doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Refinished/Out of Proof Brit Guns

I would like to get in on this conversation. Am I correct in saying and thinking that in England anything you may do to a set of barrels will make it "out of proof"?
What I am saying is, if you open the chokes will it make it "out of proof"? If you lengthen the chambers will that also make it "out of proof"?
Because here in the US we do that all the time with out thinking about it. Also does the "out of proof" apply to all the other guns they have over there like Brownings and Berrettas? Or does out of proof only apply to wall thickness?
Personally I am only concerned with wall thickness. If a "refinish" job is professional then it does not matter to me. I would rather have a sleeved gun than one with thin walls. But in that let me ask what is "to thin"? I have been told 25 thousands but told anything over 20 is OK. But I have heard many Maker's made their barrels even thinner to get the weight down.

Regarding PAULUNCs questions,based on 1954 rules of proof.
1.A gun is deemed out of proof if it accepts a plug gauge .010" larger than the proof dia stamped on flats at a position 9" from
breech.
2 The chamber length exceeds that marked at original proof

Thus the chokes can be opened and wall thickness reduced by external striking or polishing without affecting proof status.

Incidentally Installing screw in chokes requires re-proof under a subsequent jointproof house directive. Post 1991 metric dimension sets the oversize limit at 0.2mm (@.008") and will soon require weight in grams be noted at time of proof/reproof.

Let us consider the following guns:

A) 1900 Stephen Grant Side-lock ejector original barrels measuring within 5 thou' of original proof marks and a minimum of 25 thou in the walls.

B) 1900 Stephen Grant Side-lock ejector with invisibly sleeved barrels.

C) 1900 Stephen Grant Side-lock ejector with original barrels, down to 18 thou' at thinnest and still 3 thou in proof.

D) 1900 Stephen Grant Side-lock ejector with original barrels, out of proof due to enlarged bores but still with 22 thou in the walls.

If A is worth �15,000, then B is worth �7,000, C is worth �3,500 and D is worth �1,500.

Well tell me what a 1911 Stephen Grant 12 bore, refurbished and with new barrels by the maker in 2001, cased be worth?
Because I would like to sell mine.

Smallbore's gun D, in this country, would be worth more than gun C, because it is a better gun when evaluated with a micrometer. In his country, the gun in proof has an artificially inflated value even though it is not as good a gun as the gun out of proof. However, anyone who owns a wall thickness gauge probably wouldn't buy either gun at any price. A serious collector wouldn't buy gun B at the price mentioned. Why pay thousands of pounds or dollars for a sleeved gun when an original gun is right around the corner at the same price or a little more? These are collector guns, not shooters. I can buy wonderful shooters for a thousand bucks (or pounds). I know Smallbore is in the gun selling/restoring business, but he knows the collector market wants original guns.

LUCAS PRINCE OF DARKNESS

I think the real point of Small Bore is that the more original the gun the higher the price. As the gun goes away from original condition it takes a ever increasing hit on value. The most worn or thinnest barreled guns retain 10-20% value max and then only to a few buyers.

If you had 10K to buy a gun with you would try to get as much original condition as possible. The trick is to know what is a value and what is a money pit. For that you need the have the gun evaluated by an expert.

The collector market is smaller than the shooter market, I think, until you get into at least the 5 figure range (speaking dollars, not pounds). And shooters are more concerned with the soundness of a gun than its originality. Especially so if it's British, where tampering with originality--as described in the above post--is quite common. Different story when we start talking about guns that are out of proof, sleeved, etc. Both of those will depress prices on both sides of the Pond.

KyJon, you got trapped in Smallbore's web of deceit. He is NOT saying that the most original gun is worth more. He is saying that an unsafe gun in proof is worth more in the UK than a safe gun out of proof. He isn't saying it, but I will say that proof is bunk. Ridiculously thin wall guns pass proof and not too bad guns can be out of proof. Proof is all about the inside of a barrel without taking into account that a set of barrels can be seriously ground down from the outside, as is quite common in the UK.

No need to be rude eightbore.

I am just giving my opinion based on experience.

Gun D must be sleeved as in the UK it will only be sold for such purposes because of the proof laws. Remember that sleeving requires re-proof and there is always a risk of a cracked action. Hence the lower price.

Gun B is functionally and externally as good as A. It is a more practical proposition than C for someone who actually shoots but cannot afford A.

Gun C is safe to shoot but dent it and you are in trouble. However, it is shootable and does not cost as much as A or B.

Just my observations. You don't have to agree but let's keep the 'web of deceit' BS down eh?

I am not arguing the case for or against proof here - (I will if you like) just observing the state of things.

The basic rule of thumb when considering two guns is Original Quality and Current Condition. Pricing similar guns is trading one off against the other. The most expensive guns are clearly going to be the best original quality in the best current condition.

Remember that a sleeved gun is not de-valued. It was sleeved because its barrels were so worn that they were useless and the gun therefore had little or no value prior to sleeving. Then it depends on the quality of sleeving - I can get a gun sleeved for �300 but won't. I often pay �1500 trade for sleeving - big difference!