SAA frames,,,,Cimarron/Uberti in relation to others,,,?

[Marshal Deadwood]

The frames on Ubertis,,,are they milled from block steel,,,forged from steel,,,,or cast?
Do they use the same general  process in frame production as say,,USFA  or Colt?

Are or they cheaper/ weaker frames ?

Just curious about things I dont know,,,,,

Marshal Deadwood

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I'm pretty sure Colt frames are forged and then machined as a secondary operation, I'm pretty sure Uberti uses cast frames, and then machines them as a secondary operation. I dunno about USFA. When I chatted with the owners of Hartford Armory a few years ago, they told me they machine the frames for their Remingtons from forgings.

Milling wastes a large amount of metal, but more importantly, conventional machining cuts across the grain structure of the steel, resulting in a weaker part. The traditional way to make a revolver frame is to forge it first to a shape that is close to the final shape, then bring it to its final shape with a combination of machining, grinding, and polishing. Forging is just what a blacksmith did when he pounded red hot metal to shape on an anvil with his hammer. Forging shapes iron or steel without removing any metal. Forging also shapes the underlying grain structure to conform more to the outside shape of the part, so that when cutting operations like milling are performed, the grain structure is interupted less, resulting in a stronger part. Traditionally manufactured firearm frames started out as steel billets which were heated and then pounded to near finished shape in huge hammer presses. They were ususally run through a series of dies, each one bringing the shape closer to the final shape. After the last forging, the parts had been reshaped to near net size, and all secondary operations brought the part to its final finished shape. By bringing the part close to its final shape through forging, subsequent cutting operations cut through much less metal, resulting in a stronger part, and less waste.

Casting a part also serves the purpose of bringing the part close to its final shape as soon as it pops out of the mold. Some surfaces on the part will be left untouched, some surfaces will require secondary operations like machining, grinding, and polishing to bring the part to its final finished shape.

The advantage of casting over forging is that casting will be less labor intensive and therefore less expensive to produce the part.

In reality, it is a moot point. Although it is true a forging will usually result in a stronger part than a casting, because o grain structure, you need to bear in mind it is not the frame that sees the brunt of the pressure of a cartridge being fired, it is the cylinder that must stand up to the thousands of psi generated when a cartridge fires. The frame only functions as a block of steel to hold the cylinder in place while the cartridge fires. The pressure is totally contained within the chambers of the cylinders. For this reason, ALL manufactures machine their cylinders from high grade arsenal steel, and then they heat treat them to further increase the tensile strength. The only exception to this might possibly be cap & ball revolvers. I am not sure if cap & ball revolvers are heat treated after machining. They may be, I'm just not sure.

Now when I said a forging will usually result in a stronger part, this is not always true either. Ruger uses the Investment Casting process to make all their frames. Investment Casting is a superior process to die casting. But even more important, Ruger heat treats their frames after they have been cast and machined, so their frames are stronger than any forged and Case Hardened frame. Ruger also machines their cylinders from high strenth steel, just like all the other firearms manufactures to.

P.S. I should probably add that today some manufactures may indeed be machining frames or receivers directly from solid billets of steel without the intermediary step of forging. The shape of the frame on a Single Action revolver is not particularly conducive to machining from scratch, which is probably why forging and casting are still used. Rectangular and box shaped receivers as found on many rifles are probably better candidates for machining from the start. But I suspect that most of these parts will see a heat treating step to add to the stregth of the steel after the preliminary machining.

Modern CNC machining makes relatively short work of removing large quantities of metal. Older, more traditional machining techniques like pattern following equipment and hand cranked mills did not lend themselves so well to removing large amounts of metal at once, and modern heat treatable steels had not yet been developed when forging was still a dominant process.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

I was looking for this web page earlier, but did not find it. It is a reprint from a 1954 Gun Digest. Smith and Wesson had just built a brand new factory, and this article was a photo essay showing all the steps they went through to build a revolver. Take particular note of the photos showing the frame forgings being trimmed. Note that there is still a web of metal left inside the trigger guards, the grip frame, and the cylinder window that has not been trimmed away yet. Even though these are not single action revolvers, this is how guns were made in 1954, and it isn't a whole lot different than 1873.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/540103904/m/5491067251

[Virginia Gentleman]

USFA frames are made from forgeings and small parts are generally made out of barstock or even tool steel.  Every bit as well made as Colt if not better!

[Doc Shapiro]

Driftwood, thanks for the explanation.  It also explains why grip fit is so problematic.

[Howdy Doody]

I used to have a off feeling about castings. That is until my son, who is in the aerospace business, with a major aircraft builder, expalined to me that nearly all the aircraft hard parts are cast and then machined. I think it boils down to what is the material the parts are cast from. Pot metal or quality metal?
Then again, how good is the machining and the tolerances? That could have a lot of input on the final product. That would explain why a good gunsmith can take a clunker of a gun and make it work.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

It also has to do with the specific casting process. Folks used to look down their nose at castings made with the old Die Casting process, and it some instances it was rightly so. Die cast parts are often not very strong. I'll bet the parts your son was referring to were made by Investment Casting which is a more modern process and results in very strong parts. Ruger makes their frames and most of their small parts from Investment Castings.

[Pettifogger]

Did a little research and it seems that die casting cannot be used for steel or iron.  The die is hardened steel, so you can only die cast copper, zinc, aluminum and other such metals that won't permanently bond with the die.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Pettifogger

I believe you are right. I am certain some manufacturers are using castings for their steel frames. You appear to be right though, it appears that die casting is not appropropriate for steel.

I know Ruger uses investment casting, and I also know that Ruger's subsidiary, Pine Tree Investment Castings, makes steel castings for other gunmakers, as well as making castings for other industries.

The other two ways to cast with ferrous alloys that I am aware of is old fashioned sand casting, and using graphite molds. I believe the graphite method is more expensive, but can hold closer tolerances than sand casting. There also appears to be several hybrid processes, using sand and thin metal molds.

I really don't know what method the Italians are using to produce their castings, perhaps they are using investment castings. This warrents further research.

[Pettifogger]

Yep, as you saw from the picture I posted of the flaw on my Open Top, the Italians are casting the frames and numerous other parts.  From the looks of some of their mainsprings, even they look cast.  It sure would be fun to take a tour of the Pietta or Uberti factories.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I was visiting with my favorite gunsmith today. I picked up an Uberti SAA off his bench and pointed out the knurling detail, parting line, and pebbly finish on the inside curve of the hammer. He agreed with me it looked like a cast part. Still don't know exactly how it was cast, but we seemed to be in agreement that it is cast.

[Virginia Gentleman]

Modern cast steel alloys used in gunmaking today are far superior to forged parts in the 1st generation Colts.  If done properly, they can be as strong as a forged part if machined and/or heat treated properly.  Some small parts might be MIM which S&W uses for small parts and just ask the legions of Ruger fans how they feel about the investment cast super strong guns they enjoy.  I believe the Italians are doing the proper method of casting with the right alloys, heat treatment and machining to adhere to the ISO 9000 certification for production quality process and to pass the very strict government run and required proof standards/testing for guns.  The United States has no such proofing requirement or standards which are left to the manufacterer to self certify.  Is casting a short cut, the simple answer is "yes", but does it compromise quality and safety if done properly, then "no."

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Virginia Gentleman

I was right with you until you started talking about ISO 9000 certification. In my not so humble opinion ISO 9000 is the biggest consultant driven joke to come down the pike in years. If your ISO 9000 approved procedure says you need to whack Walt on the head everytime you walk by his desk, ISO will certify it as long as you properly document that you are whacking poor Walt every time you walk past his desk. ISO doesn't delve into why you whack Walt, it only wants you to document it.

Anyhoo, sorry for the rant.

I am quite aware of the investment castings that Ruger does, and their inherent strength. My real question these days is, is Uberti using investment castings, or are they using some other casting technology for their parts.

As far as the Italians and heat treating, ask any gunsmith about that. Without exception, everybody I have talked to says the Italian parts are soft and wear easily.

[Virginia Gentleman]

Driftwood, yes, ISO can be a joke if your proceedures don't mean anything, but the EU unlike the US standard of ISO is more realistic and meaningful in a production environment. "Bob" actually has to do something meaniful like check to see if everything meets inspection standards by verifying them on the floor every so often with a foreman that signs off on it. Not just rubber stamp the paperwork.  Metallurgy standards are international, but I agree the older Italian guns had softer parts from a shortcut in heat treating, now they have been called on the carpet and are either heat treating the parts properly or have changed the alloy.  They still may be softer in some cases like the budget models. I would guess they are using a "gang mold" for investment casting as it is economical and easy to duplicate new molds.