I read in another thread where one poster says <B>many </B> gunsmiths will not rebarrel Ruger rifles because their actions are investment cast.<BR><BR>I have never run into <B>any </B> gunsmith who has said that to me, so I am asking those of you here who do commercial re-barreling..."Would you refuse to rebarrel a Ruger because it has an investment cast action? (Your comments are also welcome.)YesNoDepends on chambering desiredDepends on something else (specify what that "else " is)

Those who refuse to rebarrel a Ruger receiver because they are investment cast are probably not familiar with the rebarreling process, or, they are poupon eating snobs, who feel it is beneath them to consider such work. That's okay though as there are plenty of Ruger receivers crying for barrels and plenty of gunsmiths willing to install them.

Look...I'm just repeating a story. The late, great Monte Kennedy was asked by some guy how he would go about re-stocking a Ruger..his answer...(I was there) "I don't; lifes too short to work on s...like that!"

Yeah, there's a lot of work to done to fine guns, one can't help but understand Monte's comments.....There's nothing inherently wrong with cast:

Some fine makers use cast and then machine all surfaces to really make a nice tight unit (The single shot Hagn is a prime example)

There is absolutely nothing "Wrong" with investment cast receivers this is a precieved opinion that only "milled receivers are acceptable" This process, while not as "pretty" is just as strong In my opinion.

Duane, there's a HELL of a lot of difference from the local gunsmith and an artist like yourself. the comparison isn't even funny.

there's nothing wrong with a ruger, and a gunsmith that makes it by, via barrel plumbing, would be somewhat foolish to turn his nose up in snobbery over a paying customer

his choice, of course

IMO it would be extremely difficult to find a stronger action than the cast Ruger No 1. Can't speak for the 77, but the No 1 is stronger than any other single shot action I've worked with. Anyone who says cast is weaker is either ignorant or a fool.

Now, Monte could possibly have been thinking about the stocking/accuracy issues with the 77 instead of the perceived weakness, I don't know since I wasn't there. But I DO know that opinions are exactly that, just opinions, and even the experts are wrong sometimes. And even an acknowledged expert can make a foolish statement in the heat of 'discussion' with his buds!(VBG)
Regards, Joe

I don't know about now but, the Post 64 Model 70 was a cast receiver and I haven't heard any such controversy over them.

I was at a gunstore when the gunsmith came in to pick up work and drop work off.

The ones he was dropping off that he didn't want to work on, he wold say, "Tell them to shoot it the way it is."

He was a grumpy old man that lived way up in the woods by himself. He is probably dead now. Thinking back, that guy was cool.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Duane, there's a HELL of a lot of difference from the local gunsmith and an artist like yourself. the comparison isn't even funny.

there's nothing wrong with a ruger, and a gunsmith that makes it by, via barrel plumbing, would be somewhat foolish to turn his nose up in snobbery over a paying customer

his choice, of course

Jeez: it's just a freaking story! and...I've restocked a couple 77's!

I'm quite sure Martin Hagn would never have rebarreled a Ruger 77 or restocked one. He wouldn't do a Remington either. Naturally, his objection was not that it was cast but that it was, to him, ugly.
There are many modern gunsmiths who avoid Model 70's because they have to make an extractor cut. These same guys have never cut a square thread or barreled a lever action.
I am personally perfectly happy rebarreling Rugers and have even rebarreled a Mossberg 810. You don't get much lower class than that! Of course, I've never claimed to be a classy guy.
I believe the post 64 Winchesters were made from a forging; not a casting. Regards, Bill.

Hey AC, Some folks who claim to be Gun Smiths are not really Gun Smiths. Surely they have another, more properly descriptive name for themselves - perhaps Artistes.

I look "down on" their Artistic Work, with the same nose-in-the-air disdain they give to the typical guy who needs a problem with his firearm problem resolved. They may make things pretty, but if they can't(or won't) repair a fiream they are not Gun Smiths.

I sincerely doubt that any competent artist or real gunsmith would turn down the job of re barreling

any weapon . Provided there is a financial gain from doing so .

Perhaps a better analogy if there is enough money in the job , then a quality gunsmith can

turn a stool sample into a Faberge Egg !. He may not enjoy doing so but financial reward is a

mighty powerful motivator .

As far as I am concerned, the votes are sufficiently in for me to conclude that although A FEW "gunsmiths" say they wouldn't barrel a Ruger BECAUSE it has a cast action, that is not true of the vast majority.

I also note that I have no way of knowing for sure that any of the four who have said that so far really are gunsmiths, as none has stated why that concerns him, what his experience is that leads him to that policy, or even identified himself.


Thanks to all the 'smiths for your participation.

Well AC you know I'm not one . So it was a personal observation over 50 years of dealing with gunsmiths .

Money was and I suspect always will be a strong motivator .

Westpac and Duane Wiebe are definitely smiths . An opinion from Toomany tools ( John )

as well as Jim Kobe would satisfy me just fine .

I venture only a guess that if there were something critical in re barreling a investment cast action

pertaining too the weakness of the metal , we surely would have heard about it by now .


Least wise one would SURLY HOPE SO !!!.

Heaven knows I appreciate the comments from the folks you mentioned, and trust them completely. I also happen to agree with them. I would agree in a heart-beat to barrel a Ruger M77 if I was still doing any barreling.

I was just surprised to get even 4 "yes" answers, ithout any of them identifying himself and explaining why he holds that position. I wasn't dumping on them...just thought if they have had some bad experiences with cast actions, perhaps I could learn something from their experiences.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
...poster says many gunsmiths will not rebarrel Ruger rifles because their actions are investment cast.

I'm sorry to be so blunt (maybe not) but that is just stupid. The Ruger 77 is a very strong and durable action and any "gunsmith" that would not rebarrel one probably doesn't have a pipe wrench big enough to fit it.

I'm not a gunsmith, when I work on guns my gunsmith's kids go to better colleges.

I do work with investment castings a lot and IMHO a lot of the opinions that we see about cast parts are based on the technology and more importantly attitudes of 50 years ago.

People tend to think of castings as stuff like fire hydrants and cast iron lawn ornaments but investment casting is used to make precision parts like the turbine blades used in all commercial and military gas turbine (jet) engines. These blades are made with very thin blade thicknesses, very low weight and with intricate internal cooling passages that have to stand up to enormous amounts of stress.

I sure like the accuracy I get from two Ruger 77's. The balance isn't too shabby either. And, I like the Leonard Brownell stocks too; great lines...
Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute here.