M14s and M1As

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hatt
.....No doubt cast works okay for simple, large pieces of steel that aren't subject to tremendous stress.


You bring up a good point I neglected to mention. Not only are forged steel receivers unnecessary, but in many cases steel of any type is not needed. Both Benelli and Browning have gone to Aluminum receivers in their high end semi auto shotguns. Mossberg has built their pumps and semi's on Aluminum receivers for eons. Then there is the Aluminum receiver AR-15 running chamber pressures from 55,000 to 63,000 PSI.

And if I'm not mistaken isn't the Benelli Nova and Remington Versa Max built on a Polymer receiver? When you really think about it, forged receivers are required just about as much as forged rain gutters.
 
Depends on design . How the lockup between barrel and bolt is accomplished .

AR-15 bolt locks into the barrel extension , which screws on to the barrel .

M-14 , M1A , M1 Garand , the bolt locks into the receiver , which is screwed on to the end of the barrel .

The example described on the Ruger single shot , the " locking block " rides in a " slot " in the receiver and the receiver screws on to the end of the barrel .

Rhe K&H and AK receivers are sheet metal .
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
If you're going to buy an old school hunk of steel and wood you want the real thing not a cheapened copy.


My cheapened copy is reliable with all ammunition including reloads, wolf, and tula, shoots one inch or less groups at 100 yards with most ammunition and hasn't cracked or blown up on me yet....

I am with Bilt on this (as usual) there is nothing wrong with casting, especially when the castings are well done and then heat treated properly. SA, Ruger and CZ all do a ton of castings with the track records to prove that they make it work.
 
Casting can be a perfectly fine way to produce stressed metal parts, if the part was engineered with casting as the manufacturing process.

Simply substituting a cast part for one where the original design called for a forging can mean problems or that you're relying on the safety margins that were built into the original design.

It's similar to substituting screws for rivets. Both are fasteners but they have different strengths and weaknesses.

BSW
 
Originally Posted By: bsmithwins
Casting can be a perfectly fine way to produce stressed metal parts, if the part was engineered with casting as the manufacturing process.

Simply substituting a cast part for one where the original design called for a forging can mean problems or that you're relying on the safety margins that were built into the original design.

It's similar to substituting screws for rivets. Both are fasteners but they have different strengths and weaknesses.

BSW


Too true...that's why the Ruger and CZ issues are (as usual), an off topic distraction (look over there, a bunny) to the point at which it was raised...and pointing at an expensive cast early in the thread doesn't make it a better than the original receiver.

Design it that (cast) way is one thing...change later is only for one thing...reducing manufacturing costs, within the design margins of the original.

Forging does lots of things in terms of material flow and grain structure that make the part superior...and the reason that they were made that way in the first instance. In service they proved to be extremely reliable, so they can be cheapened down later.

Not saying that cast isn't good or safe, but that the substituting during production is for price only, not benefits to the end user....especially when it's a really expensive cheapened part like was pointed to earlier.
 
Originally Posted By: bsmithwins
Casting can be a perfectly fine way to produce stressed metal parts, if the part was engineered with casting as the manufacturing process.

Simply substituting a cast part for one where the original design called for a forging can mean problems or that you're relying on the safety margins that were built into the original design.

It's similar to substituting screws for rivets. Both are fasteners but they have different strengths and weaknesses.

BSW


If a word of that is true, why aren't our (there are probably hundreds of thousands) SA m1a's blowing apart? How about cast parts from Ruger or CZ, cracking, splitting, exploding or failing in some way with any more frequency than parts that are made using any other process?

To be clear, I understand what you are trying to say about substituting castings where forgings were originally used but years and years of reliable service from brands using cast parts proves your point wrong.

No one ever said castings are better than forging but that doesn't mean forged parts are the only parts worth using or that forged parts are worth the extra cost involved.
 
I see forged vs cast M14 receivers the same way I see 4140 vs 4150 CMV AR barrels. Real ARs have 4150. Clones have 4140.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bsmithwins
Simply substituting a cast part for one where the original design called for a forging can mean problems or that you're relying on the safety margins that were built into the original design.


AMC is correct. If that was true, then investment cast M1-A receivers would be failing left and right. They're not. There are millions of investment cast M1-A, (Garand) receivers in use that have fired millions of rounds. Even more if you factor in the Ruger Mini 14, that is nothing but a smaller investment cast version of it.

The original Garand / M-14 receivers had to be forged. Because at that time there was no other way to reliably manufacture them. Fast forward to today, and there is with modern vacuum investment casting. We advance in manufacturing, as inventions that grow out of modern science and metallurgy allow us to.

It's why we have alloy wheels on our cars today instead of wooden spokes. And modern robotics doing welding and assembly procedures that never miss a beat. Instead of fat, overpaid, union auto workers, that screwed up more cars than they didn't. Times change. And in manufacturing, that most always means they change for the better.
 
The statement was that substituting a casting for an originally designed forging was working within the safety margins of the original deign.

IT DOES NOT LEAD TO A PILE OF FAILED RECIEVERS LEFT RIGHT AND CENTRE...

You people clearly don't understand design and safety margins, the benefits of forging with regard to grain refinement, metal flow and fatigue...and how understanding failure modes over decades of use and millions of rounds gives you the information that you need to adjust the safety margins to allow cheaper production methods (and then charge $3 grand+ for the savings)

It's a cheaper process, pure and simple...is it adequate ?

Of course

Is it leading to a pile of failed receivers left and right ?

Of course not, no-one has said that, that's YOUR (multiple parties) strawman.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
Real ARs have 4150. Clones have 4140.


And if one of each left the factory without being stamped, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
That's the point. I'd never know but I like stuff that is built to at least a minimum standard.
 
Just like with tool steel vs. MIM in a higher-end 1911, I’d rather have a forged receiver if they don’t charge a crazy premium for it (JRA doesn’t charge an outlandish sum for their M14 with forged receiver).

If the cost is about the same, then why not go with the better/stronger receiver?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The statement was that substituting a casting for an originally designed forging was working within the safety margins of the original deign.


You keep overstating the obvious. When has that ever not been the case? When in modern firearms manufacturing, has vacuum investment casting ever produced a product that was dangerous and inferior? Or in the automotive world? Every cast alloy wheel you see on today's new cars meets or exceeds D.O.T. specs. They couldn't sell it if it didn't. It would be a silly waste of time and money to try to forge them in some unnecessary attempt to make them "stronger". The fact is in a great many manufacturing cases, forging has become an expensive, outdated, obsolete process. Back to the wooden spoke automotive wheels, and the overpaid auto workers who screw up on a daily basis. And because of that, they have been replaced with better methods and products.

No company, least of all Ruger, is going to risk putting a weapon on the market that is dangerous, weak, or knowingly faulty. Just because they want to employ a cheaper manufacturing process. They would be sued out of business. No one ever said the by product of modern vacuum investment casting is not faster production. It is. How could it not be? And that automatically translates to a greater degree of profit. That's not a bad thing. Profit is what keeps companies in business.

You're way over complicating this. As soon as it started, this thread right away drifted to the same, "forged is better than cast", argument they all do. It's a B.S. argument. And it always has been. Investment casting has improved today to the point it is more than capable of producing satisfactory parts that were once forged or machined. With zero difference in overall quality. Just like MIM is following in it's footsteps. And regardless of how much the process improves, there will always be people who will insist it's, "not as good". A part is only required to be as strong as it needs to be. Any more and it becomes an unnecessary waste of time and expense. And when you waste time and money in manufacturing, you go broke.

Yet most people see these manufacturing changes as some sort of "cheapening" of the product that somehow makes it inferior. Resulting in something that's, "not as good". It's pure hogwash, because they can never document the cast parts are somehow contributing to an inferior product. Because they're not. People, especially gun enthusiasts, like to see things overbuilt. It's not necessary, but they want it anyway. It proves and accomplishes nothing.
 
cheapening...reducing in cost...Exactly the argument that you've been touting the whole thread...then backing with an overly expensive lower manufacturing cost product.

Are they doing this to give you a "better" product ?

With modern techniques you are saying that a modern state of the art cast is better than a modern state of the art forged ?
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
If the cost is about the same, then why not go with the better/stronger receiver?


How is it "better / stronger"? Is there ANY information out there that proves a forged 1911 will live to a higher round count than a cast 1911? Is there any documented proof that shows cast 1911's have a higher failure rate? If there is I've never seen it. We're right back at square one. "Forged is better than cast". But with no evidence of what, if anything, the real gain is. Because both will produce a product that is as strong or stronger then it is required to be.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
If the cost is about the same, then why not go with the better/stronger receiver?


How is it "better / stronger"? Is there ANY information out there that proves a forged 1911 will live to a higher round count than a cast 1911? Is there any documented proof that shows cast 1911's have a higher failure rate? If there is I've never seen it. We're right back at square one. "Forged is better than cast". But with no evidence of what, if anything, the real gain is. Because both will produce a product that is as strong or stronger then it is required to be.


But you have reiterated time after time that the change in production method is for reduced manufacturing costs.

Again, are you saying that a modern technology casting is superior to a modern technology forging ?
 
Oh, sorry, we are off in 1911 land now..."look over there, another bunny"

after being in "designed from the get go" rugerland and CZville.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Falcon_LS
  • Locked
08 Mitsubishi Galant (3.8L V6)
2
Replies
37
Views
20K
cb450sc
F
  • Locked
explaining the Harley Davidson fascination...
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
91K
G-MAN
S
  • Locked
Best cricket sledges compilation
Replies
11
Views
16K
97tbird
Shannow
  • Locked
You know you are an Aussie
Replies
18
Views
6K
Kira
S
  • Locked
Sheila's outnumber men 5-to-1
Replies
12
Views
2K
Pontius Pilate
Back
Top Bottom