Which is better, a machined action, ala Old Mausers, pre 64 Winnies or investment cast actions, ala CZ, Ruger etc.?

I am looking to make a custom rifle but am not sure of where to start. Options are:

Pre 64 Winchester - machined $350 for action
1909 Mauser - machined $200 for action
Montana 1999 -cast- $400
Ruger - cast $400

Cost is about the same for my purpose and so is availability, I am looking for the best choice.

Remember on the 1909 you still have some gunsmithing to do before it's ready to blue. I'd seriuosly consider a post-war FN Mauser action. You find them on JC Higgens, some Sears rifles etc. You can often pick them up pretty reasonable.

I had my custom built last year on a VZ 24 action, I think you can pick up decent ones for $75 plus or minus. To be honest the extra gunsmithing is not much. You need to get rid of the clip charger ears, my 'smith also reworked the trigger guard and brought the tang down a little. The rest of the work such as trueing the face, lapping lugs and changing the trigger you will probably do to any of them so there isn't that much extra work. The only thing missing I would get with a 1909 is the hinged floorplate.

I also currently own one Ruger 77RSI and don't have any problems with their actions. Since it's cheaper though, I 'd probably go for the FN, Mauser or pre-64 Winnie.

A suggestion, and a manner in which I try to follow when working out the specs for a rifle: First, determine just what the rifle will be used for and what cartridge. This lets you quickly determine what type of action and what size.

Biggest mistake I see is taking an action that is not large enough for the cartridge and going to excessive cost in making the cartridge work.

And the type of action I use for, say a iron sighted 458 Lott is different from the action I will use for a 6.5x284 topped with a 12-42X Nightforce.

And, there is a difference in the action used for a serious medium to large bore hunting rifle and the action used for a long range Whitetail, Mule Deer or Antelope rifle.

Lots of controversy out there with action types, I will not get into the fray, I just work with all of them. Some are better suited for specific purposes than others.

So, tell us what the rifle will be used for and the cartridge and you will receive many replies and suggestions! Maybe a fist fight or two.

Another note, I have not yet worked with the M99 Montana action, but will soon as I have two ordered, should be here in the next two weeks or so.

One will be a 458 Lott, the other maybe the new 400 H&H or a 404 Jeff.

Jack Belk posted a review of the M99, do a search.

I'm interested in the differance between cast and machined. If there is a differance.

My opinion, investment cast receivers may have inclusions and the grain structure will probably not be as uniform as those machined from rolled or forged stock. If the cartridge you are building around is not one which will put undue stress on the receiver, it may not make a difference. But investment casting is a cost cutting feature, not a strength enhancement.

Vibe---

I appreciate you labeling your post as "opinion".......

Because it's WAY out of line with the facts.

NOT a flame, but it needs to be said before it gets repeated.

JBELK....when you say way out of line, exactly what part of his statement would you be refering to?...that investment casting may have voids or grain imperfections.........or it is a cost cutting ,measure, not a strength enhanement

I would have thought from information I have heard and know about investment cast parts that the product wouldnt be as strong as one made from bar stock or a forgeing....I am sure that parts can be made void free with todays processes...wondering...in NY..bob

I am with Jack on this one. A well designed and properly manufactured investment cast receiver is strong enough for any cartridge within the design limit size of the receiver. Quality control (ultrasonic inspection, x-ray, mag particle inspection, and other methods) goes a long way in putting a quality product on the market.

You can have inclusions in bar stock such as 4140, 4160, 8620. etc., I have seen this back in my design engineering days working with alloy shafting for large centrifugal pumps, turbines and high speed centrifugal gas compressors.

Where does bar stock come from? A large cast bloom that is forged and rolled into bar stock. This is why we required the steel certifications for critical shafting, plus we x-rayed and used ultrasonic end shots of the shafting prior to sending the shafting to the machine shop.

222blr---

First off, I'm not a metalurgist and don't pretend to even know all the terms but when you look at the other parts and products created by investment casting it's very easy to see that the ONLY reason it's not used for ALL firearms is the high cost....

Compare a five axis CNC mill with plates, fixtures, tooling, design, and programming with a cast action; Design, programming, models, molds, and the after cast processes and small parts, AND a contract with a caster and heat treater, and I think you'll see that casting takes more investment and MUCH more to lose if it doesn't work out. (You can sell a CNC, what do you do with quarter million dollar molds of somthing that didn't make a profit.)

Metallurgically a cast action is stronger in all specifications.......which is to say they're ten times stronger than needed for the application... .. a forged/milled, or CNC milled action only has a safety factor of nine. Big deal.

So, the fact that rifle barrels and action bolts are not castings is just an over-sight by rifle manufacturers? What with castings being equal to or superior in strength to machined billets and all? I do not know much about manufacturing processes, but my understanding is that the lost wax method of casting [employed by Ruger, for example] is a relatively cheap, efficient way to produce intricate parts [such as rifle actions] which, while strong enough for the intended purpose, are not as strong as actions milled from steel billets. As an illustrative example, does any manufacturer utilize cast rifle bolts [I am not talking about bolt handles mind you]? I presume there is a reason for this having to do with strength?

Jordan

InfoSponge---

You've nailed two out of three. The old case hardened actions are slicker because the harder steel has lower friction. They also were almost always fitted better than later actions........

and it IS super cool to have an action with *real* action in it's past.......

I think of it like adopting an old soldier and giving him a good dog and a nice gun and allow him to live another hundred years dressed nice, with dry boots. The nights spent in a mudhole are gone......the soldier has retired to a nice fire, enjoying the old age years not spent hunting in the comfort of a padded case in my gun safe.

That's why I love 'em.

I bought an unrefinished, but pitted below the wood, 1909 Peruvian action today.......another old soldier has landed in the lap of luxury.

Jordan said---

quote:

---

So, the fact that rifle barrels and action bolts are not castings is just an over-sight by rifle manufacturers?

---

Where did I say it was oversight? It's COST.

The initial investment is much higher than a machined action.

Nodody said anything about casting barrels....where'd you get that?

Ruger bolts, Kimber bolts, Montana bolts, and probably others.

The cost of casting is paid up front in designig and building the molds that the wax is injected into.......that was the point of my post above.

Strength is a matter of alloy more than process. There is no practical difference in strength between milled and cast as long as both are of the *proper*, not necessarily the same, alloy and correctly heat-treated.

The problem with investment cast rifle recievers was created by Ruger.....

Ruger was also the one that showed it was practical to do so in the first place......The first investment cast Rugers are VERY nice rifles. Over the years the tolorences have become more and more to the loose side to cut down on the after casting processes .....presumably to save money. That doesn't mean that's how cast actions *have* to be, only that it's cheaper that way.

The Montana actions have proven how nice they can be if cast and finished well.

I think there're a great bargain.

JBelk,
Weren't SAKO's investment cast as well?

I believe that some of the Cast vs Forged comparisons come from the M1A vs M14 crowd. The dropped forged M14 (and M1 Garand) receivers's have been said to be much stronger than their cast cousins by virtue of a properly oriented grain structure. Or as Scott Duff says "Drop forging produces a controlled grain structure which follows the external shape of the forging, greatly adding to the strength of the final product".

I'm guessing the US Government spec'd drop forging for a reason since milling from bar stock would have been much cheaper.

Some time back I recall seeing a documentary that showcased centrifugal investment casting. The molds were located on the perimeter of a large, circular turntable and then spun after they were filled with molten steel. The narrator described the process as producing more uniform grain structure and fewer impurities. The centrifugal force was applied in such a way that the lighter impurities migrated to the sprue, where they were later milled off.

It seems to me that the key to making investment casting pay off is picking a product that already has enough sales volume or potential volume to justify the capital outlay. Bill Ruger was careful to select products with a ready market and then spending the necessary funds to advertise them-thus assuring he recovered his investment(no pun intended).

Selection of a manufacturing process by the manufacture is dictated by a lot of Return On Investment (ROI) concerns. Biggest concern is what processes have been in use, and what are the designers, engineers and manufacturing guys familar with, what has been used in the past, what machinery is available, etc. So, a company that has used drop forgings in the past has a big investment in tooling and machinery and likely will continue to use the process. Same for a company that has machined receivers from bar stock, such as Remington and Savage. A good part of my time in the old Engineering days was expended in ROI calculations: If you cannot make money after the project is complete, then it does not make much sense to spend a bunch of money up front.

Ruger got off to a start with investment casting, and is the world leader in this process. Ruger not only makes firearms, but many other investment cast products. I have worked with a Ruger foundary in the past when I was working with a investment cast titanium gas compressor rotor, 39 inches in diameter, that operated at 6800 RPM. Ruger makes blades for the compressors and turbines in jet engines, this is in my opinion an extreme test of the investment casting process. Grain flow can also be controlled in investment castings.

So, it boils down to good design and engineering and the holding of tolerances during the manufacturing process. I would not say a machined from bar stock receiver is any better than a investment cast receiver, or vice versa. How the item is made is the important factor.

Even in investment cast receivers, there is still a lot of machining to accomplish. Same for a forged receiver, lots of machining needed.

I am looking forward to the two Montana M99 actions in the next couple of weeks, so I can take a hard look at the product and make up my own mind if I want to continue to use this action in future rifles. A note, I ordered both actions with no scope base holes drilled & tapped and no engraving on the sides of the receivers. This allows me to use the actions for iron sighted rifles and also allows me to custom engrave what the customer wants on the receiver. I can always drill and tap later if needed. Try this with a Winchester or Remington action.

We gun plumbers love the feel of a quality case hardened Mauser action and the unmatched design features, but alas, this process is no longer used on a mass produced action due to the expense. Sure, we have Mauser clones, but they ain't the same. (But there are a couple of makers of custom Mauser actions, if you have the $$$ they are available)

To answer the question of which is better for a custom rifle the customer should be more specific as to what the finished rifle will be like. If one is going to have a David Miller product with XXXX wood and gold engraving then there are certain actions that might be "best"

If one is going to build an all weather rifle with a composite stock and then I feel that the Montana actions are the "best" at the moment.

The thread on which gunsmiths like and do not like the Montana M 1999 does not define the end product like I have above and so many threads do this without listing the goal first.

I would think that most gunsmiths would welcome the Montana actions as they are work for them unlike the Short Magnums which can be done by smiths but are best left to new rifles.

In the recent past the best choice for a all weather rifle may have been the M 70 Classic. Now it seems to be the Montana. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop on that specific point.

JBelk
I'm sorry if you do not understand the economics of the casting process. A mold for a WAX core is faily inexpensive to make (what with "a five axis CNC mill with plates, fixtures, tooling, design, and programming"). The resulting "mold core" then gors through a relatively cheap dipping to form the disposable mold. The final result is a "near net shape" material. The cost of the mold is spread out to every piece ever made, and the cost of removing material is removed from every piece. The cost of setup and material removal adds up. Time is particularly expensive, and is where much of the savings comes from. Please sir. I've made my living in the manufacturing industry so I do know a bit of what I'm talking about. Many of these places do their own injection molding and casting, and these molds are just not that much in cost.

Vibe,

Relax ok? There is more than one right answer to this and it boils down to the sales forecast believe it or not!

To add that Montana has choosen to go with experianced manufacturers as Ruger will be doing the castings and Smith finshing the work and then another firm will be polishing them. This is going first class.

I could make an mold in my basement this afternoon. Not having done it before but knowing how is not necessarily a wise project if you still follow me.

[ 04-13-2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Savage99 ]

Chris F---

The cast M1-A receivers I've seen looked a lot like the Bauska BKK actions I've seen......they looked to have been cast in a back alley of Peking using scrap iron for steel and a charcoal brazier for heat.

The process of investment casting has a LOT of variables. What works on cheap door knobs DOESN'T work for jet engine compressor disk. What works for Tiawanese toys doesn't work at all for surgical instuments. What is designed for rifle actions work VERY well if done by a good company.

The Montana is cast by one of the very best in the business ......the one that has perfected the application over the last 35 years.

Drop forged and milled M-14 parts were done because the contractors already had that equipment on site and had a half century experience using it (Great article with pictures about 1957/58 in American Rifleman showing the Winchester manufacturing line).........the same machinery made M-1 Garands, Carbines, BARs etc. All that was needed was the dies and fixtures. The contract called for forged and milled because Ruger had not yet adapted IC to firearms.

Mr. Ricks & Mr. Belk,
I need to procure three M-14/M1A(semi-auto of course) receivers for a match rifle build up. The rifles will be built with the best of parts from McMillan, Krieger, and NM/USGI small parts. I would like to use the best receiver possible for this rifle. I've been told that the Enterprise Arms M-14A2 Milled Receivers are a crap shoot and not recommended. I've actually had only two receivers recommended. One being either the Norinco or Polytech Chicom Receivers without their bolts or a new Springfield Armory M1A Receiver. I've been told the "Original Smith Forged Receiver" were the best, however, they are not to be found. I would greatly appreciate your insight into this question.

Regards, Matt Garrett.
Chesapeake, Virginia

I remember reading that with investment casting it is possible to use stronger steel alloys that would otherwise be too difficult to use in a machined action. Now I do not know if they indeed use a different alloy, but I do remember reading this, I think it was an article pertaining to Ruger and their manufacturing process.

Hart

I'm with Vibe on this one. Casting receivers was originally intended to cut down on manufacturing costs, period. It is the same reason that it's being used today. Not to say that in some respects that casting have some advantages, but they are not a piece of cake to work with either when it comes to part integrity in the machining process.
I've machined more castings than I would care to remember. The biggest problem with them is securing a consistent datum point to begin the machining so that the machined sections will run respectively to their unmachined couterparts. This is where a completely machined part shines head and shoulders above a cast, then machined part. When you machine and qualify many different features and surfaces in a single operation, you eliminate the possibility of error between two areas of the part that must be in relationship to one another, like the reciever threads and the locking abutments, for instance. The other BIG problem that you run into with castings is porosity. Porosity is tiny air pockets that get trapped normally very close to the surface, but that's no always the case. As you begin to polish or machine on the outer suface of the casting, you break through this shell of material, exposing a pit leftover from the trapped air within the casting. Basically what this boils down to is, you can finish 90% of your machining and polishing processes, only to find a nice fat hole in your part, and watch it get hucked into the scrap bin. Anyone who says that can't happen is either the luckiest guy on the planet, or they've never machined castings. These castings that I'm referring to are the same ones that Boeing puts in their 737's for pressurization of the cabins. This isn't some cheap junk that Billy Bob down at the local auto shop casted from is thermos. These are castings that have been inspected through x-ray, weight, and visual inspections, including CMM's numerous times. This type of thing happens with the best of them.

One of the biggest advantages that castings have over completely machined parts is the fact that you can cast features into a part that would be completely impossible to machine. Montana's inner ring, ala Mauser, is a good example of this. While you obviously can machine this section of the receiver, it requires an elaborate system of specialized tooling, and the use of a reciprocating broach. This system is pretty slow, and once again, pretty costly.
So, the bottom line is really the cost over the long haul of production.

I admit I have always been a custom action SNOB, the cheesiest thing I would use was a REm 700. Thank goodness we can grow. I had a patient offer me an old VZ24 mauser by Brno. Well, that is one of the most well built actions I have ever played with. Today, I torn it apart, machined it and fitted it to an exhibition grade piece of walnut. And am getting a couple more vz24's in the very near future. This one is going to be a 6.5/284. The next a 458 win mag.

fyi
Doc