The FAL Files  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 16, 2011, 11:17   #1
LaConservationist
Registered
 
LaConservationist's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 42319
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South Louisiana Bayous!
Posts: 7,060
Forged vs Cast.......how much better? WHY?

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
__________________
In MEMORY of Roger "DUNKRD" Dunkelbarger September 13, 1943 - May 09, 2010

"Any one who thinks he can be happy
and prosperous by letting
the Government take care of him,
better take a closer look at the American Indian."

- Henry Ford
LaConservationist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 11:32   #2
nwobhm
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
nwobhm's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 9580
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 9,027
IIRC FN made forged type I,type II and cast type III. Forged type I's supposedly failed with heavy FA use, so they upgraded to the II. The III is a cost cutting measure. Maybe the III is also heavier in the hopes of compensating for the fact that it's cast.

IIRC the Grayslakes were initially bar stock. DSA uses original blueprints, forgings, CNC etc.

The competition uses reverse engineering and castings and saves you $50.

Be happy, buy what you like. For $50 I'm buying DSA. They have excellent resale too.
nwobhm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 11:35   #3
Ductapeman
Registered
 
Ductapeman's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 17797
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sunny Puget Sound
Posts: 434
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.
__________________
Just because it stopped smoking doesn't mean you can pick it up. -FotBR

I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.--Clarence Darrow
Ductapeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 11:43   #4
stubdog25
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 62746
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crest Line, California
Posts: 178
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.
stubdog25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 13:33   #5
Rahatlakhoom
Registered
 
Rahatlakhoom's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 25271
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 617
My concern with the casting would be eventual brittleness developing
in fatigue spots like the charging handle cut-out.

And, I have no idea if there is any heat treating proceedure
done to the Coonan after machining process is completed.
Not that it would be necessary except for high contact areas
like the axis pins.

I venture a guess that the cast matrix be a balance of not too hard,
not too soft overall.

I'm going with Coonan type III for my Izzy HB.
I think it will be just fine.
Rahatlakhoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 13:52   #6
bykerhd
Dinosaur
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 2798
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burlington Vermont area
Posts: 13,190
For about anything except HARD military use, I don't think either forged or cast will make any difference.
In a quality product anyway.

In the last ten years on this Forum, I can't think of hearing of a single instance where a receiver failed that could be traced to it being cast or forged.

FAL receivers have been blown up with bad ammo and ruined by overzealous and under-talented builders on occasion.
But even the worst of the "out-of-spec receivers seem to have held up.
With the notable exception of the Williams "Aluma-Bombs" anyway.
bykerhd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 14:07   #7
wpsuth
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 41314
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 170
Ducttapeman has this exactly right. Even Ken Royce ("Boston T. Party") has given up on the theoretical superiority of forged receivers.
wpsuth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 14:14   #8
MAINER
Old Salt
Bronze Contributor
 
MAINER's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 18465
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 9,480
I want FORGED receivers!!

But! I ain't giving up my Ruger No. 1's.

__________________
Lord, keep your arm around my shoulder and your hand over my mouth.
MAINER is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 14:14   #9
Topbanana
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 20443
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Walmart, Cardassia
Posts: 4,682
Weren't the Alum-A-Bomb forged?

lol
__________________
God created the Earth, Mauser drew the property lines.
Topbanana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 14:42   #10
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
All steel starts out as a molten liquid that is poured into something...

Hot forging of the "plastic" steel, before hardening completely, mAy affect the grain structure near the surface, but not internally. Overall the "grain structure" argument is not very important with modern steels.

Receivers that are milled froom "bar stock" are milled from a casting in the shape of a bar.

These days the argument is moot. It's the heat treatment that makes the difference.

JWB
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 18:29   #11
E4W
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 36717
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 41
Forged is better. It does not matter how good your casting is it will not have the same density and grain structure as a forged part of the same weight.

Forging changes the steel throughout, not just the surface as was stated above.

Bar-stock is not cast as claimed above, it is forged.

I am not saying that any one receiver is better or worse than another, but pretending that cast parts are the equal of forged is just wrong.
E4W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 18:40   #12
Jaxxas
Don't Tread On Me!
Bronze Contributor
 
Jaxxas's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 34933
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,089
I'm no expert, but as I understand it forged steel parts are equally strong in tensile and compressive strength. Whereas castings are as strong as forgings only in compressive strength. Though it may well be strong enough in tensile strength for it's intended purpose. I know we have a member who is a real live metallurgist (sorry I dis-remember your name!), possibly we could get a more learned opinion?
__________________
“I'm not sure what part of the internet sent you to us, but I expect it had something to do with gravity. You have not reached your point of equilibrium." W.E.G.

A golf course is a complete waste of a good rifle range. Jarhead
Jaxxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 21:07   #13
BC
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 752
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: cc
Posts: 3,210
When you have a choice, always go with forged. When you don't have a choice, in the Ruger case, whatever. I have a 10/22.

It's not about durability at this point. It's about resale value, maybe also peace of mind. The forged will sell faster and give better return if all else are equal.

The only exception is the FN cast receiver, but it is FN. That has name recognition.
BC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 21:29   #14
gmtech485
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 40930
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tacoma Washington
Posts: 514
Here we go again.

Listen guys the advantage to casting is simple.
It is CHEAPER.

It requires way less investment in tooling and produces a more finished product as many features can be cast in place instead of being machined in after the forge process.

In general forged parts are flat out stronger and more durable but they are more expensive to make.

Look into it. Read up on why the goverment specs out parts the way they do.
When the spec calls for forged a casting would not be acceptable.

Many of the excuses made above for cast parts are just plain popy cock.

In the case of an FAL receiver a well done cast receiver will do just fine.

As for me when available make mine forged.
gmtech485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 21:35   #15
BC
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 752
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: cc
Posts: 3,210
Make mine forged, too. But I will take the FN cast, because I like French. No?

Now where is the "Oh no not this shiit again" picture?
BC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16, 2011, 22:00   #16
E4W
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 36717
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 41
FN Herstal is Belgian, not French.

They are in the French speaking part of Belgium (Wallonie) but not in France.
E4W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 00:20   #17
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Just keep in mind, next time you fly in a commercial jet, the turbine blades have been "cast", actually, even worse, "MIM" (Metal Injection Molding).

Which is why you hear of airplanes falling out of the sky every day or so...

And on and on it goes...

JWB
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 07:53   #18
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
Tensile strength 4140 steel commonly used for gunsmithing
cast 81000 to 180000 PSI anealed to max strength heat treated
bar stock 95000 to 238000 PSI anealed to max strength heat treated
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 08:55   #19
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by HD Bee
Now if you want to cast a FAL receiver out of titanium alloy and sell it to me for 350.00, I will take it.

You are comparing apples to oranges...
Good point.

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

JWB
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 08:59   #20
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by machanic
Tensile strength 4140 steel commonly used for gunsmithing
cast 81000 to 180000 PSI anealed to max strength heat treated
bar stock 95000 to 238000 PSI anealed to max strength heat treated
Do you have similar specs for 8620 steel as used in the M14?

I suppose the argument comes down to "how much is enough" for a semiauto receiver. I doubt anybody will tear up their Coonan receiver in a few lifetimes of use with the price of ammo being what it is.

JWB
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 09:14   #21
4markk
Military Observer
Gold Contributor
 
4markk's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 31134
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Army of Occupation of Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally posted by jbrooks

Do you have similar specs for 8620 steel as used in the M14?

I suppose the argument comes down to "how much is enough" for a semiauto receiver. I doubt anybody will tear up their Coonan receiver in a few lifetimes of use with the price of ammo being what it is.

JWB
+1 .....

BOTTOMLINE: Even though forging is stronger than cast, 99.99999999% of us will never wear out a cast receiver in our lifetime or our child's lifetime. So if you find a cast receiver that you like, buy it. It will serve you well.
__________________
`
`
The difference between the possible and the impossible is only in the degree of a man's will. Chinese Proverb

“The worst thing about growing old is that other men stop seeing you as dangerous.” Act Of Valor

"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." Socrates
4markk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 09:17   #22
E4W
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 36717
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 41
Don't forget that in addition to the greater tensile strength of the forging it also has advantages in density, grain structure alignment, and work hardening.

The forging also does not suffer from voids or porosity problems that casting sometimes does. Unless the manufacturer is MPI (or something similar) testing each cast part there is no way to see those flaws - until the part fails.

Different methods are appropriate for different applications.

jbrooks you are such a comedian - Suggesting that cast alloy blades in a modern turbine are proof that casting is better is right up there with the idea that bar stock is cast! Truly hilarious!
E4W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 09:59   #23
gmtech485
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 40930
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tacoma Washington
Posts: 514
Think of it this way.

What FAL barrel do most of us agree is rated as the best all time FAL barrel ever built ?

If you took a pole here with real folks that shoot and build real FALs most would agree that barrel would be the hammer forged STG barrel.

You cast fans ask your self .

Have you ever seen a cast barrel on a high power rifle?

Not gonna happen.

A forged part is tougher, period.

All that has been proven in the case of an FAL receiver is that cast is good enough , not that it is better or as good as forged.

It is easier and cheaper to cast a receiver than it is to forge one and that my freinds is why some are cast.

If you have a choice why not use the best you can get?
gmtech485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 10:19   #24
JM
Veteran Member
Gold Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 46494
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,249
The modern high tech castings are far more sophisticated than just pouring liquid metal into a sand mold of old. I don't believe porosity is a problem with the lost wax process. Are there any records of the amount of receiver failures between the Type 3 cast and the forged Type 1 or 2? I have never read of any problems with the Belgium Type 3 receivers.
JM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 10:25   #25
def90
Registered
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 50609
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Peoples' Republic of Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 12,229
http://www.esi-group.com/products/ca...ips/eTip16.pdf
__________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
def90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 10:31   #26
4markk
Military Observer
Gold Contributor
 
4markk's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 31134
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Army of Occupation of Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally posted by gmtech485
Have you ever seen a cast barrel on a high power rifle?

Not gonna happen.
You are comparing apples to dumptrucks. There are receivers made of cast aluminum, stamped steel and polymers. Receivers have far different stresses and harmonics than barrels. This is like saying a Battleship is stronger than a PBR therefore you should only buy Battleships. Everything comes down to a cost-to-benefit analysis for your intended purpose. Stronger isn't always better.
__________________
`
`
The difference between the possible and the impossible is only in the degree of a man's will. Chinese Proverb

“The worst thing about growing old is that other men stop seeing you as dangerous.” Act Of Valor

"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." Socrates
4markk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 11:23   #27
gmtech485
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 40930
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tacoma Washington
Posts: 514
4mark

I see your point and I agree with it.
I tried to point that out in my post and was just making a point that forged is in fact tougher than cast. That said, where a FAL receiver is concerned a well done cast receiver is good enough but some of us want the best.
Best being relative to your needs.

High power firearms where the design has the bolt locking into the receiver instead of the barrel extension use heat treated steel receivers not aluminum . We all know how the aluminum receiver concept worked out for the FAL.

If you can get the same battle ship made out of steel vs aluminum.
Why not get it made out of steel ?

My only point is if you can get a FAL receiver forged instead of cast why not get it forged?

Forged parts are simply stronger and that can not be argued.
gmtech485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 11:33   #28
4markk
Military Observer
Gold Contributor
 
4markk's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 31134
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Army of Occupation of Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally posted by gmtech485

My only point is if you can get a FAL receiver forged instead of cast why not get it forged?

Forged parts are simply stronger and that can not be argued.
Totally Agree, all others things being equal (i.e. style, features, availability, etc ...) go Forged everytime.

I just don't want those less educated on issue to think that cast is crap. They are not like the alumibombs. They will hold up just fine for the vast majority of shooters.
__________________
`
`
The difference between the possible and the impossible is only in the degree of a man's will. Chinese Proverb

“The worst thing about growing old is that other men stop seeing you as dangerous.” Act Of Valor

"A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." Socrates
4markk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 11:46   #29
gmtech485
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 40930
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tacoma Washington
Posts: 514
Agreed.

I really like the looks of the coonan STG receiver you posted.
If I was currently building a nice STG kit I would certainly consider the Coonan.
gmtech485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 12:15   #30
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
8620 steel
91800 normalized
168000 hardened 61 rockwell C
and yes titamium is a exelant material and 6AL4V is my alloy choise for my attempt at machining a receiver
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 14:31   #31
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
I won't buy new from a supply, check Ebay there is a metal for sale section, I can get a piece large enough for two, with usuable scraps in tne $175-250 range, these are ends from CNC shops also refered to as drops, the piece that the chuck holds! I have been doing my homework
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 16:14   #32
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by E4W
..jbrooks you are such a comedian - Suggesting that cast alloy blades in a modern turbine are proof that casting is better is right up there with the idea that bar stock is cast! Truly hilarious!
Damn, E4W , you're the only one to get it!

This is a pretty serious site from time to time...

Welcome, BTW, I'm sure you'll enjoy this place!

JWB

Last edited by jbrooks; July 17, 2011 at 16:20.
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 17:25   #33
E4W
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 36717
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 41
jbrooks now I am confused!

Were you joking the whole time?
E4W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 18:15   #34
Eric Bryant
Registered
 
Eric Bryant's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 7670
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West MI
Posts: 2,180
Without doing a lot of engineering work, it is really not possible to answer in an objective fashion which of these two technologies is "the best". The fact of the matter is that material properties and raw fabrication are only one facet of a mechanical design, and that a good casting may very well be better than a poor forging. Then consider the effect that subsequent machining and hardening operations have on the performance of the receiver, and the picture gets muddied even further.

Given the fact that most of us will never get a chance to experience the difference in durability between a receiver than can go 20k rounds and one that can go 40k rounds, this type of conversation rarely goes anywhere. Most of us are best-served by selecting the receiver that that presents the fewest challenges during assembly and operation.

machanic, beware titanium as it has a lower modulus of elasticity than steel. This could potentially subject other components to undesirable loading, and so I would think that some extensive analysis would be warranted prior to cutting chips. It also has a nasty propensity to gall, so selection of the proper surface finish, surface treatment, and lubrication would be very important.
__________________
We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. - Tyler Durden
Eric Bryant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 18:33   #35
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by E4W
jbrooks now I am confused!

Were you joking the whole time?
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
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 18:56   #36
DJ60
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 62742
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally posted by jbrooks
Just keep in mind, next time you fly in a commercial jet, the turbine blades have been "cast", actually, even worse, "MIM" (Metal Injection Molding).

Which is why you hear of airplanes falling out of the sky every day or so...

And on and on it goes...

JWB
1. Airplanes almost never "fall" out of the sky.
2. If they "fall" out of the sky it is because of pilot error/stall/spin.
3. Aircraft turbine engines go for thousands of hours without failing. Quality parts and rigorous inspection standards keep the industry very safe.
4. A slightly more credible argument might be to fault cast crankshafts in piston-driven light aircraft. Those do fail every once in a while.
But in several thousand hours of flight time, I have never had an engine fail on me.

If this comes across as a little scathing, it's just because it's a sore subject--flying is incredibly safe, third after ships and trains.

Back to subject--my Coonan works just fine and looks great. And look at the stats--why would you pay more for something that has an identical failure rate?
__________________
If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target. --Unknown
DJ60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 19:01   #37
E4W
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 36717
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 41
OK - jbrooks I just want to make sure you understand that I do NOT agree with you. I think you may have mis-interpreted one of my posts.

Casting does not produce the same strength as forging. This is fact. It is not subjective, and it is not arguable.

If you cannot understand that in light of what has already been said in this thread then I am sorry.
E4W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 19:02   #38
BushPig
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 63425
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CO
Posts: 299
Does anyone here know what casting and treating processes the Coonan receivers go through...?
__________________
-BushPig
BushPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 19:29   #39
Jaxxas
Don't Tread On Me!
Bronze Contributor
 
Jaxxas's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 34933
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,089
Quote:
Originally posted by jbrooks
Just keep in mind, next time you fly in a commercial jet, the turbine blades have been "cast", actually, even worse, "MIM" (Metal Injection Molding).

Which is why you hear of airplanes falling out of the sky every day or so...

And on and on it goes...

JWB
I too have seen that episode of "How it's Made!", but you are talking apples and oranges.
__________________
“I'm not sure what part of the internet sent you to us, but I expect it had something to do with gravity. You have not reached your point of equilibrium." W.E.G.

A golf course is a complete waste of a good rifle range. Jarhead
Jaxxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 19:44   #40
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ60


1. Airplanes almost never "fall" out of the sky.

...

If this comes across as a little scathing, it's just because it's a sore subject--flying is incredibly safe, third after ships and trains.
...



Quote:
Originally posted by E4W
OK - jbrooks I just want to make sure you understand that I do NOT agree with you. I think you may have mis-interpreted one of my posts.

Casting does not produce the same strength as forging. This is fact. It is not subjective, and it is not arguable.

If you cannot understand that in light of what has already been said in this thread then I am sorry.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaxxas


… you are talking apples and oranges.
It’s pretty clear to me that this subject has taken on a seriousness that it doesn’t deserve.

That’s OK, I’m a big boy and can take the heat.

Y'all enjoy the discussion, I clearly have nothing useful to contribute.




JWB
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 20:20   #41
2Adefender
More ammo please
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 62519
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally posted by BushPig
Does anyone here know what casting and treating processes the Coonan receivers go through...?
I was going to ask the same question. Are Coonan receivers heat treated? Their web site doesn't mention this.
__________________
Jon
2Adefender is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 20:26   #42
Jaxxas
Don't Tread On Me!
Bronze Contributor
 
Jaxxas's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 34933
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,089
Quote:
Originally posted by jbrooks

It’s pretty clear to me that this subject has taken on a seriousness that it doesn’t deserve.
JWB


WTF, why doesn't learning have priority over all other? Nice you are so F'n smart, let the rest of us learn in peace.
__________________
“I'm not sure what part of the internet sent you to us, but I expect it had something to do with gravity. You have not reached your point of equilibrium." W.E.G.

A golf course is a complete waste of a good rifle range. Jarhead
Jaxxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 20:49   #43
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
I believe the Coonan are heat treated, I read in a post someware that they are in the 38C Rockwell hardness which is much harder than a as cast state.
machanic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 22:16   #44
jbrooks
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10395
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally posted by HD Bee
You know JB we have been talking about FN, Coonan and SAI cast receivers.

Which are all great cast receivers and will probably last most of us a couple of life times.


So let’s look at Entreprise cast receivers and the last group buy...
OK, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, and yes, I'm still learning. Been her for 8 years now, and never had a problem yet.

You just made my point. As I mentioned above, the QUALITY of any manufacturer is the most critical, I did mention the quality of the heat treatment, but obviously if you cast a receiver with crappy, unqualified steel, it will be crap. A QUALITY Cast receiver is just as good as a QUALITY forged one for all practical purposes.

And that's the crux... PRACTICAL putposes.

We can discuss tensile strength, shear strength, ductility, grain structure all day long, and that's fine for learning purposes. But it doesn't change the bottom line. You yourself agreed that a cast SAI M1A or a Coonan cast FAL receiver are just fine. I certainly agree.

A certified POS like Enterprise doesn't meet those criferia, and I would never buy one.

JWB

Last edited by jbrooks; July 17, 2011 at 22:22.
jbrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 23:05   #45
Sampson1986
Renegade
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 43374
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally posted by HD Bee
Do you think that an Enterprise cast FAL receiver is the equal of a forged DSA, Imbel or Argy receiver?

Well I don’t and would check the headspace of one after every time I shot it.

But hey cast is the equal of forged right.
Lousy example. Entreprise is shit - it doesn't belong in the same sentence as IMBEL or DSA.

Forged or cast, who cares? I couldn't afford the ammo it would take to wear out either one.
__________________
RENEGADE: an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior.
Sampson1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 23:08   #46
darkest2000
Registered
 
darkest2000's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 13475
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 340
Forged also has a better appearance since all external surfaces are machined, which leaves a cleaner outline. Castings will have seam lines and cast marks, and generally have a rough surface. Just minor details.

As metallurgy advances, a quality casting made today is better than a forging made 50 years ago. And is cheaper.
darkest2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17, 2011, 23:27   #47
def90
Registered
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 50609
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Peoples' Republic of Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 12,229
Quote:
Originally posted by darkest2000
Forged also has a better appearance since all external surfaces are machined, which leaves a cleaner outline. Castings will have seam lines and cast marks, and generally have a rough surface. Just minor details.

As metallurgy advances, a quality casting made today is better than a forging made 50 years ago. And is cheaper.
FAL castings are a rough casting with all of the surfaces machined afterwards..
__________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
def90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18, 2011, 00:54   #48
kev
Old Fart
Contributor
 
kev's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 71
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Indiana and various others
Posts: 5,118
Quote:
Originally posted by jbrooks

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.

JWB
I always get suckered into this argument and I really don't know why. Nobody ever has his mind changed. The same weak comparisons get thrown around every time. Yeah, Rugers are cast. Note that all Rugers are specifically designed to use castings,..............they've never duplicated a forged receiver. Yeah, turbine blades are cast, but they're not rifle receivers. They perform a different function and the stresses are unrelated.

The above clip from SOF is the one that has always stuck with me. Right there it's basically saying that a forged Type 1 can be expected to last twice as long as the heavier cast Type 3. FN developed the T-3 to save money and for no other reason. It was cheaper and easier to make and it still worked,...................so it was good enough. Did they delete the lightening cuts as a cost saving measure or to increase the (marginal?) strength,...................? I don't know. I don't see any reason to suspect it wasn't both, but regardless, I don't understand where anyone could come to any other conclusion but that a forged T-1 is roughly twice as strong, durable, whatever as a cast T-3, since that's exactly what FN supposedly believed. Are they both sufficient? Sure.

But it doesn't really end there. If you put your thinking caps on and extrapolate just a little bit, you realize that forged T-1 and cast T-3 aren't the only things to consider. We've also got several versions of forged T-3 receivers to choose from, and at the other end of the spectrum we have cast T-1's. Nobody as far as I know has ever ventured to guess where those items fall in the hierarchy of strength, durability, or whatever you wish to call it, so let me take a stab at it. I think any idiot could understand that the extra metal of a Type 3 receiver would make it stronger than the lightened Type 1 receiver no matter how it was formed or what it was made of. Another way of saying that would be that the lightening cuts of the Type 1 weaken the receiver to some extent, no matter how little. Apparently there was enough weakening to convince FN to leave just a bit of extra steel to make the Type 2.

Consider all the different variations and where they must fall in a strength progression. If you can accept that a forged T-1 will last roughly twice as long as a cast T-3 and that a forged T-2 is stronger than a forged T-1, then you have to be pretty comfortable with the idea that a forged T-3 is stronger still. Conversely, if the cast T-3 is roughly half as durable as the forged T-1, then the cast T-1 must be weaker still. If that all makes sense, lets throw some totally unproven guesses into a list and see where we might end up,.........

Forged Type 3,.........120,000rds? (a guess?)
Forged Type 2,.........100,000rds? (a guess?)
Forged Type 1,...........80,000rds (per FN)
Cast Type 3,..............40,000rds (per FN)
Cast Type 1,..............20,000rds? (a guess?)

The expected round count might be fairly accurate or it might be wildly inaccurate, but I have absolutely no doubt that the ranking is correct and that the differences are more than merely measurable. They're considerable. Whether the difference matters to you or not is entirely up to you. Easily 90% of my FALs are built on forged T-3(Imbels and Argies). I have a few forged T-1's that I have absolute faith in. I have half a dozen cast T-3's that I like just fine, although deep down inside I consider them light duty receivers. I'm not sure I'm ready just yet to buy off on a cast T-1, although I do have one or two. I also have five or six aluminum WAC's and for my money that's about how much faith I'm going to have in the cast T-1's. They're pretty. I'll hang them on the wall, but I don't expect to ever think of them as real rifles. I'm not willing to let the attractiveness of the T-1 and the economy of the cast receiver combine to dictate what I shoot.

I don't expect to ever wear out an FAL receiver of any type, but that's mostly because I think I understand their limits and I don't plan on exceeding any of them. But I do expect to be around to hear about other people's problems with them in the future.
__________________
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

RUE?

Last edited by kev; July 18, 2011 at 01:06.
kev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 18, 2011, 04:46   #49
nwobhm
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
nwobhm's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 9580
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 9,027
Way to go kev. You nailed it.
nwobhm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18, 2011, 05:26   #50
machanic
Member
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 63516
Join Date: May 2011
Location: R.I.
Posts: 233
Of course you realize that with new members joining, some without a good understanding of the pros and cons of the two manufacturing processes, and the option of the offering of receivers of both types, this question will come up AGAIN!!!! Perhaps the finer points should be entered into a FAQ area to avoid the potential misunderstandings. Not to mention my blood preassure!!
machanic 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 00:58.


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