Ruger cast vs. Smith & Wesson forged.

[CraigC]

Yes, it is a low stress part. That is what allows Ruger to use steel castings for their frames but requires them to use bar stock for their cylinders and barrels. The castings cannot accommodate the stress levels required of the cylinders and barrels. The allowable stress level for the casting is lower than the allowable stress level for the bar stock. The fact that the frame is a low stress part doesn't mean that it can't deformed by repeated use of heavy or excessive loads.

As I stated earlier, that is why you see even aluminum revolver frames. The low stress levels do not require the toughness of steel as required by highly stressed parts like the cylinder or barrel. How many aluminum cylinders and barrels have you seen?

Is that why N-frames shoot loose, because the frame is a "low stress part"? No. Is that why Freedom Arms uses a tougher alloy, 17-4 as opposed to Ruger's 415, for their CAST frames? No. The cylinder contains the pressure but the frame withstands the backthrust in one direction and the bullet slamming into the forcing cone in the other.

We're not talking about airweight .38 J-frames that someone might put 500rds through in its lifetime. We have several reports of 329's shooting themselves apart way faster than any steel N-frame.

Yes, S&W did aluminum cylinders for their early 10-shot .22 K-frames and similar J-frames. There are lots of aluminum barrels but they all have steel liners.

 

[CraigC]

Some folks believe nonsense in marketing, others look deeper. In this case, Ruger's real advantage is in the design, that took into account lessons learned from S&W's weaknesses. Which is why we can feed a Redhawk 50,000psi loads but an N-frame beats itself loose at 36,000psi.

 

[buck460XVR]

Some folks believe nonsense in marketing, others look deeper. In this case, Ruger's real advantage is in the design, that took into account lessons learned from S&W's weaknesses. Which is why we can feed a Redhawk 50,000psi loads but an N-frame beats itself loose at 36,000psi.

If there's any nonsense in this thread, it's inferring folks need to push 50,000 psi loads thru ANY .44 mag revolver. Nuttin' in the ad is nonsense, only a depiction of what many folks want in a revolver. If you want something different, so be it, I'm just fine with that. Kinda what makes us all individuals. But don't make it sound like Rugers are indestructible, and that S&W hasn't also learned from their mistakes on their early 29s and 629s. Used to be folks thought there was a need to push a .44 mag to something it was never intended to be, because there wasn't anything else out there bigger. That ain't true anymore, and those 50,000 psi .44 mag loads are just as brutal now as they were back then, even in the heavier and thicker Redhawk frame. You want nonsense, there it is.

 

[MaxP]

Then you should know first hand. Again, did all those guys just imagine shooting their S&W's loose?

Jack Huntington.

Jack did warranty work for Smith & Wesson. The revolver on the left in the photo below is a Rehawk and the one on the right is a Model 29. Even Stevie Wonder will concede the point.....

 

[MaxP]

If and that S&W hasn't also learned from their mistakes on their early 29s and 629s.

Indeed they have, hence the Endurance Package, however, the foundation -- the frame and the cylinder remains the same from a design standpoint. Relatively speaking, a Redhawk is pretty much indestructible.

 

[CraigC]

If there's any nonsense in this thread, it's inferring folks need to push 50,000 psi loads thru ANY .44 mag revolver. Nuttin' in the ad is nonsense, only a depiction of what many folks want in a revolver. If you want something different, so be it, I'm just fine with that. Kinda what makes us all individuals. But don't make it sound like Rugers are indestructible, and that S&W hasn't also learned from their mistakes on their early 29s and 629s. Used to be folks thought there was a need to push a .44 mag to something it was never intended to be, because there wasn't anything else out there bigger. That ain't true anymore, and those 50,000 psi .44 mag loads are just as brutal now as they were back then, even in the heavier and thicker Redhawk frame. You want nonsense, there it is.

I never said or inferred anyone had a 'need' to do anything and that's besides the point. The point is that you can, if you want, because the guns can handle it. S&W's can't. Because despite all this crap about forged vs cast, the Ruger Redhawk is measurably stronger than an N-frame. It's been proven time and again, yet the S&W fanboys cannot accept it.

While I can do everything I need to with the .44Mag at standard pressures, the .45Colt really starts to come to life above "Ruger only" levels. Here we can get those 335-360gr bullets moving fast enough to make things interesting.

What's nonsense about the ad is the assertion that the beef in a Ruger only to make up for it being a casting. That it's just extra bulk. Which is utter BS because the GP and 686 weigh the same. The assertion that the forged frame makes the S&W stronger. The implication that castings are "cheap" but their forgings are more expensive and therefore, better. It's all marketing nonsense.

What is correct about the ad and the reason why I own 11 of them (plus two other S&W's), is that they are lean and sleek. Rugers lack that certain intangible something that S&W has in their +100yr old design but they make up for it in robustitude. I enjoy them for what they are.

Nobody casts cylinders because it makes no sense from a manufacturing standpoint.

 

[CraigC]

And let us not forget. Ruger adapted an existing platform to the 65,000psi .454 and retained six-shot capacity with only a change in the alloy used for the cylinder and barrel. S&W had to design an even larger X-frame and cut capacity to five shots to do the same thing.

 

[200Apples]

45_auto, was it? attempted to compare an AR15 action to a revolver... but what he is forgetting is that in an AR, like an 870 (to offer just one additional example...), the bolt will lock to the barrel so there is less need for a stronger receiver... unlike a wheelgun where the frame must support the forces of recoil.

 

[45_auto]

Is that why N-frames shoot loose, because the frame is a "low stress part"?

The reasons that ANY revolver (S&W, Ruger, Korth, Freedom Arms, Colt, etc, etc) "shoots loose" are the same reasons that cause any mechanical device to wear out. Same reasons that require aircraft and spacecraft engines to be rebuilt after limited hours of operation. There is nothing magical about the mechanics of a revolver.

Is that why Freedom Arms uses a tougher alloy, 17-4 as opposed to Ruger's 415, for their CAST frames?

Freedom arms uses a tougher alloy because they are targeting a more limited market (higher price point) than Ruger. If 17-4 is necessary for revolver frames why doesn't Ruger use it? Here's a hint: It's not required for Ruger's market.

The cylinder contains the pressure but the frame withstands the backthrust in one direction and the bullet slamming into the forcing cone in the other.

You obviously don't know that the hoop stress component of pressure is MUCH more critical than the longitudinal effects in a pressure vessel.

Let's say we're running at 454 Casull pressures of 65,000 PSI. That means that the backthrust is 65,000 * .205 = 13,000 pounds, therefore the force of the bullet slamming into the forcing cone is approximately equal. Means that we have to take a total load of around 30K. Even something as crappy as cast 415 has a yield strength of around 50,000 PSI, while 17-4 is around 150,000 PSI and forged 4340 is around 200,000 PSI. What's the load distribution versus the size of the frame and yield stress of 415 or 17-4 or 4340? That'll tell you how many cycles the frame will withstand before it deforms a given amount. I would hope that your Freedom Arms that is probably 4 times the price of your Ruger offers at least some longevity benefit.

To look at what's required in cylinders and barrels, a Freedom Arms Model 83 in 454 Casull for example has a chamber diameter of about .478" and a cylinder wall thickness of about 1/8". You can plug the numbers in for yourself here http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/hoop-stress.htm and see why nobody uses a material with a 50,000 PSI yield strength in their 454 cylinders, but it's fine in a low-stress application like the frame.

We're not talking about airweight .38 J-frames that someone might put 500rds through in its lifetime. We have several reports of 329's shooting themselves apart way faster than any steel N-frame.

We're talking about revolver frames in general compared to the other components of the firearm. There is a reason that stronger materials are required in cylinders and barrels than frames.

Yes, S&W did aluminum cylinders for their early 10-shot .22 K-frames and similar J-frames.

How did that work out for them? There's a reason that they only used it in EARLY guns and not in any of their later models.

There are lots of aluminum barrels but they all have steel liners.

Why do you think they have STEEL liners?

45_auto, was it? attempted to compare an AR15 action to a revolver... but what he is forgetting is that in an AR, like an 870 (to offer just one additional example...), the bolt will lock to the barrel so there is less need for a stronger receiver... unlike a wheelgun where the frame must support the forces of recoil.

No, I didn't forget how an AR15 works. I was using it as an example to point out how some engineer (Eugene Stoner) had analyzed the forces reacted by his receiver and concluded that since it was a lower stressed component of the firearm that cheaper, weaker materials could be used in it's construction. Same thing applies to revolver frames compared to their other components which must resist the stresses of chamber pressure such as cylinders and barrels. The hoop stress component of the pressure in the cylinder (chamber) and barrel is the critical design factor. The lower stresses on the revolver frame (no hoop stress) allow the use of cheaper, weaker materials in a cast component.

 

[CraigC]

The reasons that ANY revolver (S&W, Ruger, Korth, Freedom Arms, Colt, etc, etc) "shoots loose" are the same reasons that cause any mechanical device to wear out. Same reasons that require aircraft and spacecraft engines to be rebuilt after limited hours of operation. There is nothing magical about the mechanics of a revolver..

And due to a number of reasons, the N-frame shoots loose sooner than a Redhawk.

Freedom arms uses a tougher alloy because they are targeting a more limited market (higher price point) than Ruger. If 17-4 is necessary for revolver frames why doesn't Ruger use it? Here's a hint: It's not required for Ruger's market.

FA uses a tougher alloy because they want a significant margin of error when chambering a 65,000psi cartridge.

You obviously don't know that the hoop stress component of pressure is MUCH more critical than the longitudinal effects in a pressure vessel.

Is that why the frames stretch LONG before there's any issue with cylinder strength? Yes, it's real easy to pull up on an online calculator determining the properties of the steels in question but it's a little more complicated than that.

...but it's fine in a low-stress application like the frame.

We're talking about revolver frames in general compared to the other components of the firearm. There is a reason that stronger materials are required in cylinders and barrels than frames.

No one argued that the frame was not a low-er stress part than the cylinder and barrel but it's not the cylinder and barrel that's the problem.

I would hope that your Freedom Arms that is probably 4 times the price of your Ruger offers at least some longevity benefit.

"My" Freedom Arms? Yes, they do offer a longevity benefit but that has more to do with the way they're made than the materials used.

How did that work out for them? There's a reason that they only used it in EARLY guns and not in any of their later models.

They used it because they had issues with drilling 10 chambers that close together in steel but later figured out how to do it. Had nothing to do with durability, else they would have recalled them and they certainly would not be using aluminum cylinders CURRENTLY in their model 317.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/model-317-kit-gun

Why do you think they have STEEL liners?

You're the one talking about aluminum barrels, not me.

 

[buck460XVR]

I never said or inferred anyone had a 'need' to do anything and that's besides the point. The point is that you can, if you want, because the guns can handle it. S&W's can't. Because despite all this crap about forged vs cast, the Ruger Redhawk is measurably stronger than an N-frame. It's been proven time and again, yet the S&W fanboys cannot accept it.

I have always accepted it. Just never saw the need.

While I can do everything I need to with the .44Mag at standard pressures,

Me too, again, why I don't see a need to run past SAAMI pressures and need the extra bulk.

What's nonsense about the ad is the assertion that the beef in a Ruger only to make up for it being a casting. That it's just extra bulk. Which is utter BS because the GP and 686 weigh the same. The assertion that the forged frame makes the S&W stronger. The implication that castings are "cheap" but their forgings are more expensive and therefore, better. It's all marketing nonsense.

I don't see any nonsense in the ad other than the comparison to a shake and a burger. Forging is a more expensive method that produces more strength in the same size than casting which is a less expensive process. Bulk is not just weight, but thickness. Down coats weight less than wool, but have a much greater bulk. Bulk has always been the downfall of down, and why the new man made insulations with less bulk are more popular nowadays. The pic posted by MaxP clearly shows the difference in bulk.

What is correct about the ad and the reason why I own 11 of them (plus two other S&W's), is that they are lean and sleek. Rugers lack that certain intangible something that S&W has in their +100yr old design but they make up for it in robustitude. I enjoy them for what they are.

This is what I believe the ad is trying to say, but Ruger fan boys take it as a put down. I was a carpenter for 45 years. I had hammers that were sleek and well balanced and I had hammers that were stronger, bulkier and would take more abuse. Both had the same head weight. I still opted for the sleeker one just because it felt better, swung better and did all I needed with less bulk. When I played Hockey, over the years I used heavy and bulkier aluminum and fiberglass sticks that would almost never break and I used the newer carbon fiber sticks that would break sometimes just from the cold. I preferred the smaller, lighter sticks as opposed to the bulkier sticks we aptly named "clubs".

I have no problem with Rugers.....I own several rifles and pistols of theirs. I don't like the looks and feel of their revolvers tho. I have no problem with those that do. The differences are subtle, between them and Smiths........but they are not subtle to me. I too prefer lean and sleek, and I don't need the "robustitude". That others feel differently than me is no surprise.

 

[CraigC]

There is no argument that the S&W's are more sleek and have a lot of intangible romantic qualities. As Taffin always put it, more like a thoroughbred, while Rugers are more like a draft horse. Sometimes the difference in strength matters, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, a nice S&W is a wonderful thing. However, when you want to run heavy .44 loads (standard pressure) and you like to shoot a lot, it does come into play. I treat my N-frame .44Mag's like slightly stronger .44Spl's. I feed them 240's at 1100-1200fps and at that level, they will last a long time. I don't use them for +300gr bullets at +1300fps. That's what Rugers are for. They will handle those loads easily and without fear of loosening up over the long haul.

The point in bringing up the 50,000psi loads is as proof that Redhawks are stronger than N-frames. Not to imply that everybody needs to be running such loads. But there are viable applications for such things. If there weren't, we wouldn't need the .480Ruger, .475Linebaugh, .454, .460S&W or .500S&W. Sometimes you want/need a bigger cartridge, sometimes you just want to maximize what you have. I'm planning on utilizing that lower crimp groove in those Beartooth 355's to get a little more velocity out of it and flatten trajectory a bit. As well as exploring what can be done with the Rimrock 340gr and Pearce's 50,000psi data. This both in my bone stock SRH and the custom Bisley I'm having rebuilt with an oversized six-shot cylinder. We play with what interests us.

All that said, I believe the mid-frame .357's to be as equal as they can be. The real difference lies with the large frame guns.