Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Cast recievers

This is NOT a discussion of which type of construction is best. My question is, when and what company first started using cast receivers. Some wise man said that the Winchester model 20 in 410 built in the 20's had a cast reciever. Don't know. That got me wondering. Did the early 1900's cheap single shots had cast receivers. I read once that it was only when Thompson Center started their company, that casting receivers was perfected. Does anyone know?

Almost all of the old single shot guns used sand castings for the recievers. Stevens, Iver Johnson, really any old break action shotgun made in the US is likely to be a casting. Generally when you remove the barrel or barrels and look inside the bottom of the action you can see the unfinished surfaces that will shot mold lines and a rough texture due to the sand mold.

I’m pretty sure even the original Ballard rifles were sand castings. Been going on a long time.

And laminate construction too.

Big difference between old sand cast receivers and modern investment castings. Quality of metal being paramount.

Cast receivers are used now because the reduce the labor and machining needed to make a gun. Ruger has been a pioneer, not only making their own but others for Montana and while many don’t know this they made the frames and slides for the Interarms and Walter USA ppl and ppk/s.

Fwiw...I’ve had one catastrophic case rupture and it was in a 77. Gun never even flinched. GREAT rifles

Ruger was a pioneer in this country for investment casting. I think it started in the 1980s with one of their 9mm handguns they were trying to get the US military to try out. (P89?)

1963

https://www.ruger.com/casting/index.html

DF

Tc still does a ton of casting. They have a separate company they do it under. One of the clients i work with at my job.

Earlier than I thought!

What about National Ordinance who made a cast receiver for their 03a3 Springfields and built then up with surplus parts in the 1970s? They also made M1 carbines and M1 garands. They were NOT a US govt contractorf. Receivers were rough but kind of worked...😣

Old Ballard 22's had cast receivers. I do not know when they started being made but they can be identified by the number of lines in the address stamped on the side of the action. It is also possible to see the rough texture of the sand casting by looking inside the action. Ballard did not use cast actions for their center fire rifles. The cast receivers have caused problems when the action was later converted to shoot center fire cartridges. An example of this is the 40-65 which blew up at the Quigley match several years ago.

I had heard that Remington 700 receivers that started with the serial number 'F' used cast receivers.

Indeed. And Ruger 77's, 77MKII's, and 77 Hawkeye's have used cast receivers exclusively since 1968.

Interesting...ive not heard that. Anyone know more about these?

Bill Ruger was a genius. The 77 is such an under rated rifle...fantastic in about every way. Its easily my second fav behind only the CZ/BRNO's. I wish they made the african in 7x57 as a regular catalog item

I believe Jim Sullivan (mostly) designed the M77, and Lenard Brownell designed the stock for it... but of course Bill Ruger was smart enough to hire them.

You are correct. Jim Sullivan also had a hand in some other interesting guns IIRC

I always wondered why the original 77s were made as a push feed. Seems the MKII and the current hawkeyes are all pretty darn nice

Very similar to Thomas Edison who insisted all inventions at his company carry his name. Always those out there more than willing to take credit for other's work.

I can't go into the history of cast receivers but I do use ruger 77 and Hawkeye and the No.1 rifles for good reason. They are decently made and made in left hand versions. As a left hand person this is a big deal. Thanks for the left hand models Ruger and hope the Hawkeye is a available for the foreseeable future. Love mine.

No sir, they are still machined from barstock. I'm sure not afraid if a quality cast receiver though.

Savage 99's went to investment cast receivers in the late 80's. Course, sales dropped through the floor at that time, so 99.999% of Savage 99's aren't cast receivers.

I'm still trying to remember a single picture of a blown up Ruger action. Super stout. I'm sure it can happen, maybe has happened but I can't remember seeing on anywhere on the forums.

I thought 700 receivers were made from Seamless tubing rather than bar stock??

interesting on Ruger cast receivers. They gave the Palma team 20 IIRC, hand built Palma rifles off the 77s. IIRC only a couple out of the 20 were accurate enough to use. Personally I think it was not the cast issue but the fact they probably didn't go through and true them all up and take the time to put em together correctly. Making a heavy barrel 308 shoot is not rocket science generally.

I've seen some 77s shoot really good though. I hate the diagonal bedding screw though, but it is what it is. I try to avoid em like the plague. Never owned one. But I've had to work on a lot of em to get em to accurate. But like I said once you worked on them they were pretty accurate.

My only Ruger rifle now is a 10-22 with so many parts replaced its a receiver only... and a Ruger 1.

IIRC... Shilo Sharps and Freedom Arms are both made from cast, but strength was not the question of the OP.


Those old single shot shotguns were cast... cast iron (ductile cast iron).

Butch,
I realize they're still machined from barstock. Contact them and ask if they ever tried casting with 'F' serial numbers.

Not doubting you but curious why they would as it seems it would be more expensive than machining round stock to get a cylindrical receIver?

I would not doubt it. In Stuart Ottesons book he mentions ruger receivers being beat with hammers to straighten them up enough to be usable.
To me Rugers have as always been cheap looking, crude recievers.

Wow...I think they are beautiful. I love their scope mounting system and 1 piece bolt design. I don't like the fact that the extractor tongues are not undercut...one of the most important features of CRF...and I dont care for the saftey. That being said...i like em but dont own any. Best of the domestics IMHO.

If they didn't have that angled front screw - I think the world would have exploded with them. Just doesn't leave a lot of aftermarket stock options.

I think there are a lot of guys out there with "Ruger Derangement Syndrome". Ruger is one of the most under rated gun manufacturers around. They have done an excellent job of putting a strong, accurate and reliable firearm in the hands of sportsman at a price most can afford. I am not much for push feed bolt actions, but I even have a Ruger American in 300 Blackout. Probably the most accurate rifle I have owned.

The issue with the Ruger Palma rifles wasn't there accuracy per se, it was that the rifles and the ammo were delivered to the team very late and there was a an accuracy issue stemming from the COAL of the ammo and the rifles throating. It wouldn't have been a big deal to rectify but time was so short as the Rifles were delivered right as the practice sessions were starting. There was no time to work thru the issue and so most of the team members decided to run the practice sessions and then the match with their own rifles. I know that at least one of the team members went on to shoot other matches matches with the Ruger rifle and had no problem with its accuracy.

The receivers for the ruger palma rifles weren't even really M77s, when you look at the rifle the action is extended forward ostensibly to support the heavy palma barrel and they have a straight not angled screw and the trigger assembly is not the standard M77 Trigger. Obviously the actions were custom made and I don't know if they were cast or forged. certainly neither of the two I have inspected has purpled as do many of the original M77s do.

Using the Ruger Pamla rifles to say anything about production M77s let alone MKII/Hawkeyes is misleading

I am human. I stand corrected here. I just know that not many wanted to use them and it was something about not shooting right, I took that to mean not accurate.

At least we know the real story now I assume rather than what bits of info my old brain drug up.

Though one team member vs the rest... you would think they would oblige if free rifles but I know how picky I can be too. Interesting about the non angle bedding screw. Wonder what that means in reality?

COAL. My God time must have been short, it takes not much to reseat bullets IF you know the depth...but again I'm sure its not part of the whole story.

Thanks. Jeff

Investment casting, using the lost wax process, to produce firearms parts, may not have been pioneered by Ruger but it was certainly perfected by them. Other companies also used the process. Dan Wesson, Uberti, and a host of others. Most of Martin Hagn's fine single shot rifles start life as a casting.
I've worked a bit with Rugers of all types. I LIKE the angled guard screw on the 77 and, while I might not like every aspect of every design, on the whole, they make sound, reliable guns of all types. WH

Larry Racine 'smithed and shot some of those Rugers Palma rifles. He has one listed for sale on his site.

www.lprgunsmith.com

When I lived in Hanover, NH, from 1986 thru 1990, I frequented Rody's Gun Shop in Newport, NH. Rody's is almost across the street, NH Route 103, from Ruger's Pine Tree Castings manufacturing plant and, at that time, they did the employee transfers for Ruger. I met a bunch of people who worked for Ruger and got some interesting Ruger stuff, including a blue wax bolt and a blue wax receiver. Neat stuff for collecting dust on a shelf.

Must be the absolute rarity. Thats not nearly 8500 of gun IMHO.

I wouldn't give $8,500 for it either, but it is one of very, very, few.

In theory the built in scope vases and factory rings are a good idea. Given the actions are not very true, it's not. To say they are the best of the domestics is a huge stretch. They are cheaply cast, the bolts cycle very rough, some generations had absolutely chit barrels and the bottom metal, volt handle and the shape of the action looks like crap. I'd take a Winchester over one any day of the week or a Remington 700 for that matter.

I like the Ruger rifles. The fact that they have found a way to manufacture them cheaply does not mean that the quality isn’t there. Ruger puts excellent barrels on their rifles these days ( last 25 years ) and they tend to shoot very well. I think the barrels rate as well as any NA manufacturer.

Gross scope alignment problems are something I haven’t been a witness to but it is a possibility with any manufacturer. Bedding scope rings is something that the layman rifle owner can and should do with any ring design imo.

The actions smooth up in a reasonable amount of time and just plain work. The only thing I don’t care for is the 3rd action screw and triggers need a bit of work it seems.

As someone who used to trophy hunt, I found the m77/Hawkeye very appealing as they were reasonably accurate, reasonably weighted, pointed and balanced well but more importantly would go “bang” every effing time. Nothing worse than your rifle not going bang when you need it to. Imo that is more important than how they appear aesthetically. After all , hunting is not a fashion contest.

I've owned close to 40 Ruger 77s and Hawkeyes over the past 39 years and still have the second one that I purchased, a 77R in 257AI that I bought at Pat's Pawn & Gun in Ogden, KS, in 1982. Some years ago I was guilted into donating the first Ruger 77 that I bought, a 77R in 7x57, to a church sponsored mission in Malawi.

I like mannlicher-style stocks and Ruger is the only large U.S. manufacturer that has continuously cataloged rifles with mannlicher-style stocks since they introduced the 77RSI in 1982. Ruger has made the only stainless rifles with mannlicher-style stocks that I'm aware of, the non-cataloged runs that they've made for Lipsey's.

When I lived in NH, I got to know a few people who either worked for Ruger, or who had previously worked for Ruger, and they all took pride in their work and the products that they made.

EDIT: I have had 2 Ruger 77s that wouldn't shoot, a 77 RSI in 243 and a 77 R in 257 Roberts. The 243 never would shoot, but when I had it rebored/rechambered to 260 it shot fine. I have another 77 RSI in 243 that is only 6 serial numbers away and it shoots fine. The 257 had a very long throat and even though the rifle was built on a long action, most bullets weighing under 115 grains couldn't be seated far enough out to come close to the rifling.. I rebarrreled it as a 25-284 with a 24" Douglas barrel that was throated to SAAMI specs.

Nope.

Nope, see post number
11476451

I hope I got the number right.

I am fairly certain that both Stuart Otteson and Frank DeHass described the 722 and the 700 as starting as tubing. It is possible that Remington changed the method of manufacture in later years(wouldn't surprise me) or the authors were mistaken. Post -64 Model 70's were forgings as were Sakos. GD