did not have a hole
eaten right through the receiver wall.
Anyone who has worked with junk castings will tell you it does not
take much pressure to crack them. Try whacking a junk castings with a
hammer some time and then hit a forged part even 10 times as hard and
see the difference. Seeing is believing, as the junk castings cannot
take the sudden impact like a forged or even a bar stock part can.
Lastly because of the cheap castings porosity it just plain looks bad,
it does not have that "forged quality look" that you often see when a
quality forging is machined and then polished like glass. Castings
look like what they exactly are, cheap in looks, cheap in quality, as
compared to the quality forged part.
Pentualte again completely sidesteps the most damning evidence of all
and that is again the example of the "Cast C Clamp". If a
manufacturer could make a junk cast clamp as strong as a forged one
that was the same thickness and had the same strength and heat
treatment he would do it in a heart beat because it costs so much less
to produce and the profit margin is so much higher. What Pentulate is
not telling you is that the cast iron mongers cannot make such an
animal no matter how good a junk casting material they use. If they
could it would be available and it is not.
The gun industry and people who work for it either directly or
secretly have done everything imaginable to brainwash the gullible and
the uneducated consumer into believing that not only are junk castings
as good as a forgings but that they are even better. What is sad is
that so many people believe this hog wash.
John Kepler
# I recommend we all save this post. The next time
# browningLOWpowerTHEyahoo starts foaming at the keyboard about cast
# parts, we should ALL reply JUST TO HIM quoting this post. I would like
# to think he still has the ability to learn.
Ya'know folks.....overstatement in one direction is just as misleading and
disingenuous as overstatement in the opposite!
As loath as I am to agree with much of anything Jerry rants about (which is
why I kill-filed him long ago!)....he's not ENTIRELY (pretty close...but
there IS a kernel of truth buried in the large wad of BS he's spewing in
this one case) wrong in this case! I do this stuff for a living, and have
got a LOT more casting "horror stories" than one's about forging! Frankly,
it's a LOT easier to bitch up an investment casting than it is a forging,
and there are more low-volume job-casting firms that do a bad job than do a
good one!
John
browningh...@yahoo.com
Swedish made 96 rifles and have expereiced no problems with the
Geraman made small ring action as opposed to the Swedish made action.
Both manufactured guns are now over 100 years old.
I take with a large grain of salt the info Penultimate is giving us on
the superior strength of the Swedish made guns because I just have not
seen it. Again you must go to the source as who was making the
statement and why about how superior the Swedish made guns supposedly
were. When you see no evidence of this for over 100 years then you
know something stinks in Denmark.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Anyone that cares to look at any industrial catalog will find for
example the ubiquitous "C" clamp. According to OSHA standards they
have to be rated according to their safety and tensile strength. Now
the cheap junk cast "C" clamp of the exact same hardness, thickness
and size is rated at "2 ½ TIMES WEAKER THAN THE SAME SIZE FORGED
CLAMP. Now it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out which
metal is the more durable and the more safe and the more stronger.
I might also add that even with Rugers experience with castings that
when they first brought out the Mini 14 in Stainless, guess what? The
brittle cast receivers cracked. It took Ruger awhile to figure out
how to make them without the brittle receiver cracking whenever the
bolt cycled and slammed into the action.
browningh...@yahoo.com
period.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Here are some REAL LIFE ACTUAL EXPERIECES WITH JUNK CASTINGS IN
FIREARMS.
1. Iver Johnson carbine, junk cast slide cracked after only two
hundred rounds of fire.
2. Harrington and Richardson junk cast rear sight that broke when
dropped only 3 feet on a soft linoleum covered plywood floor, contrast
this to a Colt Python that was dropped on cement and suffered no
damage despite landing on the rear sight. Conclusion: castings are
total junk.
3. Springfield Armory M1A with junk cast receiver. Sight detents wore
out after only 6 months of use. Headspace went bad after only 250
rounds of shooting.
4. Tanfolgio TZ75, junk cast sear went bad after 1 month of use and
500 rounds of fire.
5. Smith & Wesson Model 39 9mm. I have seen half a dozed of them
break their junk cast safeties.
6. Shooting Times Magazine does endurance test on Walther P38 versus
Smith & Wesson M39. Smiths Junk cast safety breaks in two pieces at
2,000 round mark.
7. Ruger recalls their new .45acp automatic, junk cast safeties break
off. This was only in the last couple of years. So much for Rugers
great experience in making durable castings.
8. First Mini 14 Rugers made of stainless suffer cracked junk cast
receivers. So much for Rugers great knowledge on how to get by with
making a cast receiver.
9. Winchester new Model 70 Rifles suffer high failure rates with their
junk cast claw type extractors found on the controlled feed guns made
for a few years before they went out of business. This was known as
the re-introduction of the Pre-64 (circa 1994) Model 70 which it
really wasn't. The original guns had spring steel extractors in the
controlled feed model and were never noted for the high failure rates
of the new junk cast extractor model.
As one can see we need no more examples, nor more proof, it would just
be more nauseating repetition for the "knowledgeable firearms owners"
who do not have to be told what absolute junk castings are when used
in firearms. Us old pro's "HAVE BEEN THERE AND EXPERIENCED THAT'
many, many times , sad to say and no amount of firearms propaganda can
refute our actual experience with such absolute trash.
browningh...@yahoo.com
goes out of business, we then sometimes get a smattering of truth on
how bad the junk was that they were making. In Winchesters case this
year there were articles in several of the gun mags on the
unreliability of the "new model 70 Winchester as compared to the
original quality pre-64 gun they once made. Such problems as bolt
handles slipping their axis and junk casts extractors breaking. Of
course anyone with a lot of experience with rifles like myself already
was very aware of these problems but now for the first time it is
actually appearing in print simply because Winchester is basically out
of business as far as making more M70 Winchesters, this is why for the
first time we are seeing the truth about the quality of their former
product in print.
So when you have guys like Penultimate quoting this source or that
source, pay attention to what the source actually is and how closely
the people he is quoting you are tied in with the gun industry and
take his so called quotes from famous people with a very big grain of
salt.
I on the other hand I am giving you first hand experience with junk
castings that spans 40 plus years of actual shooting and testing.
Would you rather believe me or someone who works for the gun industry
and is being quoted by Penultimate. I think the answer is obvious as
to who has more to gain by lying to the public about junk castings and
that is the people working for the gun industry. You would think that
with even with Penultimate's some what limited firearms experience he
would have "caught on to them" by now.
browningh...@yahoo.com
Quote:
The link below provides a brief, informed, and within the limits of
brevity, very technically accurate review of Ruger's investment
casting process as applied to firearms parts, the result produced,
and
why. Skip to the second of the two posts by Ed Harris because it
contains all of the first post and more. Ed speaks with well
educated
and experienced authority, not seat-of-the-pants opinion.
Response:
Who would you rather believe, a man like me that has 40 plus years of
real experience with castings or Harris who works for the gun
industry?
Quote:
Hopefully you now recognize that saying two different parts are
investment cast says virtually nothing about their absolute or
relative quality without an awful lot of added detail. Excessive
porosity and "Voids," for example, are not symptomatic of cast parts.
They are symptomatic of a poorly designed or controlled casting
process and/or the quality of the raw materials being cast. If your
idea of a cast steel part is C-clamp made by melting down Chevy's and
other assorted tin cans and dumping the hot liquid effluent
haphazardly into a mould, investment, sand, or otherwise, then you
might consider becoming better informed.
Reply:
When it comes to safety in the work place the cast iron mongers cannot
lie about their product like they do in the gun industry. OSHA
mandates they provide the truth. They must list how safe the "C"
clamps they make are and who much weight and stress they can take.
They are in every way inferior to the superior forged clamp when made
to the SAME HEAT TREATMENT, SAME THICKNESS, AND SAME SIZE. If they
could make a clamp as good as the forged clamp and meet the above
criteria they would certainly do so because no one would by the more
expensive to produce forged clamp. They of course cannot do this with
junk castings.
Quote:
1) Keep in mind that in business practice this page constitutes a
legal contractual obligation to deliver product meeting these
specifications and has Ruger's name on it. It is not an anonymous
post from an opinonated gun crank on a bulletin board.
Response:
Attack me personally, call me names, but you cannot refute all the
recalls Ruger and others have had because of junk cast parts either
breaking or not even being safe to use such as their recall recently
of the junk cast safeties on their .45 auto's or their recall on the
first stainless Mini-14 for cracked brittle receivers. See my other
post on a whole list of junk cast gun parts that have failed on
various makes and models of guns down through the years and it is by
no means complete. Its just a very small sampling of junk cast guns
breaking down.
4) As a point of comparison while you look at tensile strength
ratings, recognize that German ordinance steel (their "good stuff")
in
the mid 1890's had about a 45,000 PSI tensile strength. Swedish
steel
was superior at the time (ca 60,000 PSI tensile strength). This is
why the Swedes insisted on rights to make the M96 themselves, dumping
German production as quickly as they could.
Response:
Where to you get such crap (from the cast iron gun industry of
course) I have never ever heard of any of the German Guns failing in
any way. I have both German and Swede 96 produced guns in my
collection. Surely in over 100 years of use the German guns by now
would have shown how inferior they were. Facts are that your
statements are pure rubbish as no such failure as occurred in over 100
years. Obviously the Swedes found it much cheaper to make the guns
themselves and the bragged how much greater they were.
The Germans also used a small ring gun the Model 98A not to be
confused with the large ring 98 during WWI. In other words during the
War they used both small ring and large ring actions. The small ring
guns did not fail in any way that I have ever heard of or read about
and 100 years later despite being re-barreled many times they are
still going strong.
All this proves that even if the crap you quote is true (which I
highly doubt) then the Swede guns were certainly way over-engineered.
I think what all this does prove is how superior forged guns are,
small ring, large ring, Swedish steel or German steel compared to
modern made junk cast guns.
Quote:
This is your reference post: http://www.ruger.com/Casting/T-Steel.html
Reply: Give me a break, its right from a company that makes
castings. Are you serious, you must be joking if you think they are
not trying to sell you their castings. Surely you can do better than
this. Its like asking a used car salesman if the piece of crap used
car he is selling you is any good or not. I can't believe you even
quoted these people.
browningh...@yahoo.com
of all castings, and the most recent and most modern THE TOTALLY JUNK
MIM CASTINGS.
The new Detonics Company announced on World Wide Cable TV that they
absolutely refused to use the MODERN JUNK MIM CASTING IN ANY OF THEIR
WEAPONS. Now when even a firearms company brags on National TV that
they know how bad MIM castings are I think we had all better sit up
and take notice before we trust our lives to such trash cast parts in
any of our defense firearms.
Kimber is well known for going whole hog using MIM parts and there are
many posts on the net on these junk MIM cast parts failing.
Colt Firearms had so many Junk MIM cast parts fail in their 1911 guns
and had so many returned they were forced to go back to a spring steel
extractor and a bar stock hammer. NOW WHAT DOES THAT SHOW YOU WHEN IT
COMES TO THE ABSOLUTE TRASH OF MIM CAST PARTS.
NEED I GO ON OR DO WE NEED TO DISUCUSS VOLUMES OF FAILURES WITH THE
VERY WORST OF ALL JUNK CAST PARTS THE MIM CAST PART.
YES THIS IS INDEED THE FINAL WORD, PENULTEMATE, ON THE IRREFUTABLE,
POSITIVE PROOF ON JUNK CAST PARTS IN ALL FIREARMS.
browningh...@yahoo.com
And now for the grand el-junko finallay, lets look at the very worst
of all castings, and the most recent and most modern THE TOTALLY JUNK
MIM CASTINGS.
The new Detonics Company announced on World Wide Cable TV that they
absolutely refused to use the MODERN JUNK MIM CASTING IN ANY OF THEIR
WEAPONS. Now when even a firearms company brags on National TV that
they know how bad MIM castings are I think we had all better sit up
and take notice before we trust our lives to such trash cast parts in
any of our defense firearms.
Kimber is well known for going whole hog using MIM parts and there are
many posts on the net on these junk MIM cast parts failing.
Colt Firearms had so many Junk MIM cast parts fail in their 1911 guns
and had so many returned they were forced to go back to a spring steel
extractor and a bar stock hammer. NOW WHAT DOES THAT SHOW YOU WHEN IT
COMES TO THE ABSOLUTE TRASH OF MIM CAST PARTS.
NEED I GO ON OR DO WE NEED TO DISUCUSS VOLUMES OF FAILURES WITH THE
VERY WORST OF ALL JUNK CAST PARTS THE MIM CAST PART.
YES THIS IS INDEED THE FINAL WORD, PENULTEMATE, ON THE IRREFUTABLE,
POSITIVE PROOF ON JUNK CAST PARTS IN ALL FIREARMS.
browningh...@yahoo.com
I also forgot to mention the many years I worked with internal
combustion engine parts that were made of junk castings.
Example 1. When watching some workers unload a pallet of junk cast
bell housings one was dropped no more than 2 feet onto the concrete
floor. Result the brittle junk castings cracked. The exact same
thing can happen to firearms that are made of brittle junk castings.
Example 2. When watching a tow motor driver lifting a pallet of
"forged crank shafts" one rolled off and hit the concrete at about 3
to 4 feet and it actually bounced off the concrete with no damage as
compared to the totally junk cast steel bell housing mentioned above
that fell 2 foot or less. Now that's a dramatic difference and one
example of many, many, I have seen over the years when dealing with
totally junk cast parts.
browningh...@yahoo.com
One more dramatic example of the junk cast handgun failing. Locally
not one but two self-defense instructors are warning people not to
trust their lives to the new Walther PP series of weapons made with
junk MIM castings from Smith & Wesson.
I personally know of at least two of these turkey's that failed right
at our shooting range. They are a far cry from the Manurhin made PP
series of guns made since the end of WWII that were not made of junk
castings. By the way there were no German PP series of guns made
after WWII as they were actually made for Walther by Manurhin in
France. I got a good laugh when I read in one of the Gun rags that
the German made post war guns were better made than the French
Manurhin guns. That was very difficult to do since there were no post
War German made guns even though they were stamped as such and sold to
a gullible public.
oldpink
[...]
# Claiming that Ruger products are in any way defective because key
# parts that are investment castings are not strong enough (relative to
# the alternative ways by which they can be made) is pure manure. It
# deserves to be recognized as such and called exactly that.
Oh, my goodness!
A completely dispassionate, intelligent, and buttressed thesis.
--
And what exactly is a joke?
penultimate
Re. Kepler:
If I had left "Inc" off "Ruger Investment Casting" I would have been
able to claim that I was right (mostly) and that on this topic Kepler
was wrong (a little). I didn't. So we are both wrong a little.
According to Ruger, Prescott includes facilities for Titanium and
Ferrous casting. Whether any gun parts are or have been done there, I
can not say. Ruger treats all IC activities at all facilities
management-wise as birds of a feather. My point is simply that IC for
Ruger is the strategic technology at a corporate level and that they
are damned good at it.
By conventional wisdom Kepler is absolutely right in his comments
about forging, but I think he fails to adequately consider two
things: alloy/chemistry flexibility for an IC that does not exist for
a forging because of concern with machineability and heat treatment's
influence on tensile strength. Here I guess I have three points.
First,to get the best from a forging, the forging needs be engineered
with respect to the part and its loading, same as with a casting.
Second, that nothing I said was in any way intended to discredit a
forged part, only the blind belief that a casting is intrinsically
inferior. Third, that both, properly designed and properly
manufactured, are plenty good enough.
I think that Kepler's point about quality is a very valid one at a
practical level. With a machined part, what you see is pretty much
what you get. With a cast part, its what you can't see that might
bite you. It is the X-ray and Ultrasound tests of the IC receiver
that ultimately insures its safety, not the fact that it is IC. So
Ruger builds reasonably good firearms with investment cast parts and
quality assured by Ruger. That does not mean somebody else will and
does not mean that Ruger will get it right every minute of every day
of the week. .
Re, Magnuson's question/comment:
1. My comments are specific with regard to Swedish Mausers. My
"report" is memory of discussion with a native Swedish metallurgist on
an airplane flying across the Atlantic. While in school, he had
compared Swedish made Swedish mausers made using Swedish Steel versus
those Obendorf made Swedish Mausers that were made with German steel.
The percentage or number of Obendorf Swedish Mausers made of German
steel I can not tell you and at this point. I also can not tell you
with any certainty whether they were 94's and 96's or both. Other
than a few allusions to this fact on the internet, I can not provide
any verfiable source for what I said today. So you either believe what
I said or you don't.
2. To my knowlege the most recent Obendorf production of Swedish
M96's is dated 1900. But I don't claim to know everything and this
could be wrong. So I am guessing that your 1901 and 1906 references
are to non-Swedish production about which I know squat.
3. Referring to current awarenss, in an annealed state, Swedish
versus German steel would be in the 80-90 range on the Rb scale, not
Rc. Ordinance steel of this era was pretty mild stuff. Rc readings
in this range would likely be subject to large error.
4. In any event, the RC (or RB) value you get today would reflect
current hardness state at the specific location tested, a value that
will clearly be determined by the steel itself in consideration of its
heat treating/hardening status. In an untreated chunk of modern
steel, given its very high level of homogeneity, this measurement
should be almost perfectly predictive of tensile strength measured by
means of stretch. As an exercise on steel from another era, the value
you got might not mean the same thing we can safely take it to mean
with modern product.
5. Relative to memory, my Swedish metallurgist acquaintence (brief)
tested samples cut from dated receivers from the Swedish armory in an
annealed state because parts are heat treated after being machined and
test data from the 1890's was of the steel, not the finished parts,
These were destructively "stretch tested" for tensile strength as
opposed to "dent tested." He pointed out that he got all kind of
results using "dent testing" hardness inferences of tensile strength.
The result you got depended on where you tested. But the Swedish
steel was more consistent. This consistency meant that there was less
likelyhood of sampling a weak point at a microscopic level with dent
testing that would always reveal itself macroscopically when
stretched. In other words, if a difference in tensile strength is to
be used ot predict part failure, it is only the weakest point that
matters. He was quite interested in the wide range of hardness
measurements he observed and siad he really didn't know if this was
because heat treat was not then a consistent process or there had been
intervening wear and possibly repair operations that changed things.
At the time, I was genuinely impressed with the idea a roughly century
old part can not be assumed to be like a part today just because it
looks about the same.
I do not wish to claim any special expertise on this particular topic
and since I am unable presently to identify good authority for what I
have said (other than memory), I really can not argue with someone
that says my memory is wrong. So swallow the above to the degree it
makes sense.
My global points here are twofold and I think they are what matter:
. 1. If you are going to shoot the old stuff (and I do shoot it),
remember that they were still figuring it all out in 1900, including
how to make steel with specifiations and at a quality level we take
for granted today. If you value your body parts and those of others
that might be around you when you pull trigger, you might keep this in
mind when asking about maximum loads. And, while certainly better
steel was made more consistently by WWII, anything made in 1945
probably did not receive the same expert TLC it did in 1939.
2. No matter how wonderful Mauser's 98 design was, a man of his
insight and genius would certainly take advantage of todays advance in
and understanding of materials. Ergo, a 2007 bolt action design made
by a resurrected Mauser himself would be different than the 98.
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory "Predator" AR-15 accuracy rig while
supporting our RKBA. Details at http://www.myguns.net
-------------------------------------------------------
browningh...@yahoo.com
On Oct 21, 7:55 pm, oldpink <misassist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
And I might add backed up by not one shred of "real personal
experience" in the "real world". That's the real difference between
my real life posts and his factory propaganda posts. Look at his
sources. Then tell me if you can believe any of his factory quoted
sources.
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
> ...
I can state that his number for the German made action are accurate as
I have Rockwell tested a number of them and they all fell in the
strength figures that he mentions.
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
#It is with much amusement that one notes that when a firearms company
#goes out of business, we then sometimes get a smattering of truth on
#how bad the junk was that they were making. In Winchesters case this
#year there were articles in several of the gun mags on the
#unreliability of the "new model 70 Winchester as compared to the
#original quality pre-64 gun they once made. Such problems as bolt
#handles slipping their axis and junk casts extractors breaking. Of
#course anyone with a lot of experience with rifles like myself already
#was very aware of these problems but now for the first time it is
#actually appearing in print simply because Winchester is basically out
#of business as far as making more M70 Winchesters, this is why for the
#first time we are seeing the truth about the quality of their former
#product in print.
Funny, I was working as a Gun Smith at the time the "new" Winchester
Mdl. 70's came out and the only problem I remember was that they were
impossible to hot dip blue. I'm not saying that no problems existed,
just that we never saw any.
By the way, I have seen one of your super-dooper forged Mausers with
the receiver ring totally shattered which proves that it is possible
to break anything.....
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Dave Hinz
# And yes this should be the final word on castings, they are inferior
# period.
Somehow, I doubt that it will be, but I'm sure I'm not the only person
who would be content to let the subject die.
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Dave Hinz
# And now for the grand el-junko finallay, lets look at the very worst
# of all castings, and the most recent and most modern THE TOTALLY JUNK
# MIM CASTINGS.
Mod, at what point do you pull the plug on this broken record?
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
#
#
#Quote:
#
#The link below provides a brief, informed, and within the limits of
#brevity, very technically accurate review of Ruger's investment
#casting process as applied to firearms parts, the result produced,
#and
#why. Skip to the second of the two posts by Ed Harris because it
#contains all of the first post and more. Ed speaks with well
#educated
#and experienced authority, not seat-of-the-pants opinion.
#
#Response:
#
#Who would you rather believe, a man like me that has 40 plus years of
#real experience with castings or Harris who works for the gun
#industry?
In your forty years in the casting business I wonder whether you ever
noticed that most of the mechanical parts of automobiles are cast;
Many rotating parts of jet engines are cast. If all this casting was
so lousy what did you do? Walk to work?
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
#And now for the grand el-junko finallay, lets look at the very worst
#of all castings, and the most recent and most modern THE TOTALLY JUNK
#MIM CASTINGS.
#
#The new Detonics Company announced on World Wide Cable TV that they
#absolutely refused to use the MODERN JUNK MIM CASTING IN ANY OF THEIR
#WEAPONS. Now when even a firearms company brags on National TV that
#they know how bad MIM castings are I think we had all better sit up
#and take notice before we trust our lives to such trash cast parts in
#any of our defense firearms.
#
#Kimber is well known for going whole hog using MIM parts and there are
#many posts on the net on these junk MIM cast parts failing.
#
#Colt Firearms had so many Junk MIM cast parts fail in their 1911 guns
#and had so many returned they were forced to go back to a spring steel
#extractor and a bar stock hammer. NOW WHAT DOES THAT SHOW YOU WHEN IT
#COMES TO THE ABSOLUTE TRASH OF MIM CAST PARTS.
#
#NEED I GO ON OR DO WE NEED TO DISUCUSS VOLUMES OF FAILURES WITH THE
#VERY WORST OF ALL JUNK CAST PARTS THE MIM CAST PART.
#
#YES THIS IS INDEED THE FINAL WORD, PENULTEMATE, ON THE IRREFUTABLE,
#POSITIVE PROOF ON JUNK CAST PARTS IN ALL FIREARMS.
Most of your arguments are one sided as I have seen forged Colt 1911
slides crack and not just one or two. In fact it was common enough
that gun smiths who accurized 1911's used to caution their customers
that "this is a wad cutter gun. DO NOT fire hard ball ammo in this
weapon".
By the way, how does colt make the receiver halves on the M-16?
Forged?
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Bruce in Bangkok
<jeke...@amplex.net> wrote:
> ...
Undoubtedly true but because one job shop is doing a lousy job doesn't
mean that all jobs of that nature are lousy as "de odder guy" seems to
be saying.
I also expect that the relative difficulty and costs of designing and
fabricating forging dies versus making a mold to cast investment
casting cores may have something to do with it.
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Jimbo
Now I'm afraid to buy any gun.
I think I will go back to using my old recurve bow.
Not the best for CCW but it has never failed me when I used good arrows.
Never had a failure to fire ( due to the weapon ), never had a problem with
the safety, never had a problem with rain and dirt causing reliability
issues ( accuricy issues but never reliability issues ). I did have some
problems with the "ammo" but they were not due to MIM or forging. I think
the glue process is the most problematic with this weapon.
Plus, after 100 rounds, clean up is a snap.
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
jadel
# WOW!!!
#
# Now I'm afraid to buy any gun.
#
# I think I will go back to using my old recurve bow.......
Is it one of those new-fangled plasticky fiberglass bows?
Real bows are made of wood, horn and sinew. (annoying emoticon here)
J. Del Col
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
# By the way, how does colt make the receiver halves on the M-16?
# Forged?
Yes - from http://www.colt.com/mil/M203.asp "The receiver of the M203
is made of high strength, forged aluminum alloy"
browningh...@yahoo.com
Most of your arguments are one sided as I have seen forged Colt 1911
# slides crack and not just one or two. In fact it was common enough
# that gun smiths who accurized 1911's used to caution their customers
# that "this is a wad cutter gun. DO NOT fire hard ball ammo in this
# weapon".
#
# By the way, how does colt make the receiver halves on the M-16?
Ø Forged?
Bruce, 1911 slides get destroyed either from cracking if they are hard
or mushrooming out if they are soft is because when one uses full
power loads in a soft ball gun the soft recoil spring that is put in
the pistol to make it function with soft ball loads let the slide slam
to hard against the frame. Come on Bruce this is gunsmithing 101.
Colt uses forged Aluminum lower receivers in the M16,not junk cast
aluminum receivers. This fact has been know for years, go to any AR15
web site or call Colt.
David R. Birch
# Re, Magnuson's question/comment:
#
# 1. My comments are specific with regard to Swedish Mausers. My
# "report" is memory of discussion with a native Swedish metallurgist on
# an airplane flying across the Atlantic. While in school, he had
# compared Swedish made Swedish mausers made using Swedish Steel versus
# those Obendorf made Swedish Mausers that were made with German steel.
# The percentage or number of Obendorf Swedish Mausers made of German
# steel I can not tell you and at this point. I also can not tell you
# with any certainty whether they were 94's and 96's or both. Other
# than a few allusions to this fact on the internet, I can not provide
# any verfiable source for what I said today. So you either believe what
# I said or you don't.
#
# 2. To my knowlege the most recent Obendorf production of Swedish
# M96's is dated 1900. But I don't claim to know everything and this
# could be wrong. So I am guessing that your 1901 and 1906 references
# are to non-Swedish production about which I know squat.
One problem with this: Sweden required Mauser to set up a separate
foundry at Oberndorf for the production of steel to Swedish specs for
Swedish rifles. They were very protective of the world wide reputation
of Swedish steel. Long after the contract for M94 and M96 Mausers was
over, this building was still referred to as the "Swedish House." Only
prototypes were made from German steel.
David
Knut Piwonski
BHP>By the way there were no German PP series of guns made
BHP>after WWII as they were actually made for Walther by Manurhin in
BHP>France.
Now that's interesting..
Got the source at hand, by the way ?
kind regards
Knut Piwonski
-------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
> ...
My point was in opposition your opinion (as I perceived it) that as
cast parts were bad that forged parts must, therefore be good. I was
pointing out that simply because a part is forged it is not
automatically unbreakable, as you seemed to be implying.
> ...
I was asking because my limited experience with the M-16 (qualifying
only) let me to think that the receiver might have been cast aluminum.
> ...
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
Bruce in Bangkok
<cowar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
That is the M203 grenade launcher, not the M-16 itself. However I did
determine that lower receivers, at least, are made from forged 7075-t6
aluminum.
> ...
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
browningh...@yahoo.com
On Oct 23, 7:01 am, Knut Piwonski <piwonski.nos...@snafu.de> wrote:
# Hello!
#
# BHP>By the way there were no German PP series of guns made
# BHP>after WWII as they were actually made for Walther by Manurhin in
# BHP>France.
#
# Now that's interesting..
# Got the source at hand, by the way ?
#
# kind regards
#
# Knut Piwonski
Absolutely, The original "Swat Magazine" when run by the very infamous
"wild man" "Chuck Taylor" was one block buster of a magazine, not to
be confused with the gun industry butt sucking jerks that run today's
garbage Swat Magaizne. Back in about 1982 between July and Jan Swat
published some really damning articles on some of the "junk" that was
being made at the time including the complete American made trash
PPK's guns.
Now at the time Walther had really screwed Manurhin by taking away
their right to put the Walther Banner on their French produced PP
series of guns. In a rage and who can blame them, non other than
mister big himself, the president of Manurhin at the time, published a
history of Manurhin's production in Swat Magazine, it was a real
shocker for everyone as the truth finally got out as to what had been
going on since the end of WWII in regards to the secret production of
the Walther PP series of pistols
The only thing done to the PP pistols by Walther was to blue them
before shipment worldwide. That way they could lie their pants off as
to them being made in Germany.
John Kepler
# mean that all jobs of that nature are lousy as "de odder guy" seems to
# be saying.
The situation I relayed is based on multiple companies I've dealt with in
over 35 years in the business. The quality of the product is generally
dependant on the size of the operation doing it, based on fairly
distinctive "critical mass" where the business-level of the company can
support the infrastructure and the "corporate culture" that effective
quality assurance requires. In all candor, the low-volume job-caster can do
a credible job when the demands on the part being cast are modest. The more
complex the casting job, the less capable they are of doing it....and a
firearm frame or receiver is a pretty complex/demanding casting-job!
Unfortunately we shooters are miserly, cheap bastards that are totally
scandalized when the price of their "toys" goes up even a couple
bucks....basing their "rage" on the cost, apparently, of the current
available crop of mil-surp grease-balls in circulation....or the prices they
see quoted in a 1950's Sears-Roebuck catalog! Digressing, I've NEVER
understood shooters! We bitch and moan about spending $500 for a rifle that
is built to +- 0.0002" tolerances, expect to drag it through mud and rain
and ALWAYS have it shoot 1-2 MOA, can treat it like this for our entire
lives without having to change a single part....and THEN expect to hand it
to our Grandchildren to do the same! A golfer, on the other hand, will drop
MORE money on a Callaway driver that he MIGHT use for 3 years without
batting an eyelash.....no wonder Ruger has made more money making parts for
golf-clubs than they've EVER made on firearms! This fact of life in the
market is what has been driving the product quality into the Nether Regions
as firms struggling to survive, cutting costs anywhere they can: "We have
met the enemy and he am us!" W. Kelly. Hell, there are production methods
that'll make a rifle or pistol that's better than forging, with little or no
clean-up machining required (high-pressure chill casting), but the tooling
for it is gaspingly expensive, so production volumes approaching the
millions are required for the process to be cost-effective (if you've got an
alloy front suspension knuckle in your car....it's a Hayes-Lemerz
high-pressure chill casting!). But YOU, Mr. Firearm Consumer aren't going
to either A). Buy enough of them ; or B). Pay for the increased quality of
the product to justify the capital expenditure! So, in our apparent penury,
we collectively become "victims" of the "bottom-feeders" of the metal
fabrication industry! Only Ruger......very cross-grainedly (and for how
long now that Bill is dead?), gives shooters at least a shot at a "modern"
firearm, by building firearms more or less as a service, while they keep
their equally cross-grained shareholders from jumping-ship by actually
making money in other areas....don't believe me?.....Read Ruger's Annual
Report!
#
# I also expect that the relative difficulty and costs of designing and
# fabricating forging dies versus making a mold to cast investment
# casting cores may have something to do with it.
Investment casting is nearly the CHEAPEST metal fabrication process there
is....not the best ("sand-casting" is the cheapest!). It's used to save
money, not make a better product (though in the "real world", this statement
is an oxymoron.....lower cost is ALWAYS "better"). With a capable caster
using adequate testing, production control, and effective metallurgical
engineering, the process can deliver sufficient quality to produce a fully
capable firearm AND deliver a product that us cheapskates will continue to
pay for! The rub comes in when you've only got one company doing
that....and lots of others attempting to save the same money without the
same infrastructure or commitment to "do it right!".
John
John Kepler
# determine that lower receivers, at least, are made from forged 7075-t6
# aluminum.
Uppers too!
John
J Buck
that is built to +- 0.0002" tolerances, expect to drag it through mud
and rain and ALWAYS have it shoot 1-2 MOA, can treat it like this for
our entire lives without having to change a single part....and THEN
expect to hand it to our Grandchildren to do the same!>
There's a chapter in Jim Carmichael's 'The Book Of The Rifle' (pages
29-51) entitled 'So Why Don't YOU Make A Rifle?' which explains the
balancing act that manufacturers have to do to make a rifle that is both
affordable and yet still has the features and qualities that we all
demand. It's a great book overall, but that chapter is especially
enlightening.
Bob Holtzman
browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
#
#
# Anyone that cares to look at any industrial catalog will find for
# example the ubiquitous "C" clamp. According to OSHA standards they
# have to be rated according to their safety and tensile strength. Now
# the cheap junk cast "C" clamp of the exact same hardness, thickness
# and size is rated at "2 ½ TIMES WEAKER THAN THE SAME SIZE FORGED
# CLAMP. Now it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out which
# metal is the more durable and the more safe and the more stronger.
#
# I might also add that even with Rugers experience with castings that
# when they first brought out the Mini 14 in Stainless, guess what? The
# brittle cast receivers cracked. It took Ruger awhile to figure out
# how to make them without the brittle receiver cracking whenever the
# bolt cycled and slammed into the action.
I would guess that that was due to improper heat treating. Has nothing to
do with the manufacturing process. If you can document a dimensional change
that was made to the receiver to correct the problem I might be tempted to
eat my words.
--
Bob Holtzman
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
......check the price of the beer!"
Bob Holtzman
browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
# Who would you rather believe, a man like me that has 40 plus years of
# real experience with castings or Harris who works for the gun
# industry?
Harris, because of his training.
#
# Quote:
#
# Hopefully you now recognize that saying two different parts are
# investment cast says virtually nothing about their absolute or
# relative quality without an awful lot of added detail. Excessive
# porosity and "Voids," for example, are not symptomatic of cast parts.
# They are symptomatic of a poorly designed or controlled casting
# process and/or the quality of the raw materials being cast. If your
# idea of a cast steel part is C-clamp made by melting down Chevy's and
# other assorted tin cans and dumping the hot liquid effluent
# haphazardly into a mould, investment, sand, or otherwise, then you
# might consider becoming better informed.
#
# Reply:
#
# When it comes to safety in the work place the cast iron mongers cannot
# lie about their product like they do in the gun industry. OSHA
# mandates they provide the truth. They must list how safe the "C"
# clamps they make are and who much weight and stress they can take.
# They are in every way inferior to the superior forged clamp when made
# to the SAME HEAT TREATMENT, SAME THICKNESS, AND SAME SIZE. If they
# could make a clamp as good as the forged clamp and meet the above
# criteria they would certainly do so because no one would by the more
# expensive to produce forged clamp. They of course cannot do this with
# junk castings.
No one says cast parts are as strong as forged parts OF THE SAME CROSS SECTION.
#
# Quote:
# 1) Keep in mind that in business practice this page constitutes a
# legal contractual obligation to deliver product meeting these
# specifications and has Ruger's name on it. It is not an anonymous
# post from an opinonated gun crank on a bulletin board.
#
# Response:
#
# Attack me personally, call me names, but you cannot refute all the
# recalls Ruger and others have had because of junk cast parts either
# breaking or not even being safe to use such as their recall recently
# of the junk cast safeties on their .45 auto's or their recall on the
# first stainless Mini-14 for cracked brittle receivers. See my other
# post on a whole list of junk cast gun parts that have failed on
# various makes and models of guns down through the years and it is by
# no means complete. Its just a very small sampling of junk cast guns
# breaking down.
#
# 4) As a point of comparison while you look at tensile strength
# ratings, recognize that German ordinance steel (their "good stuff")
# in
# the mid 1890's had about a 45,000 PSI tensile strength. Swedish
# steel
# was superior at the time (ca 60,000 PSI tensile strength). This is
# why the Swedes insisted on rights to make the M96 themselves, dumping
# German production as quickly as they could.
#
# Response:
#
# Where to you get such crap (from the cast iron gun industry of
# course) I have never ever heard of any of the German Guns failing in
# any way. I have both German and Swede 96 produced guns in my
# collection. Surely in over 100 years of use the German guns by now
# would have shown how inferior they were. Facts are that your
# statements are pure rubbish as no such failure as occurred in over 100
# years. Obviously the Swedes found it much cheaper to make the guns
# themselves and the bragged how much greater they were.
Never? Are you claiming that in 100 years there has never a catastrophic
failure of a German Mauser? That's hilarious!
Bob Holtzman
browningh...@yahoo.com wrote:
#
#
# Quote from Penultimate wrote::
.................huge snip.................
Your credibility would be better if you didn't preface every reference
to castings with the word "junk".
fitasc
wrote:
#Who would you rather believe, a man like me that has 40 plus years of
#real experience with castings or Harris who works for the gun
#industry?
Harris, because of his training and credibility. You sir, have proven
yourself to have neither.
Dave Vick
#
# # Who would you rather believe, a man like me that has 40 plus years of
# # real experience with castings or Harris who works for the gun
# # industry?
I have people who have spent decades in my trade who don't know what they're
talking about, either.
--
Dave Vick
NRA Life, MCRGO, MRPA
Camp Perry Volunteer
Guns Don't Kill People, People Yapping on Cellphones While Driving Do
Bluehawk99
these days...your pick.
Colt doesn't make M16s anymore...they basically supply the M4 and it's
derivatives and they don't make them anyway...they contracted them out
some time ago overseas to a company in either Turkey or Greece...if I
remember correctly.
M16-A2's and such are sometimes made on a special order basis by other
companies because Colt doesn't have proprietary rights to it.
I wonder...does Colt actually make anything in-house anymore??
Bruce in Bangkok
This whole argument seems overly stupid. Castings have been used in
weapons quite successfully for several hundred years now, thus
castings are not inherently a bad thing.
Did Admiral Lord Nelson's cast iron cannon blow up at the battle of
Trafalgar? What about the cast French field pieces that Napoleon used
to successfully to conquer Europe? Our own Civil War cast cannon?
"Proof test" has been a standard practice in the firearm manufacturing
industry for a while now. It didn't stop when "forged " guns were
introduced which would lead one to believe that the makers weren't
that certain that forgings were really perfect.
Cast parts have been used in firearm manufacturer for hundreds of
years. The "receivers" of the all metal "Scots" muzzle loading pistol
were cast; all brass parts, such as Colt back straps were cast. The
hilts of many swords are cast - the U.S. Naval cutlass for example.
So, over the years castings have been used for war weapons where
failure could conceivably cause the defeat of the nation. Is it
logical to believe that for all these years the stupid weapon makers
were sabotaging the war effort by using these junk castings when
forgings would have been so much better?
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)
SaPeIsMa
news:fg30r2$5vk$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:54:45 +0000 (UTC), browningh...@yahoo.com
# wrote:
#
#
# #Who would you rather believe, a man like me that has 40 plus years of
# #real experience with castings or Harris who works for the gun
# #industry?
#
# Harris, because of his training and credibility. You sir, have proven
# yourself to have neither.
#
Oh OUch !
Feel the burn.....