|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
3 members (3 invisible),
609
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,493
Posts562,053
Members14,585
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
Just been asked to take a look at this thread and comment.
Measure the walls allover their surfaces. Check for thickness and even distribution of metal. a gradually tapering thin spot of 16 thou well down the length will in all likelihood be fine for normal use, as long as no further problems occur, like dents.
Other posters are correct. There is no proof requirement for a barrel wall thickness. If it is in-proof, it is in proof. This is down to the bore measurement 9" from the breech being within 10 thou of the last proof test and stamp (8 thou if it is metric).
How did a dealer sell it to him? Well, it is in proof and he showed it to him and he bought it. Buyer bbeware if all else is legal. Buying an old gun is like buying an old car - do your homework.
The thin barels will make it less valuable and harder to sell. Sleeving will not be economical. It sounds like you have a first model Royal from the mid 1880s - 1890 period.
Teague liningh will cost £1500 - also not likely to be recovered in asubsequent sale. Sell it as it is if you are tired of it and find abuyer who understands and accepts its limitations. Unfortunately, this will be reflected in the price they will pay.
Hopefully it was reflectyed in the price you paid
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 37
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 37 |
Hugh Lomas,
thanks you for clarifying this relevant point, editors can be dangerous sometimes. Now, what would you say about wall thickness standards in smaller bores? Both at 9" from the breech and 5-9" from the muzzle.
EJ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
Will a gun pass English proof .016...9 inches from the breech ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
Small Bore are you avoiding answering the guestion ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 37
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 37 |
Small Bore,
Putting it a different way. Do you think that a shotgun with such a barrel thickness at 9" from the breech should be submitted for re-proof? I know of a gun that is 0.017 5-9" from the muzzle. You said that this should be not much of a problem,. Does make any sense to re-proof this shotgun too? We have here a Proof House that it is member of CIP.
EJ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
Without re-reading the whole thread - as far as I recal, nobody said it was 17 thou at 9" from the breech. Did they?
If it were the case, I would be unwilling to use the gun. As I said in my post, te thinnest part of the barrel will usually be what was always the thinnest part of the barrel.
The only reason to re-proof a gun is when it is technically out of proof.
Homelessjoe, you are missing the point. A gun either fails when it is proof tested or it does not. The Proof Master is not interested in the barrel thickness. A strong thin barrel at a 16 thou minimum may pass and aweak thich barrel with a minmum if 30 may fail. I have seen both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
Last year, I bought an old (1880's) damascus barrel H&H in London with fresh 2007 re-proof for 2 3/4" shells. Got it home, the novelty wore off, and I decided to sell it.
A potential buyer has it checked by a respected doublegun smith, who reports there is a spot at about 12" from breech where the wall thickness only measures .016". Yikes!
Sorry about that...he said .016 about 12" from the breech. Dig you're avoiding the "point"... I'm not concerned with if you would use the gun... I'm concerned with the fact that I don't believe an English Proof house would consider a gun with barrels walls that thin 12" from the breech for reproof. If they won't then that only leaves one answer....faked proof marks. What's the penalty in England....beheading ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,160 Likes: 3 |
There is an easy answer if the gun is in proof: sell it in the UK.
First, I would add my second to the thought that a re-measurement is in order. Those walls are not impossibly thin but I would also like to know if these are the original barrels. If so, phone H&H and find out the original dimensions...this may have been a light game gun I suppose.
Where on the barrel is the spot and how big is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
Homeless, I am not avoiding the point, you are just ignoring it when I make it.
If the gun passes view and is submitted for proof and passes proof then nobody at the Proof House cares what the wall thickness is. If it passed, it passed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,723 Likes: 126
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,723 Likes: 126 |
If the gun passes view and is submitted for proof and passes proof then nobody at the Proof House cares what the wall thickness is. If it passed, it passed. OK, then the question becomes: How can a barrel that is 0.16 at 12" from the breech pass view? If this one did, was it a mistake? I know it doesn't matter, but I don't think I'd shoot it...Geo
|
|
|
|
|
