So what the deal with sleeved barrels, it’s a great way to bring a classic gun back to life. Modern loads can be used. What are the cons with a sleeved set that turns people away? I’ve got two British guns that have been sleeved both are virtually undetectable.
You are correct. The only issue is cost and re-sale value. If done correctly it is fantastic.
Agreed. If not...not
1891 GHE Parker 10g sleeved to 12g and "restored"
Lindner 20b
Once a Parker prior to Bubba's sleeving and welding service
So what’s your point, these were obviously modified, do you have any prior information on these examples? I’m only seeing three examples, there are literally thousands of sleeved guns. This would be equivalent to saying no one should ever shoot Damascus barreled guns, followed by three examples of blown barrels!
Not trying to be obtuse. I was agreeing with Mike. Expertly done is fantastic.
c. 1890 William Cashmore, Birmingham 12b sleeved to 16b courtesy of Heritage Guns UK
Inexpertly done is not; by Lefever Arms Company (Frank Lefever and Son) in 1980 much to the distress of the owner
And in this country there have been attempts to deceive; a damascus DH sleeved, blued and re-marked "Titanic"
Got the point? There are more examples here
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20580224
Sorry Drew, I think I took your post the wrong way and should have been more specific in my initial query, as your “got the point” isn’t related to what I asked, but that is my fault for being open ended. Those examples are poorly done, I wouldn’t consider that kind of job, so I can see where there would be a con in finding sleeved barrels if those were the ones you might be considering.
Historically, sleeving after being 'invented' in the 50's was used by certain gun manufacturers as a way of keeping men working when there were few new gun orders. Some of these sleeving jobs were really badly done: barrel sets with the handling of scaffolding tubes, very visible joints et al. Of course there was some very good work as well but these jobs were lost in 'noise' of the poor work and the value of sleeved guns tumbled, partly due to the influence of the major gunmakers who did everything they could to denigrate the process, having lost a large amount of work in rebarrelling.
In the 90's Bob Ladbrook started working on TIG jointing the barrel tubes into the breech block and suddenly one had a potentially invisible joint and a much better looking job. There was much wringing of hands over concerns about brittle fractures but with judicious normalisation of the barrel set after welding and before striking up, these fear were proven misplaced.
When TIG 're-sleeving' barrel sets to lose the joint, I found that in poorly done sleeving, knurling of the new tube to improve the fit in the breech block (rather than hand finishing it for a perfect press fit) was commonplace and this can make re-using the old sleeving tubes impossible for a good fit.
The old complaint that sleeving 'destroys the balance' is patently untrue if the new barrels are profiled and thicknessed correctly. However, as the original barrel set got lighter through lapping or striking off, the gun will likely have been re-balanced and this must now be done again to restore the original balance to the complete gun by adding weight to the stock etc.
Having said all this, the market still considers a sleeved gun to be considerably less valuable than even one with thin and dangerous original barrels. I sort of understand were the collector mentality comes from but for practical use, a sleeved gun CAN BE every bit as good as the original gun. A lot of the guns I sell are sleeved and I have yet to have anybody complain about their usability.
And a very happy Christmas to you all.
(And my wife is wondering what the hell I am doing on Christmas morning at the breakfast table, ho, ho, ho!)
Toby thank you and Merry Christmas!
Maybe 'Special Ted will rain in with his X'spurt'tease....
Only sleeved gun I owned was a Purdey hammer gun...reproofed and almost invisible job.
For a 100 yr old shooter I'd soon have a sleeved gun.
My two "sleevers" are a Reilly and an Elsie Specialty with 32" barrels done for me by one of our members here a few years ago. Both are very well done and undetectable to my eye. I agree a couple of the bad ones shown above are awful!...Geo
Maybe 'Special Ted will rain in with his X'spurt'tease....
Only sleeved gun I owned was a Purdey hammer gun...reproofed and almost invisible job.
For a 100 yr old shooter I'd soon have a sleeved gun.
HAHAHA!
You couldn’t wait to ditch it after you showed up, here, and someone clued you in to what the brutal “sleeved” stamp beaten into the barrels meant.
Best,
Ted
Since sleeving offers more opportunity to be “wrong” than “correct” I won’t buy a sleeved gun. I do have a Harkom 16 that is rebarreled.
You are not alone.
Best,
Ted
I have a Parker DH that was sleeved by Wesley Richards and is so-marked.
The job is visible, for no other reason than the original chamber section is damascus while the tubes are fluid. Each took the reblacking a bit differently.
I really like the resulting balance of the gun and the opened chokes IC/M, and that I can run most ammo through the pipes worry free. I do avoid the highest recoil loads to protect the stock though.
Do any of you have an opinion on WR's sleeving work?
Maybe 'Special Ted will rain in with his X'spurt'tease....
Only sleeved gun I owned was a Purdey hammer gun...reproofed and almost invisible job.
For a 100 yr old shooter I'd soon have a sleeved gun.
HAHAHA!
You couldn’t wait to ditch it after you showed up, here, and someone clued you in to what the brutal “sleeved” stamp beaten into the barrels meant.
Best,
Ted
Special Ted...you are the biggest idiot I've ever ran into. I knew exactly what I bought before I bought it.
You are the one that looked at the picture of the chambers with gauge mates in and went berserk.
Just like in your head you just know I use my Wilburt vise to do scrimshaw in because I showed a picture of something I was checkering in it.
Special Ted...did the cOOn Rapids trade skool mascot scratch you in the eyes ?
Are not all mono-blocked shotguns essentially sleeved? Seems that they are very reliable if so. If that's correct I would think properly done work on an existing gun would be also.
Since sleeving offers more opportunity to be “wrong” than “correct” I won’t buy a sleeved gun. I do have a Harkom 16 that is rebarreled.
There are plenty of examples of botched gun work out there aside from bad sleeving jobs. The sleeving jobs that are done well are nearly undetectable, and they do not appear to be unsafe to shoot. Most of the gun blow-up threads we see here do not involve sleeved guns. Guns that are stamped "Sleeved" are marked that way after they have passed Proof in Great Britain. The process is not cheap. They will never be worth as much as an original un-sleeved gun in otherwise equal condition. But they present an opportunity to salvage an unsafe and otherwise unshootable gun.
As with all gun work, you have to find a competent Gunsmith with a good reputation, and you have to decide whether the final cost can be justified by either the actual or sentimental value of the finished product.
'Are not all mono-blocked shotguns essentially sleeved? Seems that they are very reliable if so. If that's correct I would think properly done work on an existing gun would be also.'
Yes the process is similar.
However the major difference is that the breech block on a modern O/U or S/S with 'sleeved in' tubes is usually a single block of metal which incorporates lumps, ejector/extractor tunnels, any top extension and of course the breech stubs into which the tubes are sleeved.
Also some modern 'sleeved in' barrel sets use a tube that only goes so far as a shoulder machined into the breech block rather than all the way to the rim recess/breech face, the logic being (as I understand it) that having the joint within the chamber, it is less visible (!?).
Thanks Toby B. And Doc Drew.
I think the Beretta failures had to do with using an epoxy vs. Solder/welding to fix the barrels IIRC. At any rate don't hear of or see too many flying to pieces.
Although not called "Mono-block" at the time as I recall Henri Pieper first patented the process of using a solid steel breech piece with tubes inserted. His patent referenced barrels inserted from the breech & there was a step down at the end of the breech piece, which is often referred to as "Fretted Barrels". Most, if not all, of these Pieper guns, were marked, Diana. I seem to recall that some of the French Robust guns used this system.
I have a Pieper hemmer gun which has the tubes inserted from the front, without a step. On these barrels the tubes go about halfway through the chamber & re both threaded & soldered. The breech piece is steel & consists of the hinge hook, double underbites & a doll's head, all one piece. The tubes are twist. The seam is visible & is in fact marked, which has never bothered me in the slightest.
The Pieper system was patented in the US on Aug 23, 1881, under ptent #246195 so this system is anything but new. I do not know for certain but highly suspect that Beretta coined the term "Mono-Block"
I had a Pieper that was done like that, telltale was the presence of rings around the chambers, inside and out.
I failed to mention, my gun with the non-stepped barrels was marked, Modified Dianna.
Thanks for that image Rob, which I added here
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/24563589Send me a PM with your name if you'd like an attribution
The original Diana tubes were inserted into the tapered hole through the breech piece from the rear & are full length
1882 Forest & Stream
Sears 1907 catalog Modified Diana "the barrels are screwed into the breech" from the front
Steel breech with "Washington" tubes
Any drawbacks to sleeving Damascus vs steel?
My Parker DH #3 frame 12 gauge, sleeved with ten gauge 3 1/2" tubes by Frank Lefever and Son, probably in the sixties, is nearly invisibly sleeved, with rib inscription changed to "Lefever Steel" in a very well done Parker type script. Yup, there are good and bad sleeving jobs. I must have one of the best.