[Blue Brick]

Which is stronger forging or casting? And Why?

[19-3Ben]

Grabs popcorn and a drink and sits back to watch the action.

[Gator]

Maybe you could start here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=20673).

[FullEffect1911]

makes no real difference, but do a search, you'll find lots.

[jad0110]

There is a similar thread over in the Rifle forum right now.

Suffice to say, either can be quite good if done correctly, quite bad if done poorly.

My .000002 cents.

[Elvishead]

Simple question. No simple answer. Do a search, and get back to us in a few day of reading.:rolleyes:

[03Shadowbob]

since you are writing this on THR I know you have internet and google so why ask us to do your homework for you? Now if you have specific questions afterwards, ask them here.

[Boats]

The correct answer, of course, is yes, Rugers are stronger than Smiths.

Follow up to part two of the obvious question? NO SIDE PLATE.

[jameslovesjammie]

Ask someone who builds high performance engines which is better, cast or forged. I take the same theory with my revolvers.

[Blue Brick]

I knew the partial answer, I just wanted confirm the information without having to go the library. Thank you 03Shadowbob.

[dagger dog]

let me dig deep into my pocket and see if i can find 2C wait a minit yep here it is.

back in the good ole days when men were men and sheep were nervous, the forging process was profitable, the steels as we know now were not yet invented. to be able to keep the "gun" in one piece the forging had to be hardened. the forging process aligns the steel molecules which give resiliency to the object, and then case hardening ( the same process wich give the so sought after colors so popular today) was used to give strength.

with todays modern alloy steels it is possible to cast the the "gun" and then with the properties brewed into these new steels heat treat or align the molecules . you get the toughness you need through a Betty Crocker shake and bake process.

the old 1903 Springfields & 96 Mausers forged as they were and works of the craftsman art are inherently weak and are best when used with the ammos the were designed for.

but if the new modern alloy steels were used along with a forging and modern heat treating process its bank vault city! couldn't blow it with T'N'T. but you can afford them either.

as ugly as some of the unfinished castings are some, turn out to be real peacocks! and tough as your old man was on you, when you stayed out all night and he caught you trying to sneak in the house at daybreak!

plastic "guns" now thats another story.

have fun always

daggerdog

[03Shadowbob]

Thank you 03Shadowbob
No problem.

[Jim K]

This is always a neat question. No matter what someone says, the other side will call him a ^%&* *&*&^ (&^%%& and a dumb A$$ to boot.

At the risk of being called all that, a forging of a given size will be about twice as strong as a casting of the same size. Put another way, to have equal strength, a casting must be about twice as thick as a forging. That means that cast revolver frames, for example, look big and massive, causing some folks to assume they are extremely strong, much stronger than the equivalent thinner forged frame. An example would be folks who advocate huge overloads in revolver cartridges for Rugers, saying that you can't blow up a Ruger. They are wrong.

Jim

[FW]

Ask someone who builds high performance engines which is better, cast or forged. I take the same theory with my revolvers.

First of all, this is an apple and oranges comparison to begin with.

And, all these high performance engines have blocks and heads that are cast. Some are even cast aluminum.

While some parts such as the pistons can be cast or forged, certain parts of a cast revolver (or other handgun) are not cast, such as the cylinder and barrel.

Besides, not all engines (or guns) need to be "high performance" for most applications.

[Fishman777]

I'm guessing that very few people on this forum are actually qualified to answer that question. You will have your Smith and Wesson people saying that forging is better and your Ruger people saying that casting is better. Every person is going to attempt to support their position, but in the end the evidence will be biased, and in most cases flawed.

Most of the replies that you will hear here are from people that think that they know what they are talking about, but really don't. If a person doesn't actually have an engineering or manufacturing background, they shouldn't present their answers authoritatively. In doing so, they would be no better than a gun forum commando.

I am not an engineer and don't know the answer. I think that both techniques are extremely effective.

[JaxJim]

I agree with JamesLovesJamie, I DO build hypo engines and a cast crank will NOT hold up under very high HP like a forged. Forged slugs (pistons) are the only way to go when spraying juice or makin' your own atmosphere (turbo/super charging).

It seems that with casting, you need mass to equal the strength of forgings.

But then what do I know, I'm just some goof on the internet who owns BOTH Smiths and Rugers (and like them both).

[MCgunner]

Ask someone who builds high performance engines which is better, cast or forged. I take the same theory with my revolvers.

Built a few over the years, myself, of the two stroke and four stroke variety. I can tell you, while Wiseco is lauded for it's forged pistons, they were known in the two stroke world as "Seizecos" for a reason. Cast is better in an air cooled two stroke due to more predictable thermal expansion over a wider range of operating temperature and, yes, they last just as long, actually longer since you don't seize with 'em given proper jetting and ignition timing. Wisecos seem to work in water cooled two strokes a little better.

All that aside, Rugers are stronger than smiths. It's the design, not the castings. :D The design is so much better, they can get away with using castings and still be stronger. I would imagine it'd be hard to forge a frame without a side plate like the ruger Frames, might be a reason they went to castings in the first place? Oh, I know, they can do it with less machining, that's a production cost bonus. That's a good thing, though, the reason you get a better gun for less. :D

Now, then, which is stronger, investment casting or MIM?????

[FW]

These things are sometimes academic, though interesting. The same discussion comes up concering semiauto pistol frames. So many will say forged is better than cast, yet so many are now made from plastic (aka as "polymer"). It all depends on the application. When it comes to gun frames and small parts, it usually just doesn't matter too much.

Even when one method is tougher than the other, the latter is often tougher than it needs to be. If a part needs to withstand X amount of force and construction method A can withstand 100X amount of force while construction method B can withstand 50X of force, it simply doesn't matter much even though method A is twice as tough as method B.

Good quality guns have their reputations regardless of construction methods.

[RON in PA]

For what it's worth: 4 inch versions of the forged frame S&W 686 L-frame and the cast frame Ruger GP-100 both weigh the same 40 onces. Ya wanna argue which one is stronger? You would be splitting hairs.

[Elvishead]

Blue Brick
Member

Which is stronger forging or casting? And Why?


In it's most simplified form? Forging. At least IMHO.

But in 2008? That's not a simple question.

Both have advanced greatly over the years, and both are great viable ways of structuring high stress's in a form of a compromised medium.:uhoh:

Or, I drank to much, and actually thought I might sound like I know what I'm talking about. Don't shoot and drive!:D