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
Topics38,469
Posts545,146
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,335 Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7 |
I have to say, this has been one of the better discussions. I'll toss in my 2 cents.
As I see it, the issue with sleeving that affects value is that post-sleeving the barrels are no longer original. Collectors and people who look at their guns not just as shooting tools but as storehouses of value will devalue the sleeved gun because of the lack of originality. On the other hand, the owners of guns who look at their guns as a tool or instrument, will tend to look upon the sleeved gun as neither better nor worse - as a shooting instrument - than the original gun. I can't think of any situation where an original gun in serviceable condition will be sleeved - the barrels are in acceptable condition. It's when the barrels have progressed through use or, more likely, abuse and/or neglect to the point of unserviceability that sleeving becomes an option to turn a useless piece of metal and wood into a shooting instrument once more. So, the $200 scrap/parts gun becomes a useful gun again.
It's the interplay of money - actualized and potential - and usefulness that's at issue here.
I would not hesitate to shoot or own a properly sleeved gun, if it presented itself. And I'd buy one, if the price were right and I wanted it.
Last edited by Dave in Maine; 02/14/12 10:02 PM. Reason: typo
fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,436 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,436 Likes: 34 |
The first Parker I ever bought with my own money was sleeved (probably why it was affordable) and it is still one of my favorites. In the proper context, there is nothing wrong with sleeved guns.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
Also consider the options for sleeving - you can make a tired 26" barreled gun into a 32" barreled gun at little cost. Thereby you have a piece that you would not be able to buy because you can't find one. So, rather than look endlessly for hen's teeth, you go and buy a gun cheaply and make it what you want in an affordable way.
For example, you want a 32" barreled 20-bore hammer gun. You will NEVER find one. But you can take a tired 26" one and sleeve it. Then when you sell it it represents something that is very hard to find. Anyone who wants one will have little else to choose from. Therefore, if done well and ticking the boxes, it will sell nicely.
The long term serviceability and safety in sleeved guns is a debate past its sell-by date. It is a NON ISSUE. Quality sleeving these days is akin to new barrels if done using modern best practice.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
I don't understand the American inclination for originality when they seem to apply the opposite to those they spend their lives with!
I won't impute motives. Just a Valentine Day's thought.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202 |
King, I always read posts where I see your name. Thanks, that was good.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7 |
+1 King.
If you think we Americans are bad that way ... don't go to Brazil.
fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,018 Likes: 50 |
Good barrel sleeving by competent hands is just that and I have not hesitated to consider having it done when appropriate. When appropriate is when the current barrels are not serviceable and the gun is of the quality to make it worth saving.
I have a fine hammer gun whose sleeving looks good and the balance is excellent. I have little doubt the barrels lost were beyond further use.
I currently have a gun with Kirk Merrington which I have no doubt will be worth the bother.
I do caution anyone wanting to lengthen a gun through sleeving the price of ribs added to that of sleeving makes it a very expensive project. To pursue it requires a truly exceptional gun in need of barrels to consider it. That said you will never make money on the project regardless of gauge.
I accept those who do not desire a sleeved gun as opposed to original barrels as a matter of taste. There are both good and bad examples of sleeving out there.
For me I prefer not to sleeve, but there are times when no options exist except parting out, which I see as a worse act when the gun is quality
Michael Dittamo Topeka, KS
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I can't think of any situation where an original gun in serviceable condition will be sleeved - the barrels are in acceptable condition. Although I am unable to give any statistical numbers here I can very well recall when Sleeving was highly promoted as a method of putting "Damaccus" bbl'd guns into service. I highly suspect a good number of these were sleeved which in fact had good servicable bbls. This was a Pity. I don't think this is being done much anymore,thankfully. I find no fault to sleeving a set of unusable bbls if the gun otherwise warants it. The cost simply has to be compared with what can be found in a similar price bracket for a gun with original bbls. I would not for instnce give the same amount of dollars to sleeve a gun as what I could buy the same model gun with good original bbls. This would let out sleeving most of the guns I own. I have for instance an H grade Lefever with unusable bbls & a cracked stock. For I also mhave some more H grades for which the combined total I gave for them would not put this gun back in service. It would simply not be cost effective, so I keep it for a parts gun.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 512 Likes: 58
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 512 Likes: 58 |
I have had a sleeved hammer gun with ok but not great sleeved barrels, that were a little heavy. I now own a sleeved Best with very good sleeving, that is almost impossible to see, great balance and with original barrels would have been out of my price range. I expect to use this gun for 10 years and don't expect to lose money.
This ain't a dress rehearsal , Don't Let the Old Man IN
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 93 |
I'm reviving this classic thread for another question. I have seen many guns where, I felt they were paying me to take the gun. Take any 12 BLNE that has been sleeved, in today's market you'd never recoupe the cost of sleeving. I consider those guns (especially the BLEs) a tremendous value.
With the growth of non-toxic shot requirements for bird hunting in the US, I've gotten tired of using my modern guns for steel. I'd much rather be using a British game gun. I shoot enough at birds that Nice Shot isn't practical. I've thought about buying a recently-sleeved and (maybe) refinished gun in England, adjusting the chokes to the proper constriction, and having it reproofed for steel. Would you guys expect that a top notch modern sleeving job would pass a steel proof?
|
|
|
|
|