1911 forged vs cast ?

I

isi07734

New member
sup chaps-
i was at the local gun shop today and checked out an IAI 1911 (israeli) the gus there spoke highly of them and said it was the ultimate 1911 for the buck as it came with ambi safties, combat hammer, beavertail. ANYWAY- its cast and i was wondering what the main diff is bw forged and cast, anyone? also, saw a new cz75 with a 10 mag and a 15 mag for 400 good deal? i think so..
 
I think forged steel is more corrosion resistant, and it's stronger...less air bubbles. Forged is more solid. Cast steel is more like high carbon steel. Comparing forged steel to cast steel is like comparing pine to plywood. One is carved (forged) from a natural block and one is made from mixing it and basically glueing it together. Forged is stronger and more solid.

I'm not 100% sure. But I think that's the difference.
 
With all respect, the fellow on the Gunsmith forum seems to have experience only in forging small parts (probably knife blades) and he says he has no experience in casting.

He is correct on how drop forging is done, but it is not just somebody with a hammer. A drop forge strikes white hot steel with tons of pressure and that is what compresses and aligns the steel fibers to give extra strength. If you want to see a forging, look at the S&W ads in the magazines. That scandium frame is a forging; as you see, it has a long way to go to become a frame. (Actually, aluminum alloy is not strengthened by forging; I suspect S&W just does all their frames the same way.)

Casting, as he says, is simply pouring molten steel into a mold. It is a complex process. First a master part is made (or already exists if the casting is to copy a part) from steel, plastic, or even wood. This is used to make a master steel mold. From the master mold, wax copies of the part are made. Then the wax copies are dipped repeatedly in a ceramic slurry and dried until the wax is surrounded by a ceramic mold. The molten steel is then poured in, which melts out the wax. When the steel cools, the ceramic mold is broken and the part is ready for final machining.

In either case, there will need to be machining. No part from the mold, and even less from the forge, will be "ready to go". How much work needs to be done depends on the part.

Which is stronger? Well, both Ruger and S&W make revolvers in .357 aqnd .44 Magnum. Ruger's frames are cast, S&W's are forged. Which has to be thicker to achieve the necessary strength?

Are 1911 cast frames OK? Yes, for the most part. But the pistol was designed to use forged steel. There is no free lunch, even with modern casting. If a cast part has to be thicker to have the same strength, then cast parts of the same thickness as forged will have less strength. But John Browning designed so much overstrength into the 1911, that it can be made of cast steel and work fine. That is not true of all the parts, unfortunately. (Many people will say that cast parts can be made as hard as forged. True, but hardness is not strength; glass is hard but breaks pretty easily.)

Jim
 
But it really gets more complicated than that.

As Jim Keenan said, machining will be necessary. The forged pieces will probably need a lot more machinging - which will only add stresses to the metal. Some large parts are machined from a bar, which is very extensive machining.
Further, there is the quality of heat treatment. Older Hi Powers were forged, machined, and heat treated to a hardness of about RC20. The newer frames, since the .40 S&W are cast, machined, and heat treated to RC 40. I think I'd rather take my chances with the new frame.

And Ruger revolver frames, which are cast, are proverbially strong.
 
The smith that wrote the post has quite a bit of experience. I don't think he was trying to belittle either product...rather, it appeared to me that he thought a lot of BOTH types...as long as they were both done PROPERLY.

I have to think that we won't know the whole story with all this until some of the Caspian and Essex and other well cast parts have been around longer.

The years of use and users actually giving feedback about how these products hold up in actual use in GUNS will tell the tale.

There's no doubt about the quality of the original design, but there's nothing wrong with trying new things within the limits of the design. We love these things because of so many different reasons but one of them has always been that they will run with practically any conglomeration of decent parts you can find, make, or locate on the battlefield...
bandit.gif
 
CAST VS FORGE

the biggest difference is in the grain of the metal. This is similar to the grain in wood but in metal it has to do with the crystalline pattern in the metal. This can be seen by polishing the surface and then acid etching the surface.

Forging (Drop Forging) forces the grain of the crystals in the metal to flow to the shape of the part, in some places the crystalline grain is very fine, this is especially desireable in high stress areas like the trigger mounting area or the recoil lug pin and also the slide rails. The finer the grain or crystalline pattern in the metal typically the stronger the part. Samauri swords were forged from two types of iron one was harder the other was softer, these two pieces were forge welded togetherand beaten into a long ingot and then folded and forge welded together again making 4 layers, 2 hard and 2 soft. this was repeated many times (10 times give you 2048 layers of metal that was alternating hard and soft.
Modern day forging does this with homogenous (sp) metals by forcing the grain or crystals to the correct position in the part, this can have its problems but done properly I would take a forged part over a cast part any day... just ask dragster engine builder or nascar race engine builders which crankshaft, connecting rods and pistons are the best, they will tell you forges any day, they are lighter and stronger than cast...

Casting allows the crystalline grain to flow into the mold by either pressure or commonly by gravity. Grain in the part can be influenced by where the flue (the place the metal is poured into the mold) is placed and by risers placed in the mold. Risers are places in the mold that allow extra metal to stay to help in filling the mold, cooling the mold or effecting the grain or stresses in the final cast.

Ruger uses a type of casting called investment casting where a mold is used to make a part that looks like the finished piece only slightly larger to allow for final finishing. This item is then dipped in a ceramic slurry and then coated with a ceramic dust and repeated until it has a nice even and thick coat of investment(ceramic) over it, this mold and investment then are heated to burn out the mold part and leave a interior cavity in the ceramic investment. This is now a hollow mold to pour in the molten steel for the frame etc. These can make for some very detailed interiors of the mold depending upon the detail of the form the investment is formed around. After the metal is poured into the mold and cooled the investment is broken off the finished casting.
Investment casting can be cheaper than machining a metal mold and repeatedly filling it and splitting it open, sealing it back together repeat, these molds are very expensive and will wear out quickly causing an increasing loss of tolerance.

All parts need to be stress relieved after machining.

Anybody who even thinks this can be done in a home forge is loony, this process is strictly for mass production plants
 
A couple of things, just for the hell of it. Both are good processes to a final product. Casting is more cost effective than forging. Typically with the same media, forging tends to be stronger in ways guns need to be stronger, in handling impact resistance and shock load...etc. Castings are usually more brittle...which may be good or may not be, depending on the material its cast from.
Typically if machining is done correctly, it will have little or no effect on the strength of the end product. If it is done incorrectly, it can alter the temper of certain materials or work harden others. Either way you have changed the make up of the frame.
In lighter materials ...alloys, unobtanium etc....I would take a forged frame. In steel frames...either will suffice....for me that is.
OR I COULD BE WRONG? :D
Shoot well
 
When I first encountered the Caspian slidea and frames many years ago, I heard that they had been supplying parts to Detonics. Of course, Detonics never really got that many guns out there to give us a good read on durability. I have an old parts gun 1911 built on an Essex cast frame, and it's provided good service through many thousands of rounds.

I think forging does give you a tougher frame, but for a 1911, the casting seems to work.
 
Perfessr,
Check your data on weight differences between castings and forgings. Take a cast part and a forged part of identical dimensions and the forged part is heavier, as the metal itself is compacted as it is being beaten by the hammer. Good work on the casting explanation. The lost wax method you describe was, IIRC, invented by the Egyptians and used during the time of the Pharoh's, although their manufacturing wasn't in steel, nor were their tolerances as close as what has been achieved in this day and age.
Also, aluminum forgings are more durable than cast aluminum parts, although castings made today with high amounts of silicon are quite durable. Forged aluminum parts have been used in racing engines for decades in some arenas, but endurance racing see's more forged steel for its ability to handle greater stress. In addition to castings being lighter than forgings, a cast part does not expand as much as a forging, so parts subjected to a lot of heat-pistons, for example, can be fitted closer to the cylinder dimension with obvious benefits, such as smaller compression rings, etc.
Forged vs cast may be coming full circle as CNC machines are able to work in much closer tolerances than before, and are becoming competitive with cast parts.
 
Hello. I don't "know" which is best, but can say that the MkIII cast frame BHPs I'm shooting are holding up quite well and the Caspian frame/Colt slide 1911 below has the cast Caspian frame and has well over 30K rounds through it with no problems.

Best.

fdf59f96.jpg
 
I think we are all talking theory here, not practice. I have seen some reports of M14 (forged) rifles having been fired 400k recorded rounds and up, with many barrel replacements, and still going strong. But some M1A (cast) rifles can match or almost match that, and Springfield Armory, Inc. claims it has never had an M1A wear out, again with the exception of barrels.

Jim
 
Here is one mans uninformed opinion.

Forging was the earliest known means of creating incredibly tough metal parts. Especially parts that are exposed to extremes in heat and impact.

Casting is more economical.

Metalurgy has come a long way, even in the past 30 years.

If a company that makes a quality product like the Browning Hi Power decided to go to cast frames, which they did around 89, then you would probably be safe to assume that they felt they knew enough about what they were up to to carry the quality forward with the product. Certainly the performance of the new Mark III Hi Powers bears that out.

Most of the small metal parts on the Kimbers are MIM (Metal Injected Molding) parts. This is a fascinating process where finely ground metals are blended, turned into a paste, injected into a mold, baked and turned into finished parts with a minimum to no machining. Again, saving time, tooling, skills and ultimately money over machined parts. Kimber is still in business after selling thousands of 1911's with MIM parts in them.

Smiths have told me they prefer forged because of the machineability and weldability of those parts.

But in terms of tough and serviceable, modern cast parts seem to do just fine.

That does not mean that all cast parts are good and of course it would be good to be able to observe a track record or know that the maker of your weapon has a good reputation.

But the old gunshow wives tales about cast being junk and forged being the only way to go are just not holding up to the reality of everyday use we see with thousands of quality weapons that are cast.

I have some of each and don't consider it a factor in my decision making on a gun.
 
Drop-forged parts, when done correctly, will always be stronger than cast parts, when done correctly. Look to other industries for proof of this: high performance eingine parts, such as connecting rods, pistons and crankshafts; hand tools like wrenches and breaker bars; metalworking tooling like dies and end mills; gas-turbine fan shafts. All the strongest, most duarble, highest power:weight, etc.., are forged, and for a reason. The gun industry hasn't somehow come upon a magical formula of casting that changes the rules of metalurgy folks, no matter what Bill Ruger would have you think. Is casting good enough? Sure it is, since Super Blackhawks are cast. HOWEVER, if you'll notice, Ruger's M77 Express and Magnum receivers are milled from barstock, not cast. Drop-forged will always have the edge in strength, when done properly.
 
Last edited:
Jim Keenan

I do not know too much on this subject. But your comparison of a suger revolver to a smith revolver seems invalid to me. The ruger is thicker but they also handle loads fair in excess to what a smith can handle. Take the ruger only data in reloading manuals for the 45 colt for example. You also don't see anyone making 5 shot cylinders with super mag rounds like you do on ruger six gun frames. The frames are thicker because Bill Ruger made his guns that way not because he had to for the necessary strength.
PAT
 
It seems after reading these posts that the question is not which is stronger but rather is cast strong enough or does it even matter. The answer seems to be no. Who has had a cast frame fail on them. Were talking guns that fire a low pressure pistol round.
PAT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top