Ruger cast vs. Smith & Wesson forged.

[pintler]

Forging can result in a stronger part than casting, all other things being equal, for some part geometries.

But other things are rarely equal. Let's imagine you're an engineer designing a part. The forged part costs $100. You can cast it for $80, and for this particular part the cast part is weaker - unless you spend $10 on a stronger alloy. If you do, you get the same strength for $90. And there are a lot of other variables - how exotic you get in the heat treat, machining costs like how fast cutters wear, how careful you have to be about corner radii to prevent stress concentrations, ad nauseam.

In the end, it's the total performance and price that matter; you don't want to focus only on one of the variables.

BTW, I'm not claiming anything about the design or materials of Ruger v. Smith revolvers in particular; I don't know any of the specifics. I'm just pointing out that design is a complex problem.

 

[BWB]

Can you cite a specific example where that might be true? And cite some technical sources for that conclusion?

 

[Hangingrock]

Ruger simply did not have the manufacturing capacity (machinery) thus he looked at investment casting as an alternate solution and over the decades became experts in the investment casting process Pine Tree Castings. Remington to a degree was the pioneer in firearms usage in the investment procedures for certain parts.

 

[BWB]

Ruger went to investment casting as a conscious design and manufacturing efficiency decision, not from any lack of manufacturing capability. His #1 Single Shot receiver for example could not be internally machined by any process available at that time.
What Remington pioneered back then was an early powder metal molding process for small parts, not investment casting.
The firearms use of investment casting hall of fame would be William Ruger, and Warren Center of Thompson-Center fame

 

[Hangingrock]

BWB

Ruger went to investment casting as a conscious design and manufacturing efficiency decision, not from any lack of manufacturing capability

On that point we are simply going to have agree to disagree. My correspondence file from Ruger differs from your accretion. Rugers lack of manufacturing capability in regards to addition machinery which would have had to been acquired thus precipitated the investment casting process.

 

[BWB]

You need not dictate that we will agree to disagree. We will not. You are mistaken.

 

[Propforce]

I can recall this was a hot topic 30 years ago around the water cooler at work, forging vs investment casting Back then the "plastic fantastic" has not take off yet so this was a passionate topic

At risk of offending some here, a simple definition of forging is take a billet of steel and pound it repeatedly with an even heavier block of steel. The result is making this billet of steel much more compact, its molecules realigns and giving it a higher strength per thickness. Investment casting, as I understand it, is a high pressure extrusion process where melted steel are "cast" on molds at high pressure. Bill Ruger chooses this for high volume productions without spending time on machining parts. The investment casting process reduce touch labor on machining so he was able to offer his revolvers at a lower price to consumers.

For us the consumers it really makes little difference as far as the strength of guns. All manufacturers understand the steel properties they are working with, though different with each, it's a design decision how much additional margin you'll give to each guns. It may appear S&W revolver are "slimmer" compared to Ruger, that's because the density difference between the two steels but the weights are comparable between the two.

Aesthetically, S&W was a better looking gun 30 years ago IMO. It's machining gave the streamline smoothness that defines the S&W revolvers. Ruger was lacking that fineness 30 years ago. But their processes must have improved as their revolvers today look "almost" as nice as S&W. Maybe S&W just went "low cost" so their revolvers do not look as good as they were 30 years ago.

I believe Ruger purposely "overbuilt" their Blackhawk & Redhawks to handle the magnum rounds where as S&W minimizes weight for carry. As result, S&W 629 can not take steady diet of 44 magnums.

 

[Dog Soldier]

What proof do you have that the S&W 629 has a high failure rate? Are you saying the Ruger BH does not fail from abuse? I really doubt you can offer anything except rumors. There is a reason S&W can sell their products for more money. There is a reason S&W stock is setting records. I own both Ruger and S&W Magnums. They both can fail from abuse.

 

[silicosys4]

What proof do you have that the S&W 629 has a high failure rate? Are you saying the Ruger BH does not fail from abuse? I really doubt you can offer anything except rumors. There is a reason S&W can sell their products for more money. There is a reason S&W stock is setting records. I own both Ruger and S&W Magnums. They both can fail from abuse.

Google "S&W 629 endurance package"
Then google "S&W 629 worn out" or "S&W 629 problems"
Then google "Ruger redhawk (or super redhawk. Or Blackhawk) worn out" or "problems"

The results speak for themselves, IMO.

"For years, Smith & Wesson refused to acknowledge a problem that definitely existed. It became especially prevalent when silhouette shooters started pounding hundreds of rounds of fullhouse loads down range in a single day. When a cartridge was fired, the cylinder would unlock, rotate backwards and when the hammer was cocked, the fired round would be back under the firing pin. Silhouetters literally "beat their swords into plowshares" as far as the Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum was concerned. About the same time silhouetters were pounding 240 grain bullets unmercilessly through the Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, handgun hunters discovered 300 grain bullets which put a further strain on the mechanism whose basic design went back to 1899.

Instead of listening to silhouetters about this problem, Smith & Wesson refused to publicly acknowledge that anything was amiss and instead brought forth a Silhouette Model in 1983. This model featured a ten and five-eighth's inch bull barrel and sights with a standard adjustable rear sight with a higher blade and also a four position adjustable front sight. The front sight was to be set for the four distances addressed in long range silhouetting. Nothing was done to correct the mechanical problem. Of all the .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson sixguns I have shot over the past four decades, this one, Smith & Wesson's answer to the unlocking cylinder problem, is the only one that I have ever encountered in which the cylinder unlocked and rotated backwards on a regular basis! Needless to say, silhouetters did not flock to the .44 Magnum Silhouette Model.

Finally with a change of management, Smith & Wesson began to address some of the problems associated with the .44 Magnum Model 29. By now, both Ruger and Dan Wesson had heavy duty .44 Magnum sixguns on the market that were designed around heavy usage. The Smith & Wesson had a distinct disadvantage as it was built on a platform going back to 1908. Should they scrap it and start over? Or should they try to fix what they had? They opted for the latter and I am certainly pleased that they did. In 1988, the 29-4 was ushered in with two changes. The retention system on the yoke or cylinder crane was strengthened and studs within the frame were radiused to help remove metal stress. It was not enough. At the same time eight and three eighth's inch models were made available with integral scope mounts on the barrel rib"

http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm
The S&W N frame just wasn't built to take the .44 magnum, and the original design had to be "improved" to handle prolonged firing of heavy loads.
Whereupon the Rugers were built from the beginning, overbuilt in fact, to be able to.
No contest, in my opinion. I can take a pair of calipers to my N frames and my SRH frame and see in a few seconds why the Smiths don't last as long with full house loads.
The BH is a single action revolver, built to handle heavy .44 magnum loads
Yes, by the laws of physics, as a general rule, The Ruger BH will be more durable than a double action .44 magnum N frame S&W that was designed to fire .44 special loads.

I have N frame S&W's and I love them. When I decided to get a wheelgun that would take heavy loads for hunting, I went with the Ruger SRH because why worry?

 

[45_auto]

Since the steels used are similar and there is no intrinsic strength difference between forged and investment cast, any difference in weight simply reflects differences in design philosophy.

Interesting theory. It appears that someone was sleeping in Materials Science class.

The frame of a revolver is a very low-stress part. You could even cast it out of aluminum or plastic if you wanted to (LCR)! Even though they all meet minimum requirements, that does not mean that they are all of intrinsically equal strength. As others have mentioned, the cylinder and barrel are the critical components.

Same reason that AR15 receivers can be made of cast aluminum or plastic. Doesn't mean that they are as strong as a forged steel receiver would be, just that there is no need for it.

However, the difference in strength due to the casting vs forging process is the very reason that no one, even Ruger, uses cast cylinders or barrels, while forged barrels are very common.

Forging vs. Casting

Forging and casting are the two most reliable and versatile methods for manufacturing metal parts and components, especially for industrial or other heavy-duty applications. In many cases, the same part could be created using either process, with roughly equal results—however, the two cannot be interchanged without significant revisions to part designs. Pricing can vary greatly from project to project; neither process will “always” be the more affordable option.

So, which method is better for your specific needs? Are there advantages to using casting over forging, or vice versa?

• Pros and Cons of Metal Casting

PROS of CAST PARTS
• Can hold higher tolerances for more detailed part designs
• Creates closer to net-shape parts that require less secondary machining/processing
• Nearly always lighter than otherwise-identical forged parts
• Easier and less time-consuming to modify part designs and accompanying molds

CONS of CAST PARTS
• Often exhibit more surface porosity than forged parts and may contain unintentional voids
• Not as tough as forged parts—cannot withstand as much pressure or frequency of impact
• Requires more operator monitoring and interaction to maintain quality and prevent defects

Pros and Cons of Forged Parts

The high pressure and resulting deformation that materials go through in forging causes metallurgical recrystallization and grain refinement that conforms to the shape of the part. This results in mechanically stronger parts with greater impact strength, shear strength, and wear resistance.

PROS of FORGED PARTS
• Altered grain structure results in better structural integrity and increased mechanical strength
• Less material scrap and reduced labor requirements provide cost savings
• Forging process eliminates surface porosity, cavities/voids, and discontinuities
• Greater reliability and consistency in ductility, known yields, and increased strength

CONS of FORGED PARTS

• The nature of the process makes it difficult to meet requirements for tight tolerances
• Can often require numerous secondary processes to meet final design specifications
• Forging process itself limits the intricacy of shapes that can be produced

http://www.sunfastusa.com/forging-vs-casting

 

[Ole Joe Clark]

I spent 40 plus years in the machining, investment casting industry, and without getting into a contest about which is better or worse mfg methods I will share a few things about the process.

A strong selling point for investment castings for the company I worked for was the machining savings. I agree with this selling point, but the normal IC tolerances are .+/-.005 in per inch. So any locating surface with a tolerance of +/-.005 or less still has to be machined. All hole locations, diameters, locating surfaces still need .050 machine stock. Remember though there are exceptions. Any holes that are cored, still have to be bored for location and size.

The story about an investment cast cylinder doesn't make sense, you gotta machine the all of the surfaces, drill and ream or bore all the holes. You can do that on a CNC machine and drop off a completed part, unless it has to be heat treated.

The investment castings process is very old, but is not the answer to everything.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

 

[Jim Watson]

I was shooting IHMSA in the day and heard the stories about M29s not holding up. I did not shoot Revolver enough to beat mine up after I got a Contender.

There was a legend that a M57 was much more durable than a M29, the difference between .41 and .44 right at the limits of the N frames. I don't know for sure, the only .41 shooter here used a Contender.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I am no expert on cast vs forged, but I have always believed that forged is stronger than cast. Why do you think Ruger's are bigger than Smiths?

 

[Ole Joe Clark]

Deleted

 

[CraigC]

The frame of a revolver is a very low-stress part.

Maybe in some applications but generally, it is not a low stress part. Upon firing, recoil and pressure forces are acting violently against the frame. In essence, trying to rip it apart. In the case of N-frame .44Mag's, that's exactly what happens. The biggest shortcoming of S&W's design is not the cylinder, it's the frame and much of that inherent weakness is due to the sideplate design. After repeated use of heavy loads, the frames actually stretch.

 

[Dog Soldier]

I have never seen any documented data regarding the S&W 29 "strech? Would you please show this data? I have used the "29 s" since the 1960s. I have never seen this phenomenon?

 

[CraigC]

I can put you in touch with a gunsmith who has rebuilt dozens of N-frame .44's.

How many rounds of full pressure .44Mag have you put through your guns?

 

[Dog Soldier]

I can put you in touch with a gunsmith who has rebuilt dozens of N-frame .44's.

How many rounds of full pressure .44Mag have you put through your guns?

It would be in the thousands. I have been casting and shooting .44 Mags for over 50 years. Yes put me in touch with the gun smith. Being a retired engineer I would like to see these dimensional variations.

 

[CraigC]

Lots of folks have been shooting for a lot of years and have never shot an N-frame enough to loosen it up. Most hardly even break them in. I shoot thousands of .44Mag's every year but I do not shoot thousands of full pressure loads through my N-frames.

You think all those silhouette shooters whose N-frames shot loose were just imagining it?

 

[Sergei Mosin]

What is the upper limit on loads that won't stretch a .44 Magnum N-frame?

 

[Dog Soldier]

I was Wyoming State director of the Silhouette Shooting Association and writer for the Association monthly paper. I slammed a ton of tin farm animals. Bob Milek shooting editor of Guns and Ammo and I put many rounds down range. We had access to a major testing facility. I am waiting to contact the fellow that repairs "Stretched" N Frames or any handgun frames?

 

[CraigC]

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

Jack Huntington.

 

[45_auto]

I can put you in touch with a gunsmith who has rebuilt dozens of N-frame .44's.

 

[45_auto]

Maybe in some applications but generally, it is not a low stress part.

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?

 

[buck460XVR]