doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Opinions on a thin-barrelled H&H

Thanks for the advice. It's worth getting a second opinion before I do anything. If it actually is that thin, I think it's worth getting the lining done. It probably pays for itself in terms of making it fully shootable.

There is no requirement for minimum wall thicknes in the English rules of proof.Provided the barrel bores or chambers on your gun have not been enlarged and/or the exterior of the barrels have not been refinished[ie;metal removed to reduce wall thickness] your gun is still in proof and legal for sale in the U.K.
The major risk with thin barrels is that they ar easily damaged[ dented] if this occurs there is little chsnce that they can be repaired,leaving sleeving as the only realistic repair option.
I would also recommend reinspection of the barrel wall thickness after first making sure that the dial indicator used to check size is verified for accuracy by checking with with a master of known size.

I'd go with the normal sleeving, this isn't unusal for old hammerguns. They do have a glass ceiling resale wise, so make sure the rest of the gun is right, or you'll take a beatin' if and when that time comes.

Did he say it was a hammer gun ?

There are a number of advantages to the Teague Liner versus normal sleeving in look and feel. 1 - The original barrels are retained with the damascus pattern that can be refreshed if you so choose. 2 - Barrel weight can be adjusted to match the originals.
3 - Choke constriction can be specified just like a new set of barrels. 4 - Chamber length can be 2 3/4" giving you more options in light pressure loads.
The Teague liners will keep the gun looking completely original. If it were my H&H, I'd believe it's worth the expense.

The gun is a hammerless dipped-edge sidelock with damascus barrels, so lining is preferable to me despite the higher cost.

I thought Dig or Salopian would wade in with their comments.

Having a thin spot 12" down the barrel is doubless worrying, the front guiding hand may be at risk. Hugh Lomas in a 2005 article in DGJ states that the standard measuring place is at 9" from the breech and should not go below 0.020". There is rule of thumb regarding wall thickness and associated pressure that it should withstand?

Just to clarify notes on wall thickness (all ref 12 bore)which were not apparent the way that article appeared in print. It was originally a two part art. that was chopped back to one part without subsequent review,in grafting some of the part sentences together meanings were blurred. On a game gun built to standard weight I would like to see a minimum of .025", between.020"&.025" are considered safe and probably will be satisfactory but generally get a comment of actual dimension if the gun is sold at auction. Below .020" it is usual to state Wall thickness below recommended minimum. NOTE these all refer to the Thinnest area found which should be 5-9" back from the muzzles. The 9" or proof point wall thickness that correspond to the above would be .040-.050" Generally Pigeon guns will have more mass and be at the higher end of the range,guns designed as light weight will be at the lower end of the range. Purpose built 2" guns are an exception to the above and often left proof with .018" as their thinnest section. The original posters .016" @ 12" from breech is to my opinion too thin to sell.

The question is....How did a London dealer sell it to him ?

Looks like the English boys aren't talking.