Is it true? Is DSA going to *GASP* cast?

[Rivaltm]

I've heard a frew rumors of DSA going to cast...

considering that's one of their big selling points (IMHO), why on earth would they do this?

I'm inclined to think it's nothing more than a myth... and i really hope i'm right because it would really be a shame for a company like DSA to go to casting.

not that casting is horrible or any thing, but forging tends to be superior...

[Mebsuta]

Maybe they are just following the example set by FN. The cast receivers made for the FAL will still be around long after we are gone. If the choice is between cast or none at all, bring on the castings.

[English Mike]

It's been mentioned in another thread that they're moving from billet to forged.

[jbrooks]

The big deal about FN going to cast in the 70's was cost. I can assume that, if DSA has moved to the "dark side", then the price of their receivers will come down.

JWB

(Well, nice thought, anyway! )

[kev]

No, when something goes cheaper due to cost the price does not come down. They only make the change so their profit goes up. You pay the same and get less in return. That's business.

If they're smart about it they'll convince you that the change was good for you and that you actually want to pay more for it. That's marketing.

[H. Nipps]

That's just great! First they'll go to castings, and before you know it, they'll start advertising the new lightweight balsa wood receiver for only $529. But look on the bright side, they will be hand made... By children in Bangladesh. It keeps the cost down.

[gunseller]

Just to scare you, did you know that cast is stronger than forged? Machining cuts through the grain of the steel. When casting is used there is little need for machining there for the grain of the steel is not cut. Look at Ruger's rifle actions. They are some of the strongest made and they are cast.
Gun seller

[sear]

also remember, more guns is more better.

crank out as many recievers and mags as possible before the next awb

[FTW2012]

Originally posted by kev
No, when something goes cheaper due to cost the price does not come down. They only make the change so their profit goes up. You pay the same and get less in return. That's business.

If they're smart about it they'll convince you that the change was good for you and that you actually want to pay more for it. That's marketing.

Open wide everyone, here comes another big spoonful from DSA.............

They will probably raise prices and lower standards too,
but, most people here will still say how good they are no matter what.
Even if things do not work properly.

[55bird]

It's my understanding that there are means of casting nearing 99%finish.Great strides have been made in this process using alloy steel.

[mp]

Everyone keep throwing the wrong terms around. DSA is not going to a forged receiver, at least not the hammer forged receiver that is so strong. Last hammer forged receiver was the Garand and M-14. Very expensive. Large hammers beat the metal into a rough shape, which creates a very dense mass. Then final machining is completed.

DSA is machining a receiver from a forging. Different. Hunk of metal from a forging or bar stock.

Cast receivers will work to. Just not as pretty, but plenty strong. I used to work in the machine shop of an investment casting company. We made parts for NASA and NASCAR, to name a few customers.

[jbrooks]

Looks like the value of Imbels and Argys just went up...

JWB

[SKTRGNLDR]

GUNSELLER...

"Just to scare you, did you know that cast is stronger than forged? Machining cuts through the grain of the steel. When casting is used there is little need for machining there for the grain of the steel is not cut. Look at Ruger's rifle actions. They are some of the strongest made and they are cast."

Sorry Gun seller, but you're dead wrong!

Forgings are stronger than castings because the molecules of the steel are tightly compressed which puts literally more steel in the same space. In other words, a 1" cube of forged steel is heavier than a 1" cube of cast steel.

Furthermore, what adds to the strength of steel is heat treating. This relieves the stress on the steel molecules which was created from casting, forging, or machining. Thus is formed, a uniform grain structure which is stronger than the same non-heat treated steel.

[Clingman]

Originally posted by gunseller
Just to scare you, did you know that cast is stronger than forged? Machining cuts through the grain of the steel. When casting is used there is little need for machining there for the grain of the steel is not cut. Look at Ruger's rifle actions. They are some of the strongest made and they are cast.
Gun seller

This is not entirely the case. When a steel is cast from liquid, it forms grains as it cools. These grains can be roughly considered to be tiny cubes, or crystals. The problem with casting is that the grains are fairly large. When a crack goes through this kind of material, the crack follows the grain boundaries. Larger grains mean less direction changes for the crack as it goes from grain to grain. This means it takes less energy for the crack to travel through the part.

In a forging, the material is worked as it cools. In a forging, this working usually consists of bashing the material to a good extent with a hydraulic ram. We've all seen videos of this. The working process makes the grain size several times smaller. With the finer grain size it is much more difficult for a crack to both start and then travel through the material.

Machining a forging has very little effect on the strength of a part such as a receiver. Heat from the machining process can cause property changes on surface of the part, but this is rarely a problem and nothing we should worry about. But the true advantage to a forged part is its toughness, and resistance to crack growth. This resistance to crack growth means that an impact that caused a dent in a forged part could potentially fail a cast part of similar strength.

Strength vs. Toughness. There are two strengths to worry about: yield strength and ultimate strength. Surpassing the yield strength of a material causes the material to deform permanently (imagine bending a paperclip and it not returning to its original shape when you let go). Stressing to ultimate strength breaks the part. In a forging, ultimate strength is usually quite a bit higher than yield strength, resulting in a part that will bend or dent but not break easily. In a casting, ultimate strength and yield strength are closer together, meaning the part will bend less before it breaks. Saying that forged is stronger than cast or vice versa is not possible! You could specify a yield strength and find plenty of materials, cast or forged, that met that strength.

SKTRGNLDR, A forging is no more dense than a casting. Also, the heat treatment of steel is a complicated thing, but relieving stresses is not usually the goal. Usually, in an alloy steel, heat treating is done in order to make small particles of the alloying elements form in a uniform manner throughout the steel. These small particles further inhibit crack growth, increasing toughness.

I didn't mean to write a book and I'm sure a bunch of you already know all this, but it seems like there is a lot of bad information on the gun boards with regards to metals.

[SKTRGNLDR]

Clingman...you're wrong!

A forging is much denser than a casting. If you didn't know, a forging is a billett (piece) of steel that is heated, and then under tons of pressure from a drop forge, is compressed into a shape slightly larger and similar to the part to be made.

By the way, drop forging is a different process than hammer forging. An example of H/F is the process H&K uses to make their barrels.

I'll be back with references.

By the way, I used to be in the firearms manufacturing business before I sold my company to Wilson Combat. Ever heard of Scattergun Technologies?

[H. Nipps]

Don't you just love a good fight between two metalurgists? I propose a FAL files field trip to a smelting plant. We must uncover the truth about metal grain structure and density, before we can become true riflemen.

[bowser]

I'll second what SKTRGNLDR has posted. I don't have as much experience with this stuff, but from doing some of this for college credit, taking materials classes, forgings will be more dense than a casting for the reason he stated.

Heat treating is also for making a part tougher, by reordering those molecules in the steel. When a forging or machining is done, those molecules get mashed around or cut and those can create stress areas that will cause problems under stress(cracks or separations). The heat treat process(depending on which one is used) reorders those molecules with heat. Not enough heat to turn the metal molten, but enough to modify the structure of the material. We're talking on a electron microscope level here.

That reordering will reduce those stress areas, and the finishing or curing process will also make that part a lot tougher than the un-treated base part. It may only be surface hardened, or it can be through hardened, depending on how hot and how long the part is heated and what process is used to cool and cure the base part. A finish machined casting or forging will not last as long as a properly treated product will.

I'm sure SKTRGNLDR will be able to take this conversation much farther than I can. My job is in plastic injection molding, and involves a lot of the same ideas in design as a casting. Cooling the cast or molded part can do funny things to it, as well as forming the part with foreign material in the base(causes problems) or voids(causes problems faster than foreign material). My parts rely on the base material and the design more for the structural rigidity than the metal parts, but the theory is similar

my .03 worth

[Mike in Seattle]

Oh what the Heck,, I'll jump into this fight too

I am an aerospace tool & die guy with heat treat experience in both alloy & tool steels

Steel is only as dense as it is dense. Forging realigns the grain structure of the steel but does not make it denser.

For a "quickie" explanation on heat trearing, see my post of 15 Feb over on Warrifles .

Mike

[granite]

I don't see why it matters if either cast or forged is one or two percent denser.

You could cast the receiver out of lead, and it would be WAY denser,... but not suitable.

I think the issue is grain structures and the resulting yield and ultimate strength.

[H. Nipps]

O.K. I have a question. In discussing the difference between cast or forged, are we talking about resistance to wear only? Or are we talking about ability to take the stress of the chamber pressures? It seems to me that the barrel has the toughest job, and is the primary component, when it comes to containing the stresses on the metal imparted by the round firing.

The receiver simply attaches the other components to the barrel to feed it bullets. The receiver takes a pounding from the bolt going back and forth, and the rails tend to wear from the metal friction. Would it not be more imperative that the barrel be made of the strongest materials to avoid catastrophic failure? Am I wrong in assuming that if the barrel / chamber fails, it makes little difference whether the receiver is cast or forged? Or will a forged receiver survive to be used again?

[H. Nipps]

I forgot to add something. I realize the locking shoulder is taking the stress of the round firing through the bolt, at least for the fraction of a second before the gas system catches-up and cycles the action. Is that pressure on the locking shoulder and the receiver a high stress area also? If so would a cast receiver tend to stretch over time?

[Max Mike]

Originally posted by gunseller
Just to scare you, did you know that cast is stronger than forged? Machining cuts through the grain of the steel. When casting is used there is little need for machining there for the grain of the steel is not cut. Look at Ruger's rifle actions. They are some of the strongest made and they are cast.
Gun seller

Did you know that is simply not true...just wrong.

[Nickle]

Well, I used to think that forged receivers were really good (I still do) and cast receivers were bad. I no longer believe that cast receivers are so bad.

Had my M-14 go KB last year. Wouldn't headspace after, lot of "wear" on the bolt lugs (along with some breakage on the body), I figured the receiver HAD to be stretched as well. Well, I'm glad I bought a bolt for it before I bought a new receiver. It headspaced fine. Yeah, there was a thread and a tif about headspacing, but the other party was working on wrong assumptions of how M-14's headspace.

Bottom line is that a Fed Ord CAST M-14 receiver is tougher than a Springfield Armory (Gov't, not Illinois) Forged Bolt. Therefore, the whole cast/forged deal is moot. The other differences in manufacture are far more important.

I'd still go with an Imbel, anyways, since I don't care for DSA or Entreprise's past advertising practices. Of course, I've got an Imbel now, and love it.

And Ruger? Not for me, I'd go for Remington or Winchester first.

[Clingman]

Originally posted by H. Nipps
I forgot to add something. I realize the locking shoulder is taking the stress of the round firing through the bolt, at least for the fraction of a second before the gas system catches-up and cycles the action. Is that pressure on the locking shoulder and the receiver a high stress area also? If so would a cast receiver tend to stretch over time?

That pressure on the locking shoulder causes a high stress. This is why an AR15 with an aluminum receiver has locking lugs in the steel barrel instead of the weaker receiver.

The point is, a cast receiver can't stretch but a tiny little bit. Castings are generally brittle. A casting would break before it stretched.

[Nickle]

Originally posted by Clingman
The point is, a cast receiver can't stretch but a tiny little bit. Castings are generally brittle. A casting would break before it stretched.

I do believe you are mistaken.

Ask Fred at Fred's M-14 stocks about all this. The reason the M-14 comes into play, is this has been hashed about for years amongst the M-14 shooters. It's commonly known that cast M-14 receivers do stretch over time (about 4-8 thousands of an inch, enough to ruin headspacing). That's about 5 to 10 years for a SERIOUS competition shooter that shoots enough to wear out barrels.

As far as brittle and breaking before stretching, that's all in the heat treating process. As cast, you're right. Problem is, they heat treat receivers after casting.

[Clingman]

Originally posted by SKTRGNLDR
Clingman...you're wrong!

A forging is much denser than a casting.

I'll be back with references.

I look forward to your reputable reference which shows a given steel to be "much denser" in forged form than in cast form.

[Clingman]

Originally posted by Nickle


I do believe you are mistaken.

Ask Fred at Fred's M-14 stocks about all this. The reason the M-14 comes into play, is this has been hashed about for years amongst the M-14 shooters. It's commonly known that cast M-14 receivers do stretch over time (about 4-8 thousands of an inch, enough to ruin headspacing). That's about 5 to 10 years for a SERIOUS competition shooter that shoots enough to wear out barrels.

This is why I added the "tiny little bit" part. Yes the casting can stretch, but a forging can survive much more stretch without actually breaking. Pointless in mentioned M14 receiver, I know.

As far as brittle and breaking before stretching, that's all in the heat treating process. As cast, you're right. Problem is, they heat treat receivers after casting.

It's not ALL in the heat treating process. If it was, there would be no such thing as a forging! Yes you can toughen a cast part with heat treatment. It still will lack in toughness compared to a similarly treated, forged part.

[Nickle]

Well, I don't consider .004 to .008 to be "a tiny amount". My left hand doesn't either. Incidently, .008" is the difference between a Go gage and a Field gage in most calibers. The No-Go is .004" from the Go. So, in gunsmithing terms, .008" is a LOT when we're talking headspace.

As far as heat treat, you're right, it isn't ALL about heat treat. But remember, we're talking receivers. cast ones just flat aren't that brittle, unless they're improperly heat-treated. Forged receivers can be brittle as well, if they're improperly heat-treated, like an early Springfield 1903. And yes, cast isn't as tough as forged.

But you or I are highly unlikely to be able to wear out a cast or forged receiver. And I have been known to shoot a LOT.

And like you, I prefer forged (like Imbel). In fact next M-14 receiver I'll buy will be an LRB (forged).

[Clingman]

Originally posted by Nickle
Well, I don't consider .004 to .008 to be "a tiny amount".

Depends on the application, doesn't it?

But you or I are highly unlikely to be able to wear out a cast or forged receiver. And I have been known to shoot a LOT.

I draw the same conclusion with regards to FAL receivers. Unfortunately we got off on a little aside

[Nickle]

Good to see we're on the same sheet of music.

[securitysix]

Originally posted by H. Nipps
O.K. I have a question. In discussing the difference between cast or forged, are we talking about resistance to wear only? Or are we talking about ability to take the stress of the chamber pressures? It seems to me that the barrel has the toughest job, and is the primary component, when it comes to containing the stresses on the metal imparted by the round firing.

The receiver simply attaches the other components to the barrel to feed it bullets. The receiver takes a pounding from the bolt going back and forth, and the rails tend to wear from the metal friction. Would it not be more imperative that the barrel be made of the strongest materials to avoid catastrophic failure? Am I wrong in assuming that if the barrel / chamber fails, it makes little difference whether the receiver is cast or forged? Or will a forged receiver survive to be used again?

In a FAL, the upper receiver takes more stress than a lot of folks think. The bolt pushing back against the locking shoulder when the shot is fired causes stress to be placed on pretty much the whole receiver from the locking shoulder forward. It has to be able to take this stress several thousand times and, by the original design, in full-auto mode.

Making FAL receivers out of aluminum has failed because even hardened aluminum can't take these stresses.

A forging is actually stronger than a casting with the same volume of material in both. A casting is cheaper to make because you can cast very close to the final shape, minimizing the machinework necessary to finish the product, at least if you do it right. Combine that with proper heat treating and what you wind up with is more than good enough.

Rugers actions are strong because they are able to cast shapes that you just can't machine from a forging in a cost effective way. Look, for example, at the disassembly procedure for a Ruger Security-Six compared to a Model 19 S&W or a GP-100 compared to a 586 (or some other L-frame). You'll notice that Rugers don't have a side plate. You'll also notice that Rugers have more meat in the frame than Smiths do.

Castings are not bad, but they are less expensive to get to market. Meaning, if DSA does switch to casting, they need to adjust their prices accordingly, otherwise, they're overcharging people. Of course, if people are willing to pay that much, then the people deserve to be overcharged...

[H. Nipps]

securitysix,
I had no idea that my security six was a cast frame. That's what I gather from your reply. Is this true? I know that the newer P series Rugers are cast alloy frames. But a GP-100 and the Security Six? I just thought that the Ruger revolvers were over engineered for strength. What about Redhawks? or mini-14's?
Even if it's true, i'm not worried about it. I spoke to a Retired Ruger factory armorer who told me that he hardly ever saw a ruger frame sustain any damage due to materials or design. He sold me a bunch of repalcement parts for the P-series pistols that he never needed to use. Of course those parts were forged.

[jbrooks]

Yes the security-six is cast. Ruger really perfected the "investment casting" technique, where the resulting product requires almost no machining. The point is that if you design a cast weapon from the ground up, you can make it thicker in places to account for the reduced strngth of the casting.

If you have an existing design, for example, a FAL, you have to make some parts beefier. That's why FN went to the Type 3 when they instituted casting in the 70's. A Type 1 casting, for example, would not be my choice for a receiver.

None of this is to say that a cast FAL receiver is weak or will KB. It's a pretty robust design. But, all things being equal, I will go with a gorging.

JWB

[jbrooks]

...I will go with a gorging...

OK, maybe I misspoke, or maybe I'm just hungry!

JWB

[TheJokker]

i may be mistaken but isn't the temporing process the critical factor? steel properly tempored will be stronger then improperly tempored steel?

[FWRA]

Originally posted by jbrooks
Yes the security-six is cast. Ruger really perfected the "investment casting" technique, where the resulting product requires almost no machining. The point is that if you design a cast weapon from the ground up, you can make it thicker in places to account for the reduced strngth of the casting.

If you have an existing design, for example, a FAL, you have to make some parts beefier. That's why FN went to the Type 3 when they instituted casting in the 70's. A Type 1 casting, for example, would not be my choice for a receiver.

None of this is to say that a cast FAL receiver is weak or will KB. It's a pretty robust design. But, all things being equal, I will go with a gorging.

JWB

But, all things being equal, I will go with a gorging.

Yep...casting? Forging? The heck with all the small differences. I'm with jbrooks....let's just all go to dinner! A good gorging and some beer and who cares?

[Nickle]

Originally posted by TheJokker
i may be mistaken but isn't the temporing process the critical factor? steel properly tempored will be stronger then improperly tempored steel?

The term is tempering, also known as "heat treating". So, yeah, I'd say you're right.

[Nickle]

Originally posted by FWRA
A good gorging and some beer and who cares?

[Nickle's Best Homer Simpson voice] Hmmmm! Beer! [/Nickle's Best Homer Simpson voice]

[ThePitbullofLove]

Originally posted by Nickle


I do believe you are mistaken.

Ask Fred at Fred's M-14 stocks about all this. The reason the M-14 comes into play, is this has been hashed about for years amongst the M-14 shooters. It's commonly known that cast M-14 receivers do stretch over time (about 4-8 thousands of an inch, enough to ruin headspacing). That's about 5 to 10 years for a SERIOUS competition shooter that shoots enough to wear out barrels.

As far as brittle and breaking before stretching, that's all in the heat treating process. As cast, you're right. Problem is, they heat treat receivers after casting.

You can ask "Fred" if you want, but you won't get much of a response...Fred is the owner's dog.

But I do believe you are correct.

[Nickle]

Originally posted by ThePitbullofLove
You can ask "Fred" if you want, but you won't get much of a response...Fred is the owner's dog.

You are right. What is the owner's name, anyways?

[Clingman]

Originally posted by ThePitbullofLove


You can ask "Fred" if you want, but you won't get much of a response...Fred is the owner's dog.

But I do believe you are correct.

LOL

Tempering is heat treating, but not all heat treating is tempering.

[Mike in Seattle]

You guys didn't read my post, which talks about heat treating. It's on page 3 of that thread.

Tempering is part of the heat treating process.

[Max Mike]

Originally posted by jbrooks
Yes the security-six is cast. Ruger really perfected the "investment casting" technique, where the resulting product requires almost no machining. The point is that if you design a cast weapon from the ground up, you can make it thicker in places to account for the reduced strngth of the casting.

If you have an existing design, for example, a FAL, you have to make some parts beefier. That's why FN went to the Type 3 when they instituted casting in the 70's. A Type 1 casting, for example, would not be my choice for a receiver.

None of this is to say that a cast FAL receiver is weak or will KB. It's a pretty robust design. But, all things being equal, I will go with a gorging.

JWB

The frames is cast is the cylinder?

[Hebrew Battle Rifle]

Does anyone have a documented example of a cast receiver failing from normal ( designed ) use?


IIRC, FN started making Type 2 F A L receivers because the Type 1's were failing during full auto fire. The Type 1's were not cast.

[EMDII]

Originally posted by FTW2012


Open wide everyone, here comes another big spoonful from DSA.............

They will probably raise prices and lower standards too,
but, most people here will still say how good they are no matter what.
Even if things do not work properly.

Tripe FTW. Go somewhere and rant about this if you will. But either stay on topic, or get a boot in your @$$. You can talk all you like about Forgings versus castings, but RANTS go in DB.

Alles Klar?

[Rivaltm]

interesting thread and the fastest one to get 2 pages of replies i've ever started.

and although i feel like a metallurgist now, i still don't know about DSA

i hope MIKE is right, in that case everything's still peachy

[FTW2012]

Originally posted by EMDII


Tripe FTW. Go somewhere and rant about this if you will. But either stay on topic, or get a boot in your @$$. You can talk all you like about Forgings versus castings, but RANTS go in DB.

Alles Klar?

I was on topic..................

Mabey you do not understand the economics of production and marketing.

In simple terms, just for you...................
There is a direct comparison of manufacturing techniques between casting
and forging that I was refering to. Casting is less expencive than forging for a manufacturer. In the end market, profits are higher.

Any furthur questions, EMDII ?

[gunseller]

Guys you can talk all you want but this will be my last post on the subject of cast v forged. What differance does it make which is stronger if the weaker in more than strong enough? I have been told that forged cranks in a small block chevy are stronger than cast cranks and by what some of you have said you must believe this to be true. I have never broken a cast crank but have broken forged cranks. A hot rod machine shop that I used to do business with has told me they have never seen a broken cast crank but have seen plenty of broken forged cranks. You decide for your self.
Gunseller

[1811GNR]

Could be that DSA is going with castings to compensate for increases in material costs. Therefore no price change.

[Clingman]

Originally posted by 1811GNR
Could be that DSA is going with castings to compensate for increases in material costs. Therefore no price change.

Good point! Last year, the cost of the average automobile was increased by $800 due to the increasing cost of steel. Why is steel getting more expensive? The Chinese are going through it like candy!