The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > Weapon Specific Forums > The FN Files

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 30, 2011, 15:13   #101
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by IRONWORKER




The main area where Springfield M1A receivers are much thicker is the receiver heel
But we don't know if that was strictly due to it being cast or more along the lines of what Tim Dees said. We know that the forged M1 Garand receiver heels were known to crack under some conditions fo firing grenades.

In any case, I won't be firing enough ammo to destroy any rifle in my inventory anyway...

JWB
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30, 2011, 22:58   #102
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms
Registered
 
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 32036
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally posted by IRONWORKER




ENTERPRISE CASTINGS SUCK i have never seen more pathetic, porous castings on a firearm than i have on the 2 shit receivers i bought from Enterprise, i had to send both back because of "welding" in several places & numerous (over a dozen on my BGS) pinholes - Check out the Brasshound group buy if you want to see current Enterprise quality
That may not be a true statement per se. The quality of the casting may be on par with any other casting company's products, but the issue with the welds is a problem with quality control by Entreprise. They should have simply discarded/recycled/sold for scrap or gotten a refund for the castings.

Did Entreprise get a bad batch? Yup, but they have gotten plenty of good castings from them in the past. The problem is a lot of the porosity doesn't show up until you machine the receiver, so it would have been up to Entreprise to go back to the casting company after the receivers were machined and argue that their castings were not usable.

The only way to determine if the company Entreprise buys its castings from is inferior to any other firearm's company that uses cast receivers is to obtain a group of samples from each of them and use the scientific method of t&e them.
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 02, 2011, 20:28   #103
Tim Dreas
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17255
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: York,PA
Posts: 891
I think the M-14 heel is thicker than the Garand heel. Even the military ones. I was thinking of the semi auto receiver modification backwards. The rear of the receiver on one design of semi auto M-14 receivers allows an additional 10th of an inch rearward travel to the bolt, so the impact of bolt and op rod to the receiver happen at the same time (in theory). The M-14 op rod has an additional 10th of an inch travel after the M-14 bolt impacts the receiver compared to the Garand. The M-14 receiver is beefed up compared to the Garand in the military ones and many cast M1A receivers are even beefier in some sections. They may just be easier to cast that way instead of machining them down to M-14 specs though.
__________________
http://www.mpri.com/
Tim Dreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2011, 16:57   #104
BC
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 752
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: cc
Posts: 3,210
Quote:
Originally posted by newtown
Since we are on the subject. again....

Coonan receivers are investment cast, thick, heat treated, then machined.
I wonder why the receiver is heat treated first, then machined? Is it due to some legal reasons?
BC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2011, 17:37   #105
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
often during casting the cooling process is not carefully monitered and the piece may be hard and have inconsistancies in the hardness ( soft and hard spots) making machining troublesome, cast parts are often anealed a heat treating process that brings a metal to a dead soft state and easier to machine.
just my opinion (I have been told I am not qualified to comment in this field)
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2011, 18:59   #106
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
non technical non specific hype

www.steelforge.com/metaltidbits/forge.htm
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2011, 19:15   #107
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
not my opinion
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb...hining-119270/
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14, 2011, 01:25   #108
Tim Dreas
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17255
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: York,PA
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally posted by BC


I wonder why the receiver is heat treated first, then machined? Is it due to some legal reasons?
I remember Coonan saying it was easier to machine correctly with it hardened and not dead soft. I don't know if it was hardened to full hardness but the full hardness of an FAL receiver isn't super hard anyway. At one time Coonan posted more info about it. I don't remember if it included the hardness but it might have.
__________________
http://www.mpri.com/
Tim Dreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14, 2011, 01:28   #109
Tim Dreas
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17255
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: York,PA
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally posted by BC


I wonder why the receiver is heat treated first, then machined? Is it due to some legal reasons?
Found it.

Quote:
We have done a fair amount of hardness testing of
various FAL type receivers. The only receivers that
should be used as a benchmark or standard are the
Imbel commercial and contract (military) receivers and
the various receiver remnants
found on rifle kits. The most common of these receiver
remnants is the front end section; still attached to
the barrel. We have just recently
seen center sections and back end sections from L1A1
and G1 rifles. Here is the scoop in a nutshell: All
Imbels and contract (military)
receivers are SOFT!!!!!! LESS THAN 20 (TWENTY!)
Rockwell 'C' Scale, with the EXCEPTION of the
UNDERLUG/LOCKING LUG AREA. The Underlug/Locking Lug
area has been spot treated by either induction or
resistance heating to the critical or transformation
temperature and quenched ; no tempering. The result is
a hard spot, about 57 Rc, blending to 18 -20 Rc within
1/2 inch radius. Our best engineering analyses of this
spot treatment (and we sent our head engineer on an
all
Ireland Pub Crawl BEFORE he kissed the Blarney Stone!)
is this: They wanted the locking lug something better
than dead soft - around 25-30
Rc. So they spot hardened and quenched. By eliminating
a Draw or Tempering operation, they saved BIG BUCKS! -
and that's the only reason
it's 57 Rc and not 25 Rc.
Our parts are Normalized, Hardened, Drawn - three
different heat-treat operations - to 25 to 30 Rc and
then fully machined in this hardened condition. We
have tried other methods. This is the most
predictable. DSA receivers measure 25 -30 Rc anywhere
and everywhere. Some people
claim their receivers are 'rock hard' - they fail to
claim they have rocks in their head!
As an added note, this is an extremely hard part to
check accurately. We have been forced to SECTION parts
and prepare them for hardness
evaluation. The inclination is that the parts measure
softer than they are due to part movement while
testing, and the heat-treater making them
harder because of the lower readings, This can be SO
MUCH FUN!!!!
I have more to say, but I think I'll have a pint of
Guinness before the Blarney wears off!
Thanks for giving me this opportunity!
Dan Coonan
__________________
http://www.mpri.com/
Tim Dreas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22, 2011, 18:25   #110
R.Erichsen
Registered
 
R.Erichsen's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 63346
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California, desert Southwest
Posts: 171
How many on this board has had, or knows anyone whose receiver cracked from the stresses of firing it? I've often wondered if a receiver ever did crack, could you not just weld it back up, re-heat treat and get another umpteen thousand rounds out of it?

R
R.Erichsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24, 2011, 21:14   #111
blackdog6
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 35826
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 7
At my rifle club, I am endlessly persecuted and told how inferior my Springfield Armory Garand is because it has a cast receiver.

Then,I am endlessly regaled about their superior, forged wartime Garands.

But, when the match is over, my High Power scores always beat theirs.

Must be the magic unicorn horn dust I use for powder.

I use the same ammo in my FAL and it wins too.
blackdog6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26, 2011, 21:55   #112
R.Erichsen
Registered
 
R.Erichsen's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 63346
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California, desert Southwest
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally posted by blackdog6
At my rifle club, I am endlessly persecuted and told how inferior my Springfield Armory Garand is because it has a cast receiver.

Then,I am endlessly regaled about their superior, forged wartime Garands.

But, when the match is over, my High Power scores always beat theirs.

Must be the magic unicorn horn dust I use for powder.

I use the same ammo in my FAL and it wins too.
Anyone paying as much as some folks do on their period correct GI spec wartime target toys is bound to make mention of supposed superiority. Until I see some data that shows how much a receiver stretches or how cracks form and propagate on fairly heavy steel semi-auto receivers, I think I'll keep my money in my wallet.

If someone could volunteer a few rifles and test those rifles to the point of failure, perhaps we would know more. I'm thinking of a recent DSA test which managed to get to the 10K rounds, but destroyed the barrel during testing at around 7200 rounds. That was a semi-auto rifle test with plenty of stopping and cool off periods tested in the middle of winter using a high quality hand-lapped target barrel. I shudder to think how much the test would cost to run at current ammo prices if it takes 40K or heaven forbid 200K+ rounds before the supposed failure point is reached. Throw in the cost for between 6 and 28 barrels if that test was any indication, along with some unknown number of other parts that are bound to break or become too worn to operate.

If the assumption for the infamous "receiver life expectancy" was based on extensive use of full automatic and launching heavy rifle grenades all taking their toll - perhaps, but it sounds like a lot of guesswork. If anyone knows for sure they are keeping the details to themselves on empirical testing. Did FN, Steyr, Imbel or any of the other manufacturers actually do testing to the point of destruction on these weapons?

R
R.Erichsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 05, 2011, 14:07   #113
chrsdwns
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 9846
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,709
The reality is that making receivers is a manufacturing process and the blanks, whether forged or cast, are just one aspect of the manufacturing process.

The fact is that given the geometry of the FAL receiver it is hard to get a big improvement in properties due to grain flow anywhere except the locking lug area, unless you use a near net shape forging. DSA does use this type of forging BTW because it saves a lot of money on scrap metal and CNC machine time as well.

A properly investment cast FAL receiver is can be as good or potentially even better than a forged receiver, depending upon the quality of the individual blank and the rest of the downstream manufacturing process. Dan Coonan knows how to make excellent gun parts from investment castings so it is safe to assume that he is doing things right.

Cast vs forged makes for great Internet Chevy/Ford or Packer/Steeler debates but to really determine the true relative quality of a FAL receiver and to evaluate which receiver is "better" you would need to have detailed information on metallurgy, heat treat, detail design dimensions, machining tolerances, QC inspection procedures, and part to part variations in all of the above. You would also have to have a lot of extensive in the field testing of actual receivers to document end of life criteria.

Both DSA and Coonan use high quality 414X steel for their receivers which is a big step up from the high carbon 1060 mild steel used in the original forged FAL receivers and they also use fully hardened parts as opposed to the induction spot hardened process used on the original mil spec receivers.The fully hardened heat treat gives a better blend of properties for a FAL receiver if done properly.

FWIW the Garand and M-14 receivers are totally different in design and function to a FAL receiver so comparisons between forged and cast are not clear cut. The design of the M-14 and Garand highly favors a forged process. The relative merits of Cast vs Forged are not so obvious or clear cut with a FAL receiver.
__________________
"Those who do not move do not notice their chains. " -Rosa Luxumberg

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
~~Ludwig Von Mises

...when poets buy guns, tourist season is over................Walter R. Mead.

Last edited by chrsdwns; September 05, 2011 at 14:12.
chrsdwns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 08, 2011, 02:21   #114
Hoot G
What, me worry?
Bronze Contributor
 
Hoot G's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 23207
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South MS
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally posted by IRONWORKER

ENTERPRISE CASTINGS SUCK i have never seen more pathetic, porous castings on a firearm than i have on the 2 shit receivers i bought from Enterprise, i had to send both back because of "welding" in several places & numerous (over a dozen on my BGS) pinholes - Check out the Brasshound group buy if you want to see current Enterprise quality
Quote:
Originally posted by Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms
That may not be a true statement per se. The quality of the casting may be on par with any other casting company's products, but the issue with the welds is a problem with quality control by Entreprise. They should have simply discarded/recycled/sold for scrap or gotten a refund for the castings.

Did Entreprise get a bad batch? Yup, but they have gotten plenty of good castings from them in the past. The problem is a lot of the porosity doesn't show up until you machine the receiver, so it would have been up to Entreprise to go back to the casting company after the receivers were machined and argue that their castings were not usable.

The only way to determine if the company Entreprise buys its castings from is inferior to any other firearm's company that uses cast receivers is to obtain a group of samples from each of them and use the scientific method of t&e them.
Ok, so to not belabor what the meaning of "is" is, a more accurate statement would be;

ENTERPRISE RECEIVERS SUCK .

Since, as you claim, any of the casting companies may put out a similar product*, the full responsibility is on Entreprise to assure that none of the crap receivers ever get into the hands of the public. They didn't, so following the logic in your statement, that means that ENTREPRISE SUCKS for sending this potentially dangerous, but at least certainly unacceptable excuse for a rifle receiver.

* I have a difficult time believing that any casting company that produces this high a failure rate could stay in business long. I have no first-hand knowledge of how many cast (or forged) part attempts it takes to get a good one, but it seems to me that a 50% (or more) failure rate would be financially unsustainable (for anyone but certain Government welfare programs).

And no, I don't need to obtain a bunch of receiver castings and test them. I'm not likely to buy raw castings. All I need to know is that Entreprise sends out crap. I don't care why, I don't care if they apologize, I don't care if they might eventually, some day, try to rectify the problem. All I need to know is how they treated the folks here on the Files, and that the quality of their products has been iffy for years, much worse lately, and that their customer service has been spotty at best, over the years. That's all I need to know to make up my mind as to whether I'll ever buy Entreprise or not. That's my opinion and I'll live with it.


Not to mention that there are still people waiting on receivers. Next month will be a year since this fiasco started. Brasshound has disappeared, Entreprise is nowhere to be found, and folks have, essentially, been robbed.


Anybody wondering? Here's the whole story;
Brasshound and Entreprise Group Buy
__________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

Always have a go-to-hell plan.

Last edited by Hoot G; September 08, 2011 at 02:38.
Hoot G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 09, 2011, 23:59   #115
Brian in MN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 289
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,440
Amana introduced the first countertop microwave oven in 1967. The type III FAL receiver was introduced in 1973. Do ya think that just maybe the technology involved in making castings has moved forward in the almost four decades since the introduction of the type III???? Has your phone changed any during the last four decades?

Entreprise offers living proof that just because it is possible to make a great casting one can still sell bad quality and even worse customer service.

The folks at Coonan have a somewhat different business model.
__________________
Kalashnikov: The most successful point and click interface in the world.
Brian in MN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17, 2011, 12:55   #116
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms
Registered
 
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 32036
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 469
Feel free to tell me how you really feel.

Whether Entreprise sucks or not is not the question. The question is the castings they buy vs the castings other companies buy, and the whole casting vs forged question.


Quote:
Originally posted by Hoot G
[B]



Ok, so to not belabor what the meaning of "is" is, a more accurate statement would be;

ENTERPRISE RECEIVERS SUCK .

Since, as you claim, any of the casting companies may put out a similar product*, the full responsibility is on Entreprise to assure that none of the crap receivers ever get into the hands of the public. They didn't, so following the logic in your statement, that means that ENTREPRISE SUCKS for sending this potentially dangerous, but at least certainly unacceptable excuse for a rifle receiver.

* I have a difficult time believing that any casting company that produces this high a failure rate could stay in business long. I have no first-hand knowledge of how many cast (or forged) part attempts it takes to get a good one, but it seems to me that a 50% (or more) failure rate would be financially unsustainable (for anyone but certain Government welfare programs).

And no, I don't need to obtain a bunch of receiver castings and test them. I'm not likely to buy raw castings. All I need to know is that Entreprise sends out crap. I don't care why, I don't care if they apologize, I don't care if they might eventually, some day, try to rectify the problem. All I need to know is how they treated the folks here on the Files, and that the quality of their products has been iffy for years, much worse lately, and that their customer service has been spotty at best, over the years. That's all I need to know to make up my mind as to whether I'll ever buy Entreprise or not. That's my opinion and I'll live with it.


Not to mention that there are still people waiting on receivers. Next month will be a year since this fiasco started. Brasshound has disappeared, Entreprise is nowhere to be found, and folks have, essentially, been robbed.


Anybody wondering? Here's the whole story;
Brasshound and Entreprise Group Buy
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17, 2011, 18:17   #117
Hoot G
What, me worry?
Bronze Contributor
 
Hoot G's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 23207
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South MS
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Feel free to tell me how you really feel.

Whether Entreprise sucks or not is not the question. The question is the castings they buy vs the castings other companies buy, and the whole casting vs forged question.
Ok, I will. Matt, you're partially right, and the thread took a turn. However, it was you that brought Entreprises' quality into the discussion in the first place (see your post 87 below). It wasn't about raw casting vs. raw casting (which you introduced, along with you unnecessarily casting aspersions on DSA's blueprints), but the question was about finished cast receivers vs. finished forged receivers. The quality of Entreprise's raw castings has nothing to do with the question. Your hair-splitting regarding IRONWORKER's statement just seemed to need some clarification. Anybody that didn't have an axe to grind (or protect) understood that he was talking about finished receivers, not raw castings. His comment about the Entreprise welded up receivers (nothing to do with the raw casting, in case you missed the point) made that clear, if nothing else did. I have no idea who makes any of the raw castings, and I don't care. I know that Coonan produces a high quality finished cast receiver, so I have complete faith that whatever they're doing, it's right.

To clarify my position, I'm pretty sure that the Entreprise receivers won't break or wear prematurely. To split that hair, since you seem to like that, I'm very confident that Coonan's or DSA's won't. I'll even go so far as to say that I might buy an Entreprise receiver, if it were cheap enough, if I could inspect it personally beforehand, if I didn't care about resale value, and especially, if I didn't care about customer service. You brought the Entreprise quality into the discussion, and that invites comment, especially considering their performance in that group buy.

Quote:
But can someone really lay down the law and tell me WHY the Forged receiver is BETTER than a cast receiver on my Semi-Auto only FAL?
My apologies to the OP. In my personal, not very enlightened opinion (I'm no metallurgist), I'm just as happy with a high quality cast receiver (Coonan or FN) as a forged. I've never heard of (outside military and intentional torture tests) a well cast receiver wearing out or breaking, and that's from folks that have put thousands of rounds down range, both semi- and full-auto. From what little I understand, as far as longevity, castings have improved greatly over the years. And, let's not forget that FN thought they would be good enough way back (from a technologic aspect) in the 70's. Their cast receivers were predicted to have a shorter lifespan than their forged, but still be good enough for a battle rifle with the FN name on it.

My 2 for what's it's worth.


Quote:
Originally posted by Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms
I'll offer my $.02 on a couple of subjects brought up here:

Blueprints - everybody touts DSA for using "original" blue prints, and says everybody reverse engineers their receivers. Entreprise has "original" blue prints too, where and from whom they obtained them - I have no idea as it was years before I ever worked there. I know they used them as the starting point to make their receiver, and then used Imbles that they imported for dimension and function comparison and testing. Does DSA acutally have the "original" Steyr blueprints? I don't know, as I've never seen them. As I've pointed out before, the "true" blue prints are the ones the machinest used with all of his notations drawn on it with the changes he had to make.

We we brought out the Brit cut L1A1, we obtained blue prints from a forum member, and were offered prints from several other people as well. All of these prints were the generic ones, and not an actual one hanging on the wall in Birmingham (that is from what I saw, but since we did not take them from everybody who offered them, I can't say that one of theirs was not the "original).

I have no idea how Coonan or Century designed their receivers as I've never personally asked them.

I take the whole blueprints vs reverse engineered thing with a grain of salt.

Cast vs. forged - everybody knows forged is harder and "stronger" for some intents and purposes, and casting is softer and has the potential for porosity. Whether one lasts longer than the other or one is "safer" than the other requires what someone mentioned above - a torture test. Otherwise, its all just speculation as we won't know the true result until then.

As far as the casting go, people make general statements and assumptions that Entreprise's is crappier somehow with no factual basis to make those claims. Entreprise currently buys their casting from this company: http://www.fenicocastings.com/

Perhaps you can ask Coonan where they buy their's, and somebody can try to decide which casting company is "better."

Personally, I own three Entreprise Fals, and I am very happy with them. I have no fear of them blowing up in my face, and as far as I know in the history of the company, only two receivers have cracked and in both cases the owner admitted to using reloads.

During the time I worked there, and from what I was told, no one ever "wore out" their receiver and returned it.

I can't speak for any other company and if they have ever had one of their receivers crack or not, but thats what I know about Entreprise.
__________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

Always have a go-to-hell plan.
Hoot G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18, 2011, 13:59   #118
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms
Registered
 
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 32036
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 469
Well, DSA has blue prints, Entreprise has blue prints, and I'm sure Coonan, Century, and everybody else has blue prints. I'm sure quite a few forum members have blue prints as well.

I only mentioned it because people tout blue prints vs reverse engineering like its an important difference. Really, as long as they work - who cares?

I wasn't so sure that Ironworker was only talking about the finished receivers, and my impression was that there were concers about the actual quality of the raw castings. It is important becuase we actually had a problem with a different casting company a couple of years ago that led us to stop using their castings. That was specifically because of problems with porosity deep inside the castings.

So it is a big deal.



Quote:
Originally posted by Hoot G


Ok, I will. Matt, you're partially right, and the thread took a turn. However, it was you that brought Entreprises' quality into the discussion in the first place (see your post 87 below). It wasn't about raw casting vs. raw casting (which you introduced, along with you unnecessarily casting aspersions on DSA's blueprints), but the question was about finished cast receivers vs. finished forged receivers. The quality of Entreprise's raw castings has nothing to do with the question. Your hair-splitting regarding IRONWORKER's statement just seemed to need some clarification. Anybody that didn't have an axe to grind (or protect) understood that he was talking about finished receivers, not raw castings. His comment about the Entreprise welded up receivers (nothing to do with the raw casting, in case you missed the point) made that clear, if nothing else did. I have no idea who makes any of the raw castings, and I don't care. I know that Coonan produces a high quality finished cast receiver, so I have complete faith that whatever they're doing, it's right.

To clarify my position, I'm pretty sure that the Entreprise receivers won't break or wear prematurely. To split that hair, since you seem to like that, I'm very confident that Coonan's or DSA's won't. I'll even go so far as to say that I might buy an Entreprise receiver, if it were cheap enough, if I could inspect it personally beforehand, if I didn't care about resale value, and especially, if I didn't care about customer service. You brought the Entreprise quality into the discussion, and that invites comment, especially considering their performance in that group buy.



My apologies to the OP. In my personal, not very enlightened opinion (I'm no metallurgist), I'm just as happy with a high quality cast receiver (Coonan or FN) as a forged. I've never heard of (outside military and intentional torture tests) a well cast receiver wearing out or breaking, and that's from folks that have put thousands of rounds down range, both semi- and full-auto. From what little I understand, as far as longevity, castings have improved greatly over the years. And, let's not forget that FN thought they would be good enough way back (from a technologic aspect) in the 70's. Their cast receivers were predicted to have a shorter lifespan than their forged, but still be good enough for a battle rifle with the FN name on it.

My 2 for what's it's worth.


Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29, 2011, 13:19   #119
hkshooter
Mighty Fine!
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 5391
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 6,278
I like forged because in my imagination little green alien voodoo doctors injected them with magic powder that makes them imortal and forever lasting, indestructable regardless of round count or hurricane. Cast has no such injection from little green alien voodoo doctors. So there.
hkshooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 28, 2011, 19:27   #120
MagicRat
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64527
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1
Re: Forged vs Cast.......how much better? WHY?

Quote:
Originally posted by LaConservationist
I know we have some very intelligent "GENTS" and "GALS" here that frequent this forum. And yes I understand the concept between Forged vs. Cast.
But can someone really lay down the law and tell me WHY the Forged receiver is BETTER than a cast receiver on my Semi-Auto only FAL?
IT seems EVERY TIME there are questions and or statements concerning the two, DSA REP can ONLY say DSA's receivers are better because theirs are Forged vs. Cast. No other quality issues, not tighter specs, not better customer service, NOTHING!
How long has DSA been manufacturing Forged receivers? Are the highly sought after "GRAYSLAKE" receivers forged or were these Cast receivers?????
I am sure of the MANY firearm manufactures in business today, do NOT all use FORGED receivers/parts...... DO THEY?

OK my HERO's PLEASE ENLIGHTEN me!!

LaC
Okay, I'm new here but I was issued an FN in Rhodesia, but since I'm in the UK now, I'm excused these toys. I've scanned this thread and read informative and some amusing comments and theories. Here's mine:

Think of a casting as a biscuit. It's short - brittle, just like a biscuit. It wants to snap, rather than bend. It can't bend Any stress points are bound to crack - eventually. Max/min number of rounds and timescale are unreliable. Everyone's milage is bound to differ. It's absolutely impossible to detect a piece of metal's full, accurate 'biography'. What happened to it from the moment it was cast all has an effect on its life expectancy.

Little things such as speeds and feeds of cutters used, as well as the radii of corners all have an affect on how and when any piece of metal will fail.

Therefore, as well as thinking of a casting as a biscuit, it's wise to think of it as a turkey. For every day it exists, the turkey feels fine - until the day it isn't fed... and then has its neck stretched.

The story is the same for the casting. For every day it exists, it feels fine - until the day it cracks. The turkey doesn't know the date of Thanksgiving or Christmas, any more than you know what's happening inside your weapon.

Now, much the same can also be said of the forging, but the forging is not 'short'. It doesn't want to snap. Instead it has a natural tendency to bend. So the likelihood of failure is reduced and its life is bound to be longer, as explained by Kev on July 18, 2011 06:54_

I really don't care what your experience is, how other weapons are made, or what you're happy with. I also have little interest in anecdotal evidence of reports of failure, or even theoretical failure rate charts. That's not real evidence any sensible person relies on.

Example: Saab 900 Turbos of early 1980s vintage had an issue where after a while they refused to start when hot. I returned mine to the dealer 5 times and they spent hours trying to find the cause. The vehicle was 3 years old. No-one had the answer. I eventually traced it to a tiny O ring in the fuel system that became compressed with a flat on one side, causing a spring loaded valve to stick. 75p to replace. I've never spoken to a single Saab 900 owner who had heard of the problem, yet I was stranded several times.

Finally, castings are relatively easy to produce, and therefore cheaper. Forgings are more difficult to produce, require more expensive and rarer tooling, and therefore more expensive than castings. Everything about the forging process is more complicated from a commercial point of view.

So the rational person has to ask: Why would anyone EVER produce forgings when castings of the same parts are not only made by their competitors, they were fitted by the original manufacturer? If your answer is: "PR", I suggest you read a good book on the subject of metallurgy.

Logic therefore tells us the forging is a superior part.
MagicRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19, 2011, 14:45   #121
Hebrew Battle Rifle
Horses Ass
Bronze Contributor
 
Hebrew Battle Rifle's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 5777
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,268
Re: Re: Forged vs Cast.......how much better? WHY?

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicRat


Okay, I'm new here but I was issued an FN in Rhodesia, but since I'm in the UK now, I'm excused these toys. I've scanned this thread and read informative and some amusing comments and theories. Here's mine:

Think of a casting as a biscuit. It's short - brittle, just like a biscuit. It wants to snap, rather than bend. It can't bend Any stress points are bound to crack - eventually. Max/min number of rounds and timescale are unreliable.
We call them cookies here. Biscuits here are fluffy, soft, and delicious when covered in white cream gravy.

Cast iron is brittle and certainly will snap when subjected to impact or shear forces that exceed it's yield strength.
Cast steel, on the other hand, absolutely will bend. Admittedly, it will not bend as far as an equal size piece of forged steel, but it will bend. I have seen cast steel F A L receivers that have been subjected to an explosion caused by overloaded ammo that were stretched and warped, but did not break from the force.

As far as wearing out a cast steel receiver: I'll worry about it when it ever starts to happen. I have owned a dozen or so automobiles with cast steel brake rotors and it took far more friction and stress to wear them down than my firearms will ever see in ten life times. It just isn't a concern.
__________________
THANK YOU JESUS

Last edited by Hebrew Battle Rifle; November 20, 2011 at 01:42.
Hebrew Battle Rifle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20, 2011, 01:16   #122
gauraprema
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 33471
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: trade tennessee happy now
Posts: 920
f

Imbels are forged,type 3 so how many rounds can they handle?
__________________
Genesis 3:23-24

" (23) therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. (24) So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life."
"America has begun a spiritual reawakening. Faith and hope are being restored. Americans are turning back to God. Church attendance is up. Audiences for religious books and broadcasts are growing. And I do believe that he has begun to heal our blessed land."RONALD REAGAN
gauraprema is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20, 2011, 02:00   #123
Super B
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 404
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL,, USA
Posts: 1,986
Williams made receivers out of ALUMINUM, and they were almost strong enougbh.........
__________________
There's nothing more dangerous than a colossal, bankrupt, and well-armed government---Porter Stansberry
Super B is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 26, 2011, 00:19   #124
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Re: Re: Forged vs Cast.......how much better? WHY?

Quote:
Originally posted by MagicRat
...So the rational person has to ask: Why would anyone EVER produce forgings when castings of the same parts are not only made by their competitors, they were fitted by the original manufacturer? If your answer is: "PR", I suggest you read a good book on the subject of metallurgy.

Logic therefore tells us the forging is a superior part.
Which is, I suppose why FN itself turned to Casting the receivers in the '70s...

A good book on metallurgy is indeed recommended, especially the topic of cast steel and the shear and tensile properties of such...

Welcome Aboard!

Do tell us more about your Rhodesia experiences...

JWB

Last edited by jbrooks; November 26, 2011 at 00:25.
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26, 2012, 09:49   #125
ExCdnSoldierInTx
Old Fart
Gold Contributor
 
ExCdnSoldierInTx's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 65552
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Central Merca
Posts: 7,322
Honestly, what does it matter?

Fact remains; DSA brought the civilian FAL concept into acceptance, and from what I can see, they're the standard by which all others are judged.
They're proven through the years.
Honestly, what's 50 bucks really when you're buying a known commodity?
Next to one stamped C.A.L., I'll choose DSA anyday.
ExCdnSoldierInTx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26, 2012, 12:40   #126
the Enchilada-Repairman
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64570
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrsdwns View Post

Cast vs forged makes for great Internet Chevy/Ford or Packer/Steeler debates but to really determine the true relative quality of a FAL receiver and to evaluate which receiver is "better" you would need to have detailed information on metallurgy, heat treat, detail design dimensions, machining tolerances, QC inspection procedures, and part to part variations in all of the above.

...precise & concise .........My vocation is that of an Aerospace Engineer , I currently work in the Non-Conforming Material Review section for my Employer.( My avocation is self-directed ballistic research with the Stg 58 MBR..... )

If the manufacturing process could be described as a Circus Parade.....I'm the guy right behind the Elephants.....with the large scoop shovel......

..so I get to see an amazing variety well intentioned designs.....exhibiting unintended consequences during the manufacturing process........metal alloys & casting / forgings in particular...
and a large part of my job is in the feed-back loop to our Design Engineers....so I've garnered some insight to how Design Engineers think ...

..when a Design Engineer is going to design a metallic product......here are three fundemental characteristics He will consider :

* Alloy
* Component function & life cycle
* Stress

...both castings & forging offer positives & negative attributes to the selection process ......

however Metallurgically speaking the Engineer will look at :
* strength
* Malleability ( manufacturability )
* tensile strength
* stress
* fatigue ( High Cycle & low Cycle )
the Engineer will pick the alloy that meets his design criteria. And the form it will take ( cast vs Forged )



Quote:
Originally Posted by chrsdwns View Post


Both DSA and Coonan use high quality 414X steel for their receivers which is a big step up from the high carbon 1060 mild steel used in the original forged FAL receivers

....for those of you who don't recognize the SAE4100 series steel.....it is also commonly known as Chrome-Moly steel.......roll cages on NASCAR race cars are made from 4130 or 4140 grade Chrome-Moly.......anyone who has ever seen a Sprint Cup car nail the wall @ 200MPH and the drivers compartment stays intact.........can attest to Chrome-Molly's toughness !

as it says here :

4100 series Chrome Moly steel

41xx steel is a family of SAE steel grades, as specified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Alloying elements include chromium and molybdenum, and as a result these materials are often referred to as chromoly steel or CRMO. They have an excellent strength to weight ratio, are easily welded and are considerably stronger and harder than standard 1020 steel.

While these grades of steel do contain chromium, it is not in great enough quantities to provide the corrosion resistance found in stainless steel.

Examples of applications for 4130 and 4140 include structural tubing, bicycle frames, firearms receivers, clutch and flywheel components, and roll cages. 4150 stands out as being one of the steels accepted for use in M16 rifle and M4 carbine barrels by the United States military. These steels are also used in aircraft parts and therefore 41xx grade structural tubing is sometimes referred to as "aircraft tubing".


__________________
the Enchilada-Repairman
the Enchilada-Repairman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13, 2012, 18:08   #127
Pu239
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 15687
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubdog25 View Post
Generally, forging have a better fatigue life because the forging process pushes together small discontinuities in the steel's grain structure. A casting leaves these discontinuities as small holes in the casting. Here is a good link to casting defects on the wikipedia sight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discontinuity_(casting)#discontinuity

Forging gives what is often called directional properties by flowing the steel's grain structure in smooth arcs throughout the geometry of the forged component. These add structural integrity to the component much the way a Roman arch on a bridge is stronger than a simply supported beam.

A good design takes into account process variables, such as casting porosity inside of tolerance, so it does not matter.
Producing a casting free of porosity isn't that difficult. The advantage forging has is dislocation multiplication and interaction, AKA work hardening. Discontinuity is too vague and does not refer to dislocations.
Pu239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 13, 2012, 18:19   #128
Pu239
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 15687
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ductapeman View Post
A raw drop forging is made by heating a block of aluminum or steel, then pounding it against a mould with a 50-ton hammer on the face of which is the other side of the mould. The theory is that it compacts and aligns the grain of the metal, giving a denser, stronger part, and it's true that a blank forging is heavier (slightly) than an equal-sized casting. The resulting blank is then CNC-milled to final shape. A casting is exactly that-- pour liquid metal into a mould, cool, you're done. All in all, though, while a forged part has a nicer "feel" to it and has less (zero) chance of voids in it, a properly made casting will last just as well as a forging. Look at Ruger-- that's all they use. Also, the spec for the Type 3 FAL receiver was for a casting. You pays your money and you takes your choice. I have cast-receiver ARs that I've had since the late 1980s that still run just fine. Most folks will take the forging, because it has a better feel and look to it, but it will also cost more.
There is absolutely zero 'compacting' or 'aligning' atoms, grains, etc. In a metallic solid at some temperature, the atoms are a specific distance from each other, and no man-made piece of machinery is going to change that. By forging, you are breaking up the equiaxed grain shape and enlarging the grain boundary surface area which act as a boundary to dislocation movement.

Grain boundaries provide strength and inhibit plastic deformation at 'low' temperatures. At high temps, it's a different story. That's where 'creep' takes place and is why some turbine blades are 'cast' but made from a single crystal (no grain boundaries).

In theory, a cast part with extremely fine, small grains would be just as good as a forged part.

Also,a random point: All else being equal, a cast steel reciever is fine. A cast (AR15 for example) aluminum reciever is definitely not as good. The reason is the Face Centered Cubic (Al) vs. Body Centered Cubic (Fe) unit cell. Closer packed planes, easier dislocation movement.
Pu239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18, 2012, 12:45   #129
mingthemerciles
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65967
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canfield, OH
Posts: 129
I am an engineer for a large machine / specialty steel company.
We manufacture parts for the aviation industry across the board to locamotives, heavy equipment and even into the medical field.
We have parts in our warehouse both cast and forged. I have aircraft landing parts that are cast which are 10 times as strong as a forged gear on a bulldozer or fuel tank hangers on a locamotive. We xray, wri scan, ultra sound and out source to an electron microscope service to examine down to molecular levels.
ITS MATERIAL, ENGINEERING SPECS and QUALITY CONTROL.
THAT DETERMINES THE FINAL PRODUCT. Cast or forged makes no difference with the technology and process available to us today.
I won't debate density, rockwell hardness, metal composition or molecular structure just to scratch the surface of the process. Let alone the miriad of tests performed to determine catostrophic failure points.

I am not suggesting that the receiver mfgs. have access or use the technology available that I am fortunate enough to work with, but until someone from one of the receiver mfgs. tells us otherwise who are we to assume.
mingthemerciles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18, 2012, 21:28   #130
moses
One of the original 400
Contributor
 
moses's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 392
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: charlotte nc usa
Posts: 5,947
When FN/Browning started making 40 cal hi-powers they changed the frames from forged to cast frames because the cast frames were stronger and didn't have problems with cracking like the forged frames they had always used for the 9mm Hi-power.

So casting is sometimes better than forged for some applications.

As long as it's a quality casting I have no problem with using cast receivers.
__________________
.
My PM box is usually full although I try to keep it less than full, it's a never ending battle so please email me if at all possible.

Military rifle steel plate match schedule for 2016, April 9th, June 11th, Sept. 10th & Nov. 12th

Best Drop 8 time "8.47"
8 for 8
FAL/STG 7.62X51
moses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24, 2012, 10:39   #131
Mantis60
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65875
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kingman, AZ
Posts: 12
The Navy S.E.A.L.s say

I realize this is a FAL forum, but cast is cast and stamped is not. The SEALS tested several types of stamped and cast weapons over the years and found that stamped CAN last longer, especially under heavy F A use. Unfortunately the only one I recall is the AK 47.
A failure is a failure no matter round count.
Stamp will flex, (We are not talking precision rifles, correct?) cast will not. Weather will greatly effect the strength of both recvr's
A stamped recv'r can flex, a cast recv'r is more stiff allowing failures to appear before they are noticed. The only real way of testing would be XRAY of the recv'rs.
I am sure the machining of the cast recv'r will will reduce some of the stresses of casting, I do not know what extent.
There is flex built into a lot of thing, bridges, buildings, why not a FA recv'r? The violence that they go through during a firing cycle, can't it be compared to a earthquake?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with give, nothing.
"Oaks break willows bend."
Mantis60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25, 2012, 03:33   #132
moses
One of the original 400
Contributor
 
moses's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 392
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: charlotte nc usa
Posts: 5,947
Who said anything about stamped?
__________________
.
My PM box is usually full although I try to keep it less than full, it's a never ending battle so please email me if at all possible.

Military rifle steel plate match schedule for 2016, April 9th, June 11th, Sept. 10th & Nov. 12th

Best Drop 8 time "8.47"
8 for 8
FAL/STG 7.62X51
moses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27, 2012, 15:26   #133
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms
Registered
 
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 32036
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 469
How about a polymer Fal receiver? That could be an exciting kaboom!
Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2012, 07:27   #134
Lee Carpentieri
Old Fart
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 4936
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Florida Where it's Hot and Humid
Posts: 6,553
Type three Vs Type four Fal Receivers

Actually, The Cast receiver from FN started in 1977, Before that, All type three receivers were forged and called a type three, The cast was called a type four receiver. This is reported in Blake Stevens new book, The Fabled Fal, Page 245.
__________________
Live life to the fullest, Because in the end there's only death and taxs.
Lee Carpentieri is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 06, 2012, 00:52   #135
wangCuiyun
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 66691
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: xiamen
Posts: 3
Ducttapeman has this exactly right. Even Ken Royce ("Boston T. Party") has given up on the theoretical superiority of forged receivers.


Hogan Shoes
Franklin Marshall
Tiger Shoes
Abercrombie Fitch
wangCuiyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 07, 2012, 22:57   #136
Exit308
Saxon/Celt
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 62143
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 5,365
I didn't read this entire thread so pardon me if this was already covered but are the Imbel receivers type 3 or type 4( forged or cast)? I know the cuts( or more correctly the lack of lightening cuts) is type 3. Thanks, exit308
Exit308 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 22, 2012, 15:03   #137
MK ULTRA
Curio & Relic
Silver Contributor
 
MK ULTRA's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 2382
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super B View Post
Williams made receivers out of ALUMINUM, and they were almost strong enougbh.........
NO THEY WERN'T strong enough. They were NOT enough anything.


You can't make an FAL receiver out of aluminum and expect it to hold up.

Saying that shows that you REALLY don't know what your talking about.

There is plenty of empirical data in books & online that shows forged is way better than cast steel or a steel machined billet. If it cracks it wasn't heat treated correctly or you forged the wrong material. This all depends on what type steel is used.

Anyway I had to jump in on the Williams receiver statement.

I knew they were dangerous when they came out.
__________________
O $HIT

MK ULTRA.....OUT.....

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Statesman and Inventor: 1759


Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.....

Last edited by MK ULTRA; November 23, 2012 at 10:36.
MK ULTRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30, 2012, 16:27   #138
Pu239
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 15687
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt(formerly@)EntrepriseArms View Post
How about a polymer Fal receiver? That could be an exciting kaboom!
Yeah, but we're not AR15.com. About 2x a month there's always someone over there asking about polymer lowers as though you would be saving any real weight.

"But it would save me 1/8 of a pound!!!!"
Pu239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30, 2012, 16:35   #139
Pu239
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 15687
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantis60 View Post
I realize this is a FAL forum, but cast is cast and stamped is not. The SEALS tested several types of stamped and cast weapons over the years and found that stamped CAN last longer, especially under heavy F A use. Unfortunately the only one I recall is the AK 47.
A failure is a failure no matter round count.
Stamp will flex, (We are not talking precision rifles, correct?) cast will not. Weather will greatly effect the strength of both recvr's
A stamped recv'r can flex, a cast recv'r is more stiff allowing failures to appear before they are noticed. The only real way of testing would be XRAY of the recv'rs.
I am sure the machining of the cast recv'r will will reduce some of the stresses of casting, I do not know what extent.
There is flex built into a lot of thing, bridges, buildings, why not a FA recv'r? The violence that they go through during a firing cycle, can't it be compared to a earthquake?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with give, nothing.
"Oaks break willows bend."
Of course a cast reciever will flex. Why wouldn't it? How is weather going to affect the strength?

What are you going to be looking for with xray? You could find porosity/inclusions cheaper/faster doing UT. And stamped sheet isn't going to be immune from this either.

Post casting/machining annealing is common in high quality steels.
Pu239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28, 2012, 10:11   #140
Bertellione
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 66658
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Washington dc USA
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrooks View Post
This whole subject has been discussed to death, and occasionally a little absurdity is called for.

The "forged-vs-cast" issue got so hot over on TFL that they have a special sticky just for folks who want to rant and rave over non-issues like this.

For some reason, though, the M14 community is a whole bunch more anal (OK, in a good way... ) about having a forged receiver. They spend 900 bucks for LRB or SEI (OK, billet machined...) receivers whereas a perfectly functional Springfield Armory cast receiver can be had for about half that price.

Since FALers actually can own a real foreign factory forged receiver like FN, IMBEL or (dare I say it...) Argentine, the subject just doesn't stir the juices like it does with the M14 crowd.



Nonetheless, my SAI cast M1A receiver has been thru 12,000 trouble free rounds and is far from failing. Member Different here has a registered F/A SAI cast M14 and fires full auto and has no problems.

There is absolutely no way in Hades that there is a Tinker's Damn difference between Forged or Cast FAL or M14 receivers. This is not space age technology here, nor even jet engine turbine technology.

So long as the receivers are in spec and the heat trestment is high quality, the receivers will far outlast any of us.

In the June 1983 copy of Soldier of Fortune, page 52, in the article "FAL: Rise and fall of a Misguided Classic", it is reported that forged FN FALs could be expected to last 80,000 rounds (military use, including full auto fire), but Blake Stevens reported seeing one cracked at 60,000 rounds. Cast FN Type III receivers were expected to last 40,000 rounds.

But even if this is true, that is about $25,000 in ammo cost alone at current prices. Given a semiauto, in civilian hands, I can see no reason to worry about a cast receiver.

So now we come back to my comments. I still maintain that it all starts out a a liquid that is "cast" into something. After that, it makes no difference to me whether it is forged or machined from a billet or actually cast into a shape and then machined. It's all the same.

JWB
The original military 14 was milled and forged even not all of them were within specs but functioned and Springfield armory m1a are very few that meet gov specs that were set forth for the 14 my dad uses orb recievers and have several Springfield but the LRB are always smoother you get what you pay for i use DSA recievers and even though FN did use cast they were making them for governments not individual sales and the companies that are in this country doing the cast recievers are not building as many and standards are not as high as GI they are just making a dime were they can cast is junk in every thing I'm a code welder and that is why it takes different steps to weld cast its trash and very close to ones face to take a chance from a hot load especialy if you have an incompetent reloader and there are a lot of them I've seen guys almost eat bolts from m1a matches do to getting powders mixed up
Bertellione is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 29, 2012, 05:38   #141
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 519
I would like to get back to the more important topic mentioned by hkshooter higher up on this page, Little green alien voodoo doctors. I was under the impression that they were involved only in the design and not the construction of forged items.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22, 2012, 11:21   #142
gus
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 12709
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: willaimsburg va
Posts: 123
ti part s ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrooks View Post
Good point.

I would think a MIM titanium receiver may be just about peerfect!

JWB
titanium will work harden [it will act like glass ]unless alloying is done ....it would be great if somebody would do this at a good cost ! MIM is NOT the best way because of lack of grain structure ...
__________________
when a nation turns on it's own and denies it's own founding culture ,this is a sign of the death pangs of a nation --- cz7
gus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23, 2012, 10:44   #143
MK ULTRA
Curio & Relic
Silver Contributor
 
MK ULTRA's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 2382
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 4,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertellione View Post
The original military 14 was milled and forged even not all of them were within specs but functioned and Springfield armory m1a are very few that meet gov specs that were set forth for the 14 my dad uses orb recievers and have several Springfield but the LRB are always smoother you get what you pay for i use DSA recievers and even though FN did use cast they were making them for governments not individual sales and the companies that are in this country doing the cast recievers are not building as many and standards are not as high as GI they are just making a dime were they can cast is junk in every thing I'm a code welder and that is why it takes different steps to weld cast its trash and very close to ones face to take a chance from a hot load especialy if you have an incompetent reloader and there are a lot of them I've seen guys almost eat bolts from m1a matches do to getting powders mixed up
Actually it was
FORGED first then
ROUGH MILLED then
HEAT TREATED then
FINISH MILLED then it went thru
QUALITY CONTROL to check dimensions.

Its quite a process.
__________________
O $HIT

MK ULTRA.....OUT.....

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Statesman and Inventor: 1759


Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.....
MK ULTRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25, 2012, 12:13   #144
R1shooter
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67769
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago illinois
Posts: 1,542
I suspect the Coonan receivers may be hardened first to prevent warping from the heat treat and that is why they spec out so well. This is very interesting topic, more opinion and preference than anything else. The cost in machine time to machine our forged receivers is substantial. If a good casting can be found I could see no reason why this would not be an alternative.
R1shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 27, 2012, 08:42   #145
Ghost
Registered
 
Ghost's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1273
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado/Utah
Posts: 1,365
The thing is there are a lot of methods of casting.
Just because this is the 21st century and tech has advanced in the materials and techniques, doesn't mean that the advances are being used, or are affordable.
I'd be REALLY interested in knowing how the Coonans are made.
It is relevant to my interest and might put my mind at ease about purchasing a cast receiver.
Ghost is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 09, 2012, 03:21   #146
Hoot G
What, me worry?
Bronze Contributor
 
Hoot G's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 23207
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South MS
Posts: 2,068
Ghost, there are lots and lots of Coonan cast receivers in use, both semi- and full auto. I've never heard any complaints (because they're cast). In one thread, an SOT related the number of rounds he's put through a full auto Coonan Type 1, and it was more than I'll ever shoot in a lifetime. He didn't have any problems.


Coonan has been building receivers off and on for a long time. So far, there's been no issues attributable to their receiver being made from a casting. Or FN's cast receivers either, for that matter.

Note: I'm not a metallurgist or alchemist, and I claim no particular knowledge about the atomic or molecular properties in this discussion. I only bring years of experience (mine and other's) to address this particular concern.
__________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

Always have a go-to-hell plan.
Hoot G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 09, 2012, 23:33   #147
def90
Registered
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 50609
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Peoples' Republic of Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 12,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot G View Post
Ghost, there are lots and lots of Coonan cast receivers in use, both semi- and full auto. I've never heard any complaints (because they're cast). In one thread, an SOT related the number of rounds he's put through a full auto Coonan Type 1, and it was more than I'll ever shoot in a lifetime. He didn't have any problems.
Yep.. I believe that was Pat?

Any issues that were found by FN over the years were related to sustained full auto hardcore military use.. I cannot ever see a problem arising from shooting semi auto as a civilian.. If I could ever afford the time and the ammo to destroy a cast receiver I could only be so lucky. and at that point a $300 receiver would be like throwing away a pair of old socks.
__________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
def90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2013, 19:20   #148
ducknhide
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 41338
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: clear mountain
Posts: 71
Jet engine industry

I have worked with jet engine designers and engineers for most of my adult life now. I consider my fellow workers around me to be some of the most intelligent minds in america.
That being said, Modern centrifuge investment casting and the powder mixed metallurgy that is being used now is unbelievable. We see super stress performance out of the castings. Finite element analysis on CAD systems today has made the difference. We can analyze the model before we build it. Whatever the shape, and tell you what that solid will endure and where it will fail.
__________________
Keep your head down and your boots on
ducknhide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 05, 2013, 17:34   #149
Cava3r4
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6560
Join Date: May 2002
Location: AZ...originally from St. Paul, MN
Posts: 5,109
another automotive analogy for you:
YOu build an engine with 10 to 1 compression with ALUMINUM heads. (the Alum heads supposedly will allow you to RUN ONE more compression point VS. cast iron heads due to the additional "cooling". So 9 to 1 with cast iron, 10 to 1 with Alum).
Okay, so you build a 10 to 1 engine. (pick your favorite brand.. 454 Chevy, 428 Ford, 440 Mopar).
With the CRAP gas you have today, SUPPOSEDLY 91 octane with SUPPOSEDLY only 10 percent "ethanol" you are going to PING.
PING or Detonation is when the flame front violently explodes. This is described as a force equal to hitting your piston with a sledge hammer.
Cast pistons are going to SHATTER.
FORGED pistons might survive but not for a LONG time!!
Cava3r4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 08, 2013, 19:54   #150
Pu239
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 15687
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by gus View Post
titanium will work harden [it will act like glass ]unless alloying is done ....it would be great if somebody would do this at a good cost ! MIM is NOT the best way because of lack of grain structure ...
You don't need a grain structure.
Pu239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2018 The FAL Files