I guess what I’d like to see is a comparison of S&W machined frame vs a Ruger cast frame? Does Ruger need to add steel to their frame to compensate for the cast frame? Are cast frames more prone to failures?
Any metallurgist out there ?
I assume their stainless frames are cast as well?
BTW, I always assumed their cylinders and barrels were machined from forged steel.
Howdy
No, I am not a metallurgist, but this entire discussion is missing a very important point.
It does not matter how strong the frame is, the cylinder is the pressure vessel in a revolver.
Sorry for putting it in bold type, but I needed to make the point. All the frame of a revolver does is contain the parts of the lockwork and provide a place to anchor the barrel and the cylinder.
The pressure generated when a cartridge fires is completely contained in the cylinder. The frame has nothing to do with it.
If the cylinder is not strong enough to contain the pressure generated when a cartridge fires, this is what will happen.
Here is the revolver this happened to, an antique Merwin Hulbert. Notice nothing happened to the frame, other than the top strap being blown off. Notice nothing happened to the barrel either. Almost every time a revolver 'grenades', it is the cylinder that is destroyed, not the barrel or the frame. If a barrel obstruction is present in a revolver, the barrel may split like a banana peel. But other than that, it is always the cylinder that suffers the damage, not the frame. Except of course for top straps being blown into low earth orbit, but that has nothing to do with the strength of the frame, that piece of metal was in the way when the cylinder burst.
I does not matter if the frame is a forged and machined frame or an investment cast frame. It is the cylinder that needs to contain the pressure generated when a cartridge fires.
Yes, the frame needs to be able to withstand the concussion and buffeting of recoil, but that is completely different than an over pressure event destroying a cylinder.
Yes, Ruger still machines their cylinders from solid stock, the cylinders are not investment cast. The same with their barrels. As a matter fact, the last I heard Ruger does not even make their own barrels. They buy barrel blanks, already rifled. Then they cut them to length, thread them, and profile the outer dimensions.
Yes, Ruger Stainless firearms use the same Investment Casting Process that their carbon steel firearms use. The difference is they pour molten Stainless Steel instead of carbon steel into the molds.
Why are Ruger frames bigger than many other brands of frames?
Because the cylinders are bigger.
Left to right in this photo, the Stainless cylinder from an 'original model' Vaquero, a New Vaquero cylinder, and a slightly dirty Colt Single Action Army cylinder. All chambered for 45 Colt. Notice how much more metal there is between chambers on the 'original model' Vaquero cylinder than there is on the other two. That is why the old Vaqueros (and Blackhawks too) could take Ruger only loads. Because the cylinders were more massive, and there was more meat between the chambers. And because the cylinders were larger, the frame had to be larger to accommodate it. Nothing to do with the strength of the Investment Cast frame of the old Vaquero, it simply had to be bigger for the bigger cylinder to fit.
Here is a really good video showing a lot of the Investment Casting process at Ruger. Scroll to about the 3 1/2 minute mark in the video to see a skilled worker applying pressure to different places on a bolt to straighten the casting. Then dig the fixture with a zillion dial indicators he uses to make sure everything is in spec.
Finally, why does Ruger use Investment Castings instead of machining forged parts? Very simple, it is
cheaper. Ooops, more
cost efficient than machining parts from bar stock. The exact same reason why Smith and Wesson uses Metal Injection Molding (MIM) parts rather than machined parts.
