Revolver frames

I believe that Ruger uses investement cast receivers. As far as I know Colt and S&W use forged units. Other makers I don't know. Cast will generally be a bit bulkier than forged so you may be able to tell by examining a particular piece.
 
Taurus drop forged

I'm answering my own post. I checked the website, and apparently they are drop hammer forged. I think now that I know this, I would go right past the ruger and head for the taurus or smith, which is also forged. I have more faith in forged than cast.
 
Cast or forged , who cares and what diffrent does it make? Ruger makes some of the strongest firearms in the market place bar none.
 
Knew that would get a response

I know they make a great gun. I have one of their P89's. Weight vs strength, forged is stronger than cast, that's all. :o
 
This is not cast as in cast iron, they used investment casting. It's too long a procedure to go into each step, however with the use of investment casting ( powder steel ) the result is a frame that is as strong as any forge frame. Investment casting is being used for a number of items incluing high stress aircraft parts. No, forged is not stronger than investment casting. Sorry about that.
 
Unless your planning to use the gun to pound nails with, Taurus is simply not in the same ballpark as Ruger. Taurus is not a bad gun, just not up to the big three standards.
 
I'm no metal expert but I know the car guys always say forged crankshafts are stronger than cast ones and cast gun frames are physically larger in order to equal forged ones. The Rugers work fine but I think forged steel is stronger pound for pound than cast which is used to save money, not make the gun stronger.
 
Manufacturers use casting for one reason: It keeps costs down. This is not a bad thing, it makes things more affordable. Tooling for drop forging is expensive, and also has to be maintained or replaced over time. However, when drop forging is used, the "grain" of the part produced takes the shape of that part. This makes it stronger in all directions. It also increases it's density. Cast parts have no grain to them. Billet has grain, but it is directional,or linear. Strong in one direction, but weaker in another. This is why Forged parts tend to bend or deform before they fail, whereas cast parts simply fail catostrophically, just snap. ;)
 
Let me understand just what you are saying. You are comparing the steel in a cars crankshaft to the steel used in aircraft landing gear and firearms? You are saying that investment casting is weaker than forged steel? Then the turbine engine engine in the M1A1 tank and the tank its self is not as strong as the ,say T-72 because the it uses investment casting in every major component and the T-72 doesn't. Wow Then the Ruger must be weaker than a S&W or Taurus?. Once more, I'm not talking about cast iron or cast steel. The cast steel in a crankshaft is not investment casting . One way to put it, powder steel is turned to molten steel under pressure and the part is forged in the mold. Thats not really the way it happens but it's close enought. The frames used by Ruger are 15 % stronger than Taurus or Smith and Wesson. You may not like it , and I'm sorry about that , but there it is,
 
Rjay, you are correct. Investment casting is used in turbine blades and many aircraft parts. The industry also feels the need to produce higher stressed parts by forging, such as the turbine discs and shafts, as well as landing gear beams and higher stressed airframe parts.
http://www.investor.reuters.com/business/BusCompanyFullDesc.aspx?ticker=PCP.N&target=%2fbusiness%2fbuscompany%2fbuscompfake%2fbuscompdescr
I also believe T72's use diesel engines. Also the construction of the armor is different. I believe the hull is welded rolled steel, and the turret is cast. I know the Ruger frames are strong, and I wouldn't turn a ruger down, but much of the strength comes from extra material, and the quality of the material used. I would like to know how the quality of materials varies from revolver manufacturer to manufacturer. That would be an interesting discussion as well.
 
Given equivalent technology and correct design, a forging of a particular steel will be stonger than a casting of the same steel.

Rjay, it sounds like you are confusing Metal Injection Molding (which uses a powdered metal) with casting, which uses liquid metal. Investment casts are exactly the same size as the finished product, MIMs are oversized and shrink. MIMs are more finished and have better surface treatment, but can be brittle. I.C.s are very uniform, but aren't as strong. Both are cheap alternatives to machined forgings, but forgings aren't always necessary.


Ruger frames are stronger because of their shape. Period. Things like not having side plates are much more important than the material density. However, if Ruger's were copies of S&W pattern guns, they would break more than the forged Smith.

Ruger made his fortune by coming up with designs that best use lower cost production techniques without sacrificing strength. Nothing wrong with that, but no one calls a Ruger "elegant", either. Their two "compact" pistols are the relatively huge P93 and SP101.
 
Last edited:
Cast

All steel starts out molten. Some is made into blocks which have gun parts machined out of them. Ruger just injects the steel into a mold then machines off a small amount of steel to get it perfect. Much less waste and cost that way. Steel assuming it is the same quality comes out exactly the same. SOme of the finest knife steels are doing this today also. That is why top notch knife prices are so reasonable. The engine analogy doesnt hold up since most cranks are cast IRON and forged steel are the high strength ones. I have not heard of a cast STEEL crank. But then I haven't looked since chevy V-8s were the norm.
 
No. I also said that they are heavier and larger.

To many people, that's the opposite of better design.



You knew that, but thanks for bringing the discussion down a notch.



Gunsmith, forging involves more than simply letting steel cool. It creates steel that is denser and has an organized grain structure.
 
Nope, what you said was (and I quote), "Ruger frames are stronger because of their shape. Period." That's more than just a little different than "they are heavier and larger." :p

"Shape" and "things like not having side plates" sound a whole lot like design and engineering, don't they?
 
I am not a metallurgist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Are there commonly-accepted uniform 'recipes' for steel used in firearms manufacture? If so, if two manufacturers are both using the same grade of steel, and both forging major parts, would one expect the parts from each manufacturer to be essentially identical in strength?

And if I recall correctly, I thought I had read that for the S&W and Taurus titanium revolvers, the major titanium parts are machined from extruded bar stock. I have heard that for many applications, an equivalent size part in titanium in generally stronger than the equivalent size part in steel. Is this primarily a function of the inherent strength of titanium, or is it also a function of how the part is manufactured; i.e.: machined from extruded stock vs. forged?
 
I would suggest that Ruger's strength is more attributable to the heat treating process used to complement the properties of the alloy they have, rather than any specific design feature.

I have to admit that I am a forging snob. I will always prefer forging to casting, but acknowledge that it is mere personal preference.
 
JC, did you miss
but no one calls a Ruger "elegant", either. Their two "compact" pistols are the relatively huge P93 and SP101.
Click to expand...
Same post, and I'm referring to the size and weight of those designs. Shape neither implies or excludes differences in size or volume. You can compare a block and sphere by volume, outer dimensions or surface area, but you can't make any two of those equal. Size, volume and weight are DEPENDANT on shape. Ruger's chosen shape is both larger and heavier than S&Ws, as well as more mechanically advantageous. You can hold up a bridge with a 1000 pounds of slender cable, or several tons of voluminous concrete. Done right, the concrete can be stronger, or not. It will always be bigger.

You're a smart guy, why do act like this?



Millcreek,

The steel alloy is one thing, HOW it is forged and into what shape is another. How that shape is machined is another variable that determines how stresses are handled. Heat treat is another. Doing anyone one of them wrong can make a huge difference.

Titanium is weaker than steel in most applications, except by weight. But if you made a gun out of the same weight of Ti as steel, it would be as big as a Ruger! Ti is a great material to replace steel when the steel part wasn't fully stressed or when something mostly as durable as steel is needed (like a firing pin or hammer). You can make a revolver out of aluminum, so it is a foregone conclusion that Ti will work and be even stronger - but steel is still king.

To my knowledge, there is no metal stronger, by volume, than steel. And handguns are really all about volume of material, since they are made to be small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top