In the raw and with some patina added cast and forged can look the same. Both have a dull texture and semi rough surface. I wish I had pictures of my receiver but I will get some tonight. I have looked it many times and thought about all that had to be done to make a working part.I don't have so many to have given as much thought . Thanks for distracting me again . Out there on YouTube ,there are some amazing videos on forging both with and without molds . I do see the advantage of forging in a mold . Simply amazing how much hot steel they can stuff in a mold by beating . lets you see the process , kind of like packing a snow ball . I'm not going any were with this other than those looked poured to me . Thanks , it has been educational .
Similar thing with the receivers on 1970's Winchester 94. There is a process to make the surface of the receiver more pure iron (passiving?) to refinish those. The castings were "graphitic steel" and they iron plated them from the factory to get them to take blue. Du-Lite has a process to refinish these for the gunsmith.I Love the plum look! Early Ruger loading gates are notorious for turning plum. I was told it was not due to bluing methods but rather the silicon in the steel that was used.
It looks cast, the post 64 definitely wereThis is a raw Winchester 94 receiver. I think it is pre 64 It has one thin line down the center of the tang on the bottom. I am thinking this was a cast part.