Hunter Jim,

I got my Amercian Rifleman yesterday also and read the article, one of only a couple of decent articles in this issue by they way ( I was PO'd with the Ruger plastic. potmetal pistol with the cocking indicator from hell in the Rifleman------put it in the handgun magazine where it belongs)

The article was good and answered all the Weatherby questions. When I get some time this weekend I hope to close a couple of my other loose ends on the above list with similar backup.

Other than my personel likes and dislikes ( which are preconcieved ) I am staying out of the which is more/less suitable. There is much more experience and knowledge available on this than me, and I ask questions when I don't know.

I wish we were getting the answer on which was stronger with the safety margins factored in, something along the lines of PO Ackley's series of destructive testing on various rifle actions.

A comment on castings is most I have ever seen needed machining or polishing to clean them up, but parts can be cast in a simple operation that would take a whole lot of machining steps to reproduce. Whether it it requires more effort to clean up castings, than machining I leave for the experts to comment on, My answer is ?????????

Schromf,

I took a quick tour through Otteson's book too: he notes this on the Weatherby experience:

"The California-made receivers (and bolts) were X-rayed investment castings. The same basic alloy was used, and according to Weatherby, strength was not a problem. The cast parts, however, did suffer a high rejection rate from tiny porosity flaws marring the polished surfaces."

Obviously the state-of-the-art with investment casting seems to have solved that problem from the 1950s.

I don't have any problems with investment cast actions, and I haven't been seeing any Red Rugers.

jim

Schromf, my answer wasn't worded very well, either, and you also have my apology. It sounds like you and both had sort of rough days!

Best,
AD

triggergard1,

What are the major issues with castings of SAE8620? By the way, what material are Ruger and the others using in these castings, do you know (or anyone else)?

I asked headache the questions because I am interested in hearing what the molecular differences are that he is referring to. Is he referring to casting voids (porosity), or grain structure? If grain structure what is the problem; too coarse, too fine?

You do realize don't you that bar stock is "cast" don't you?

By the way, what are headache's creditials?

ASS_CLOWN

A couple of times in this thread it has been stated that Remington receivers are made from tube stock so I offer this from John Lacey's "The Remington 700":

"The 700 receiver starts as length of standard 1 3/8" diameter bar stock. The metal is AISI-4140 Chrome-molybdenum annealed steel. The long action starts at a weight of 64 ounches and ends up at fifteen ouinces, less than one fourth the original weight....."

Make life simple for yourself: Get a copy of Stuart Otteson's great book, "The Bolt Action", and then you can look up the construction predications of the various major actions for yourself, rather than guess about it.

NO, the post-64 Model 70 receiver is NOT investment cast. It is forged, then machined.

Now you're thinking of producing a top-grade bolt-gun yourself, right, yet you don't know that the Model 70 isn'nt investment cast? If that's so, pal, you're undergunned..........

AD

triggergard1,

Thank you for the information! What is "MIM" process?

You are far smarter than I, thanks again for sharing the information. I freely admit to knowing next to nothing about castings, barstocks, or forgings. Just spitting out what I have read in hot rod magazine and such about these types of processes.

ASS_CLOWN

Ass Clown, metals do not have molecules nor do they have molecular bonding . They only have metallic bonding.....MIM is not stronger than investment cast .All types of metal forming are greatly influenced by type of steel used and the heat treatment.I have a 2 1/2 " dia impeller from a commercial jet ,it turns at 90,000 rpm ! It's investment cast, do you think a PM or MIM part would work ??..The American Rifleman had at one time , an article dealing with Ruger and it's casting of gun parts. As I remember it was a very interesting article....info on PM and MIM can be found on www.remingtonpmpd.com

Schromf,

My latest American Rifleman (Jan '05) arrived at the PO yesterday. There is an Exploded View article on the Weatherby Mark V action (pp 62-63).

According to the author Stanton Wormley Jr. Weatherby initially investment cast these actions in '58, but went to forged actions when they opened the German production line in '59 (J.P. Sauer & Sohn). The forged action was retained when they moved to Japanese production in '71 (Howa), and back to American production in '94 (Saco Defense). Weatherby since '03 uses "...a number of specialty shops working to Weatherby specifications..." that continue forged actions.

The discussion of action suitability and reliability versus manufacturing technique is interesting, and I hope it continues to a definite conclusion.

jim