S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,579
Posts546,661
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
Thanks for the comments. My gun is away for a stock repair and I won't have it back for a while. For a 12 gauge upland gun I like a carry weight between 6 1/2 and 7 lbs.. Lighter is nicer, but I have carried a 7 lb. gun all day. Rocketman, I am very interested in your research and in Miller's math on metal removal. I will have to wait to get the gun back in my hands to think through the balance issues. I have an English game gun, 6 lbs. 10 oz., with sturdy 28" sleeved barrels. According to the maker's records, it was originally 29 1/2" Damascus. All I know is that for me it mounts with a smoothness and balance that I have only rarely had in my hands before. It almost seems to mount by itself, like a gun that led Nash Buckingham to say that he had a gun that was so good that if you took an afternoon nap on the edge of a field, you could wake up to find a dead pheasant next to you that wasn't there when you fell asleep. I have had 2 English guns in my hands that balanced/mounted like that and one Lefever that did the same. On the question of whether to hone my 26" sleeved barrels, I will have to wait until I have it back in my hands and can consider all the good comments made on this board. I have no idea who sleeved my gun, although it is a very nice job. Also, I have no knowledge of the original barrels, Damascus or fluid steel, because there are no factory records. I won't sell it to get another grouse/woodcock gun, because it is a very special Lefever - a unique special order gun with magic game scene engraving and weird, but interesting mechanics. I am just whiling away a little time in the off-season dreaming about making it a little more enjoyable to carry. As is, at 7 lbs., it would work fine for me. At 6 3/4 lbs, it would be an even better carry weight. I would go for that, if the balance issues can be worked out. Anyway, you all have given me a lot to think about and consider when I get it back in my hands. Thanks very much.
Rich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 205 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 205 Likes: 1 |
I have a pretty reliable program at work that estimates weights. I can double check the math here to see where you'd get from honing, but if it were me, I'd be hesitant to mess with a well balanced old gun.
-Leverhead
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
With respect to weight removal from the barrels, I had a 12 proofed Greener hammer gun that had .783 bores as a result of extensive honing. Although it still had acceptable wall thickness, it was extremely light and whippy on the barrel end and stock heavy. My only point is that you can remove a significant amount of weight from the barrels through honing, but results may be somewhat unpredictable. All due respect and no offense meant, Dan, the results are predictable. That few bother to do the math prior to cutting does not indicate that results are not predictable. The bigger problem that I see is so few actually know what they really want. Tharin lies the advantage of quantified handling profiles. DDA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,359 Likes: 399
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,359 Likes: 399 |
Interesting to hear that the gun in question is a Special Order Lefever. I'd love to see some pics when you get it back. There was a thread on Lefevers about 6 weeks ago where the discussion went to frame sizes of 12 gauge guns. I took some measurements of several Lefevers to see where the weight reduction was in those with lighter weights. See my last post in this thread to compare with the dimensions of your frame: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post478357It could well be that your gun was either mid-weight or on the heavy side before it was sleeved. I see a range of over 2 lbs. in 12 gauge Lefevers I've owned. Unfortunately, as you probably know, it became fashionable for people to cut down barrels of long heavy doubles in a vain attempt to remake them into upland bird guns. The results are usually not so great, and the value of a vintage double is greatly reduced in the process of attempting to convert a heavy duck gun into a light upland game gun. To get to where you want to go could involve a costly process of removing weight from the barrels, stock, and frame to achieve weight reduction and great handling dynamics. Of course, removing metal from the frame to approach the dimensions of those rare light weight 12 ga. Lefevers would involve removing some of that lovely engraving. So in the end, it may be best to utilize this gun for clay target shooting where the bit of extra weight would be welcome in recoil reduction. As an aside, you may be able to detect whether the original barrels were Damascus or fluid steel by closely examining the barrel flats of the original breech section, assuming the original set was used for the sleeving job.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,539 Likes: 170
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,539 Likes: 170 |
Just cut 6 inches off the barrel length It will be lighter
Or hone the mass out of the barrels but DO NOT lengthen the chamber as it will destroy the gun !!
Y'all starting to get my point??
Get the correct gun for the job, or find a second set of barrels that were NOT sleeved
Mike
Last edited by skeettx; 05/29/17 07:21 PM.
USAF RET 1971-95
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I double checked my math. What I said was "Close" was to take Pi x D using the mid point diameter as D. For my double check I figured the area of a .740" diameter minus the area of a .730" bore. An old Machinery's Handbook gives the weight of steel (No specific alloy given) as .2817 lbs per sq inch. I rounded to .282 lbs/sq/in. Using the same criteria of estimating that about 22.5" of both barrels would be enlarged & then converting lbs to ounces it took 9 decimal places before there was a difference in the two methods. The simpler method of using pi x .735" x .005" thickness gave 2.344168473 oz. Using the area of .740" minus the area of .730" with all other criteria the same gave 2.344168474 oz. That is thus the amount of weight you would be looking at in removing .010" of steel from the bore of a nominal 12ga bore. Considering bore sizes normally found in 12 gauge guns & for a 26" barrel length you are looking at the range of 2Ľ to 2˝ oz for a .010" enlargement. Rich, I know what you mean by that "Special Feel". To me my Birmingham built J P Clabrough has it. It has 28" Damascus barrels with a weight of 6lb 14oz & carries Nice. I have also however done some good shooting, For Me, with a 7˝ lb FE Lefever which had a set of 26" steel barrels built which match the weight of the original 30" Damascus ones. These barrels were built from scratch so I still have the originals.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Rocketman,would you please expound further on SWAG. Scientific Wild A$$ Guess. I this case, however, we have a data base to work off of. So, we can/should be able to make decently accurate estimates. Knowing the weight, balance, barrel length, and stock LOP lets us look up comparables. DDA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
Thanks Rocketman,always good to expand my vocabulary.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Hi all; I did a bit of further checking. My close Estimated method of taking the median diameter of the old bore size & new bore size times Pi times thickness of metal removed "Per Side" times length of bore thus enlarged is actually not a reasonable estimate. It is in fact Spot on & 100% accurate for the Cu Inches of metal removed. Sort of surprised Rocketman didn't call me on this one, guess he was just being his normal kind self.
Quite often there is more than one way to figure something. For instance when I figure the area of a circle I normally use PiD˛/4 rather than the normally quoted PiR˛. Answer is the same both ways as R = D/2 then R˛ = D˛/4.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
2-p, I knew your math skills and believed you would provide the needed corrections. No need to correct a self-correcting "system." ;-)
DDA
|
|
|
|
|