We've all had the opportunity here to express our opinions regarding honing pitted barrels, and I am of the pro-honing school (when safe wall thickness allows) naively assuming there must be a reason new guns come with shiney bores, and that the Birmingham Proof House must have some rationale for requiring honing of pitted barrels before re-proof.
I was recently given a 1913 Sterlingworth with several linear areas mid-barrel of what seemed to be superficial furrows, a crescent moon deeper pit about 1/3 of the bore 6" from the muzzle, and
marked roughness of the choke area. I have a digital bore camera but could not obtain decent images. The chamber was still 2 5/8" and bore .724.
SO off to Briley with instructions to hone the barrels to .729 and open the chokes slightly. Briley was able to completely remove
any trace of pitting by honing to .727 - that is
only .0015".Take home message for me (and I could still be confused)
1. Despite looking down lots of barrels, I'm not at all good at estimating depth of pits, and even with a bore camera.
2. Very little metal may need to be removed for a 'mirror' bore.
3. It is certainly possible that I've accomplished nothing but feeding into my OCD
and that the barrels will be easier to keep clean.
but clearly at .724 it was the original bore.