Just curious, I see MRC has cast receivers, I know they are of good quality, but what actions were/are forged?

I am thinking old Sako's and FN's, what about CZ 550's? Does anyone know? I have sent an email to CZ asking. Expect an answer next week.

Also, Zastava/Interarms?

Thanks for those in the know who can 'educate' me.

To my knowledge CZ actions are forged. Besto of the breed!

Winchester Model 70's were forged..........DJ

Also Savage 110 and Remington (from a forged round billet), Dakota, most Mausers, all Husqvarnas, Weatherbys, Howa, Miruku, most Brownings, most Euro guns (Definitely CZ) but I don't know about Tikka. Might be easier to list some of the cast:

Ruger
Santa Barbara Mauser
BBK Mauser
Global Trading Mauser
Kimber? not sure
Raptor
MCR

Kimber is not cast.

If you are going to list Raptor, you also need to list Mossberg ATR, which is an updated Raptor rifle.

Aaron

Thanks a bunch guys for your help, I read the Winchester (post 64's) had forged bolt handle, I assume the receiver is as well then? The CRF was the one I was most interested in.

I take it that the companies that forge receivers on CM, they also do that with their stainless actions also?

Thanks much.

quote:

Santa Barbara Mauser

I didn't know these were cast - I got mine in 1965 and had only heard that Ruger (.22 pistols, IIRC) was doing that back then.

Jaywalker

I don't know when the switch was made, but at the end of production the Winchester bolt handles were cast. They were pressed onto the bolt. I do not know how the bolt bodies were made. Frankly, I am not worried about how the handle is made as long as it never comes off.

Aaron

There is a difference from being machined from a billet, and machined from a forging. Forging is an expensive process and becomes economical when you are making hundreds of thousands of the things. Ok, maybe tens of thousands of the things at a wack. If the designers did their work correctly, then they designed a part that had the grain of the forging in the direction of the stresses. A forged part will have greater fatigue endurance than a cast part in the direction of the grain. Tensile and Ultimate are a bit better with the grain, are a bit worse across the grain. Casting are unidirectional in properties.

Billets are different. These will come from bar stock from the mill. Hopefully the stresses will be in the direction of the grain as rolled from the mill, but not necessarily.

With today's CNC machinery we are seeing much more machined from billets parts.

Olsen's book on the Bolt Action (if my memory is correct) stated that the pre 64 receivers were machined from billet, whereas the post 64 receivers started off as essentially cylindrical forging. He wrote his book in the earlier 70's and what ever happened since then in the production processes is anyone's guess.

There is a cultural memory that somehow metal pounded endlessly is superior to metal not pounded endlessly. This memory is not correct, and probably what is more important is (assuming good materials and good design) is the heat treatment.

I seriously don't take a beef with quality cast parts, but all equal and given a choice, feel that the forged components tend to be less bulky, I don't know if Ruger adds more beef for a 'buffer zone' to act as insurance, or if it is simply needed for strength.

I know I am nitpicking, I NEVER heard of a Ruger or Winchester bolt handled breaking off either, but once saw a Tikka bolt handle stripped and if you seen that pic, you might question a Tikka also, but I have not personally examined to see the design, I doubt it is crap, but it did look suspect when disassembled.

Thanks again for the 'metallurgy 101"

Lots of knowledge and its nice to hear it on the board.

Take into account that Ruger's bolts are ONE PIECE...impossible to break down

Gus,

You know, seriously, after having reliability issues with certain brands, a simple hunting rifle that is reliable and field accurate wins my vote over a bench accurate gun, with 'issues' everytime.

I hear you. Did the 1909 Argentina mauser come from your country I take it? Must be a few around right?

quote:

SlamFire: There is a cultural memory that somehow metal pounded endlessly is superior to metal not pounded endlessly. This memory is not correct, and probably what is more important is (assuming good materials and good design) is the heat treatment.

Very true, in all three propositions: (1) the general assumption of forging's value, (2) that it's really just a pretty good way to get started, and (3) heat treatment is the key. I'll add a fourth: the myth will continue...

Jaywalker

quote:

I seriously don't take a beef with quality cast parts, but all equal and given a choice, feel that the forged components tend to be less bulky, I don't know if Ruger adds more beef for a 'buffer zone' to act as insurance, or if it is simply needed for strength

As a comment: Quality processes, quality design, quality materials, should get you a quality product. If however you are going to cut corners, the casting processes is the cheapest one to start with.

As for Ruger, and every other gun manufacturer, if they sell firearms in the US, then they have to do preventive lawsuit management. I have a Ruger M77 in 308. I have noticed that the case neck in this Ruger factory chamber expands much more than case necks fired in Clymer reamer cut chambers. Obviously Ruger cuts the case neck large. This unfortunate feature (because case necks split sooner) must be there as a way of reducing the risk of a blowup. When you talk to someone in the firearm industry, lots of people blow up firearms, 99.99% of the time with reloads, and always blame the factory. I can recall some fool who offered his Ruger Redhawk and his reloads to me to shoot. He was trying to impress me with the power of his reloads and informed me that his cartridges were 6 grains over max. I declined the offer. There are a lot of these fools out there, sometimes they blow up firearms and often never accept responsibility for their actions.

Kimber uses the MRC action and they are cast.

Aligning the "grain" in one direction does not change the modulus, it can to a small degree orient the structure in a more favorable way, it isn't the be all end all as it is the heat treat that matter in the "grain" structure. One further point is that when forged stess is induced, machining releases that stress as does heat treat, so a forged or machined recieve often warps slightly on heat treat, this is in fact a know trait of 4140 steel, it isn't a bunch it even happens in thick sections. Far thicker than any part of a rifle action. The first factor to consider in strength for use is the alloy, then it's cross section, then heat treat and finally method of fabrication.

Ruger's are that thick because they have to be, they could be as thick as a Kimber/MRC, they are that thick because Ruger wants them to be. I'd make a modest bet one would not let lose at pressures or stresses an MRC would due to the amount of material involved and a like alloy for both- 4140 as I recall.

quote:

Originally posted by Planemech:
Kimber uses the MRC action .............

Uh, no they don't. The Kimber and Montana Rifle Company actions are completely different. The MRC has a dovetailed lug etc.. The Kimber is also quite a bit lighter...............DJ

djpaintles is correct, the Kimber is not a MRC.

MRC is a knockoff of the model 70 but cast and with a different bolt release.

Kimber while it has CRF and a three position safety isn't even close to a MRC or model 70. The receivers are round, with a sandwiched recoil lug, Timney style trigger. You have to get the action out of the stock to realize how different it is. Additionally, Kimber makes the 84M that will take a .308 sized case only. MRC doesn't offer anything like it.

I understand why there might be some confusion, Kimber's marketing office is right down the road from MRC but they are not in the same location. All of Kimber's rifles are manufactured in NY.

Aaron

I've been misled, sorry to pass it along as fact.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
Gus,

You know, seriously, after having reliability issues with certain brands, a simple hunting rifle that is reliable and field accurate wins my vote over a bench accurate gun, with 'issues' everytime.

I hear you. Did the 1909 Argentina mauser come from your country I take it? Must be a few around right?

6.5BR,

First of all, I agree 100% on your comments on reliability over bench accuracy, that's why of the production rifles I chose Ruger hands-down! In my post "Remington sucks..." I explained in detail the reasons of my decision. After many hunts (including Africa and other overseas hunts) I never HAD AN ISSUE with Rugers. In short, tough as a nail, and very accurate (with both, factory ammo and handloads)

I have many friends down here that are very satisfied with their Rugers, in every sense, including bench accuracy. It's not rare to find groups of about one inch or better. That's for 3-shots groups.

In fact, my main concern is POI repeteability with a clean, cool barrel.

Please take into account that our "standard range" is 150 meters (164 yards) instead of the US proverbial "100 yards groups"

Yes, the 1909 Argentine Mauser (7.65x53mm Argentine) was commisioned to Germany and as you may know is an extraordinary "Gewehr 98" variation. Previously our forces were issued the Ludwig-Loewe Mauser 1891.

The 1909 was built by DWM ("Deutsche Waffen und Munitions Fabriken"), in Germany and later in Argentina by FM ("Fabricaciones Militares"), known as "Model 1935"

Three models were built, Cavalry, Engineers and Infantry by DWM, while FM only built the Infantry and Cavalry versions.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of sporting rifles were converted by local gunsmiths, some of them true artworks, and of course, as you may imagine, this action is sought after in high regard!!!

I guess that many were exported to the US as military surplus, and many of them UNUSED and UNFIRED, NIB.

If you can buy one, at least only for the action in order to build a custom rifle, do not hesitate, go ahead!

Great info from all. On the MRC-I do recall they did make some actions for WSM's for CZ, the no. 3.

Gustavo,

I cannot disagree with anything you said, if one has an accurate Ruger, there would be no reason to change. I do think many could use a trigger job. I did one myself years ago, contemplating doing the one I own, if I keep it I may be a replacement, some say you cut through a 'surface hardened sear' and that over time, it will wear quicker/quickly.

Not being familiar with your country, what game do you hunt, I am curious? Thanks again to all who contributed.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
Great info from all. On the MRC-I do recall they did make some actions for WSM's for CZ, the no. 3.

Gustavo,

I cannot disagree with anything you said, if one has an accurate Ruger, there would be no reason to change. I do think many could use a trigger job. I did one myself years ago, contemplating doing the one I own, if I keep it I may be a replacement, some say you cut through a 'surface hardened sear' and that over time, it will wear quicker/quickly.

Not being familiar with your country, what game do you hunt, I am curious? Thanks again to all who contributed.

6.5BR,

Argentina as yoy may know is a prime international destination for hunters. In a snapshot down here you can hunt, Red Stag, Axis deer, Fallow deer, Water Buffalo, Wild Hogs, Cougar, Ibex, Blackbuck antelope and many species of birds and waterfowl.

Hope to have you here someday!

quote:

Originally posted by AaroninUtah:
Kimber is not cast............

Aaron

You are refering to the latest cylindrical receivers,yes?
The earlier BGR89 receivers with m70 style integral recoil lug, I recall are a machined casting.

Thanks Gus,

It sounds like a lot of fine hunting to be had, if I had time/money, I'd travel the globe hunting. To think of the life of legendary big game hunters in the past, and the days in the bush seen, must have been something back years gone past when many species were even more plentiful.

There is a good article entitled 'The Czech CZ 550 Action' in June '06 issue of Precison Shooting.

Thank you very much.

Casting/Forging -- I have some background in this stuff, speaking of "cultural memory."

Back when steel was a new idea (1700's), iron contained impurities. "Puddling" was one method to refine the iron, this meant melting it in a "puddle" and stiring it -- which caused the carbon left in the metal from smelting to burn out and also tighten up with the molecular structure.

Iron was wood charcoal smelted with a "cold blast" -- air was not heated in "stoves" before it was blown into the bosh of the smelter. The "cold blast" iron was ductile (able to be dawn/pulled) and malleable (able to be hammered/forged without breaking). "Puddling" resulted in burning off carbon impurities from the smelting process.

A means to better iron was "forging" and "wrought iron" is forged. Often the iron was first "puddled" and then "worked" or "wrought" by a smith in a "forge" (the fire), and on the anvil with a hammer.

Hammering aligned the molecular structure and also reduced the size of the carbon impurities.

Then came Bessemer steel. "Steel" was iron that had been run through this process. Basically it's keeping the iron molten and agitating to sift out the impurities (carbon and sulpher).

Bessemer steel used in boilers (steam RR locomotives) had a bad habit of blowing apart. While the "steel" was better quality, there was a shift in iron smelting from using wood charcoal for fuel to using anthricite coal. Also, the "hot blast" was developed, heating the air in "stoves" before blowing it into the blast furnace. Coal had sulpher, and the "hot blast" resulted in higher smelting temps. and more brittle iron.

Coal smelted, hot blast iron was a less "merchantable" iron -- less able to be forged and worked because it was brittle from being "hot blast" refined at a higher temp. than "cold blast" charcoal iron. Coal introduced impurities, carbon and sulpher.

"Open Hearth" refining was developed, this essentially "puddling" on a huge scale.

-- All this before 1900.

Today we have metallurgy, alloys, computers, spectographs, analysis, and engineers. These have replaced the forge and blacksmith.

Investment casting is some sophisticated stuff. That said, I like to hear that the steel in my gear is FORGED!

Weatherby forges, both the Mark V, and the "economy" Vanguard.

I just found a Vanguard 30-06, Leupold VXII 3 - 9x 40mm scope. $367 out the door!

Forge ahead!

I saw the latest issue of the Australian magazine ‘Guns and Game’ in the local bookshop today. Included in it was a story by one of their regular writers about a conducted tour of the CZ factory, illustrated with a number of colour photos. He stated that their bolt action rifles – rimfire and centrefire – are made by INVESTMENT CASTING, and includes photos of receivers, bolts and bottom metal in various stages of manufacture. This would seem to put paid to any statements that they are made from forgings.

Current CZ actions are investment cast. For those who subscribe, October issue of the Magnum has a nice article on them.

Steel is an alloy of Iron and Carbon. 2/10th of a percent makes iron into steel high carbon steel is above 5/10ths a percent of carbon for example 1095 steel is .95% carbon.

quote:

Originally posted by Planemech:
Steel is an alloy of Iron and Carbon. 2/10th of a percent makes iron into steel high carbon steel is above 5/10ths a percent of carbon for example 1095 steel is .95% carbon.

Early distinctions between "iron" and "steel" referred to carbon content and also to a large degree upon the smelting and refining processes.

These distinctions arose circa 1880's with the introduction of the Bessemer process and the shift in the smelting industry from charcoal fired smelters to hot blast antrhicite coal.

Current "steels" are much more complicated -- and largely "alloys" although still thought of as "steel alloys." Examples are stainless -- with a range of alloys ranging from those used in flatware, cooking pots/utensils, to knives, surgical instruments and orthotics, firearms --

Tool steel relies on alloys such as chrome molybdinum, chrome mangenese, nickle alloys --

And then you get into all sorts of "treatments" tempering, annealing, etc.

-- Not to dispute this previous post so much as to just appreciate the complexities in metals these days which allow a "steel" machine tool to shape a gun barrel, receiver, engine block, or the bolts that hold your car together.

Interesting to hear that recent magazine articles describe the cz550 actions as being investment cast.

I emailed cz about 2 years ago asking them how their actions were made. The reply stated the actions were "forged then machined for strength"

I wonder if they have changed the manufacturing methods of late...? Perhaps it's time for another email to cz....

I am interested in understanding the manufacturing 'process behind the product' and would really like to know what cz is currently doing.

Regards,
Dave

DavidC

Perhaps they cast certain ones, but I did email CZ just a few weeks ago re: 550's and they told me that they were forged.

How is that for confusion?