Hallowell's Definition:

Sleeved bbls - An economical method of bringing new life to a damaged pair of barrels, regardless of their original method of jointing. The ribs are removed. The barrels are cut off 3" - 4" from the breech end and discarded. The bores of the remaining breech-end are reamed out oversize. New tubes are fitted down into the original breech section and filed down to fit flush. The original ribs are then replaced.

Sleeving is considerably less expensive than building a completely new set of barrels. Much of the time required to build a set of barrels is concentrated in the fitting of the breech end to the receiver; this work is salvaged through sleeving. Sleeving can be recognized by a pair of circumferential lines around the barrels a few inches from the breech; the more invisible, the finer the job. A sleeved gun should always be identified as such amongst the proof marks, and if done in England must be properly reproofed...

have sold quite a few sleeved guns over the past 30 plus years of hobby gun dealing...

yet to hear a complaint by an actual owner of a sleeved gun...

sleeving has been practiced primarily by the english gun trade for well over 50 years now...if it was not a reliable process, they would not do it...what sleeving does do, is add new life to unsafe guns, by providing them with new safe usable barrels...

care to post your experience with sleeved guns here?

experience only please...

If done correctly they are fantastic. Beats shooting a gun with thin walls.

It takes the value out but makes it usable some early sleeving is crap seamless sleeving looks great but it's still sleeved

While sleeving provides a less expensive solution to new barrels the marketplace has demonstrated a reluctance to accept sleeved guns without devaluation.

A sleeved gun will always have a lesser value and many will not consider buying one. I own three sleeved guns and use them happily, I prefer seamless or near invisible seams, but functionally they are no different than visible seams.

Done properly a sleeved gun is better than an unusable gun, done poorly the gun becomes trash. I find the market’s revulsion to sleeving curious given its same acceptance of Mono Block Guns from Italy that are so popular.

Regardless the lack of acceptance makes sleeving anything other than higher grade guns uneconomical. A sleeved field grade box lock will normally not bring the price of sleeving.

The mono block guns from Italy etc. Are new guns bright and shiny sleeved guns are considered by many to be worn out or abused and then new tubes put on a worn out gun I have nothing against sleeved guns I have sleeved a few but I think the above is the consensus.

A friend of mine and fellow sxs enthusiast was showing me his 28ga nitro special the other day. It was a twenty gauge that he'd bought from a hobby gun seller on the internet.

When he got it the 20ga barrels had been sleeved down to 28ga by a fitting which could only be described as plumbinglike. I know the Pieper french guns had a stepped barrel connection to the monoblock, but this looked just like something you'd see in the pipes under your house.

Anyhow my friend had just had a gunsmith smooth out the connection and engrave a design around the joint. 100% improvement...Geo

It’s important to remember that sleeving is performed when the gun’s original barrels are no longer safe to shoot. Therefore, the value of the gun before it is sleeved is next to nothing. It’s a wall hanger. The owner of such a gun has three choices: put it over the fireplace, rebarrel the gun or sleeve the gun. If it’s a nice gun in otherwise good shape, it is a shame to make it and wall hanger. However, the cost of rebarreling, unless it is a Purdey, Boss or Holland, would far exceed the gun’s value. Sleeving, however, can now be done well and economically. No doubt, there are poor sleeving jobs out there. Some are sadly comical. But if done well, sleeved guns look very nice, give the gun new life and bring the gun’s value from zero, with bad barrels, to something much greater. Overall, it can be a very good option. There are quite a few English guns that have been sleeved in England, on the market in the US. The generally represent a very good value for the American hunter and shooter.

Pieper figured out pretty quickly he needed to make that obvious seam go away. So he did. While the monobloc reduces cost by simplifying manufacturing, the gun buying public doesn't want to know about it. They just want to save the money.

Why would anyone fart around with a sleeved gun:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-f...un_id=101329636

60 seconds of internet searching turned up this. Superior to any sleeved gun rescued from the scrap iron pile.

Why not start with something NOT worn out? There are 20 pages of English double guns for sale on just GI. They are not rare.

If you guys are lucky, Miller will be along to school you on the difference between a monobloc gun and a sleever.

I got to run a dog.

Best,
Ted

Because functionally a properly accomplished sleeved gun can be an excellent shooter for the money. All other things being equal the sleeved gun will likely be much less.

The value amplified in part by the number of people prejudiced against owning one.

Further some guns are few and far between, like my pair of Celtic engraved 16ga Alex Martin SLEs. If I would not accept seamless sleeving I would perhaps never own, as in more than a decade of searching I have never seen another Celtic 16ga from Alex Martin.

I understand that aesthetically sleeving can really bother some. It did me on my first sleeved gun, a Thomas Turner best hammer gun, but I got used to it and seams does not bother me much now.

I further note that some sleeved guns were redone with 2 3/4 proofs making ammunition an easier proposition.

re sleeving seams...

over ten years ago, the one and only time i paid to have a gun sleeved, i was quoted three prices:

-invisible seams $2000
-seams masked with engraving 1500
-visible seams 1000

choose visible seams...lost money on resale anyway...never did that again...

did a search on gi for sleeved guns...

heres what i came up with:

https://www.gunsinternational.com/search...amp;the_order=6

interestingly prices do not seem to reflect big discounts for sleeved barrels...except for the gun that i am selling, of course...

The reason, of course, is that you are buying a gun with new barrels, which is fantastic. My 16 ga C&H has 28 in sleeved, fluid steel barrels, done exceptionally well in the UK, with only the faintest seem lines. It was also beautifully restocked at some point and rejoined by Hosford. The only original items are the side locks, chambers and rib. I essentially have a new gun, made in 1886. It’s a perfect British round-body field gun for a very reasonable price. This is why one buys a sleeved gun. For those who have an irrational dislike for sleeved guns, no worries. I will enjoy shooting and collecting them.

To be clear Ted, I wasn't equating monobloc with sleeved. They are different. I was only commenting on the distaste many gun buyers have for a visible seam, whether through sleeving or original monobloc barrel assemblies.

how are monoblocing and sleeving different?

Monoblocking is significantly stronger structurally

With monoblocing the base to which the barrels are sleeved is a solid piece and stronger than chopper lump barrels cut off and attached to. So with sleeved vintage guns the foundation while not as strong as monoblocking it is still robust and capable of handling the pressures of normal use and definitely pass proof.

I pointed out monoblocking in that it is similar to sleeving in terms of seams, which is the normal objection to sleeved vintage guns

yet, gun makers like beretta and darne make new guns with visible seams, masked by engraving...dont get what the big deal is about seams...

but then, i never got the big deal about case colors either...cept they can be purdy or ugly, depending on the eye of the beholder...

Ed,
I have nothing against sleeved bbls, though I prefer the invisible seam. Sometimes it can get you into higher grade/make of gun that you might not normally be able to afford. As for balance, it's impossible to tell how the gun felt with the original tubes, so if it swings good now,great stuff. Wall thickness will most likely be good, with perhaps longer chamber.
As for case color, you are correct,they can be either.. pretty or ugly,some of yours are both... pretty ugly.
franc

most everybody would prefer invisible sleeving seams i would think...

and, as i never have recolored a shotgun frame, i have no case coloring work to discuss, purdy or udder wise...

Ed,

I have a sleeved gun (steel barrels to Damascus) and it's a very good way to save an otherwise useless gun. You may want to read this article Sleeving.

Ken

excellent article...thank you...

it would be wonderful, if one day we could easily and affordabilily ship guns back and forth across the pond for rework and return...

I’ll give you the point about the forged, tool steel, monobloc being stronger than the remaining stub of a set of chopper lump barrels.

That said, what percentage of guns actually have chopper lump barrels? Maybe 5%?

Meaning, the very far larger percentage of guns were built with lesser methods of barrel construction. The stub can be brazed, soldered, silver soldered, welded, or, any combination of the above. All you guys bragging about your sleeved guns that passed proof 10-20 years ago haven’t been paying attention to the numbers of guns that are failing revised proof in Olde Blighty today. If you think your sleever would pass today, you might be in for a rude awakening. Sleeved guns are not accepted for reproof in France, because, French proof tends to tear them apart.

Don’t lament too much about your old gun not selling, ed. Most of the sleevers you linked to have been there for years, some for a decade.

It isn’t that hard to find a gun that hasn’t been sleeved. Barrels are the heart of a gun. Buy the best you can. That, is never a sleever.

Best,
Ted

Ted,

There aren't only sleeved guns failing reproof in the UK. There are issues with older guns failing reproof due to the new rules.

Ken

Wow Ted I take it you don’t like sleeved guns?

I didn’t say it was only sleeved guns.

Best,
Ted

I have a seamlessly sleeved Scott back action crystal window gun. The work was done in England and done well. No worries and I would buy another. I don't give a rat about resale value and I'm quite sure that it will give good service long after I'm gone.

I actually had a blown out 32" barrel on an Elsie Specialty sleeved by one of our own members here. The right barrel had a horrible blow out from what looked like an obstruction burst (can't find the before pic now), but the result is perfect to my eye..Geo



i found the "before" picture:

Beautiful LC Smith! What a shame it would be to have thrown it on the “scrap iron pile”. Ted, you know absolutely nothing about shotgun sleeving. Rather than continue to comment out of complete ignorance, read the linked article in The Vintage Gun Journal. The information is excellent. It provides a very good overview of the process and some good commentary on economics and market value. I’m not advocating for sleeved guns. I don’t much care if anyone buys one. I enjoy shooting mine and appreciate them as a good value. But I do hate seeing misinformation spread on a double gun board. I’d recommend reading the article, and others, and judging for yourself.

Nothing I have stated is untrue. The only misinformation is someone claiming they are as “good as new”. They are not.

You, have stated you like them because they are cheaper than the correct repair, or, a gun in better condition.

Continue as you were. If I were to own an English best, again, it sure as hell wouldn’t be a sleever. I read the article when it came out, noting that it was written by people who do sleeving. If you had comprehended what they wrote, you would see they made a strong case for it not being cost effective, most of the time.

You comprehend little of what you read.
Best,
Ted

“You comprehend little of what you read.“

I think this is a two way street, I am sure they weren’t literal when staying “good as new” even with the correct repair it still isn’t “good as new”. You are right about one part of the article but it is a very weak point you make, yeah it’s not always cost effective, especially on a gun worth 95 gbp. Regardless on how you personally feel sleeving is a very economical and practical repair, same can be said of stock repairs or splicing a stock. There are far greater examples of successes than failures for sleeving and just as the article says you have a choice pay for the quality of the repair! Using a cheap repair as an example of how all sleeving works isn’t fair! Here is an example of what the article was trying to convey. The first photo is was done by a well known maker and worth the price for the grade of the gun, the second is at a lower price point per grade of the gun. You can see the difference. Both are great jobs but one was taken a step further to make a seem less and smooth transition from breech to muzzle. The other you can see where the tubes were joined but the rest of the barrel weren’t struck.

The guy who wrote the article uses a Purdey as an example. He later writes that a gun of “lesser value” (Pretty much anything else) wouldn’t be worth the expense.

My argument is weak? So far, the only arguments you have is you own them, and they were cheap.

Tell me this. When the stub is sawed off the junk barrels to leave trousers to put barrels into, are the lumps, upper rib and lower rib removed, and the 100 year old solder, braze and whatever else inspected, cleaned, prepped, and put carefully back together, ready to accept the new tubes?

Why not? Frame your answer within the context of Kirk Merrington writing that “stripping and relaying of ribs should be considered maintenance on double barreled guns”.

Go ahead.

Best,
Ted

Frame your reply around this, “Who said they weren’t? How would you know? First off I never said anything about cheap, find it and quote me. If you are referring to sleeving a 95gbp Gun, then that would explain your confusion with that simple article. Look I’m not here to argue with you, it’s obvious you don’t like them…period. I’m not here to change your mind either! Just stating that sleeving is a very acceptable and reasonable way to get a damaged gun back into action. Read the article again you are missing details there is more than just Purdey in that article and read my first post a little more clearer; really not sure what you are yammin about in the first place. Go ahead!

I have two sleevers. The Elsie which I had done, and my first Brit-gun, an E.M. Reilly & Co I bought years ago from a for sale ad on here, with full disclosure that it was sleeved.

I know for a fact the Elsie was unusable before the sleeve, and I suspect the Reilly was as well. Both guns came cheaper than usable originals, but in both these cases the originals were not usable.

I'll acknowledge the hit in value, but I do not accept the premise that welldone sleevers are any less safe than original barrels. JMHO...Geo

Since the barrels are "Cut Off" ahead of the chamber it should be perfectly obvious that it is first necessary to remove the ribs. These are most often soft soldered on. The breeches are mast often brazed, including the underlug as well as the rear portion of the top rib if it has an upper bolt. These would be left intact. The sleeve joint itself does not weaken the chamber area. "IF" the old barrels had rust or pitting inside the ribs then it is highly conceivable the sleeved barrels are indeed stronger & they may well be made of a stronger alloy of steel than were the old ones.

I would of course never recommend sleeving a set unless the old barrels had been determined to be UN-SAFE. n that case it has been & still can be a very viable means of putting a fine old gun back into use. One simply has to weigh the cost against what can be obtained for the same money otherwise. Assuming a well-done job, safety is not truly the issue.

If it was done well (well struck-down to a proper weight & seamless), sleeving per se doesn't bother me. If it takes a neat old(er) gun that isn't useable, safe (or both) and makes it serviceable again, hooray! With that said, however, the rule of thumb at my previous employer was fairly simple, sleeved guns were priced at 30% below what a comparable gun (ie. same make & model w/original tubes) would be priced at. What bugged me then (10 plus years ago now) was the seemingly regular practice of sawing-off of lovely old Damascus-tubed guns to sleeve them for resale to an ignorant (& mostly American) public who wouldn't have anything to do with Damascus. Another practice was "lining" (instead of sleeving), which seems now to have gone out of favor for perceived liability issues (?).

Lloyd,

Lining had a few drawbacks as mentioned in this article Teague Lining. It is unfortunate this process wasn't the "silver bullet".

Ken

Stay tuned.....a new process is in the works currently and may be on the market by year's end if all goes well.

Any hints, Steve?

SRH

A top barrel guy in the UK is working out the final details on an improved lining process. He is working on over coming the issues the Teague process had mentioned in the article. As the former US representative for barrel lining I can tell you a big obstacle to overcome will be shipping guns over and back economically. The service will likely be far more cost effective for guns already in the UK.

Thanks, Steve.

SRH

So, you are of the belief that Mr. barrel guy dismantles the trousers after he cuts off the scrap barrels, and before he builds a sleever?
This is what you believe happens?

It doesn’t.

Interesting that a few people here don’t seem to understand that I have been in the shop of several rather good gunmakers on the continent, raised the subject with them, learned why they don’t do it, and have come to agree with those actual gunmakers on the subject.

I don’t have to go back too far to see you saying how “very economical” sleeving was. You say very economical, I say cheap. Same thing.

While this tread is going along, there is a thread running parallel to it, about what basically was an explosion in the chamber area of a 100 year old gun, that was not sleeved. The methods used to build barrel sets over that time are perishable, think braze, think solder, think 100 years of use and maybe some abuse. I don’t want the gun that is at the point that the original barrels are junk. I don’t want to pontificate over the different levels of sleeving quality. Using the example of the Purdey mentioned in the article, you would be better off NO MATTER WHAT, just finding a more lightly used example, and buying it. Just because we have guys who don’t care what their guns are worth in the future doesn’t mean everyone should subscribe to that notion. I don’t, by the way.

You feel free to use whatever you like.

Best,
Ted

So Ted, from your comments I must assume that only original, best quality guns meet your standards. No one could possibly do sleeving well enough to meet those high standards. Economics and value are of no consideration. Fellows with less expendable income should do without nice guns or shoot lesser guns rather than have an inferior "sleever". GMAFB!

Don't you own a shoot a Nitro Special? How does that stack up against my sleever?

How is the view from that high horse you're sitting upon?

Some guns that have thin barrels are not necessarily worn out from use but from being taken in at the end of the season and the barrels cleaned up reblacked.i have seen nice guns with really thin barrels good candidate for sleeving and I don't think there is anything unsafe about sleeving on a gun with a good chamber area

The view is just fine. The Nitro was in almost new condition when I got it, save some furry rust on the tubes. Mint bores with .036-.040 walls. The Nitro is in far better condition than your, or, anyone else’s, sleever. I need a gun for use in non-toxic shot areas.

It was never rode hard. And not worth enough for anyone to contemplate a repair that cost that much to accomplish. Looking at what is for sale, and what guns cost, I would say the very great majority of guns fall into that same category. Especially older English boxlocks.

I don’t care how the barrels got thin on any given gun. I don’t want a gun that is at the point that the original barrels are thin.

As previously stated, use what you like. As I have already pointed out, there are places where sleeved guns are not accepted for reproof.

Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks..

Best,
Ted

This is like arguing with a wall, gents. Happy shooting!

I once mentioned to Kirby Hoyt of Vintage Doubles that I have no interest in any sleeved guns. He told me I need to change my attitude about sleeved guns. He apparently thinks they are fine but he also sells a lot of them. I think sleeving is a good and economical way to save the stock and locks of what would otherwise be junk with unsound barrels. However, I’d want to look a sleeved gun over carefully, and for that matter one with replacement barrels before jumping in, making sure they aren’t super tired old guns.

You plan on replacing your good guns for sleevers, Buzz?

I don’t. Suggest you re-think that.

Best,
Ted

Nope. Likely, we are on the same page.

This, like other posts about sleeving, tends to show that monobloc is the best barrel construction method to date.

Replacing tubes in a monobloc gun returns it to new condition. Can't say that about sleeving no matter how well it was carried out.

And no, sleeving is not the same thing. A monobloc breech is designed from the start to receive tubes so that the mating surfaces at the tube step are of equal thickness all the way round. Think about this detail regarding sleeving.

At least once Pieper had gone from the stepped barrel to one gently tapering down from the seam, the Pieper monoblock or Stahlkammerstück seems to have been highly regarded in pre-WWI Germany. Several old catalogues show lesser guns with imitation monoblocks with e.g. blackened chambers and lumps and engraved ring ahead of the chamber area.

Markus

Gough Thomas, gun editor of the British Shooting Times and author of several books on shotguns, regarded the stepped monobloc an aesthetic plus. He drew parallels between the stepped bloc and ancient columns.

What constitutes ‘best’ method? Monobloc is the easiest method of barrel construction, but I’m not sure I’d say the best method. I’d vote for chopper lump or demi bloc as best.

Careful, dude. Pretty soon they will start calling you a wall, or some other nonsense.

Buzz, the monoblock is one, solid piece of steel, through to where the barrels begin. No voids, no place for corrosion to begin between the tubes or lumps, and nothing to join together. Chamber area fully supported.

See the burst chamber thread? Wasn't a monoblock gun, was it?



Best,
Ted

Ted, you've made it clear you don't think sleeving is an acceptable method of renovating a barrel damaged double. Do you take that position from a safety concern or the aesthetic?

Probably a mixture of the two, but assume a well done sleeve by an expert gunsmith and a perfectly good receiver whether monoblock or some other accepted joining method. What is the safety concern?...Geo

Best is a weird term.

I’m not sure I’d call a monobloc best work. The skill to knit two chopperlump barrels together seems more best to me. But, my money would still be on a monoblock gun passing the old French triple proof level of 27,000 psi. Because, it was mostly monobloc guns that did. When Kennett pointed out it was “a rare piece of steel that had those 4 crossed sheaths of wheat stamped into it”, he wasn’t kidding. It is easier to put a monobloc set of barrels right if something bad happens to a tube, but, the world hasn’t needed a whole lot of that skill, to date. Nobody specializes in it, that I am aware of. The Bruchets did one, here and there.

Geo, it is both. I’ve never seen an invisible sleeve. I’ve seen messed up handling, two tone blue, Damascus sleeved to steel, and pictures of all of the above.
To me, finding a better example seems like a much better option. I can hardly believe all the guys piping up about how much cheaper it is to buy a sleever than an example in good condition. “Why, finding an example of this with good barrels is almost impossible, and look how economical it was with the sleeved barrels”!

Yea, maybe.

Whatever.

Best,
Ted

John Foster did truly invisible sleeving. I have imported guns he sleeved and the work was superb.

For me it comes down to price point for what is being bought or sold. I buy a few sleevers and I sell a few. Never for big money but if I can put a guy in a nice British sleeved boxlock for under 1K we both usually walk away happy. No I am not trading in my H&H for a sleeved version of the same gun.

The E.C. Green you have at $1250, vs a $1000 sleever pretty much makes my point.
I don’t have anything I’d trade for a sleeved gun, either.

Best,
Ted

Hey I am not arguing your point but the market is what it is today. Now days people complain about the price of a gun like that Green.

It is a bargain. It has beautiful, long, in proof tubes, choked about CYL and FULL, and I wish I had room in my safe for it, and a use not covered by the dozen or so 12s already here. Double triggers and no ejectors give it an edge in reliability.

I believe it is superior to any sleeved boxlock off the Isle. Period.

Best,
Ted

Ok I will change the word "best" for the word safest as in most secure.

Chopper lumps require more skill at the execution stage, mostly in judging the temperature right, since the braze that holds the two barrels together runs at a temperature close to the critical temperature for steel, I recall it being somewhere around 650 centigrade. The mere thought that the barrels get red hot in the process worries me. Contrast that with the 200 or so centigrade that melt the solder in monobloc tubes.

Beretta SO series OUs use monobloc barrels, they are generally considered among the best sidelock OUs. Perazzis also use monobloc and they are among the most intensively used doubles ever made, being mostly target guns.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with sleeving, but monobloc, a similar process has been brought up. So, imho the reason Beretta and Perazzi do mono is because it’s much easier to make and therefore a whole lot cheaper to produce, works fine, but not best work and therefore lacks snob appeal. Why don’t Purdey, Boss, & Holland and Holland make monobloc BEST guns if it’s so much better? Browning Superposed have demibloc, and then Browning cheapened things up going to the easier to make and more economical (less expensive) Citori with monobloc construction. .....and Ted, I’ve seen photos of Perazzi guns blown up at the breech too. Usually, it’s attributed to an obstruction, but who actually knows for sure? Bottom line, mono is easier for gunmakers to make and that’s why it’s done, not because it’s better.

I’m inclined to agree with buzz here, primarily from the standpoint that it was invented by a guy who was interested in factory gun making. Higher volumes and lower costs for a given quality level always being the objective. He was successful with Pieper and his other company, for which he was the original managing director, is FN. Those companies and Henri Pieper’s success in making volumes of factory produced guns are testament to his inventiveness and vision.

Buzz. I think you are agreeing with me. I mentioned the word “Best” brings different meanings with this crowd.
Would a Best gun that was now sleeved still be a Best gun? According to the market, hell no.
My point, is that a monobloc gun was designed to have tubes inserted into a solid piece of steel. A sleever was put that way with a bunch of different parts that are held together with old braze, solder, weld, or, whatever. They pass proof, and they fail proof, too. It is pretty rare for a new monobloc gun to fail proof.
Canvasback is working on a photo for me of a monobloc barrel that passed pre 1924 triple French proof at 27,000 psi. I’ve seen a few of these barrels, the great majority of barrels that did that were of monobloc construction.
I’ll post the photo when it arrives, likely in a different post detailing proof markings and level of proof at St. Etienne.

Best,
Ted

I agree Ted. Besides, we are not arguing. We are only discussing the matter. All good....

Agreed. Unless I missed something, the sum total of reasons to own a sleever were, they are cheap, and other guys own them.

Guess I’m good.

Best,
Ted

Sleeving a best costs more than a finished pair of high quality Italian monobloc barrels. Arguably the monobloc barrels are a safer choice for such a project. Probably this avenue is avoided because of the visible solder line of the monobloc, in favor of planting new tubes in old breeches.

Why don't Purdey et al make monobloc barrels? Maybe the more valuable question would be why don't Bretta and Perazzi, whose guns see much more use in the hands of top shooters opt for chopper lump.

Bruce Owen, former production manager at Purdey wrote in Shooting Sportsman re the use of CNC machines in best gun production. The article corrects the notion that the manufacturing methods used today are the same as those of 1880. There is just as much CNC processing in a current London best as there is in any Beretta or Perazzi.

Shotgunlover: I shoot competition Perazzi shotguns for sporting clays, and I own more than one. So, you are piping to the piper. Perazzi guns are wonderful guns imho. But, Perazzi guns with their monobloc construction cost new $10,000-$12,000.00 whereas a Purdey or Boss with their chopperlump construction costs new $100,000-$120,000.00. Hard to compare apples and oranges....a Perazzi with choppers would be a $50,000 gun, I’m guessing. Fabbri is a better comparison than Perazzi or Beretta if we are talking Italian. I’m not sure, but I’m betting Fabbri O/U is demibloc rather than mono.

Buzz,

Re sleeving and monobloc. An engineer specialist in CAD and CNC applications told me that it takes less machine time to configure two chopper barrels than a single monobloc. I found that fascinating given the widespread use of CNC machines by all the top names today.

As to cost being a guide to quality:

In 1920 a London best cost about 100 guines, one fourth the annual salary of a Royal Navy Admiral. Today the same product, manufactured with much fewer expensive man hours due to CNC input, costs TWICE THE ANNUAL salary of a British admiral.

Something drove and kept the price to these levels and personally I do not think it is manufacturing costs.

Browning use demibloc in the B25, yet their prices start at about the same level as a Perazzi MX8 here in Europe, perhaps because they both chase the same client group.

Perazzi insist that they carry out destruction testing on one out of every 60 barrel sets they make.I wonder if any London best makers have an equally strict quality control procedure.

Salopian had some interesting comments from his visit to a top London factory not long ago. It provides a sharp contrast to my experiences in Italian factories, including Perazzi, where worker focus is the norm and no one talks on their cell phone during work.

During my many years, I have shot at least a few shells through guns having conventional, dovetail, Monoblock, & shoe-lump. I can't recall I've ever shot a chopper-lump. At least on muzzle-loader & one early breech loader were joined together with nothing but soft solder, the rest were brazed, except for the mono-blocks which used soft solder to secure the tubes in the block. "SO FAR" I have not had one to come apart, so all have proved adequate over some 100 + years.

Life is too short for one to use something they simply despise without having to have rhyme or reason. I would love to see some form of
"PROOF" though that a sleeved barrel is definitely weaker than an un-sleeved one. "IF an unsleeved barrel will handle a 20K PSI proof load, how many PSIs will a sleeved barrel handle?

Who proofs at 20K?

Best,
Ted

It is very doubtful, IMO.

SRH

I love Perazzi guns but I’m not so sure about their quality testing seeing as how the side ribs and top ribs come/pop loose on their guns which appears to be a fairly common thing. I’ve got an old one now where that is the case. I look at their guns as ‘high performance, high maintenance ‘. In terms of the English guns, how would you know they don’t quality test their guns? I’m guessing there is indeed some quality control in putting out guns that cost approximately $100,000.00 and have the reputation of being ‘the finest guns in the world’. Give me a break......

Reputation is not substitute for quality control.

Since 1985 I have been in a situation that involves handling and often dismantling good shotguns, among them many London bests, on a daily basis. There is also a lot of contact with the craftsmen that build them and repair them. Familiarity dispels magic.

I have seen popped ribs on all kinds of guns, which is why I detest ribs and admire Martin's Ribless doubles. By the way Martin Ribless were in fact built for Martin by the Brown brothers, and ironically their shotguns are more highly valued by collectors than Martin guns. Which kind of shows that price is not the best guide in judging quality!

IMO, all doubles with soft soldered ribs are subject to ribs loosening. Perazzis do so, I had one that did, and had it repaired. But, when you consider the usage that many Perazzis see, it is not surprising. Mine had been "rode hard" before it came to me. The real question is why they don't go to a stronger method of joining, like K guns and Blasers.

There used to be a video on YouTube that showed Perazzi destruction testing barrels. Last time I looked I couldn't find it.

SRH

I’ve read here -say that Perazzi is concerned barrel harmonics would be negatively impacted if they went to a more substantial rib soldering process. I don’t know if there is any truth to that statement??

A collector friend has several Perazzis (most of Trap configuration) and decided to get a game model. I convinced him to order one with no side ribs. The difference in handling and balance the absence of side ribs makes is amazing even though the total weight saving can't be more than 100 grams or so.

He feared that the absence of ribs would make the barrels ring like a bell when fired. That did not happen.

A barrel without ribs is only slightly more desirable than one with ported barrels. Ugly and just something to catch weeds in the field.

Yes, and we all know how high the weeds are on most trap ranges.

Some folks on this board can not read.....

I have always maitained that a gun with sleeved barrels is worth a lot more than a gun with scrap barrels .

Down to the individual as to whether they want one or not ,same as with all else .

You got me on that one Stevie. Although I have never used a double gun without ribs, I have carried muzzleloaders through all kinds of weeds and brush for many miles over many years. I very seldom get any weed's brush or debris stuck between the barrel and ramrod. It sounds like the difference in handling reported by Shotgunlover just might be worth the very occasional trouble of pulling out a stray weed. Ugly is a personal matter. I see a lot shotguns that I find unattractive. I don't buy them. I do kinda regret not buying a one year old 12 ga. Browning Citori with choke tubes, as new in box, for $900.00 last year. Not my cup of tea, but it would have been good trading stock.

SKB, I would rather catch weeds in ribless barrels that I can clean with my bare hands than corrosion in between the ribs that eats my barrels away, unseen and silent If the gap bothers aesthetically it can be hidden by two detachable carbon fiber strips weighing 20 grams.

The following is from a statement of one of the Brown gunmaking family regarding the Martin ribless:

"Other advantages claimed were: 1) A quarter pound of useless metal is removed. 2) Removing this weight from the barrels makes the gun lighter forward, giving the left arm less work, more control, and an easier swing. 3) The usual hollow space between the barrels in which corrosion can take place undetected is eliminated."

And since the primary subject is sleeving as a repair method, it might be worth thinking of going ribless when sleeving for the reasons mentioned above.

Not me. I'll keep my ribs thanks, same goes for my oil finish and rust blued barrels.

It is a paradox of sorts to see ultra modern CNC machines employed to cut steel within microns and then top it all with tin soldered rib work harking back to Roman times if not earlier.

But tastes are tastes, each his own.

I can recall reading about an over under where the barrels were machined from a single block. It seemed like a clunker. I think soldered ribs can lighten the barrels and help move the cg back between the hands. It might also come in handy to regulate a gun. If a cnced gun doesn’t shoot correctly, what’s the option, back bore the barrels and machine in eccentric choking?

No under rib:



Rib on top:



Not much room for corrosion. Light, too.




Best,
Ted

I'd have to reserve my comments about ribless guns until I actually shot one several outings to compare it to ribbed guns. Looks, and catching weeds or not, have nothing to do with how well you shoot it. If you can shoot one just as well as a ribless gun, great. I surmise that I likely could not. BICBW. And, lighter weight barrels are not necessarily a plus.

SRH

I owned a ribless Martin, Stan. I never synced with it. Mine was in fairly worn condition, but, it had good bores, was in proof, and, not sleeved.

I just didn’t shoot it well, and I don’t believe it was because it was light, or because it didn’t have a rib.

Best,
Ted

I hear you. Sometimes I cannot identify why I don't shoot a particular gun well, I just can't. For example, at one time I owned two MX8s. Both had 31 1/2" barrels of the same weight. I could not shoot the one with choke tubes as well as the fixed choke gun. I tried for years, even to the point of swapping the buttstock from the fixed choke gun to the other. Sight picture the same, no discernible difference, but no dice. Finally saw the handwriting on the wall and sold it.

I just don't keep guns hanging around, taking up space, that I cannot shoot well.

SRH

I have one that I have never shot well at any clay games. But, I can’t seem to miss a grouse with it.
Years ago, I would take it to the club to “get a little practice in” before the season. I just don’t do it anymore. Take it bird hunting, I’ll get my share.
I have no explanation.

Best,
Ted

Such a beautiful exchange I felt like I wuz right in the middle of histOry.

The Stupid Black Eagle back in the shop?


Best,
Ted

Good attempt at not answering, but not good enough. 20K was just a nice round figure, make that ANY pressure you like, suit yourself.

The actual question was, if you sleeve the original chamber, what will be the difference in how much pressure it will hold. For that matter how much difference will there be in the amount of pressure required to Bulge a chamber assuming one of chopper lump & the other of mono-block construction, both having equal wall thicknesses.

It appears to me you are trying to condemn sleeving on a safety factor, If this is correct I would like to see factual figures which bear this pout.

He’s not, it’s his personal preference nothing more nothing less.

20K may be a nice round number, but it ignores the reality of proof pressures. Standard English proof is 850 BAR, or, roughly, 12,328PSI. Note that there are a substantial number of old English guns, sleeved and otherwise, that are failing proof at this level. This has been going on since the proof house revised and updated their work to be totally in compliance with the most recent Brussels Convention.

There is a higher level of proof available, 1100BAR, but, I’m not sure how often it is specified and if people regularly subject older double guns to it. This is roughly equivalent to 15954PSI.

The only safety connection I have tried to raise is that sleeved barrels are rejected for reproof in France. France never found itself outside the rules from the Brussels Convention, and, standard proof, about all that is left today, is 1250BAR. That is around 18,000psi. As to whether this is a concern or not is likely up to the user of a sleeved gun.
As noted, I am not that guy. But, I based that decision on what I have seen, and, there was a lot more bad sleeving then good when I was looking at English guns of a certain age. I don’t do that anymore. The English thing is completely behind me, for reasons other than sleeving, by the way.

I have never been tempted by a sleeved gun.

Do you honestly believe that we can compare a monoblock and a set of chopperlump trousers, without regard to age or identity of steel, or identity of method used to construct the trousers, and come to a meaningful comparison of anything, based just on the comparison of the dimensions of each?

I have my doubts. You, can believe anything you want.

Do, however, indulge me, if you would. Is there a reason, in your opinion, to seek out a sleeved gun of any make, that goes beyond it being cheap, or, other guys own them?

Because, I haven’t seen a reason that goes beyond those two.

Best,
Ted

Informative post. Thanks.

For me a unique or rare gun. Sometimes price isn’t a motivator, sometimes it is, but I do have faith in sleeving and feel it is an acceptable means of repair, as you stated when it’s done correctly.

I`ve owned and used many sleeved guns throughout my shooting career,from cheap trade jobs on low end guns to better work on what had been `best` guns when made.Never had one issue with any of them and many were guns that would have been scrapped if not for sleeving!!! It may carry a stigma but overall I feel it is a benefit to those interested in keeping guns working,although it is being carried out much less nowadays as the value of s/sides has and is diminishing.

Buzz you can feel the hate in each strOke of his key board...

sorta like listenin to ah dim impeachment manager...aka inquisitor...

Short on facts, just like always.


Best,
Ted

I'm not one of the experts here so I won't argue the sleeving issue. I do know value is reduced, and I know I don't fear shooting sleeved barrels.

That said, the only way I'll ever own an H&H or Purdey is to find a sleever I can afford. Anybody has one for sale, feel free to share the details with me...Geo

P.S.: I did own a Boss gun once that I considered sleeving, but the cognoscenti here convinced me it would make a better tomato stake.

well ted, much of watt you post here is "short on facts"...

geo, dont waste your money on ah inflated limey gon...

dollar fur dollar, cant beat one of the top four american made gons...

fox, ithaca, lc smith, or ah parker if your ego needs one...

tin whay youse peddlin dah Brit gon......

ra, duh key word is "inflated"...lots o nice english made gons out dare fur deflated prices...

Do you, in some sick way, enjoy torturing the readers here with your constant butchering of the English language? I am trying to figure out why you persist in this asinine practice, but I honestly cannot. No one, with any reasoning ability at all, would think that anybody here enjoys your childish grammar. So ............ why? Can you even explain it yourself?

SRH

My only reason to consider sleeving is sentimental. I was close to my father in law and he left me two family heirloom guns, a nice Savage model 99 300 savage that he bought in 1952, and his grandfather’s Parker GH 12 ga that by serial number is the earliest year Parker did hammerless. Both guns had been wrapped in canvas and stored in Rusty’s Santa Cruz California crawlspace for 30-40 years as Rusty’s wife didn’t like guns in the house. The Parker was in such bad shape that the stock was totally grayed out, I couldn’t see any grain at all.

My neighbor for 20 years until he passed was Larry Baer (sp?), a pretty good expert on Parker guns. The Damascus barrel were very pitted, funny in that Rusty was shooting ducks and pheasants with it thru the 60s into the 70s, using store bought high base loads without a thought. Anyway, I refinished the stock myself, the walnut was spectacular for a G grade gun. Larry re-engraved and color case hardened the receiver, but as yet I haven’t done a thing to the barrels.

I don’t care about collector value as the gun was so shot to begin with and I plan on giving it to Rusty’s grandson to keep it in the family. It would be nice to make it shootable again, hence my interest in sleeving.

I would think a set of sub gauge, full length tubes would make a lot more sense for your FILs Parker. You would end up using factory 20 gauge ammunition in it.
Contact Briley’s.

What became of the model 99? Very useful gun and cartridge.

Best,
Ted

Thanks, that was my first thought, but for some reason this gun weighs a ton already, almost nine pounds. The barrels are marked 4-4, four pounds four oz, and it’s a #2 frame, regardless it feels super heavy as is.

The 99 was in much better condition and I shoot a deer with it every few years or so in honor of Rusty. It’s the old model with the bronze rotary magazine and Rusty had installed a Lyman peep sight which works perfect.

new black powder shells are available from a few sources...and at nine pounds, low pressure rst loads could be considered...

If you don’t care about originality, how about a different set of Parker barrels, either steel, or, Damascus?

I guess I wouldn’t be a a hurry to throw a bunch of money at it. Anything can be brought back to life, but, that doesn’t mean everything should be.

Best,
Ted

That’s basically the same conclusion I arrived at. Even with working barrels it is way too heavy and the stock, though beautiful, has way too much drop. It’s just been a pretty wall hanger since I got it 25 years ago.

Lots of knowledgable people on this forum. Let’s see some pictures of sleeved blown barrels.

Don’t give up, Ted is right another set of barrels can be found rather cheaply.

Ghostrider: Please see https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=561090&page=1

another image of the Parker



Unfortunately I have no details, but it sure looks like a thin lateral barrel wall blow-out.
As said on the other thread, expertly done sleeving is great; inexpertly is not - aesthetically or regarding safety.

Aaron Little was sleeving, but I believe he posted here that he was no longer offering the service? Possibly he could comment
https://www.facebook.com/amlittlebespokegunmaker/

Yes, Aaron Little did an Elsie Specialty 32" barrel for me that had blown out. He did a terrific job for a reasonable price. Like Drew said though, I think he has stopped offering the service and gone into straight commission gun building...Geo

Aaron also did a gun for me. Looks perfect with no seam visible.
Thank you Drew I figured if anyone had some pictures you might. I appreciate the picture.
Wish we had more information. On this set it seems that that barrel separation does end at the seam. The question that begs to be answered is did the barrel fail due to the sleeving work that was performed or due to some other reason such as a thin barrel?
I find it difficult to believe that with the strict proofing laws in the UK that this would be an allowed procedure and that the barrels could be approved for proofing if there was not an absolute certainty that they were safe.
I am looking forward to seeing how many pictures we have posted of damaged sleeved barrels.

Just a reminder

Great Britain adopted the 1969 Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives standards March 1, 1980 but continued using Lead Crushers to measure pressure until 1989.
The CIP transducer “Maximal Statistical Individual Pressure” is 850 BAR = 12,328 PSI for a “Maximal Average (Service) Pressure” of 740 BAR = 10,733 PSI, and “Mean Proof Pressure” of 930 BAR = 13,924 PSI.
900 BAR is for a “Maximal Average (Service) Pressure” of 780 BAR = 11,313 PSI and Proof pressure of 1020 BAR = 14,794 PSI.
High Performance (Magnum) MSIP is 1200 BAR = 17,405 PSI for a Service Pressure of 1050 BAR = 15,229 PSI, and Mean Proof Pressure of 1320 BAR = 19,145 PSI.

In 2006 the British Rules of Proof were modified
http://www.gunproof.com/Proof_Memoranda/RULESOFP.PDF
Part IV, “The Proof Load”, Number 27, Part A
The standards call for a load of 30% over mean service pressure at a point 17mm or 25mm (about 1”), and at a point 162mm (6.38”) from the breech face a load of 30% over mean service pressure (at that point as determined by the Proof House).

It is possible that the pressure at the location of the seam is higher than with the former proof load?

To my knowledge the Proof House uses a single proof load to generate those pressures, and has not revealed the powder (or combination of powders) used in the proof load.

That’s basically the same conclusion I arrived at. Even with working barrels it is way too heavy and the stock, though beautiful, has way too much drop. It’s just been a pretty wall hanger since I got it 25 years ago. [/quote]

Don’t give up, Ted is right another set of barrels can be found rather cheaply. [/quote]

Maybe a stupid question, but how interchangeable are Parker barrels off same size frames of the same gauge?

You will need a good gunsmith to fit them. But, it has been done lots of times prior to you.
I get the family linkage thing, but, again, you have already pointed out the guns shortcomings, which have to do more with the age and condition of the gun than anything else.

Wallhangers have their place.

Best,
Ted

Really, ed? So, what part of that tired old English sleever that you wanted top buck for was I wrong about? The blue was perfect? How ‘bout the checkering? Like new? Stock finish was the bomb?
You have no concept what a swamped rib is, either, ed, and there is absolutely no connection between that roach gun you posted, and France, much as you’d like to differ.

Your fishing expedition started at $2100. Those days are over, ed. I bet the price I threw out is really, really, close when the check comes in the mail.

Good luck finding a mark.


Best,
Ted

I’m seventy, I realize I’ll never recoup a dollar of money spent on this gun, but that doesn’t matter to me. If I can pass this heirloom down to a family member who will occasionally shoot it and maybe pass it on to his kid, that’s a win to me.

Well, that isn’t all bad. Good luck with the project.

Best,
Ted

Ted; have never owned a sleeved gun & at this point in my life, it is extremely unlikely I ever will. I just feel like you are talking emotions & personal likes & dislikes rather than actual facts. Certainly, the steel, as well as dimensions, have to be considered. "IF" the barrel is a very early one barreled with low carbon steel & the sleeve is made of a higher alloy with greater strength then the barrel could indeed gain in strength over the original. If the French refuse to proof a sleeved barrel, that's their problem, not mine. As to the British guns failing proof, my understanding is this applies equally to all older British game guns, not just sleeved ones. The problem is I believe they are being subjected to a higher level of proof than they were ever intended to carry.

ted, much of what you post here, in this thread, is short on facts...and has little to do with the topic, which is sleeved barrels...

Miller,
I have pointed out at least twice that it is not only sleeved guns that are failing English proof. I’d just as soon find a gun that doesn’t have a reason to go through the proof process, again,wouldn’t you?
I find it curious that you don’t concern yourself with the proof laws of a country that never found itself outside of the Brussels Convention. Did you ever consider that perhaps there was a good reason or two that sleeved guns don’t get past the view phase of a proof inspection in France?
Pretty much my point is if you are in the market for a double gun, figure out where you are on the food chain of guns, and buy the best example you possibly can.
I believe you can always do better than a sleeved example. An example of an in original condition and proof gun will be the better buy, even if it costs more.

Best,
Ted

Some of the best advice you will find regarding gun shopping, sleeved guns or otherwise. Well put Ted.