The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Coltdriver · February 24, 2002, 01:02 AM

Here is one mans uninformed opinion.

Forging was the earliest known means of creating incredibly tough metal parts. Especially parts that are exposed to extremes in heat and impact.

Casting is more economical.

Metalurgy has come a long way, even in the past 30 years.

If a company that makes a quality product like the Browning Hi Power decided to go to cast frames, which they did around 89, then you would probably be safe to assume that they felt they knew enough about what they were up to to carry the quality forward with the product. Certainly the performance of the new Mark III Hi Powers bears that out.

Most of the small metal parts on the Kimbers are MIM (Metal Injected Molding) parts. This is a fascinating process where finely ground metals are blended, turned into a paste, injected into a mold, baked and turned into finished parts with a minimum to no machining. Again, saving time, tooling, skills and ultimately money over machined parts. Kimber is still in business after selling thousands of 1911's with MIM parts in them.

Smiths have told me they prefer forged because of the machineability and weldability of those parts.

But in terms of tough and serviceable, modern cast parts seem to do just fine.

That does not mean that all cast parts are good and of course it would be good to be able to observe a track record or know that the maker of your weapon has a good reputation.

But the old gunshow wives tales about cast being junk and forged being the only way to go are just not holding up to the reality of everyday use we see with thousands of quality weapons that are cast.

I have some of each and don't consider it a factor in my decision making on a gun.

February 24, 2002, 01:02 AM	#15
Coltdriver Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2001 Posts: 683	Here is one mans uninformed opinion. Forging was the earliest known means of creating incredibly tough metal parts. Especially parts that are exposed to extremes in heat and impact. Casting is more economical. Metalurgy has come a long way, even in the past 30 years. If a company that makes a quality product like the Browning Hi Power decided to go to cast frames, which they did around 89, then you would probably be safe to assume that they felt they knew enough about what they were up to to carry the quality forward with the product. Certainly the performance of the new Mark III Hi Powers bears that out. Most of the small metal parts on the Kimbers are MIM (Metal Injected Molding) parts. This is a fascinating process where finely ground metals are blended, turned into a paste, injected into a mold, baked and turned into finished parts with a minimum to no machining. Again, saving time, tooling, skills and ultimately money over machined parts. Kimber is still in business after selling thousands of 1911's with MIM parts in them. Smiths have told me they prefer forged because of the machineability and weldability of those parts. But in terms of tough and serviceable, modern cast parts seem to do just fine. That does not mean that all cast parts are good and of course it would be good to be able to observe a track record or know that the maker of your weapon has a good reputation. But the old gunshow wives tales about cast being junk and forged being the only way to go are just not holding up to the reality of everyday use we see with thousands of quality weapons that are cast. I have some of each and don't consider it a factor in my decision making on a gun.