Taurus Judge Mishap

[JohnKSa]

The SR9 barrel starts as a casting, then is bored, reamed, honed, rifled and the outside is profiled.

I stand corrected. That's not what I expected, but as I said in my last post I am interested to know it.

So at least some of their pistol barrels are cast. I've seen some articles elsewhere that indicate at least some of their rifle barrels are made from bar stock and I assumed that all of their barrels were--obviously a poor assumption.

All their steel comes from castings, even the stainless.

This blurb from Ruger indicates that not all of their steel comes from castings nor do all their barrels.

"Additionally, Ruger provides hammer-forged barstock in ferrous and non-ferrous alloys for gun barrels and general industry."

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/new-evget...3&&ET09-94871&

I hate to burst your bubble, it is evident you are a Ruger fan...

While I am a Ruger fan (I'm also a fan of at least 15 other makers judging from the contents of my gun safe ), my bubble isn't burst nor is my status as a fan in any way upset.

The idea that it's possible to make an accurate blanket statement about the relative strength of forgings and castings is not realistic.

As pointed out, major firearm componenents, including barrels are often only hardened to less than 30RC. Almost any decent steel alloy part (whether forged or cast) can be hardened significantly more than that. The point is that durability is a function of the entire sum of design and manufacturing decisions and implementation and has very little to do with anything other than the maker's dedication to putting out a quality product.

If a maker wants to make product out of castings it can certainly be done without compromising quality or durability if the maker is dedicated to producing a quality product. Every jet airplane you've ever flown in had a cast engine turbine and that is certainly a critical, high-stress part. It's just a matter of implementing the proper manufacturing processes and maintaining sufficient quality control procedures.

I know from experince with working on guns, the difference between cast and forged products.

It seems reasonable that if a person with a scanning electron microscope can't reliably determine if a steel part is cast or forged (see the link in my previous post) that some skepticism regarding the conclusions drawn from naked-eye observations is justified.

[Kodyo]

I've used an SEM on several occasions. In the past, we've used them to identify the microstructure of the steel. I would like to know how he "identified" the production method based on the SEM image. Seems likely that all an SEM would tell you is the microstructure, which could be manipulated by heat treatment techniques used post processing.

[JohnKSa]

I would like to know how he "identified" the production method based on the SEM image.

As it turned out, he was unable to. Information directly from Ruger contradicted his speculations.

The idea that it's possible to make an accurate blanket statement about the relative strength of forgings and castings is not realistic.

I made this comment in my last post but I'd like expand on it.

It's so nice and neat to use the words "castings" and "forgings" as if all the information required to make a determination of the relative strength is contained in the words. Reality is that they tell you almost nothing about the relative strength and durability of the final parts.

1. There are something like 3 to 12 major classifications of types of steels depending on where you choose to draw the lines. The idea that it is possible to take a steel from one of these major classifications and compare it to a steel from another classification and make some sort of intelligent comment about the relative strength based simply on the manufacturing method is totally unrealistic.

2. There are literally thousands of different steel alloys. I found one website that claims to have data sheets for over 4500 different steel alloys and it's a good bet that's not all of them by a long shot. So even if we limit it to just one major classification of steels there are still thousands of alloys with different properties to complicate any attempt at a simple blanket statement about the properties of a steel part based solely on whether it's forged or cast.

3. If that's not enough, there are about 16 different materials that are commonly used to alloy steels. Altering the concentration of these materials contained in the steel by tiny fractions of a percentage point can dramatically affect the properties of the resulting alloys.

4. Even after things are narrowed down to just one alloy it's important to understand that the properties of steel alloys such as tensile strength, elongation, and hardness are highly dependent on heat treatment.

5. If we are comparing parts that aren't completely identical, then that adds another level of complexity since we're now evaluating the durability/strength of the parts design itself in addition to all the other variables.

So let's say we have two identical parts made from identical steel alloys with identical attention to quality control and manufacturing processes. One is cast, the other is forged. At this point can we make a general statement about the relative strength/durability of the two parts? No, it's still impossible because the heat treatment can make a significant difference in the final properties of the parts.

IF, we could find two:

• Identical parts
• Made from identical steel alloys
• With identical attention to quality control
• And identical attention to proper manufacturing processes
• And which have identical heat treatments

THEN and ONLY then could we have a chance of making an accurate general comment on the relative durability of the two parts based on the fact that one is cast and the other is forged.

In other words, there is a purely THEORETICAL strength advantage to cast parts. In PRACTICE, there are numerous other factors which contribute to the strength of the final part. The manufacturing method (casting vs. forging) is just ONE of those factors and isn't really even high on the list of things that are likely to affect the final result.

Comparing two different guns (or parts) from two different makers and trying to make an assessment of durability/strength on the basis of whether one gun (or part) is cast or forged is an exercise that has no practical/realistic basis in metallurgy or logic.

[StrongSideArmsInc]

You guys are awesome, we should next discuss the issue of World Peace and how to make it happen!

[JohnKSa]

World peace is easy. I have at least two ways to achieve that just off the top of my head.

On the other hand, trying to get some consensus amongst gun owners as to what makes a spring wear out or whether stainless steel is better than carbon steel for barrels is REALLY difficult!

[Kodyo]

You guys are awesome, we should next discuss the issue of World Peace and how to make it happen!

Everyone has a gun, problem solved .

[Cheapshooter]

You guys are awesome, we should next discuss the issue of World Peace and how to make it happen!

+1
How in the world did a post over 2 years old about a problem with a Taurus Judge, by someone with only 2 posts total to date, get reserected, and turned into a Ruger metallurgy debate?

[Sulaco2]

^^^ Just lucky I guess Cheapshooter!