Are Rugers Junk Made From Cast Steel

[bouncer50]

Went i was growing up in the late 60"s guy used to say if it not forge steel it junk. Guys claim the investment casting is not strong enough for gun making. One guy claim it was pot metal they used by Ruger. The 22 pistol they claim were the frame was made in half and welded together with was TRUE. I did not buy my first Ruger till 1979. BOY how wrong those so call gun idiots were about Rugers. How many other hear story about investment casting in gun making

[DougGuy]

I thought it ingenious on Ruger's part to figure out how to use different grades of stainless to keep the parts from galling, when everybody else in the industry was making stainless autos that needed a can of anti-seize every couple hundred rounds or they would cease to function.

Rugers are cast, but there is some serious technology that goes into their casting processes.

[Outpost75]

When I attended the police armorer's school at Ruger's plant in Newport, NH, we were shown the casting operation at Pine Tree Casting, and followed raw steel through the entire manufacturing process, the foundry, lotting up parts and routing them through the various machining, heat treatment, assembly, proof and function firing and extensive quality assurance measures, which in included ultrasonic and xray, as well as magnetic particle inspection. I can tell you from personal experience that Rugers are among the best engineered, reliable and strong guns out there on the market.

I would put Ruger's metallurgical expertise up there with the best in the firearms industry worldwide.

My experience with other well known US makers has not been as favorable. The American gun companies which no longer in the business or which have had repeated financial troubles or been taken over by foreign investors got there by their own doing.

IMHO Ruger is the best bang for the buck in an American gun which works. It may not be fancy, but while people make a good living fixing S&Ws and Colts, with over a million Ruger Security Sixes, Service Sixes, Speed Sixes, and now SP101s and GP100s out there, and that's only the DA wheelguns, you very seldom see a used Ruger in a gunshop, but S&Ws by the basketful. Therein lies a clue....

[44 Special]

Ruger has proved the so called "experts" wrong many, many times in the last 50 years.

[pworley1]

I have never had a problem with any of my rugers.

[lefty o]

rugers castings are for the most part excellent, they have that figured out and actually do alot of casting for others in the industry. now however much of their small parts are now MIM, and thats bad news, they dont have it figured out yet. maybe someday they will get the quality up on the MIM, but as of now their MIM is the equal of classic old pot metal, and is something i dont want in any gun i may need to depend on.

[JSnover]

...much of their small parts are now MIM, and thats bad news, they dont have it figured out yet. maybe someday they will get the quality up on the MIM, but as of now their MIM is the equal of classic old pot metal, and is something i dont want in any gun i may need to depend on.
I've had this argument before... all have to add is that your opinion appears to be in the minority.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=523874

[merlin101]

I have never had a problem with any of my rugers.

I have, but the true measure of a professional is how they handle the problems. Ruger is a stand up company!

[shoot-n-lead]

IMHO Ruger is the best bang for the buck in an American gun which works. It may not be fancy, but while people make a good living fixing S&Ws and Colts, with over a million Ruger Security Sixes, Service Sixes, Speed Sixes, and now SP101s and GP100s out there, and that's only the DA wheelguns, you very seldom see a used Ruger in a gunshop, but S&Ws by the basketful. Therein lies a clue....


For the record...there are TONS more S&W revolvers out there, than Ruger's. S&W has been producing double action revolver since the turn the century...BEFORE LAST...so there SHOULD be more of their guns having to be repaired. I have owned a pile of S&W revolvers, shot them a BUNCH and never had a hiccup with even one of them. It is fine to state that Ruger makes a good DA gun...but if you want to be honest, you have to ackowledge that S&W does also, whether you like that or not.

To the point of the op, the investment casting on Ruger guns, is first rate. However, Ruger QC leaves a lot to be desired. Of the 7 new Ruger's that I have bought in the last 2 years...3 have had problems...failure rate of 44%...for me.

[osteodoc08]

Ruger makes a fine product. There will be duds anywhere.

Smith also makes a fine product. I had to send my 586 back for light primer strikes. It was fixed, reblued and sent back in no time. It is one of my favorite L frames.

Only Ruger I sent back was a 3screw for an update, timing issue and refinish. Basic refinish done free of charge. Updated and back and running.

[Ola]

Here in Northern Europe sending American guns back to factory for repairs is VERY difficult and takes usually YEARS to get it back.
That's why Ruger is the smarter choise here. When one buys a Ruger, one gets a Ruger. Nothing fancy but it usually works as it is designed to work.

S&W-revolvers used to be highly regarded pieces of art. But ones produced in resent years have been mostly pieces of something else. Even the distributor got so fed up with current S&W's not passing the mandatory C.I.P.-inspection or having other quality problems, that they gave it up. S&W is not imported here anymore.

I'm not saying ALL S&W's are bad. There are gems. You just have to find one of those and it is as good as or better than any Ruger.

[MakeMineLead]

Shooters by nature, tend to be a suspicious lot! Anything new is always viewed with a jaundiced eye, and declared shoddy before the facts are in. The difference between a walnut stock and a synthetic stock is the synthetic is a cheesy Tupperware affair that belongs in the Mrs. kitchen. Some are cheesy, flexible, collapsing junk. Others are as good, and many ways better then wood! The new Ruger RAR and 50th anniversary synthetic stocks are excellent! Savage uses McMillan and brown synthetic stocks on some of their law enforcement 10 series. MIM is the same! Quality MIM beats shoddy MIM any day! I have several S&W's w/ MIM parts. They are excellent quality.

Of course, every man is entitled to his own opinion. I'm just sayin'...


rugers castings are for the most part excellent, they have that figured out and actually do alot of casting for others in the industry. now however much of their small parts are now MIM, and thats bad news, they dont have it figured out yet. maybe someday they will get the quality up on the MIM, but as of now their MIM is the equal of classic old pot metal, and is something i dont want in any gun i may need to depend on.

[stormingnorm]

I love my security six. I bought it new in 1981. It was stolen from a household shipment went I changed duty stations in 1984. I got it back in 1993 just before I retired from usn. I was beat up and blue in is bad but still shoots like when I first got it.

[dubber123]

Rugers are generally very functional, usually quite accurate firearms. Their fit and finish is not always the best, but they sell for a lower price point. I have a few Rugers and am happy with the ones I own. Anyone who thinks they don't produce some awful stuff on occasion.. Well Ha! :)

[lefty o]

I've had this argument before... all have to add is that your opinion appears to be in the minority.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=523874

i dont much care if you think my opinion is in the minority, ive had broken MIM parts from both ruger, and remingturd. parts that should never break!

[bob208]

I don't know how the new rugers are. I have not wore out or had any of my old one break yet. some I have owned for 40 years.

[NoAngel]

If Ruger is so junky and no good because of the "Casting" then tell me why my reloading manual has pages that read...."RUGER ONLY!" and list data that would turn any Colt into a fragmentation grenade.

[M-Tecs]

!

1948 production long-action .38/44 Outdoorsman Target model
http://www.fototime.com/17FE3C09B74CEAE/large.jpg



:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::holysheep:holysheep

[Vulcan Bob]

What he said!
If Ruger is so junky and no good because of the "Casting" then tell me why my reloading manual has pages that read...."RUGER ONLY!" and list data that would turn any Colt into a fragmentation grenade.

[bluelund79]

Here is a "basketful" of S&Ws, not one of which has been to the gun shop ! ;) Each is a shooter that currently lives in my safe. I sure have not seen a lot of S&Ws (basketfuls) at my gunsmith and they are a busy operation!

1948 production long-action .38/44 Outdoorsman Target model
http://www.fototime.com/17FE3C09B74CEAE/large.jpg

I do own several Ruger .44 Special single action revolvers that are exceptionally nice shooters but they revisited the factory ! Quality control is not what it should be !

I will admit that I do not purchase current production S&W revolvers ! :)

Jerry

My new hero! That is quite a collection. I love my Smith's and Ruger's......

[MtGun44]

What a ridiculous claim.

[GLL]

What a ridiculous claim.

;) A little tongue-in-cheek to go along with the "basketfuls" of S&Ws littering the floor of gunshops ! :)

I removed the photo that offended you !

Jerry

[Piedmont]

If Ruger is so junky and no good because of the "Casting" then tell me why my reloading manual has pages that read...."RUGER ONLY!" and list data that would turn any Colt into a fragmentation grenade.

Oh, my guess is because that Ruger cylinder is much larger in diameter.

[jonp]

Rugers may not be the most refined revolvers out there but there is a reason reloading manuals have a Ruger Only section. Anyone that says they are junk or not strong enough are flat out idiots and probably spend a lotof time wowing everyone in the gunstore with their extensive knowledge on every subject including how shooting cast will ruin a gun

Rugers are the Hummers of the gun world.

[JSH]

I started cleaning out my SW's and switching to Rugers. I am down to just a few left. If Ruger made a DA in 45acp the 625 would be gone in a flash.
Oh yes the triggers may need some work, but have not picked up a new smith that didn't either.
All of the center fire Ruger wheel guns I have bought equaled then bested the smiths I had, in the accuracy department.
Folks will gripe about the DA triggers but I have two GP 100's that are as smooth and slick as any smith. I have two more to work on and a third that is almost done.
Jeff

[Petrol & Powder]

There's a lot of different influences that go into bashing one brand over another.
1. Validation - I purchased brand X so it must be the best and brand Y has to be junk or else I would have purchased that brand.
2. It's new or different so it cannot be as good as the time tested method - They use forged steel before and the casting process is new and less expensive so casting must be inferior?
3. Lack of knowledge - I don't know anything about cast steel so it must be bad
4. Manifestation of personal prejudice - I don't like Rugers so I have to come up with some alleged reason to support my view, such as Ruger uses cast steel and that is bad.
5. Herd mentality coupled with ignorance - this is probably the leading source of disparaging remarks concerning guns. Let's face it, there are countless individuals that lack even the basic desire, not to mention capability, of learning. They are easily manipulated by others who are influenced by reasons 1 -4 listed above.

I have revolvers from S&W, Colt and Ruger. The S&W and Colts are manufactured using essentially the same methods of forging and machining which is old technology, comparatively expensive to produce but well established.
Ruger makes use of investment casting of steel which reduces the manufacturing costs and yields a strong, almost finished part.

I can attest to the strength of Ruger products and they are some of my favorite revolvers.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Investment casting is as strong as necessary for any SA revolver, it's used by major gun manufacturers in the 1911, bolt action and falling block rifles actions and too. Ruger steel is not junk, their investment cast receivers have more than stood the test of time.

We can compare investment cast to forged steel; forged steel takes a nicer finish. It looks better. It's shinier.

Investment casting sounds and feels different when working the action but that has nothing to do with strength. We love forged steel but I had a gunsmith say that forged steel is milled and that can weaken the part where investment casting parts come out close to spec. He used the example of the slide stop notch of the 1911 slide which would crack on the forged steel Colt at about 80,000 rounds. The gun would still run for a good 10,000 + rounds with the crack but the investment cast slide doesn't crack there. He reasoned it was the milling of the slide that weakened the part. He built a lot of 1911's for us in law enforcement and for the local military base. We asked him what's best way to start with building the best custom 1911 and he said Caspian frame and slide, which are investment cast. He said investment casting specs are more accurate. Wow. The serrations on the slide of the forged steel 1911's are more lines per inch than the investment cast, but they are both as strong.

I had a cast receiver Colt SAA and it just never seemed right to me and I sold it, but it was just as strong as forged steel.

When purchasing a Sharps I chose the investment cast receiver over the forged one, even though I prefer forged steel. The finished product of the investment cast version was simply a better gun. I love my pre-'64 Model 70 forged steel receiver but I shoot my Ruger investment cast receiver M77 much better. The Winchester sounds and feels better but both guns are plenty strong.

[JHeath]

When was the last time you heard of a No. 1 kaboom? It's a cast receiver. From what I read the only forged gun in its league for strength is an Arisaka.

[waco]

Bill Ruger never woke up stupid a day in his life...

[Rhou45]

Are Rugers junk made from cast steel? Short answer, No they are not junk.

Man has never made a perfect machine, but you could go a lifetime and not find a stronger handgun than a Ruger.

Rugers do not come from the factory as tuned and accurate as they can be, but that is easily fixed by a competent gunsmith. The same can be said for most other handguns on the market. If you reload them within the safe pressures for the round you are using, the handgun will outlast you.

I have a Ruger Blackhawk 357 with a six inch barrel and a stainless SBH 45c with 4 5/8 inch barrel. Both guns are great pieces. I have also had other Rugers in 44m, another BH 357, a GP100, several Ruger 10/22's, and a few of their centerfire rifles (300wm, 243, 270, 7mm-08)

My biggest complaint with Rugers is their factory POA vs POI. Very few of the Rugers I have ever had or fired, shot to the POA to my expectations. Most have required some sort of adjustment or modification to get the sights aligned to my liking. I wish Ruger would focus on improving their factory sight alignment.

[jonp]

When was the last time you heard of a No. 1 kaboom? It's a cast receiver. From what I read the only forged gun in its league for strength is an Arisaka.

Original siamese mausers were forged I think and no one I have read of claimed they were not strong enough

[JHeath]

Original siamese mausers were forged I think and no one I have read of claimed they were not strong enough

Sure, lots of strong guns were forged. I don't think any of them were stronger than a No. 1. It is possible to make solid guns with cast parts.

[Petrol & Powder]

Cast steel has been used make many gun parts, including receivers. On top of that I would say that Ruger has mastered the investment casting process.

[M-Tecs]

I had a gunsmith say that forged steel is milled and that can weaken the part where investment casting parts come out close to spec. He used the example of the slide stop notch of the 1911 slide which would crack on the forged steel Colt at about 80,000 rounds. The gun would still run for a good 10,000 + rounds with the crack but the investment cast slide doesn't crack there. He reasoned it was the milling of the slide that weakened the part. He built a lot of 1911's for us in law enforcement and for the local military base. We asked him what's best way to start with building the best custom 1911 and he said Caspian frame and slide, which are investment cast. He said investment casting specs are more accurate. Wow. The serrations on the slide of the forged steel 1911's are more lines per inch than the investment cast, but they are both as strong.


Your smith has lots of "opinions" that are not shared most of industry. No disagreement that cast parts can provide all the strength required for a properly designed firearms and most other parts in normal use.

The Aerospace industry is a prime example. Forging is utilized almost exclusively for high strength parts.

His statement that"investment casting specs are more accurate" is pure B.S. For this to be true parts would be used as cast with no machining required.

Same for "forged steel is milled and that can weaken the part where investment casting parts come out close to spec" The cast parts are machined in the areas of tight tolerances. If either is machined with a sharp corner in a stress area you have created a stress riser and an area of a possible future failure. This is more of a design/machining issue than a material issue.

Cast verse forged strength is also material dependent. To compare strength the alloys must be the same. With the selection of higher strength alloy cast may be stronger than a forged item of a weaker alloy. A good example of this is the Browning Hipowers. When they went with cast frame they started using a stronger alloy that stand up better to the 9mm +P loads and the 40 S&W's.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

M-Tecs, I am relaying what I understood my gunsmith said: "investment casting specs are more accurate" -Is what he said when we asked him how he prefers to make a 1911 from the ground up, he said he would start with a Caspian frame and slide because it has the most accurate specs. I looked up the Caspian frame and slide and discovered that it is an investment cast, not forged. Nobody said anything about no machining required.

Your comment: "The Aerospace industry is a prime example. Forging is utilized almost exclusively for high strength parts." I live in a region where we make the most frequently flown jets in the world. The largest employer in this region is the Aerospace industry. A part of he ISS was built here, I had the honor of escorting down the freeway on it's way to it's destination. I asked a man I know who has 40 years in the industry, from a machinist to a programer to a consultant. He said investment castings are closer to spec, but of course you know what he said about the strength of forging vs casting.

With reference to "forged steel is milled and that can weaken the part where investment casting parts come out close to spec" I was relaying a comment he made about investment cast strength vs forged steel and he used the example of the crack which is frequently seen on the forged steel 1911 slide at the slide stop notch. I don't think anybody can say for certain why so many frames cracked right there but he was offering his opinion.

His opinion is not B.S. He worked for over 35 years at companies that made 1911's and he worked on his off time on building custom 1911's. His 1911's I know have been in law enforcement service for over 25 years and have been deployed in the sand pit. Kimber wanted him to come and work for them and offered him a lot of money to relocate but he turned them down because he did not want to uproot his daughter. So he had character, respect and knowledge. He left this Earth too early and at his memorial service we stood together and gave testimony to his commitment to the 1911 and making guns we could trust when things went dangerous. He had a lot of friends. You are welcome to say my opinion is B.S. but his opinion was not B.S.

[bedbugbilly]

All I can say is that Rugers seem to work just fine so perhaps the "arm chair quarterbacks" who are so knowledgeable are wrong? I own quite a few Rugers - and have never had an issue with any of them - whether they be "vintage" or "new". They must be doing something right . . .

[M-Tecs]

He used the example of the slide stop notch of the 1911 slide which would crack on the forged steel Colt at about 80,000 rounds. The gun would still run for a good 10,000 + rounds with the crack but the investment cast slide doesn't crack there. He reasoned it was the milling of the slide that weakened the part.

You sure he stated the slide was cracking at the slide stop notch? It is very common for the frame to crack at the slide stop cutout but I have never seen a slide crack at the slide stop notch. I have replaced slides that cracked at the ejection port.

[Love Life]

Ruger guns have more than proven themselves over the years to the point that the question "Are Rugers junk made from cast steel" has already been answered by time.

[dragon813gt]

Ruger guns have more than proven themselves over the years to the point that the of question "Are Rugers junk made from cast steel" has already been answered by time.

No it hasn't. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[Love Life]

No it hasn't. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, but I read that in a magazine so it must be true. I even read it on the internet after I posted it.

[bigted]

Yeah, but I read that in a magazine so it must be true. I even read it on the internet after I posted it.

then for sure it is golden and worth taking to the bank ... [smilie=s:

[dubber123]

Pretty sure my Freedom Arms are made from cast junk too. Sob's have been overcharging me!

[MtGun44]

"Removed the photo that offended you".......????????????????

No idea what that is referring to.

[skeet028]

I have quite a few Rugers..quite a few. But I also have S&Ws. I've never had a failure with a Smith but never with a Ruger either. I am looking for another double action 41 mag..Saw a Ruger at a gun show..price was up there with a Smith. But I didn't buy it. Reason..strong..but UGLY. The Ruger just doesn't have the soul that a Smith has. There is a reason Rugers are strong..they just have extra metal in them in the right areas..but they still don't look feel or act like a Smith & Wesson. Not bashing Rugers...just making a statement on esthetics. Course I am an ol guy..I think a gun should be pleasing to the eye as well as the hand.I think a gun should be made of Steel and Wood. I also think a Ruger 77 and the Number 1 are esthetically pleasing...especially when made of steel and wood!! LOL Momma has a few Ruger Single Actions. She shoots them well...but she has one Colt SAA and prefers it to the Rugers. Wonder why??

[Shooter6br]

Then again there's plastic......................

[Petrol & Powder]

Then again there's plastic......................

Don't go complicating this - there's a whole other thread just for that plastic vs. metal thingy

[Silver Jack Hammer]

M-Tecs, I thought the comment was reference the slide, but I'll bet you're right, he was referring to the frame. I am personally unaware of the cracks he was talking about, I've never seen them. The comment was made in a class I was a student in, and his comment was not part of the presented material. It was just a comment he made on the side during a break.

[mold maker]

No intention to dis S&W or defend Ruger , but I have 17 Rugers and no longer own a Smith. I've never had reason to get rid of a Ruger, and never had a Smith I really wanted to keep. I just like the utility of a strongly made tool, that I know I can depend on, to defend my life, or shoot just for pleasure.
There are Colts, SA, Remington, RI, KAHR, Beretta, LC Smiths, Winchesters, AMT, Whitney, and several others in my safe, but I most always reach for, and or carry, a Ruger.
Just like my bench has all colors, but I use LEE and RCBS most of the time. Being a brand snob doesn't speak well of you. If everyone liked the same thing, to the exclusion of all others, we would no longer have choices.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Don't go complicating this - there's a whole other thread just for that plastic vs. metal thingy

How about alloy vs. plastic?

[texaswoodworker]

Went i was growing up in the late 60"s guy used to say if it not forge steel it junk. Guys claim the investment casting is not strong enough for gun making. One guy claim it was pot metal they used by Ruger. The 22 pistol they claim were the frame was made in half and welded together with was TRUE. I did not buy my first Ruger till 1979. BOY how wrong those so call gun idiots were about Rugers. How many other hear story about investment casting in gun making

Well, let me put it this way. They are called Ruger only loads for a reason. Ruger's guns (at least the revolvers) are built like tanks. They are far from being junk.

[texaswoodworker]

How about alloy vs. plastic?

IIRC, Polymer is actually a little bit more durable than Aluminum alloy, but not quite as durable as Steel. Good luck trying to wear any of them out though. I believe they tested the Beretta 92FS well past 100,000 rounds, and it has an Aluminum alloy frame. That pretty much makes that argument a moot point. If you can afford to shoot that much ammo, you can certainly afford to replace the frame or the entire gun.

[azrednek]

Bill Ruger never woke up stupid a day in his life...

Then he must have been high on drugs when he testified in Congress in support of limiting mag size.

[azrednek]

The Aerospace industry is a prime example. Forging is utilized almost exclusively for high strength parts.

His statement that"investment casting specs are more accurate" is pure B.S. For this to be true parts would be used as cast with no machining required.


I can't argue with any expertise because I'm not simply smart enough. A former in law, an engineer for McDonnell Douglass told me investment cast parts, cast with high pressure nozzles are by far more accurate in size when exact size is critical. He elaborated into molecular structure, predictable consistency in heat expansion and shrinkage in extreme cold. All way way above my knowledge. He did give forged parts the thumbs up as being superior for wear due to friction. He went on to claim Ruger engineers have worked closely with nearly all defense contractors on investment cast technology.

[texaswoodworker]

Then he must have been high on drugs when he testified in Congress in support of limiting mag size.

I have to say, that was a pretty idiotic day in his life. Did he just think gun owners were going to go with that?

Thankfully, the new Ruger fully supports the 2nd Amendment and does it's part to defend it.

[azrednek]

I have to say, that was a pretty idiotic day in his life. Did he just think gun owners were going to go with that?

Thankfully, the new Ruger fully supports the 2nd Amendment and does it's part to defend it.

What I heard from a former Ruger employee and he did say it was just a rumor. The ol'man was furious that Chinese SKS's and AK's were being sold dirt cheap in the USA killing the glamor and high sale numbers he expected when he released his 762X39 Mini-30.

Bill Ruger apologized numerous times but even better he used his check book to support the RTKBA, more than any other manufacture I'm told.

[oldred]

I am not going to comment on Ruger strength, absolutely no need to as it speaks for itself, but I can from industry experience comment on cast steel. Anyone who says cast steel is inherently weak is speaking from total ignorance! The myth that steel castings are somehow inferior is due to the confusion from relating it to iron castings, or cast iron as it is usually called, but that's simply comparing apples to rocks! The strength of a steel casting is dependent on many things just as is a forging, forging junk steel will still result in junk parts, forging is not some magical process that turns ordinary steel into something super strong! Steel casting are often used in industry for very large parts that require maximum strength and just as with gun parts it requires the right alloys, casting procedures, heat treatment (when required) and stress relieving but guess what? Forging also requires the right alloys, procedures, heat control, etc! A better example of steel castings suitability for firearm frames than Ruger would be T/C Contender frames, anyone think those castings are weak junk? It's simple, just don't confuse steel castings with cast iron!

Of course just saying "cast iron" is a VERY broad description also since there are many types of iron castings, some very weak and brittle but some quite strong indeed. While I would not recommend doing it as there are much better choices some malleable type cast irons could be used to make a strong action while other types have little more strength than pressed dirt. Anytime someone tries to make the vague statement that cast steel is weak and is junk they simply don't have a clue as to what the dickens they are talking about!

[M-Tecs]

I can't argue with any expertise because I'm not simply smart enough. A former in law, an engineer for McDonnell Douglass told me investment cast parts, cast with high pressure nozzles are by far more accurate in size when exact size is critical. He elaborated into molecular structure, predictable consistency in heat expansion and shrinkage in extreme cold. All way way above my knowledge. He did give forged parts the thumbs up as being superior for wear due to friction. He went on to claim Ruger engineers have worked closely with nearly all defense contractors on investment cast technology..

I did not articulate my position on this very well on the difference between investment cast steel verse forged tolerances. Investment casting generally have much tighter tolerances in the raw casting verse a raw forging. This may allow for some surfaces to not require machining. Looking at an investment cast 1911 slide the only areas requiring machining on a quality cast will probably be the rails, barrel locking lugs and the barrel bushing area. With a forged or billet the slide will be 100% machined on all surface. In this respect investment cast are more accurate than forging, however, the non-machined areas are not critical. When it comes to the machined areas there is zero difference between cast verse machined end product tolerances. This is solely a quality control issue of the company machining them.

Molecular structure alignment is the primary reason that forged are considered to be stronger than cast for the same material size.

Cast steel having more predictable consistency in heat expansion and shrinkage in extreme cold is something I am not buying. When a material is heated the kinetic energy of that material increases and it's atoms and molecules vibrate more so each atom will take up more space due to the atoms more excited movement causing the material to expand. When cooled the opposite happens the material contracts. Whether cast or forged expansion should be the same for equal material. I could believe that cast parts have less stress than forged parts (that have not been stress relieved) so it could be possible that cast parts have less warpage issues.

Very complicated parts like jet engine turbine blades are cast. Would they be stronger if it was possible to forge them? Yes but the same as Rugers guns they are designed to be as strong as the application requires with the appropriate safety margin.

Ruger has designed their firearms to be some of the strongest made. Being cast is not an issue. In the case of the Browning Hipower switching to a cast frame stopped the problem of the 40's cracking the forged frames. Browning's claim was they could use a better/harder material with a cast frame since it required less machining so the end product was more durable.

[oldred]

Another consideration is that cast parts can be made in shapes that do not lend themselves to forgings or machining from raw stock. In some cases, depending entirely on the shape of the part, it might even be possible that a casting could be made stronger just due to the shape since weak areas could possibly be reinforced in ways that could not be done with forgings or 100% machined parts.

[Petrol & Powder]

How about alloy vs. plastic?
Seems like a slippery slope.

[Petrol & Powder]

Then he must have been high on drugs when he testified in Congress in support of limiting mag size.
I think he might have been feeling a little bit of heat after the Long Island Railroad shooting but that doesn't make his actions right. I think money, not ideology, may have been the driving force there.

[azrednek]

I did not articulate my position on this very well on the difference between investment cast steel verse forged tolerances. .

M-Tec you articulated your knowledge very well. I can't really offer a different opinion. You posted with knowledge and I simply repeated something I was told. Best I can gather both methods each have their value and advantages. I can surmise from my lack of know-how it appears to me as a layman a Coke vs Pepsi or Ford vs Chevy discussion.

My gut feeling with the lack of any personal metallurgy expertise. Ruger as well as Springfield Armory's US military clones, the M-1A, M-1 Garrand and M-60 has more than proved investment casting is sufficiently strong enough to do the job of its forged predecessors.

It will take the test of time to see if Taurus' forged 1911's will out last the current investment cast frames and slides used by all other manufactures.

[skeet028]

Then again.. I do believe that esthetics should have a place in our choices. Even ol Bill knew that there were esthetically pleasing things in life.. He did design and build a Roadster and the Number 1 and the 77 as well as a decent O/U and a beautiful Side X Side Shotgun. He even made sure there was pretty wood in the first years...and even later. You can have a very pretty tool that lasts well. I happen to own a very pretty Kreighoff K-80. Have put more than 350 thousand rounds through it.. Breakages...One trigger spring. No plastic, no large oversize castings. Not knocking Rugers. I even have a Ruger O/U and even though it is Stainless(I much prefer blued) it is a very nice shooter and pleasing to the eye. As far as personal protection I carry a 1911..a Wilson Combat..It is an early one complete with 22 top end..Pretty?? A 1911. I've carried one(or 2) since 1966 in SE Asia. They are pretty to my eye. and again..no plastic frames