Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Gunsmithing Forum (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f33/)
-   -   Cast vs Forged (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f33/cast-vs-forged-85268/)

jd45 02-26-2013 11:34 PM

Cast vs Forged
 
I'd like to get your wisdom on this. I have 2 replica Winchester 1892s...one's an EMF Hartford, 24" octagon Clerke barrel, 1"-in-12" twist rate. I understand its receiver is cast steel. MFG'd by Armi San Marco. The other is an LSI PUMA, 20" round barrel, 1"-in-38" twist rate. Its receiver is forged steel. If this is true, isn't the Rossi mfg'd rifle stronger because of this difference in material forming? I'd like to swap the 24" barrel onto the Rossi so I can run stronger heavy-bullet loads thru it, at around 40,000cup, .45 caliber, from 280s thru 325s(faster twist stabilizes heavy bullets better). Paco Kelly claims the Rossi's can handle 55,000cup all day long. I won't go near that, but would like the security of a stronger gun, if possible. I'd appreciate your opinions on this project. Thanx, jd45

danf_fl 02-27-2013 09:20 AM

I would not do that.
The frame is one consideration, but have you considered the internal moving parts and pressure put on them?

40,000 cup is a lot of pressure.

jd45 02-27-2013 12:30 PM

danf_fl,....re the part of my text where I say that Paco Kelly, with many years of using Rossi's, attests to the fact that they can handle 55,000cup all day long. If the receiver can take it, why wouldn't the internals also be able to? I don't mean to be argumentative here, just trying to understand. Don't the modern '92s have an edge in strength due to their design over other levers such as Marlin 336s & Win '94s? Thanx for replying, jd45

danf_fl 02-27-2013 05:33 PM

I just err on the side of caution.
When I start to beef up one part, I always try to make sure that the other parts would stand up.
What works for one setup may not work for other setups.

I think along the lines that some .38 Spl +P should not be fired in some .38 Spl revolvers (even in some modern ones).

Is the cost of purchasing another rifle already setup too prohibitive?

jd45 02-27-2013 07:32 PM

dan, I'm afraid I'd play hell trying to find a 24" barrel with the twist-rate this one has, which is the one saving grace of this Armi San Marco mfg'd rifle, or for that matter, ANY barrel with a 1 in 12 rate, that makes it so desirable to me for my heavy bullet loads. Would you care to give your opinion as to the strength of a cast steel receiver vs a forged steel receiver? Thanx again, jd

1old0311 02-27-2013 08:52 PM

Forged is always stronger than cast, but not always better.

jd45 02-27-2013 09:09 PM

1old0311, can you expand on your statement & enlighten me as to why it's not always better? I'd really like to understand. Thanx, jd45

jdsingleshot 03-03-2013 08:37 PM

Cold thread I guess, but forged is stronger than cast IF the same steel is used and the heat treating is appropriate for each--heat treating might be different for each.

Forged steel gains toughness by being formed from one shape to another. But the steel may be more malleable than steels used in casting an action.

I'd say you'd need to know the class of steel in each before being able to guess which is stronger. It might be possible to find out what steels are used by contacting the manufacturers.

Jim

jd45 03-03-2013 09:55 PM

Thanx for your reply Jim. Yeah, cold as a mother-in-law's kiss. I asked for an explanation from 1old0311 regarding his statement about forged being stronger but not always better....got nothin. By malleable, do you mean better able to absorb stresses imposed on it such as the detonation of a cartridge within it, and a casting would be brittle in comparison to a forging, and not as resistant to stress? Am I on the right track? BTW, Armi San Marco is defunct, so I'm unable to contact them, (the cast receiver rifle) jd45

jdsingleshot 03-04-2013 02:41 PM

Malleable means able to be reshaped. Forging improves the grain structure of steel. but there are many interrelated influences on the strength of steel. That's why there is a whole field of study called metallurgy.

The right track will lead nowhere in this case, without knowing the types of steel and all the processes to which the parts were subjected during their manufacture. Steel castings are not likely to be brittle, but generalities in this case are of no help.

Parker Ackley did some tests to destruction of various military bolt actions after WWII. That approach is the only certain way to determine the relative strengths of firearms actions. My guess is, you can't afford to destroy actions to find out which is stronger and how strong it is. Best leave such experimentation to those who can afford it and have facilities to ensure their own safety.

There is great wisdom in being able to choose battles that seem winnable and avoid the rest.

Jim


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.