RyanM said:
but castings, on the other hand, get a lot of undeserved bad press.
I agree with this and that's the main reason why I don't have a problem with the
possibility that some Ruger cylinders may be cast (yet to be determined). A couple of weeks ago I'd never thought about how Ruger makes their cylinders and I didn't care since I was of the CraigC camp ... "we know how strong they are and that is really all that matters." I was also familiar (in concept that is) with the engineering that has earned Ruger DA revolvers the reputation of being able to take a beating. The cylinder/crane is locked in place at three points, the cylinder notches are offset from the chambers, and the axis of the ejector pin is moved away from the centerline of the revolver cylinder (ironically this was explained to me by JohnKSa in
THIS thread). So all
was good.
Now, after looking at some cylinders at high magnification, I'd like to know why there are significant differences in the microstructure ... that's it. It's no big deal and there's no need to get upset or bent out of shape about it. To that end, I burned up some cell phone minutes this morning getting the Ruger runaround. I called the NH facility and asked the nice folks in tech support if all Ruger cylinders are machined from bar stock. The employee didn't know or didn't want to make a definitive statement (some people actually record their phone calls these days) and I don't blame him. I asked to speak to an engineer so he gave me the number of the CT facility. I called them and asked to speak to an engineer. I was put on hold and then I was back at the NH plant! I hung up and redialed the CT number and told the nice girl that I wanted to speak to an engineer and that I'd been sent back to NH. Her response was "we don't allow customers to speak to engineers directly". I can understand that ... they are busy after all . She asked me if I had a message for an engineer that she could pass on. I asked her if I could email some SEM images with some questions and if she could forward my email to the relevant department. She said ok, I sent her an email with 20 or so attachments and I'm waiting to hear back from an engineer.
Despite some of the inferences here, I'm after the truth and nothing more. Those that work and shoot with me on a regular basis know that much about me at least. So with that in mind, if a Ruger engineer does get back to me I shall definitely add that information here whatever the outcome. If I don't hear from Ruger, I'll contact a friend at Natick Labs in the hope that he can put me in contact with a Ruger engineer. He's in regular contact with most of the main firearms manufacturers.
JohnKSa said:
We have two independent and reliable sources of corroborating eyewitness evidence that both directly contradict the "discovery".
Witnessing the production of cylinders being machined from bar stock on two given days isn't evidence that Ruger cylinders are only made this way. It's a start but we need more. Don't forget that cast parts require finish machining too (prior to heat treatment).
JohnKSa said:
SEM photographs in the context of metallurgy. The pictures are neat but without a properly prepared sample and an expert to interpret them that's all they are.
A couple of quick corrections here ... first, they're not "photographs" ... they're images inferred by electrons hitting a detector ... a secondary electron detector in this case but I can use a back scatter detector too if so desired. Second, the samples were properly prepared. I may not be an expert in interpreting SEM images of steel specimens since I work almost exclusively with aluminum alloys, but I am MOST DEFINITELY an expert in using the SEM and the EDXA system attached to it. Part of being an expert in SEM use is knowing how to prepare samples for analysis. I will carbon coat or gold coat specimens for imaging or EDXA if required but in this case, good images were easy to obtain without coating.
