Nowhere did I say anything against cast parts.
My involvement was simply & ONLY to correct an early statement in this thread about the Inland guns being mil-spec, which they are not.
To those who don't understand the concept behind mil-spec, it may make no difference.
To those who do, it may.
I've also gone to great pains to say that I am NOT addressing quality on the new Inlands.
I've worked with two Kahrs in the past, the first was faulty, the replacement ran fine.
I have handled & discussed one of the new Inlands with Norton.
It looked just like a gun.
Beyond that, I have not fired one or broken one down, so I again make no comments regarding their quality or functionality.
And mil-spec does specify materials & methods used to produce EVERY SINGLE PART on a military-acceptance gun.
It does not merely mean that parts are interchangeable.
Materials are specified, dimensions are specified, production methods are specified, processes are specified, heat treating is specified, and so on.
That's exactly what mil-spec means.
The military lays out those specs to assure uniformity of parts, not merely in interchangeability, but in performance and long-term durability.
A frame may be (as an example) specced to be 4140 forged steel because the physical properties & performance of 4140 steel are long-established & well known.
On a hypothetical government contract let out to more than one maker, or a long-term contract with one maker, having a 4140 spec means we don't have to worry about what steel grade/formulation/alloy may be used by a maker.
We don't have to worry about Maker A using 4140 carbon, Maker B using 420 stainless, Maker C using a very cheap casting, or Maker D using compressed tinfoil.
There are, just like forged steel, several variations in cast receiver materials.
A properly-done cast part can be perfectly fine in carrying out the same functions as a forged counterpart.
A poorly-done cast part may show very crude "form", with rounded corners & edges & angles where they should be "sharp" or square, wavy lines, improper dimensions in critical areas, and so on.
It may use a lesser grade of material.
The heat treat may be less than needed.
It may be too soft & wear too soon, with a much shorter working life than a forged counterpart.
It may be brittle & crack early on.
A non-mil-spec cast part is simply an unknown part.
There are no existing standards to assure quality & duration.
A gove contract without established and enforceable specs, whether from one maker or several, runs the risk of getting a wide range of materials' quality.
Each maker may do whatever they choose to do in cutting costs, and without established standards even a single maker that starts out high may switch to low quality to save money halfway through a contract run.
DO NOT RUN OFF ON A TANGENT WITH WHAT I'M SAYING HERE.
I AM NOT stating or implying in any way that the current Inlands are low quality, or that they use inferior materials, parts, or processes.
I AM ONLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF MIL-SPEC REGARDING OTHER COMMENTARY ON THE SUBJECT.
Cast parts in an M1 carbine are simply not mil-spec.
Beginning, end, done.
That's it, that's all.
Don't quote me in defending or attacking cast parts in this gun, or the quality or lack there-of in this gun.
I take no position on either side.
Denis