Brass frames from Ruger

I have heard many different answers and reasons as to why Ruger had so much difficulty in casting brass frames which led to the frames being dropped. With Ruger's vast experience in casting steel frames, etc. why could Ruger not quite make it happen? I read some articles; neither print or voice seems to provide a credible answer.

well from what I recall in a few conversations with Walt Howe back in the late 70s ,early 80's two things came up, too many frames the brass castings were
"porous" ( we call them them casting craters) looks like a small dimple or hole, or a cluster of holes looked a lot like "rust pits" in the steel frame,,,anyway you go to polish them and below the surface the holes got BIGGER!!! open up into craters...the other thing that "bothered" the old man ( Mr Ruger) was when they were fitting, polishing these frames to match ( fit) the guns, the brass polish , residue, got in or on the polishing wheel,,,,got onto OTHER steel gun parts and caused "contamination" of the bluing salts...we too ran into this when we had our company called Cleveland Bluing Co in Cleveland ,OHio, back in the early 70s and that was a "cardinal" sin ,to polish ANY brass, or other non ferrous metals, aluminum, etc, on the same equipment used for buffing steel gun parts,,,,HAVE to keep it ALL "separate" screw up a "salt bath" instantly, cause spots on the guns finish, etc.....BAD MOJO !!!!
they tried to sell these frames on the open market, we bought quite a few of them back then ,like $6.50 a set, came with the grips, and wide trigger to boot, put them on more Rugers than I can remember.....needless to say, they had MANY. many left over and I met the guy whose job was to "scrap" all those old ,bad, frames ( as well as many left over gun parts, at the Southport plant when it became just a "warehouse"..........

Dan: thanks for your reply. Your explanation touched on several things of interest; some of which I had just a bit of knowledge. My main question is why was Ruger not able to overcome the quirks of casting brass frames? Firearms have had brass components , in the modern sense, for a century and a half with the Colt, The confederate G & G and several others produced during the War between the States. Cannon were cast from brass also. Church bells were cast from brass. All old technology! I have found little material to indicate a lot of problems with the technology used at the time. Was something simple overlooked that shaded the casting process that doomed the brass frames? Brass is a fairly simple alloy. Little changed over the centuries; Ruger , on the other hand, having cast millions of steel frames and gaining vast knowledge in casting, just could not get it right with brass frames. Therein is my main question: why not?

The brass frames that have been produced by other companies, since Ruger produced them ,do not seem to have had the same issues. Ruger Frames have just gone into orbit, pricewise, and that is part of what keeps my questions alive.

Thanks

kevin,, I believe the direct answer you seek will never be answered. The people involved are all dead & gone.

And that is my concern that the knowledge has, for the most part, been lost that would have provided answers that I seek. I believe there are answers out there that, will in part, provide the information that will satisfy my questions of why Ruger gave up. WBR was a genius and the obstacle in his way must have been great! Maybe in simple terms the problem was not worth the fix!

Thanks for the input. Just the quest for knowledge is part of the human condition. So much is lost and gained by asking "why".

I think the problem was and still is the cost of labor, not brass casting technology.

In the old days it's true, we see hundreds of thousands of brass frames on production guns. And today we see hundreds of thousands of brass frames on clones (many with casting pock marks that would not meet Ruger's level of quality control), coming from Italian makers. The one thing they had/have in common is cheaper labor.

Therefore even though the brass castings had/have a higher casting failure rate and the bad ones went back in the pot to be remelted, recast, and repolished (to expose the flaws) which increased the labor, the lower labor rates still allowed the brass parts to be a profitable venture. Especially considering the price of good steel at the time.

But considering Ruger's labor rates and competitive prices when the brassies were produced, and especially now, the higher failure rate couldn't make the profit margin they needed. Look at the cost of aftermarket brassies even though inferior and how many of those companies are still making them?

Some people never give up! I'm one of them at some point it becomes a challenge! Casting is something I know literally nothing about it's too bad they never figured it out. People are casting brass every day of the week hire one of those guys or pay him to teach your guys. All water over the damn at this point just too bad! I have had a chance to buy some Qualite was the brand IIRC. Day late and a dollar short! ps

I do not believe that the demand for brass frames was great enough and the profits sufficient enough for Bill Ruger to have to spent more resources to solve the problem. And from what i understand, casting brass inherently has issues as you need to use centrifugal force or a vacuum to make sure that you fill every nook and cranny of the molds consistently, so defects are going to happen in the casting process that Ruger was using at that time. Let's say that Ruger EXPECTED to have 20-30% rejects in the casting process because they didnt have the centrifugal force or a vacuum system to cast brass as it was not required to cast steel or aluminum parts because of the higher temperature and longer flow time....

AFter a while, Ruger decided that the efforts were not worth the profit margins nor the investment in being able to ensure better and consistent quality of parts...so they just discontinued the brass frames.

All of this is easier to understand when you realize that Ruger brass frames were not a profitable endeavor at the time....

Hi Kevìn I picked this up about 4 yrs ago this frame is one that Ruger sold after production. I cleaned it a up good bit and done some file work for better fit on an old model this since photo was taken but you can see what looks like light cracks in the brass. I assume I'm this is what some some of the guys are describing. I didn't know much of the history but I like the brass frame. I'll remember what was said about the brass discoloring the bluing next time I polish the brass or may just just let it age.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/185707701@N03/shares/6nXDM5

all good points above and when you work on, work with as many as we have since they came out, it is never the same way twice,,,we seen very few that the frames are about "perfect" no flaws, no cracks on the inside ( shrink marks) or the holes, pits, on the OUTSIDE surfaces, who cares about marks on the inside, out of sight....I think the Old Man ( Mr Ruger) always liked that little "touch of brass" the look was on the 1958 Bearcats , the trigger guards ,though anodized,NOT "real" brass and again he wanted to try for the Old Army as well as well as the Supers, so to make it profitable?? they a had to make many,,,,THEN the problems arrose, the issues with contaminated bluing salts, and buffing wheels,,,you can and will do a LOT of harm, damage and costly replacement of felt or muslin wheels, I know, we had these same issues years ago.....


and bayouhunter, you can polish the brass frame, and will not damage the bluing of the gun, (UNLESS you buff too hard on the "blued" surface)...its when the gun steel is in the "white" and prepping for the bluing tanks ( process) that problems arrise.......

Bayouhunter said:

. . . you can see what looks like light cracks in the brass. I assume this is what some some of the guys are describing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those are the "shrink marks" Dan refers to above. You will see them in any/all of the Ruger brass grip frames. Shrinkage must be considered in any casting application, and it appears Ruger just tried to use the same basic pattern for the brass ones that they used for the steel ones, with the result we see here.

That said, when you get a good one all polished up and mounted on a gun it sure looks nice. Just likely not economically feasible to Ruger to "do it right".