26 November 2004, 04:25
<eldeguello>The investment-cast receivers made by Ruger are stronger than forged/machined ones. I cannot speak for other manufacturers' investment cast stuff. And there are other castings, such as the late WWII cast Arisakas, etc., that cannot be fired with anything except blanks!
IMO, the "color" of a hot-bath finishing job is more affected by the heat of the blueing solution bath than by how the steel was shaped. I've seen some Mauser and Luger parts that were positively red or maroon.
26 November 2004, 06:36
ROSCOEI threw this question out there because there seems to be so much more work envolved in milling actions from bar stock. The Dakota and some of the fine custom Mauser actions currently being made today use this method. Then you have the other companies like MRC who produce nice looking actions from the casting method. This leads to my question of why would some people go to all the cost and expense of machine work when if there is not real advantage. I am sure the start-up costs of casting an action are very high and it takes a while to recover from the initial expense. I guess I just would like to know more about the various types of production methods and what the advantages of one vs the other are. I never see many custom rifles made on the Ruger action and speaking to custom makers they seem to have little interest in the MRC action. Is this because both are cast or am I missing something else? BTW, I own several Rugers and am very happy with them!