I am thinking about picking up a CZ550 Safari Magnum in 375 H&H as they seem to be alot of gun for the money. I do however, have one question before I commit. I have always been under the impression that CZ manufactured their receivers by forging them. However, I have also heard that the CZ is made via investment casting.

Can anyone clear this up for me? Which is it forged or investment cast?

Thanks,
Dave

David C---

None of the CZs I have here show any signs of being cast.

Can you educate this non-machinist? I know what investment casting is, what is forging?

WHO CARES! They are both fine for the end product! Forging is great, but "Old World" production, and really overkill for the application. Investment casting is "state of the art" production which you will never wear out.

The products made by CZ are 1st rate, made to last stuff. They do not make crap.

Regards,

Eric

It is my impression that the CZs are machined from a forging with very little evidence remaining of the forging operation. A BRNO 601 action I have in the shop appears to have definitely been forged or maybe cast. A CZ 550 I have is much better finished with every surface having been machined.
The Sakos were made from a forging as were the post 64 Winchesters.
It seems that modern investment castings are usually close enough to finished size that there is some evidence of the casting as there is on the Rugers, new M70s, and as there was on the Kimbers. The CZs show no evidence unless it is just forward of the recoil lug.
As previously mentioned, it really makes little difference how it starts out. It's how it finishes that counts. Regards, Bill.

Wismon,

Forging is a metal shaping method with compressive forces applied with various dies and tools. Think of a piece of metal that you hammer it into a desired shape. Of course, there are different types of forging but you get the point.

Mingo, thanks.

Wismon investment casting is a method of producing the casting from a model. Usually by the lost wax method where a model made up of wax is coated a number of times with a ceramic paste and then after the build up, heat is applied and the wax is "lost", melted away, leaving a cavity which is then filled with molten metal. It is then machined to the correct shape. Ruger uses such a method, but with one of the recent problems being that they try to get it spot on to eliminate the machining.

No receivers for rifle is casted in CZ, I live about 30km far from the factory and I do some bussines with factory (we are producer of milling cutters) all those things are machined only because of strenght...

Chic, thanks. I must be suffering from Altzimer's because I think I've asked that question about forging before on a different site. If you catch me asking it again either ignore it or kick me in the butt.

M.Fox Jancik, are those actions actually machined? Or are the forged and then machine finished? Or am I asking the same thing? (I'm obviously not a machinist or a metalurgist so thanks for the patience.)

There is a world of difference between being casted and being forged. When you forge a product, it starts from round bar normally, then is heated to red hot temps, placed in to a cavity then basically squashed into the desired shape. The result is barstock that has kept all of it's chemical properties and has not had air introduced into the end shape. The other benefit on forgings is the fact that it normally stress relieves the part almost completely.
Castings are formed in many different fashions, one of which is what Chic described above, but all of them have the same problems. The most significant of them all is porosity, or tiny air pockets that get trapped in the mold. These air pockets will show up when you begin to machine or finish the part, such as buffing or sanding. They are not always there, but there is a large percentage of investment castings that suffer from this problem. It is for this reason alone that the forging process is considerably stronger than the casting of a similiar object. Furthermore, forgings, while they have been around a long time, are far from "Old World". Pick up any Craftsman, Snap-On, or Proto combination wrench and I guarantee they've been forged. Likewise with your Starrett micrometers. Forgings can be extremely accurate and are very cost effective for large production. Not to mention, tooling expenses are far less for forgings than for investment casting.
Something else to keep in mind, investment casting is far from state-of-the-art. It's been around a long, long time. Probably the newest edition in the world of castings is MIM, or Metal Injection Molding. The problem with this process is that it is reserved for extremely small parts generally, and the tooling expense for one part can run upwards of $60,000-$80,000. One of the largest parts to be MIM'd is Winchester's Model 70 claw extractor, which they claim they've had a zero failure rate on thus far, but I'm still a little skeptical.

Here is a link to our site showing and giving some more detail on the process of forging.

Williams Firearms

Gentlemen

The actions are milled from bars of steel. Nothing else.

I belive the factory still is doing tests on every new patch of steel before starting production.

I guess a Czech Republic made copy of the winchester action should be better that any of those who leaves the plant in USA, and a bit cheaper

Ohh, they have great beer in the Czech rebublic too, compared to the american water
/ JOHAN

I stand corrected. If machined, the bottom of the 601 is so poorly done that it looks like a rough casting from an imperfect mold. The 550 is better and is machined on every surface. Regards, Bill.

Investment casting is done to keep down machining costs. The parts come out of the process requiring a minimum of final machining.
However, the idea that they are somehow sub standard is not supported in fact. Sako has used this process for many years. Their reputation for quality is rarely matched by any other rifle makers. Ruger actions have been proofed at 160,000 lbs. psi. I know of no failures, or complaints, based on this process of rifle made by either of these companies. I do know of one blown out reciever on an early post 64 Winchester. This occured using standard pressure handloads. Odviously a major flaw in the components used, and testing/quality control measures used by the company at the time.
If it weren't for CNC technology, the firearms makers using other metods would not be able to compete with companies using investment castings. E

Eremicus,
The problem that you speak about regarding a Winchester blowing up is probably directly related to the heat treatment process, not the fact that it was forged or of poorly made components.
Something else to consider, Winchester has only recently aquired CNC equipment for their manufacturing processes, and they've got a long way before they understand how to get them to run efficiently. So,what that boils down to is, they have been competing with investment castings for a long time with a great deal of success.
While it is true that Sako and Ruger have been successful with their investment casting processes, it does not mean that a casted receiver is stronger or more durable than one made from solid barstock or forgings. There is no question that forged or barstock manufactured material are stronger than ones casted.