Forged or cast

[BARRYJ]

I understand the difference between forged and cast, but which one is better for making a 1911?

[bountyhunter]

In the case of the internal piece parts: I think forged for sure. Some frames are cast and still pretty good. Bottom line is that forged steel is a lot more dense than cast and has better strength. If I recall correctly, cast parts are about 60% as dense as forged (?). MIM parts are around 90 - 95% as dense as forged so they are definitely better than cast.

[LegionShooter]

I always went back and forth on this and will still choose forged if given the choice. Even though one may be "stronger" than the other, I thought about it a little and decided that if auto manufacturers made engine blocks and cylinder heads from cast iron then a cast frame was probably stronger than most give it credit for.

[ltdmstr]

Engine parts are made from castings primarily due to cost and ease of manufacturing. A forged frame will outperform and outlast a cast frame.

[MrPostman]

As far as car parts goes forged pistons are much stronger than cast, which is why if you are building an engine that will use a turbo, supercharger or nitrous you would use forged. Almost no cavitation in the steel from forged parts vs cast which can have tiny air pockets which does compromise the structural integrity.

[StraightSh00ter]

I'm in the same position of deciding on a cast vs forged frame for my next gun. For me it isn't much of a decision (going with forged) but I might be a little biased since I design metal parts and components for a living.

Forged is generally stronger, but there are applications with grain directional alloys where a cast part can be stronger in a directional loading condition. That doesn't really apply here, I just mention it because it's easy to say 'forged is stronger' but it's only true 99% of the time.

For guns, the general fatigue properties of metal are what we are interested in and forged parts generally have more capability (mostly due to the grain structure and grain boundaries). For the average shooter (a few hundred rounds a year?), a casting would last forever. But if you are talking about over 10,000 cycles (rounds fired) per year the endurance limit might come into play. I don't know where the limit is but why take a chance?

My opinion: If you plan on selling your guns every couple of years, go with cast and save money. If you plan on shooting a lot and want to keep your gun a long time, get a forged frame.

The guns I'm looking at are ~$1200-$1400. At that price point, $200 is a fraction of the total cost to know your investment will last a lot longer.

Edited September 23, 2015 by StraightSh00ter

[jcc7x7]

For the few dollars more go forged.

Figuring this is a custom build. The cost. Of the frame is small cost for the better quality

[LegionShooter]

Engine parts are made from castings primarily due to cost and ease of manufacturing. A forged frame will outperform and outlast a cast frame.

As far as car parts goes forged pistons are much stronger than cast, which is why if you are building an engine that will use a turbo, supercharger or nitrous you would use forged. Almost no cavitation in the steel from forged parts vs cast which can have tiny air pockets which does compromise the structural integrity.

I understand the difference and agree with both of you. What I was getting at is that cast engine components are subject to stresses beyond what a cast firearms frame would be subject to and last for years. Unless someone is cranking out tens of thousands of rounds per year (and even maybe not then) they shouldn't have to worry about a cast frame. Now, I still choose forged over cast when offered the option. I built my Mustang years ago using forged components, even on a NA motor, because they're stronger. Frames, I'd choose forged as well. My point is that most people shouldn't stay awake at night sweating the decision either way.

[LegionShooter]

For the few dollars more go forged.

Figuring this is a custom build. The cost. Of the frame is small cost for the better quality

This is a good point as well.

[zzt]

First off, the best frame and slide material is billet. However, you really have to know what you are doing to get the grain structure right or you'll have cracked slides. Next best is Forged. Same for the slide. You don't want cast anything.

For internals, completely forget about anything cast or MIM. Forged is second best. You want parts machined out of billet or bar stock. There are lots of them out there, and prices for the most part are only slightly higher than the cheap parts. If you are going to the trouble of fitting everything perfectly, why would you want to revisit it because you use cheap parts. Once and done is my motto.

[rishii]

I have no dog in this fight, but Gary Smith of caspian arms says cast is the way to go

Way back when caspian sold both cast and bar stock frames

And he recommended bar stock for a higher polish but he said cast frames don't get returned

Check out below

https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=31802&highlight=Billet+cast+frames

[ltdmstr]

I have built plenty of guns on Caspian cast frame without any problems. And many of those see 10k plus rounds of major power factor ammo in a year. So I would not hesitate to use a cast frame. But given the choice, I would choose forged over cast any day. Problem is for 1911s there aren't many sources for forged frames unless you want to buy an entire gun, in which case you're going to scrap most of the parts and have less than ideal options for tightening the slide to frame, serrations, sights, etc. Most smiths use Caspian cast frames for single stack builds because they are the best of the available options.

[troupe]

Quality cast will last a life time.

[zzt]

Many smiths used to use Caspian cast frames. That is diminishing because of the decrease in quality. Forged frames are more expensive, but easy to get. JEM Enterprises, Les Baer, Nighthawk and STI come to mind immediately. There are others.

[troupe]

There are a lot of Caspian frames with other names on them. You may be surprised if you knew.

[The Donald]

Engine parts are made from castings primarily due to cost and ease of manufacturing. A forged frame will outperform and outlast a cast frame.

As far as car parts goes forged pistons are much stronger than cast, which is why if you are building an engine that will use a turbo, supercharger or nitrous you would use forged. Almost no cavitation in the steel from forged parts vs cast which can have tiny air pockets which does compromise the structural integrity.

I understand the difference and agree with both of you. What I was getting at is that cast engine components are subject to stresses beyond what a cast firearms frame would be subject to and last for years. Unless someone is cranking out tens of thousands of rounds per year (and even maybe not then) they shouldn't have to worry about a cast frame. Now, I still choose forged over cast when offered the option. I built my Mustang years ago using forged components, even on a NA motor, because they're stronger. Frames, I'd choose forged as well. My point is that most people shouldn't stay awake at night sweating the decision either way.

The material is different too. Most case engine parts, blocks, heads, cranks are cast iron. Cast 1911 frames are cast steel, much tougher than iron. Forged is taking a billet, heat it red hot then pounding it into sharp with a set of dies in a huge power hammer. The grain of the metal is formed into the shape. Forged is even stronger than billet (bar stock).

Edited September 24, 2015 by The Donald

[robertg5322]

So, if I'm reading this right, forged is better than cast. Unless it's not.

Billet is better than than forged. Unless it's not.

The "it's not" usually is the result of grain structure or heat treating/stress relief issues.

MIM parts will fail. Or they may be harder than tool steel/bar stock.

The MIM process has been used to make car engine parts successfully for years. But it's not good enough for guns which see nowhere near the stress a car engine or transmission is subjected to.

Caspian makes good stuff, but the do have the rare QC blip.

What I love about these threads is that there is so much that can be learned, and reading all of the posts exposes light on the lessons. Please note I'm injecting a bit of snark in the interest of humor, not as a denigration of anyone's opinion or experience.

[StraightSh00ter]

I don't think anyone is saying 'cast is bad' and I think we all agree that a cast frame will probably last as long or longer than the shooter would own the gun.

I consider cast parts all the time in designing engine parts, but every part goes through preliminary analysis to prove a concept, then some pretty serious analysis prior to releasing parts for manufacture. That being said, if it is a critical part (failure likely to cause in-flight shut down or uncontained fuel leak) there's a good chance cast parts are not allowed, regardless of the stress level. To me that says something about the difference between cast and forged parts.

Just because cast parts are used in engines (jet engines, car engines, whatever) doesn't mean that cast part quality is 'good enough' for a gun - it depends on the application and the design of the component. Before powerful computers things were 'over built' to make sure they lasted. Today we use tools to make sure parts meet some life/usage requirement. So cast parts are able to be used in high stress applications but that doesn't mean they work in any application.

If 2 parts are designed to the same size and shape, the forged part will have 25% or better strength. By the same token, the original 1911 frames made by Colt were forged. If the design was made and tested with forged (or billet) steel, than a cast frame would be 25% weaker than design intent.

[bountyhunter]

If 2 parts are designed to the same size and shape, the forged part will have 25% or better strength.

That's the point I was making earlier. It doesn't mean a cast part can't be servicable, but forged is stronger for a given formula of steel and heat process.

[sn0wflake]

In the case of the internal piece parts: I think forged for sure. Some frames are cast and still pretty good. Bottom line is that forged steel is a lot more dense than cast and has better strength. If I recall correctly, cast parts are about 60% as dense as forged (?). MIM parts are around 90 - 95% as dense as forged so they are definitely better than cast.

Actually this is not correct. But almost.

cast parts are maybe 99-99.9% density. The problem is that they have voids in them. This degrades their performance compared to forged parts about 30% (strength). Some cast parts are better than others. But for best performance you dont want cast at all. Casting is cheap since you get an almost finished part right out of the casting.

Metals are usually crystalline materials. You have a certain grain pattern. the finer the grainstructure the better the strength and the better the toughness, ALWAYS. Inbetween the crystal structure you have space to put non metallic inclusions (and alloying elements) such as gasses and sulphur and phosfor, these make the steel more machinable but also degrades performance. Minimizing these is very important. some really high quality steels don't have any sulphur or phosfor at all. and these grades cost a lot. Like 10-50€ a kg. You get what you pay for though.

Basically you want forged stock and (almost all steel that you can buy in bars are already forged at the manufacturing plant), and no non metallic inclusions. (typically 0.025% is good, or even 0.0025% but don't quote me on that )

Silicon is a non metal that is added in certain amounts in certain grades that improve toughness (this is steel grade dependant). Nitrogen added can improve stain resistance. But thats pretty much it for non metals that are beneficial in steel imo.

And to relate back to steel used in guns. I see "4140" being used quite a lot. However 4140 is quite a lax "standard" and you can probably make steel that is twice as tough and twice as durable (and like 5-10x as expensive) while still being stronger/harder (this is the same thing in steel, these type of steels at least, that is) if you really wanted to. And it would still be inside the 4140 standard (but obviously made to a higher quality).

It all depends on who makes it and the finished price of course. But usually you get what you pay for with steel.

[sn0wflake]

Basically cast parts are either 30% weaker or 30% heavier at best. According to current knowledge.

You might not notice this ever though... depending on the specific part.

[sn0wflake]

Also in certain constructions cast steel is actually preferable since the grain orientation and structure is "random" so it lowers noise and vibrations, at the cost of everything else pretty much

[sn0wflake]

Also crack propagation always have to start somewhere. It always starts at the weakest point. At an inclusion usually.

[M109R]

With all that being said Ruger bolt actions rifles are cast and they are known for there strength.

[StraightSh00ter]

In the case of the internal piece parts: I think forged for sure. Some frames are cast and still pretty good. Bottom line is that forged steel is a lot more dense than cast and has better strength. If I recall correctly, cast parts are about 60% as dense as forged (?). MIM parts are around 90 - 95% as dense as forged so they are definitely better than cast.

cast parts are maybe 99-99.9% density. The problem is that they have voids in them. This degrades their performance compared to forged parts about 30% (strength). Some cast parts are better than others. But for best performance you dont want cast at all. Casting is cheap since you get an almost finished part right out of the casting.

Metals are usually crystalline materials. You have a certain grain pattern. the finer the grainstructure the better the strength and the better the toughness, ALWAYS. Inbetween the crystal structure you have space to put non metallic inclusions (and alloying elements) such as gasses and sulphur and phosfor, these make the steel more machinable but also degrades performance. Minimizing these is very important. some really high quality steels don't have any sulphur or phosfor at all. and these grades cost a lot. Like 10-50€ a kg. You get what you pay for though.

Basically you want forged stock and (almost all steel that you can buy in bars are already forged at the manufacturing plant), and no non metallic inclusions. (typically 0.025% is good, or even 0.0025% but don't quote me on that )

Silicon is a non metal that is added in certain amounts in certain grades that improve toughness (this is steel grade dependant). Nitrogen added can improve stain resistance. But thats pretty much it for non metals that are beneficial in steel imo.

And to relate back to steel used in guns. I see "4140" being used quite a lot. However 4140 is quite a lax "standard" and you can probably make steel that is twice as tough and twice as durable (and like 5-10x as expensive) while still being stronger/harder (this is the same thing in steel, these type of steels at least, that is) if you really wanted to. And it would still be inside the 4140 standard (but obviously made to a higher quality).

It all depends on who makes it and the finished price of course. But usually you get what you pay for with steel.

Actually this is not correct. But almost.