mohavesam
Hawkeye
Recall that Ruger has made Caspian frames for a long time now...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Integral plunger tube
- Thread starter boray
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
So you're OK with a cast frame, but the plunger tube is bothering you?
I don't think the savings would be 'miniscule' either. Beside the part itself, there would be several machining steps, assembly steps and more tooling to wear out.
The original was staked on because it was more cost effective than starting with a thicker block of steel then machining away a bunch of metal for such a small part.
If you're casting the frame it's more cost effective to mold the piece in from the start than it would be to add one on later.
As a CNC machinist it makes nothing but sense to me to cast it in place. I'll wager JMB would agree, but then again he probably wasn't as obsessed with tradition as some of us are. He was a businessman.
I don't think the savings would be 'miniscule' either. Beside the part itself, there would be several machining steps, assembly steps and more tooling to wear out.
The original was staked on because it was more cost effective than starting with a thicker block of steel then machining away a bunch of metal for such a small part.
If you're casting the frame it's more cost effective to mold the piece in from the start than it would be to add one on later.
As a CNC machinist it makes nothing but sense to me to cast it in place. I'll wager JMB would agree, but then again he probably wasn't as obsessed with tradition as some of us are. He was a businessman.
boray
Bearcat
PO2Hammer said:So you're OK with a cast frame, but the plunger tube is bothering you?
Yeah, the cast frame is less than ideal too, but I understand if you're going to reproduce an early 20th century design in the 21st century and hope to reap a return on investment, casting is about the only way to do it besides employing 3rd worlders.
The original was staked on because it was more cost effective than starting with a thicker block of steel then machining away a bunch of metal for such a small part.
I would think that would only hold true if the you were starting with a flat sided, rectangular billet, but since the original started as a forging, had JMB wanted an integral plunger tube it certainly would have been easy enough to include it in the forging die. Post forging machine work could have then been as little as boring the spring channel and 1 pass on top and bottom of the forged in tube. I don't really see where the machine work involved for a forged in tube would be any greater than producing a separate part and attaching it, from billet yes, but not from a forging. So, since it would have been just as easy to incorporate the tube into the forging my opinion is JMB had a reason for NOT integrating it. I suspect Ruger's reasons for integrating it are; it's both cheaper and a potential improvement. I'm not a big 1911 fan I was just curious why they deviated from the original design and the answer appears to be savings and improvements.
If you're casting the frame it's more cost effective to mold the piece in from the start than it would be to add one on later.
Yep, it certainly would be, especially for a manufacturer like Ruger whose whole existance revolves around casting. There appears to be no downside to integrating it into a modern cast frame.
