|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 members (NCTarheel, buckstix, ClapperZapper, CJF, LeFusil, 1 invisible),
1,005
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,476
Posts545,185
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 160
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 160 |
I am looking at a 100 year old 16 gauge sxs that has a minimum wall thickness of .023 left and .024 right. Is this considered safe to shoot?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,703 Likes: 103
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,703 Likes: 103 |
That's getting pretty thin to be safe IMHO. My personal minimum is .025 with clean bores. I understand the Brit proof houses will accept down to .020 for proof. If your gun has pitting in the bores that further reduces chances for being a safe shooter. You may decide to go ahead with low pressure shells, but it has to be a personal decision. I'd recommend finding a gun with more sound barrels...Geo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 160
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 160 |
I would be shooting RST shells exlusively as the barrels are 2.5"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,104 Likes: 592
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,104 Likes: 592 |
20 thou used to be the minimum that they would put through proof. Unless it's a 20 or a 28, it should be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,718 Likes: 479 |
If safe now you understand that you can never have it honed further? It is thinner than I am comfortable. Not as much for pressure because if you reload you can load reasonably low pressure shells. I worry more about dings and ease of denting thin barrels. Also where is the thin area. Near the muzzle is fine but ten inches in front of the chambers not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 97 |
old ed likes no less .030 7 to 9" down from the muzzles and no less than .090 in front of the chambers.
even that sounds kinda thin to me. i mean, look at a mic set to .090. do you feel comfortable with an explosion going off in front of your face with only that thin metal between you and the fire?
Last edited by ed good; 10/06/14 05:49 PM.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 97 |
and from drews link:
"Every vintage shotgun, and shotgun barrel, should be evaluated before use by someone with the equipment and expertise to properly do so, and then shot only using ammunition with ballistics similar to that for which the gun was originally intended."
amen to dat!
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 691 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 691 Likes: 7 |
20 thou used to be the minimum that they would put through proof. No, that's not quite correct. They (Birmingham and London Proof Houses) will inform their customers if the minimum barrel wall thickness falls below .020" even though it may have passed proof with thinner than .020" MWT. That information is direct from the chief inspector of the Birmingham Proof House.
Wild Skies
Since 1951
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 160
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 160 |
I am being told by some that english guns are a different breed and that they are generally very thin.. Is this the case? the gun I am referring to is a holland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
