Cast vs Forged Frames
- Thread starter TunnelRat
- Start date
Walt Sherrill
New member
I think it was 1911Tuner, in a discussion about cast vs forged, who made the point that the FRAME is really kinda like handle of a tool -- the real work is done elsewhere.
In the case of a handgun, the work is really performed by the slide and barrel, and that's where strength is most critical. That's apparently why darned few guns have cast slides... The frame needs to be strong, but not to the same degree as the slide.
In the case of a handgun, the work is really performed by the slide and barrel, and that's where strength is most critical. That's apparently why darned few guns have cast slides... The frame needs to be strong, but not to the same degree as the slide.
Metallurgy is a very complex topic and there are a huge number of variables that must be taken into account to determine how strong a particular piece of metal is.
While there's a theoretical advantage to forging over casting, there are so many things that come into play in the change from theory to practical application that it's essentially worthless to try to evaluate the strength of a part based purely on its method of construction.
Your best bet is to buy from a company with a reputation for making good quality, durable products and who is known for standing behind their products and then let them handle the details of how to actually make the product.
While there's a theoretical advantage to forging over casting, there are so many things that come into play in the change from theory to practical application that it's essentially worthless to try to evaluate the strength of a part based purely on its method of construction.
Your best bet is to buy from a company with a reputation for making good quality, durable products and who is known for standing behind their products and then let them handle the details of how to actually make the product.
Nothing wrong with a good cast frame. Having said that, if I'm spending $2,000+ on a 1911, I want a forged frame. Why? Because ... well, just because I'm spending $2,000+. Now, the difference between a forged slide and a cast slide is substantial. Only a couple use cast slides.
g.willikers
New member
In the automotive field, cast iron exhaust manifolds can suffer failure, mostly due to the heat.
Cast iron internal engine parts, like crank and cam shafts, last just about as long as the car.
Racing engines use forged parts.
They are stronger under extreme conditions, but cost lots more.
So, it depends on the use and expectations, as to whether cast or forged parts are suitable.
And, of course, the quality of manufacturing.
In other words, there's no clear answer.
A cast frame from a major gun manufacturer is probably no cause for concern.
Unless maybe the gun is destined for hundreds of thousands of rounds.
Cast iron internal engine parts, like crank and cam shafts, last just about as long as the car.
Racing engines use forged parts.
They are stronger under extreme conditions, but cost lots more.
So, it depends on the use and expectations, as to whether cast or forged parts are suitable.
And, of course, the quality of manufacturing.
In other words, there's no clear answer.
A cast frame from a major gun manufacturer is probably no cause for concern.
Unless maybe the gun is destined for hundreds of thousands of rounds.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
This debate will rage until the end of time.
I own 1911s with forged frames, and I own 1911s with cast frames. They all shoot the same.
It won't settle the debate, but it is interesting to not that FN Herstal always used forged frames for the Browning Hi-Power. Until they introduced the Hi-Power in .40 S&W. Contrary to prevailing lore about strength, they changed from forged frames to investment cast frames when they introduced the .40 S&W because they felt the cast frames would BETTER stand up to the higher power round.
I own 1911s with forged frames, and I own 1911s with cast frames. They all shoot the same.
It won't settle the debate, but it is interesting to not that FN Herstal always used forged frames for the Browning Hi-Power. Until they introduced the Hi-Power in .40 S&W. Contrary to prevailing lore about strength, they changed from forged frames to investment cast frames when they introduced the .40 S&W because they felt the cast frames would BETTER stand up to the higher power round.
There is no question that, other things being equal, a forging is stronger than a casting; but engineered structures are designed to accept the loads and perform the tasks that they are designed for. A properly engineered and manufactured gun will not fail, whether it has a forged, cast, steel, aluminum or polymer frame. The determining factor is not so much the material and process as it is the engineers who designed it and the manufacturing systems that produced it. This is where the reputation and track record of the manufacturer becomes an important factor ... it's the best indication that you have available of how well the piece is likely to have been engineered and built.
I'll take a forged frame over a cast frame, all things being equal. But, all things are hardly ever equal, so I don't automatically write off any gun that is made by investment casting.
In a perfect world, all firearms frames would be made out of forged titanium; slides and barrels made of hammer forged steel; fire control parts milled out of billet stainless steel; grip panels flush with the frame and made out of lightweight Damascus steel.
In a perfect world, all firearms frames would be made out of forged titanium; slides and barrels made of hammer forged steel; fire control parts milled out of billet stainless steel; grip panels flush with the frame and made out of lightweight Damascus steel.
I'm a forged-frame 1911 snob, mostly because that's how the originals were made; every part was a fully machined forging.
I generally don't know the process used on more modern guns, but expect it to be appropriate.
When people say, "Rugers are cast, and they're plenty strong", you have to consider that Rugers are designed to be cast, they're not a cast version of something else, and comparing a massive, blocky Ruger revolver to a forged Smith & Wesson might leave the impression that the Ruger must be more massive to be as strong.
I think the problem with cast 1911 frames is that they're on the cheaper guns of that type, and cheapness is rarely thought of as a virtue when people are selecting something upon which their life may depend.
I see the commercial Springfield Garands getting a lot of grief for having cast receivers, but I rarely hear complaints about their M1As, which also are cast. Probably because there is no supply of surplus M14s, priced at half what Springfield wants for a M1A.
I generally don't know the process used on more modern guns, but expect it to be appropriate.
When people say, "Rugers are cast, and they're plenty strong", you have to consider that Rugers are designed to be cast, they're not a cast version of something else, and comparing a massive, blocky Ruger revolver to a forged Smith & Wesson might leave the impression that the Ruger must be more massive to be as strong.
I think the problem with cast 1911 frames is that they're on the cheaper guns of that type, and cheapness is rarely thought of as a virtue when people are selecting something upon which their life may depend.
I see the commercial Springfield Garands getting a lot of grief for having cast receivers, but I rarely hear complaints about their M1As, which also are cast. Probably because there is no supply of surplus M14s, priced at half what Springfield wants for a M1A.
Ruger investment cast receivers are not necessarily massive or blocky. Take for example the AC556 receiver ( full-auto Mini-14). It's a much smaller, visibly similar, version of a Garand or M14 receiver. The receiver itself is smaller by volume than an AR15 upper and lower receiver. Yet, these investment caset receivers handle full auto fire of 5.56 and instances of them cracking or breaking are very, very rare. They have a reputation of being one of the most rugged 5.56 receivers made.
If Ruger can make a machine-gun tough investment cast receiver for a carbine, I have no doubt that their investment cast handgun frames are capable of handling the much lower pressures and slower fire without any significant failures.
Last edited:
And how big was the receiver of the Mini-G.I., or whatever the stillborn 7.62x51 version was going to be called? I remember it looking a lot smaller than a M14, but maybe there was a lot of excess strength built into the M14, and Ruger determined how much smaller it could be made and still work?
In the old days, when JMB was playing with guns, designers were usually not engineers and indeed engineering itself was at a pretty primitive stage. So Browning, Mauser, and others, made critical parts as thick as they thought was needed, then built in a big "fudge factor" in the form of extra metal.
Now, when we know a bit more about metals, we can eliminate a lot that sheer mass and either make the parts thinner or make them in other ways or from other metals, like light weight alloys. But with guns there is another factor involved. We might, in theory, make a .44 Magnum that would weight eight ounces, but who would want to shoot it? Not I, thank you. So some of that mass is needed to make a usable gun, not just a safe or durable one.
Jim
Now, when we know a bit more about metals, we can eliminate a lot that sheer mass and either make the parts thinner or make them in other ways or from other metals, like light weight alloys. But with guns there is another factor involved. We might, in theory, make a .44 Magnum that would weight eight ounces, but who would want to shoot it? Not I, thank you. So some of that mass is needed to make a usable gun, not just a safe or durable one.
Jim
The Die is Cast
Assuming a good casting, it's neither here nor there. The "gun" is the slide and barrel assembly. The frame is essentially the gun mount and a housing for the controls and the magazine. Everybody worries about the frame, but it's the slide and barrel that catch all the hell.
Assuming a good casting, it's neither here nor there. The "gun" is the slide and barrel assembly. The frame is essentially the gun mount and a housing for the controls and the magazine. Everybody worries about the frame, but it's the slide and barrel that catch all the hell.
I read a very good article some years back written by 1911 pistolsmith and pistol-maker, Ed Brown where he stated that properly executed precision cast steel, as Ruger does, is the equal of a forging. Not that hard to wrap your head around that when you consider that Ruger's steel goes into a mold in a molten state, then rapidly quenched. As far as tensile strength, he considered that as sufficient heat treating and equal to forged steel. 