Cast vs Forged

[adamsredlines]

So...discussion is started in the "1911 HiPower" thread...but as to not hijack it....

Do you not buy a gun because its cast?
Given the choice between the two, all other things being equal, I'd obviously go forged.
One reason I didnt buy a Ruger 1911 is because I wanted a forged one, not cast.
HOWEVER, I didnt pony up for a forged M14 and bought the "lesser" cast M1A and have been nothing but happy with it. I believe all parts are interchangeable between a cast 1911 and forged, as well as the M1A vs a forged M14 receiver.

Not thinking much on it, my beloved Hi Power (practical) is a cast version. So...what say you?
Is it a big consideration for you when looking into a gun, or is it low on the list of requirements?

 

[Uncle TK]

Modern (Investment) Casting cannot be compared to old (Cheap) casting

 

[steelfingers]

No problem with the hijack. I've done that so much myself..Ha.
I haven't the knowledge between the two and it's an interesting topic, what are the pro's and con's, advantages and disadvantages of the two?
I'm curious what experiences people have had, preferences and why.

 

[druryj]

It's low on my personal list...on the 1911, I am fairly captain that all parts are interchangeable as you said. Well, as interchangeable as 1911 parts can be, fitting as appropriate may be required in either case whether cast or forged though. Anyway, it's just not something I'd fret over.

 

[NikatKimber]

It depends on the quality of the casting.

My comment in the other thread was not to say that the cast hi-power frames were lesser in strength; rather that between the two, if given the same material, the forging is inherently stronger. Which is why I don't understand the billet AR lower love.

Ruger is so well known for their casting they actually have a subsidiary company that sells casting services. I trust Ruger to do a high quality casting.

 

[rc508pir]

It depends on the quality of the casting.

My comment in the other thread was not to say that the cast hi-power frames were lesser in strength; rather that between the two, if given the same material, the forging is inherently stronger. Which is why I don't understand the billet AR lower love.

Ruger is so well known for their casting they actually have a subsidiary company that sells casting services. I trust Ruger to do a high quality casting.

Yeah it really does depend on who did the cast.

FN tried to cast FAL receivers and they failed often, and soon went back to forging. When DSA began casting parts, after the surplus began drying up for FALs, their first batch were junk, but the quickly figured it out. I have way more problems with my surplus FALs than my SA58

 

[mightymouse]

Tensile strength is not the only important quality in steel. Glass, for example, is very hard and very strong (try bending or stretching it!). But they don't make guns from it!

 

[steelfingers]

Tensile strength is not the only important quality in steel. Glass, for example, is very hard and very strong (try bending or stretching it!). But they don't make guns from it!

If you're talking about tensile strength, I have a gal in my office who's bra must be made of Tungston

 

[D. Hargrove]

Not an issue to me at all.

 

[dennishoddy]

It depends on the quality of the casting.

My comment in the other thread was not to say that the cast hi-power frames were lesser in strength; rather that between the two, if given the same material, the forging is inherently stronger. Which is why I don't understand the billet AR lower love.

Ruger is so well known for their casting they actually have a subsidiary company that sells casting services. I trust Ruger to do a high quality casting.

Which is MIM, Metal injection molding. It's basically powdered steel which when mixed with adhesive and uses injection molding to form the part which is then machined.
The modern investment casting process mentioned earlier is the "lost wax" process of casting.
Both are much better than the old sand casting process.
Given a choice I'll take forged any day.