Cast frame in 1911's

[tombogan03884]

Funny thing, I did not realize Pine Tree castings was Ruger. Most of the castings we get where I work come from either there or KW Thompson (T/C Arms ) There is a fairly large foundry about 1000 yards from here (Hebert's ) I have never seen product from them.  

[PegLeg45]

The biggest issue with castings is there is a right and a wrong way to do it. Ruger has taken Investment Casting to unprecedented levels with their subsidiary, Pine Tree Castings. They pioneered the Investment Casting process for Titanium, and cast many of the top name golf clubs in the industry.

If Investment Casting is done incorrectly a lot of voids and porosity can be the result. Ruger is about the best example of how, when done correctly, it is up to, and in many cases beyond, the quality of forged or billet made products. Ruger is known for strong firearms and they Investment Cast most every model they manufacture, from frames for Ruger Blackhawk revolvers to the Model 77 bolt action receiver, and just about everything in between.  Bill T.

Understand completely.......and to clarify my previous post, I wasn't questioning strength....just the flexibility issue.

[blackwolfe]

Question for the metal experts out there.  I have heard that the auto version of the Ruger Mini 14 called the AC556 is prone to cracking in the stailess steel version more than the blued steel version.  I believe they are both cast.  I was told by a machine gun "expert" that stainless, especially cast stainless won't hold up to the rigors of full auto use.  Anybody have any knowledge of this?

Perhaps BillT can run some side by side endurance test with one of his blued AC556's next to a stainless AC556. 

[billt]

Question for the metal experts out there.  I have heard that the auto version of the Ruger Mini 14 called the AC556 is prone to cracking in the stailess steel version more than the blued steel version.  I believe they are both cast.  I was told by a machine gun "expert" that stainless, especially cast stainless won't hold up to the rigors of full auto use.  Anybody have any knowledge of this?

Perhaps BillT can run some side by side endurance test with one of his blued AC556's next to a stainless AC556. 

I know Ruger went through hell with the development of the XGI, which was a .308 version of the Mini 14. They could not get the receiver to stop cracking. This was of course, a semi auto weapon. It never made it to market. Solid steel be it cast, forged, or billet machined is prone to cracking. The Browning BAR was the exception, but it's receiver was massive. The Russians went to a stamped steel receiver for the AK-47 because of this. The milled receiver guns were very prone to cracking under full auto fire. The stamped receiver models were more flexable.  Bill T.

[tombogan03884]

If the sheets were cast for the AK's they would have been no better, perhaps billets or forged blanks would have worked.
Like I posted earlier, Cast metals, all of them, have a granular internal structure, this makes them more likely to crack, in rolled sheets,and billets, or hammer forged material the internal structure gets flattened and stretched , forming a more fiber like structure that is less prone to cracking.
This is also effected by the particular mix in the alloy.

[Sponsor]