Just curious but why are people getting on the Montana action bandwagon when it is just a casting and not exactly cheap? Wouldn't it be like buying a Ruger 77 or a 1965 Winchester 94? I can see if it was a machined action, especially if it wasn't machined from barstock. Does anyone make a nice machined action for a reasonable price (except for CZ)?
Posts: 129 | Location: Kennerdell,PA | Registered: 04 November 2003
well, Triggerguard1 claims that his company (Williams)is going to be coming out with a machined action but he won't show us any pictures. there is another company called Heim up in either Washingon or Oregon that also makes a completely machined action. Triggerguard 1 claims his action will sell for a very reasonable $1000 and I believe Heims actions sell for a reasonable $2500.00.
And of course, you can always pick up a used model 70 action, which are forged and machined, or just buy a whole gun and strip it for the action.
If you really want to look at some nice machine work, find yourself a pristine 1909 Argentine Mauser action.
The Winchester is forged, thats about it for the lower priced actions. Dakota is forged but comes in at 1800.00. I have yet to see one of Ruger's castings fail. If you have, I would bet there were other things that went wrong that caused it.
Posts: 263 | Location: Where ever Bush sends me | Registered: 13 July 2003
The reason I like machining or better yet, machined from forgings is due to a few reasons. Machining something well takes skill and is more "old school" which I feel goes hand in hand with a classic gun.Casting is cheap and may be OK but I feel it lacks "pesonality" and is crude. Grain structure is not oriented and I believe it needs to be heavier and bulkier than necessary. I really appreciate a well crafted rifle that was made correctly and the way it "ought to be" instead of just cutting corners to save money and up production. Sometime look at an old Remington model 14. If you can appreciate a well crafted gunstock I think that you can even more appreciate a well crafted action. There aren't that many out there anymore and that is a shame!
Posts: 129 | Location: Kennerdell,PA | Registered: 04 November 2003
I think each should buy what they like but your impressions of casting are about 30 years old. When done properly there is nothing cheap about them, just less expensive to bring to market. Also, most new machined actions are made on computer controlled equipment that still requires skill but does not relate in most ways to the old-world way of things you are describing. Things just aren't done that way anymore except on the highest end of production and even then it is a nostalgia thing, not a quality thing.
Posts: 11142 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
Quote: Why does machining turn your crank? It isn't necessarily better than cast
You can't cast an object with as much precision as you can machine one, it's that simple. You can cast to reduce machine time, but you can't eliminate the machining of the critical surfaces. Castings are used when one wants to cut costs, or the part is so complex that it's unable to be machined.
Posts: 1021 | Location: Prineville, OR 97754 | Registered: 14 July 2002
You are selling products that compete with cast variants and have a good (and proper) argument to differentiate the qualities you value and wish to promote. I was responding to the quality of the typical mass produced rifle more than the technical side or the best that can be achieved in either case; I think at the end of the day there is no practical difference the ordinary (repeat: ORDINARY) shooter would notice in most off-the shelf rifles. I would agree custom or semi-custom guns made on aftermarket actions are another story.
Posts: 11142 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
Ohh, there is quite a difference....You can't just cast an action and use it...That don't work. MRC, as well as Ruger, and any other firm that's doing the investment cast trick is having to comeback and machine the critical surfaces in order to finish the action. You can get it close, but the tolearances won't lend itself to anything that is safe to shoot, or function worth a hill of beans.
You're right about the ordinary shooter not noticing the differences, but that never changed my opinion about how something should be made. My dad told me when I was real young, that if you're only doing it well enough to please your customer, go do something else, cause this aint your line of work. I stopped looking for someone to notice the details of my work a long time ago..Although, it is nice when it happens...
Posts: 1021 | Location: Prineville, OR 97754 | Registered: 14 July 2002
I like the idea of a machined-from-billet action, but I'm not sure that there is a significant difference in quality of a properly inspected part finish-machined from a modern casting.
What are the finished weights of the 3.60 length M70, MRC and Williams actions?
Personally I agree with you and your dad. As it happens, my business wouldn't survive with that restriction. Just how it goes sometimes. I'm glad you feel that way because I need some of your parts and I do care about the difference, regardless of what sells the mostest.
Posts: 11142 | Location: Texas, USA | Registered: 22 September 2003
Matt, is it possible to get investment cast steel as smooth as a machined forging? I realize the grain structure is different, but is it weaker on the average?
Joe
Posts: 263 | Location: Where ever Bush sends me | Registered: 13 July 2003
This concern about "cast vs forged" gets repeated at regular intervals. In spite of past logical and clear discussions, some misperceptions continue. I suggest a search of the archives for some interesting views.
My understanding is that steel, including 4130, is currently made in furnaces (most often electric for specialty steels) and "cast" into billets that are rolled into various shapes for sale. This process does affect the orientation, but obviously not the density, composition or quality of the steel.
Whether the receiver has been machined from a solid billet (actually "cast billet") or from a casting does not seem important. Both are 4130 (or equivalent in stainless) with the same composition, able to be heat treated to the same characteristics.
Generally, well machined surfaces require less work to finish properly than poorly cast surfaces. But poorly machined surfaces are far inferior to well cast finishes. Over time, the quality of castings and the surface finish has continuously improved, and less machining has been needed. Some newer actions (Ruger, M1999) use cast surfaces rather than machining everything. It really matters more how well the surface is finished, not whether it is cut with a piece of harder material (machined) before it is polished.
I think we are prejudiced by past experiences with poorly cast iron and aluminum. The strength and "quality" of a rifle receiver comes from it's design, the quality of the fit and finish, hte steel used and how it is heat treated, not from whether the material was rolled a few times after it was cast and before bringing it to final dimenson.
Quote: I like the idea of a machined-from-billet action, but I'm not sure that there is a significant difference in quality of a properly inspected part finish-machined from a modern casting.
What are the finished weights of the 3.60 length M70, MRC and Williams actions?
The biggest difference between the two, above and beyond everything, is the qualification of critical dimensions. What it boils down to is, when you cast a part, and then try to comeback and machine it's critical surfaces, the casting must be relative to those machined surfaces. When you properly fixture them, and leave enough material on the casting to qualify all of the critical dimensions, you can accomplish this, but with varying degrees of difficulty. When you machine a part from a forging that has only the rough shape of the part defined, all of the surfaces can be qualified with one another. This is true with solid barstock as well. I made a living for quite a while machining aluminum castings for Boeing, and I can tell you that there are a lot of castings that aren't suitable to even begin machining on because their tolerances are so wide open that it becomes difficult to even fixture them accurately enough to machine the surfaces that needed it. We had several parts that were subject to first article inspections before they ever had an endmill touch them. Many of them didn't make it. The inspection process is extremely critical, for if you inspect the casting, and it's bad, you're only out the casting, where is if you don't, you're out the machining work as well. This is something that sometimes isn't caught until you've already put a lot of time in on the machine.
Posts: 1021 | Location: Prineville, OR 97754 | Registered: 14 July 2002
I suppose you also have spent time measuring castings, and/or forgings and segregating them into groups. These groups are fixtured ever so slightly differently, so that after your first op you wind up with a good machined datum, and enough stock left on the part to make whatever it is you are trying to make ?
You could of course reject the bad raw blanks. And wait six months for replacements that may or may not pass QA. Putting you 3 months late on delivery.
Scott
Posts: 117 | Location: Sierra Foothills, CA | Registered: 14 November 2001
Well Scott, you certainly speak the language. I'd walk a hundred miles out of my way to dodge a casting job. Hats off to those who wake up in the morning knowing they'll be making parts out of them.
Posts: 1021 | Location: Prineville, OR 97754 | Registered: 14 July 2002
