I am interested in hearing opinions on the strength and quality of a rifle action that is cast from a mold VS being milled from bar stock like some of the custom made actions or made from tubular steel like most production rifles. Is there any major difference?

Consider the instananeous and prolonged forces at work in our diesel and gasoline engines. Cast form much less expensive alloys.

I have read that cast receivers are much stronger as they are able to use "cleaner" steel since they arn't machined. The other methods used require a steel with a high sulfer content in order to be soft enough to machine. The steel then has to be heat treated to make it hard but its never as "strong" as a cast receiver. The cast receiver is usually not as "true" as a machined/heat treated one but sometime the receiver warps so in heat treating that as machined one has to be discarded. I'm just repeating what I've read as this has been a interesting topic for me. I wish the gun companys wouldn't keep all their manufacturing methods so secret. I've read for instance that Sako hammer forges some barrels but others are button rifled Lothar/Walter barrels they import. I think Sako has made recievers both ways. I know many of the older sakos have the same "purple" blueing on the reciever like the older Rugers and thats a sign that its cast. I have a old pre garcia Vixen .223 delux that is quite purple in the receiver. I would assume its a casting. Please edjewkate me as I'm in the dark on all these manufacturing methods and of course no magazine ever discusses it as they might offend some gunmaker. FNMauser

I believe Ruger Blackhawk revolver frames are cast steel. The more technical term is investment casting. I'm sure many other high quality firearms are likewise cast steel.

Several complex questions involved in your apparently simple one...



Simple answer is: Properly done, forged steel is stronger because of the way forging fills potential air voids and distributes carbon throughout the steel...that's why historically they didn't generally use cast steel for the best sword blades.



At the same time, one has to pay particular attention to the operative term "properly done". It is really easy to screw up the forging, hardening and tempering processes, resulting in increased inclusions, unwelded seams, brittle spots, all kinds of other nasty things.



And then there is the question, "How much strength does this application need?" I haven't heard of Ruger having trouble with M77 rifle actions failing because of metal "weakness", and they are all cast.



Reportedly, "design life" of the Ruger action is 50,000 firings...that doesn't mean they will fail soon after 50,000 shots, just that they WON'T fail WITHIN 50,000 rounds. I'm sure most of them will last many times that number.



More specifically, do you have a particular concern about an individual cast action?



Alberta Canuck

this may be very simplistic, but i know from my tenure at u.s. steel all steel is actually cast when it is manufactured. it is poured into ingots and then it gets further proccessing into pipe, bars, slabs etc. i believe that given our society of litigation no one would produce an action of marginal strength, whether it is machined or cast. i think it is just two different manufacturing ideas.

Tests have indicated that investment cast parts are, at the very least, as strong as forged parts, and usually stronger. Bill Ruger himself had to be convinced of this and his tests are covered in the book "Ruger and His Guns" by R.L. Wilson.
The reason for the strength advantage of investement cast, or lost wax technology, which is the old name for it is the grain structure is much more uniform in a cast part.
Casting my not be popular for something as simplistic as a sword blade. It's actually more trouble than it's worth in that case, but I point out the fact that turbo jet airplane engines use fins in the high speed turbines are cast, because of the strength, uniformity and endurance benefits. That's a pretty big demand of any metal part.
In firearms, I wouldn't get excited about the differences between the two. Both are more than capable of handling the pressures of any rifle cartridge without any problem. Some of the most respected names in firearms, such as Ruger, Sako, MRC, Weatherby, Howa, Dan Wesson, Thompson Center, and many, many others use castings.

It is obvious that minds can vary on this one. Grain structure is important, but it is not the only thing that is important in steel strength.

However, to assume that a GOOD sword blade is a simple application is, for sure, not always correct. A little delving into the metallurgy of Samurai swords would indicate that.

Granted, for economical production of engine parts (including engines such as rifle actions), lost wax casting with the proper alloy(s) IS plenty strong, faster, and MUCH cheaper than complex, properly done, forging.

Alberta Canuck