Cast vs Forged

Discussion in 'Gunsmithing Forum' started by jd45, Feb 26, 2013.

  1. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    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
     
  2. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    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.
     

  3. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    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
     
  4. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    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?
     
  5. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    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
     
  6. 1old0311

    1old0311 New Member

    24
    0
    0
    Forged is always stronger than cast, but not always better.
     
  7. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    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
     
  8. jdsingleshot

    jdsingleshot Member

    55
    0
    6
    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
     
  9. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    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
     
  10. jdsingleshot

    jdsingleshot Member

    55
    0
    6
    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
     
  11. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    MY OPINION.
    Cast can leave pockets undetecteable by the eye. Though today's casting techniques does reduce that risk.

    But, I am old fashioned.
     
  12. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    Thanx Jim, I appreciate your knowledge & wisdom. Good shooting! jd45
     
  13. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    paco kelly doesnt have decades of experience with thousands and thousands of guns on the market. he has prolly done a couple hundred maybe a thousand at utmost. the manufacturer says the pressure is such due to tons of feedback and samples that have gone kaboom.

    while paco kelly may not have personally blown up a gun doing what he is doing, much like elmer keith he is giving incredibly terrible advice on things he isnt a real expert on. just because he has done something for a bit without incident doesnt mean what he is doing is wise or smart.

    to find out EXACTLY how much pressure a certain gun withstand it is tested to destruction. this means ramping up the pressure until something goes kaboom with a regular basis. since i seriously doubt paco kelly has the scientific measuring equipment to ascertain exact pressures and i really doubt he chops up his guns into pieces looking for stress cracks or even magnafluxes regularly looking for cracks i wouldnt do what he does,

    most firearms can handle far beyound their rated pressures. and can do it for a while. the thing is that the more pressure you exert on metal the weaker it gets. this is a cumalitive thing when it is done past a given metal's fail point. the fail point is usually the stress level that does harm to the crystalline structure of steel and makes it more brittle over repeated stress exposure.

    so if your gun is rated for 25000 and paco kelly says, oh ive run mine at 55000 a lot what he is doing is building up stress in that gun which can lead to a catastrophic disassembly of the said firearm over many repeated firings.

    on a side note, the barrel threading and reciever threading may not be the same so it might be a moot point anyway
     
  14. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    Thanx for the replies guys. JonM, your point about Paco not having the wherewithall to be able to do the required testing is well taken. I wish Armi San Marco was still in business, so I could check what their cast-receivered rifle might be rated for' pressurewise. It'd save me some money if I could just leave that barrel where it is. Anyway I was assuming they might have the same metric thread, since they're both assembled outside the U.S., tho the ARMI has a U.S. made Clerke barrel. And BTW, I wouldn't go NEAR Paco Kelly-level loads, even in the Rossi.Thanx again, jd45
     
  15. triggerjob

    triggerjob New Member

    258
    0
    0
    One thing to consider, is the design of the 94, the firing stress goes mainly into the locking block, which is that relatively thin piece that moves up and down behind the bolt as you work the lever. The weakest part being the thinner peices running in the track in the reciever. As you over pressure the gun, these will work harden. When they give way, the bolt WILL fly straight back ripping out your cheek and possibly your eye. Im not saying the gun will fail at those pressures, but I am saying if it does, it will be the locking block that goes, and your face is in direct line. Unlike a bolt action gun, the 94 bolt rides in a track that WILL direct the bolt straight back, not up and out. Lever guns were not designed for high pressures. Maybe the browning rotating bolt design could be played with since it was designed to shoot higher pressure modern loads. Some gun desighn are inherintly stronger and even some are safer when they do fail, the 94 aint in that class, if the luggs shear of that locking block kiss your face good by!
     
  16. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    triggerjob, thanx for the insight on how the '94 action is affected by the pressures of hot loads, but I'm dealing with rifles based on the 1892 design, which is a much stronger design with today's metallurgy. Rossi has chambered their '92s for a few years now in, among others, the .454 Casull cartridge, with no ill effects, so I'm told, but I'm not going anywhere NEAR those pressures. I'll be toppin out @ 32,000-35,000cup in my Rossi, once it's all back together with the barrel from the other rifle. jd45
     
  17. triggerjob

    triggerjob New Member

    258
    0
    0
    Yes, sorry I mis combobulated your question. The 92 does have extra beefy lugs.
     
  18. jd45

    jd45 New Member

    173
    0
    0
    I assume mis-combobulated is a technical gunsmithing term? (grin) jd45