Has a Mini 14 or Ranch Rifle Ever Worn Out?

[robertkirksey]

I know some 180 series rifles had locking lugs crack and a lot of firing pins have broken, that's not what I am asking about.

I have heard that the case hardening of the rifle's action is at least .020" thick. With that in mind (if it is true) who knows for a fact that one has ever worn out?

By worn out I mean worn to the point of developing excessive headspace or failure to function reliably due to wear (please, no reports of bad magazines). Thanks, Robert

 

[Sugar River]

Ruger has never used "case hardening" as a heat treatment for any firearms. Mini receivers, as well as every other ferrous part they make, are through hardened and tempered, etc commensurate with the parts intended purpose. The substrate is just as hard as the surface.

In other words, there is NO surface "skin" to wear out.
The part is the same hardness all the way through.

Perhaps you are thinking of the M-14/M1A?

Pete

 

[robertkirksey]

No, actually I am speaking of the Ruger Mini14/Ranch Rifle. I got my information from Accuracy Systems Inc. I would have thought since they specialize in this rifle, they might know something about it.

How do you come by your information? Do you know first hand of a Mini14/Ranch Rifle wearing out? Thanks, Robert

 

[Sugar River]

Well, I attended the Armourer's School in Newport on 6 occasions during the '80s and '90s. The first day of the week long class is spent touring the production facilities, from the wax pattern room (where the metal parts are "born") all the way thru to stock checkering/finishing.

Seeing the racks of parts glowing red as they come out of the heat treat salts is impressive, though nothing will get one's attention like the sight of 2 guys pouring liquid steel (2900 F) into the ceramic molds. Wow!

One of the points they drilled into our heads was the fact that Ruger not only pioneered the investment casting process in firearms manufacture, but also the use of modern heat treating as opposed to the kind of surface hardening which, at the time, was still commonly used on Smiths and Colts.

While I have seen a Mini blow up at a range with reloads(the shooter was widely known for his "less than optimum" loading techniques), I have no info on Minis wearing out.


Pete

 

[robertkirksey]

Pete, thanks for the information. I'm sure the manufacturing process was a sight to see. Since you obviously have a basis for an opinion, how would you compare the wear characteristics of Ruger cast/heat treating process part with similar forged parts?

I really do not want this to degenerate into the forged/cast which is better debate. Time has proven Rugers hold up quite well.

I am interested in knowing the wear characteristics. Thank you for any information, Robert

 

[Sugar River]

My opinion on forged vs cast is they both have their place. What most folks overlook in this conversation is the fact that each part has to be DESIGNED with a view toward HOW it will be made. You cannot divorce the geometry of a part from the manufacturing process.

Adopting the investment casting process allowed Bill and his engineers do design things (like integral scope bases) that couldn't have been done previously, at least not at an affordable price. But the flip side of the coin is that IC restricts you in some respects also. The design of a part has to take into account the fact that liquid steel has to flow into every nook and crany of a mold, as one example, or else you'll end up with a bad part. So, there is a trade off.

But, with that said, and assuming that a part was designed intelligently, manufactured properly (whether forged or IC) and heat treated correctly, I think the quality is the same.

One caveat: I used to work with a cracker jack engineer who told me the only type of part he could think of in which he would prefer a Forging would be something like an extractor on a machine gun. He reasoned the grain flow around and thru the extractor hook would give you a slight advantage over a casting over the life of a part which might see hundreds of thousands of repetitive cycles.

My $.02
Pete

 

[chet15]

My opinion on forged vs cast is they both have their place. What most folks overlook in this conversation is the fact that each part has to be DESIGNED with a view toward HOW it will be made. You cannot divorce the geometry of a part from the manufacturing process.

Adopting the investment casting process allowed Bill and his engineers do design things (like integral scope bases) that couldn't have been done previously, at least not at an affordable price. But the flip side of the coin is that IC restricts you in some respects also. The design of a part has to take into account the fact that liquid steel has to flow into every nook and crany of a mold, as one example, or else you'll end up with a bad part. So, there is a trade off.

But, with that said, and assuming that a part was designed intelligently, manufactured properly (whether forged or IC) and heat treated correctly, I think the quality is the same.

One caveat: I used to work with a cracker jack engineer who told me the only type of part he could think of in which he would prefer a Forging would be something like an extractor on a machine gun. He reasoned the grain flow around and thru the extractor hook would give you a slight advantage over a casting over the life of a part which might see hundreds of thousands of repetitive cycles.

My $.02
Pete

This is a great topic, so maybe needs moved to another thread, but you are one of the few people I've heard talk about an investement casting being as strong as a forging. But you are exactly correct...a casting is just as strong as a forging when taking everything into account...such as the metals used for one process or the other.
The obvious benefit however to Bill Ruger's investment castings is that you need far less machinery and machining/manpower time to turn out the final product as when you investment cast you can get near finish-product shapes right off the casting. Without doing that his final market prices would not have been competitive with other manufacturers.
Chet15

 

[chet15]

My opinion on forged vs cast is they both have their place. What most folks overlook in this conversation is the fact that each part has to be DESIGNED with a view toward HOW it will be made. You cannot divorce the geometry of a part from the manufacturing process.

Adopting the investment casting process allowed Bill and his engineers do design things (like integral scope bases) that couldn't have been done previously, at least not at an affordable price. But the flip side of the coin is that IC restricts you in some respects also. The design of a part has to take into account the fact that liquid steel has to flow into every nook and crany of a mold, as one example, or else you'll end up with a bad part. So, there is a trade off.

But, with that said, and assuming that a part was designed intelligently, manufactured properly (whether forged or IC) and heat treated correctly, I think the quality is the same.

One caveat: I used to work with a cracker jack engineer who told me the only type of part he could think of in which he would prefer a Forging would be something like an extractor on a machine gun. He reasoned the grain flow around and thru the extractor hook would give you a slight advantage over a casting over the life of a part which might see hundreds of thousands of repetitive cycles.

My $.02
Pete

This is a great topic, so maybe needs moved to another thread, but you are one of the few people I've heard talk about an investement casting being as strong as a forging. But you are exactly correct...a casting is just as strong as a forging when taking everything into account...such as the metals used for one process or the other.
The obvious benefit however to Bill Ruger's investment castings is that you need far less machinery and machining/manpower time to turn out the final product as when you investment cast you can get near finish-product shapes right off the casting. Without doing that his final market prices would not have been competitive with other manufacturers.
Chet15

 

[four70nitro]

My opinion on forged vs cast is they both have their place. What most folks overlook in this conversation is the fact that each part has to be DESIGNED with a view toward HOW it will be made. You cannot divorce the geometry of a part from the manufacturing process.

Adopting the investment casting process allowed Bill and his engineers do design things (like integral scope bases) that couldn't have been done previously, at least not at an affordable price. But the flip side of the coin is that IC restricts you in some respects also. The design of a part has to take into account the fact that liquid steel has to flow into every nook and crany of a mold, as one example, or else you'll end up with a bad part. So, there is a trade off.

But, with that said, and assuming that a part was designed intelligently, manufactured properly (whether forged or IC) and heat treated correctly, I think the quality is the same.

Very well said -- Most of the people that categorically tell you that forgings are superior to casting know very little about either. They tend to be repeating something they heard from someone else that didn't know anything about it either. There are applications where each technique has advantages.

Ruger knows more than a thing or two about casting parts and they make good ones because as stated above they have designed them properly to take advantage of the technique and they save a TON of money removing a mere two ounces of steel from a Model 77 action compared to several pounds of metal that must be removed from a forging for a similar bolt action.

As a knife maker that has forged a few knives, trust me when I tell you that it isn't hard to forge flaws into a finished component. Neither method is fool-proof, but that is why we have QC staff to remove those bad components before they get out the door.

Dave

 

[Sugar River]

I think for anyone with a background in metallurgy this is all just common sense. Unfortunately, a lot of what you find on the "net" bears no relation to common sense.


Pete

 

[cruzerlou]

Well you can certainly "shoot out " a barrel but I've never heard of waering out a mini -14 .If you did it would take 100's of thousands of rounds .
Lou