doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: Drew Hause An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/27/21 11:03 PM
We've had lots of threads regarding sleeving. Pete Mikalajunas, Raimey and Toby Barclay have provided much of the information.
Unfortunately some of the images and links have been lost to time and the photobucket fiasco.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=224372
Toby's very helpful images here are gone
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=177741

Here is one I saved

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

Toby states here that sleeving started in the 50s, but I have not found by whom, nor who first used the term "sleeving" in reference to shotgun barrels
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=561115

Another helpful thread
https://www.sportingshooter.co.uk/f...-demibloc-and-monobloc-barrels-1-4766158

The process appears to have originated with Henri Pieper's "Diana Breech" patent of August 23, 1881

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

The tubes were inserted from the REAR of the breech; Forest & Stream 1882

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

Leaving a significant step from the breech to the barrels

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
The "Modified Diana" is buried in Pieper's Gun Lock Patent of Dec. 20, 1892 No. 488,366
https://patents.google.com/patent/US488366A/en

" I adopt the following method of securing (the barrels). I form the cartridge chambers for breech loading in the solid steel block, into the front end of which the barrels are screwed so that their bores coincide with their respective chambers" and are brazed or soldered.

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

Leaving no step; steel breech and "Washington" tubes

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

The 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

1897 Sears

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
An unfortunately undated Beretta catalog page showing step and non-step techniques

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

A 1922 Beretta Brevetto

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

Modern Beretta O/U in which the tubes have separated from the monobloc

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

Most Italian makers use the technique. The 2013 Benelli Patent US20130174462 A1 slides the smaller tube from the breech into the barrels

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
This is Researcher's J. Stevens Arms & Tool Catalog No. 52 c. 1906 showing the "Demibloc"

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

I assume this is the same technique used on the later N.R. Davis and Crescent-Davis guns?

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
So the question is who modified the Pieper technique specifically for replacing barrels using the original breech section?

I couldn't find an online copy of the 1954 Rules of Proof but possibly someone could see if the sleeving rules are contained therein?

And a sleeve job that was apparently inexpertly performed; 1891 10g GHE sleeved to 12g and restored...for awhile wink

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]
Posted By: SKB Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/27/21 11:28 PM
There was quite a good thread sometime back in the DIY forum that several very knowledgeable forum members posted on detailing the methods they used for the process. I believe Gunman, Gunmaker and Dennis Potter all posted in that thread.

I do rembering reading who first developed the technique for the British trade but whe the man was and where I read it I cannot recall.
Ooopsiie=bye bye 10 bore Parker- bye bye
Posted By: mc Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/28/21 12:04 AM
I think 12 bore at the time of the unpleasantries
A good friend sleeved a good number of Parkers in the early 50's. His name was Bob Perscha and he is long gone. I believe that the Le fever brothers in NY did very good work at that time.

Bill
Posted By: KDGJ Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/28/21 12:43 AM
In this thread Sleeving, Salopian said the inventor was "The very reason sleeving came into existance at all was because people didn't want to pay a lot. I was fortunate to know Mr. Christian Ashthorpe who is believed to be the inventor of sleeving, who sleeved a Mr. Herbert Sandals Purdey in 1948/49 for �15 which was about two weeks wages then. Interestingly enough Purdey moved hell and high water to stop barrels from being sleeved, but eventually they got Christian to sleeve guns for them."

Ken
Let us begin, here. A mono block is not sleeved, and a sleever is not a mono block.

Best,
Ted
I would agree with Ted that a distinction should be drawn between the monobloc or similar systems as a method of new construction and sleeving as a method of replacing worn out or defective tubes.

In the case of the latter, the method was certainly pioneered, if not invented, by Christopher Ashthorpe the engineer and gunsmith of Seven Stoke in Worcestershire in or about the 1950’s.

He had to overcome considerable reluctance on the part of the Proof house, which finally agreed to proof re-sleeved guns. The Proof house at first insisted on the word “SLEEVED” being stamped on the outside of the breech ends rather than (as now ) on the flats.

This led to Westley Richards, when they started sleeving, making a virtue out of necessity by emblazoning “Westley Richards” boldly on the sides of the barrels above the “SLEEVED” mark to demonstrate their confidence in the process.

I understand that Mr. Ashthorpe did not regard his idea as Patentable, being aware of the earlier monobloc designs.

There was also a long standing practice in this country, at least since World War One , of restoring rifle barrels by Parkerifling them.


Going back to monobloc designs, some early nitro double rifles, by Fraser amongst others, had very thick and somewhat bulbous breech ends. Does anyone know if they were built using a form of monobloc or two piece construction?
As good as Westley Richards work has come to be known, their early sleeving was really ugly. Some of those joints looked like you could put your finger nail in them.
Posted By: ed good Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/28/21 03:33 PM
sleeving with invisible seams requires much more workman time and skill, which results in higher cost per job...

interesting thread...
I agree with Daryl. A friend has a WR sleeved DHE Parker that is unattractive to say the least!
Posted By: lagopus Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/28/21 05:01 PM
Drew, earliest Proof book mentioning it that I have is dated 1960 and referred to the notes being an up-date from the 1956 book. In it it mentions that the process was brought to the attention of the Birmingham Proof House in 1955. doing a bit more digging in my library I find the following excerpt from the minutes book for 1955. 'During February the Guardians became aware of the first two cases of re-sleeving of Shotgun barrels being undertaken by a London company. The process involved cutting off the old re-useable chambers of a shotgun, making two new tubes and sleeving these into the old chamber section using solder. The Guardians initial reaction was to tell the Proof Master to refuse to prove them and in the interim they decided to get a specimen and subject it to a 20,000 standard service cartridge test. in March the London Proof House agreed with their actions. Shortly afterwards they were advised by Messrs Charles Hellis that this had been common practice in France Belgium and Italy for years. In July the London Court reversed their former decision but Birmingham continued to apply their ban until the test results were known. Finally in January 1956 they agreed to rescind their decision following advice from the Law Clerk, who that their actions were in contravention of the Proof Act.' The excerpt was taken from 'A Bi-Centenary History of the Birmingham Proof House 1813 - 2013.' by C.W.Harding. Hope that helps a little. Lagopus…..
Lagopus;

Thank you very much for your informative information of the concerns of the Proof Master about sleeving of shotgun barrels in the mid 1950's.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on the following sentence of your above writing: "The Guardians initial reaction was to tell the Proof Master to refuse to prove them and in the interim they decided to get a specimen and subject it to a 20,000 standard service cartridge test. in March the London Proof House agreed with their actions." What is a "20,000 standard service cartridge test"? Is this 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi)?

Kindest Regards;
Stephen Howell
Thanks to everyone for the contribution, esp. Lagopus.

20,000 psi is interesting, and would have been measured using crushers so modern piezo transducer numbers would be 10-14% higher

John Brindle, author of Shotgun Shooting: Techniques & Technology published a review of Proof and Service pressures in Part 5 of his series in The Double Gun Journal, “Black Powder & Smokeless, Damascus & Steel”; Volume 5, Issue 3, 1994, “Some Modern Fallacies Part 5”, p. 11.
His estimated post-1954 but pre-CIP standard pressures by LUP converted to piezo transducer PSI was proof pressure of 12,250 psi for 2 1/2" and 14,050 psi for 2 3/4"

CIP High Performance (Magnum) Mean Proof Pressure is 1320 BAR = 19,145 PSI, which is about the SAAMI U.S. proof pressure.
Posted By: Der Ami Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/28/21 07:33 PM
During my second tour in Germany, I spent an awful lot of time in Walter Grass' gun shop and observed him and his friend Alfred Schalgelmilch(?) sleeve several guns barrels, and assisted in sleeving one of my own drillings. This procedure was well known for many years before I arrived in 1976, in fact, it may go back to the 20s or before, even though I don't have documentation of this. With regard to the old barrel breech section not being a mono block, that is certainly technically true as the old barrel sets had been made by bundling the barrels locking lugs and top rib/ doll's head together and hard solder/silver soldering them together. The ribs were soft soldered on later. I also observed then making actual mono blocks for Merkels, since barrel sets were not available from behind the "Iron Curtain" at that time. They didn't make any difference in terminology between the two. They referred to both as "hakenstuck"( hook piece/or part). As far as proof was concerned, if the old barrels were used a crown R ( repair) proof would be applied. If an actual mono block were used, the barrel set would be proofed as new. Since my drilling was being exported to the US, it wasn't sent to the proof house, so I can't post the marks. I don't know if this answered the question or created new ones.
Mike
Posted By: KY Jon Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/28/21 08:42 PM
I think the 20,000 refers to a fatigue test of firing 20,000 standard rounds in the gun. Proof testing is a pressure test but also you worry about long term use. They were concerned that joints would fail in regular use. Hence the 20,000 standard service cartridge test. I think Remington subjected a 1100 to a 100,000 round test. Then tore it down and checked for wear and part failure. Friend was given the job to conduction the test. Strapped a gun down to a test jig and spent hours loading it and using a lanyard to pull the trigger. This was done at a Remington facility and he decided to cut a couple trees down that had died at the range. I wish I had that stack of ammo he used.
See Geoffrey Boothroyd's article entitled, "Sleeving" in The Double Gun Journal, Vol 5, issue 4 (Winter 1994). Mr. Ashthorpe is featured and described as the "inventor" of sleeving. However, Boothroyd also states that W.H. Monks patented a technique that "anticipated" sleeving in 1881.
Thank you. Nick C mentioned Monks' patent here
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=544077&page=1

I found this March 19,1881
https://books.google.com/books?id=aMM6AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA7-PA37&lpg

October 11, 1881
https://books.google.com/books?id=MB0zAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1020&lpg

The Art of Gunsmithing
https://books.google.com/books?id=n5d8AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT353&lpg
"the tubes were inserted from the breech end of the monoblock."
Posted By: lagopus Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/29/21 02:22 PM
Drew, many thanks for the reply. The proof house History book wasn't clear on what it meant and I just typed Verbatim. I think K Y Jon may have the best answer. I'm sure the Proof House would clarify if contacted. The 1960 proof house booklet in addition also mentions that the Proof House initially wanted the component parts submitted for examination prior to sleeving. Quite a bit is covered and too long for my typing speed! It also covers The repair of Gun Barrels by Welding, The Repair of Gun Barrels by the Sleeving Method and Chroming of the Bores of Shotgun Barrels. All bits may be of interest to you and I would be happy to photocopy and post on to you if you wish to send me a Personal Message. The first Proof House book that I quoted on is quite a large and comprehensive book and was privately published by the Author who was then Curator of the Proof House museum and the Historian. Only 50 copies were printed and I was lucky to get one as he is known to me. Most I think went to people in the Trade. It was published in 2015 by www.flaydemouse.com Mine is number 37 of 50. He has none left. A large format book of 328 pages and a fascinating insight into the workings of the Proof House. If you can be lucky enough source a copy it would prove to be a valuable investment. He had just five left when I got mine at £50 a piece and I sometimes regret not buying the remainders at the time and just sit on them for a few years. His ( C.W. Harding's) first book was on Eley cartridges and sold for around £25 in 2006; copies now are fetching well over £400! Lagopus…..
Lagopus and KY Jon;

Thank both of for your comments concerning 20,000 standard service cartridge issue. That the sentence should be construed to mean 20,000 rounds of standard cartridges seems to be the likely explanation.

Lagopus;
Your mention of the proof house and the subject of "The repair of Gun Barrels by Welding" brings to mind a comment made to me by a descendant of Arthur Howell the Birmingham, England gunmaker who died in 1957 (his business Arthur Howell & Company was located in Whitall Street, Birmingham). In 2002 when I was living in the UK I visited Arthur Howell's family near Birmingham to research his records and history of his gunmaking business that he operated from about 1900 to 1957. Among many other things I was told about Arthur Howell's gun business, one of his descendants told me that Arthur Howell very early in the 1900's had taken interest in modern welding methods and techniques and had gone over to one of the technical schools at or near Birmingham to study welding and had become very qualified in the processes of that day. Further, it was told to me that the Birmingham Proof House was very opposed to Arthur Howell submitting barrels for reproof that he had repaired by welding, but that in the end he won out and the proof house tested the barrels and they passed proof.

Kindest Regards;
Stephen Howell
Posted By: KY Jon Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 04/29/21 04:09 PM
I can understand why a proof house would be slow to embrace new technologies or new ways of making barrels. The entire point of passing proof is to give the buyer confidence that the gun or barrel is sound and should last under normal usage. Sleeving was a big change from new barrels and I am sure there were questions about how long a soldered seam or welded seam would last. Plus what would cutting and boring a set of old barrels mean for their integrity and long term strength. But technology evolve and testing needs to stay a pace. They were slow to embrace sleeving but did come around.
Trying to find Monks' patent.
The Engineer 1881 Jul-Dec: Patent Journal Index lists "Monks, W.H., Small-arms, 288" about 1/5 way down here. It is Monks, with a 's'
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1881_Jul-Dec:_Index:_Patent_Journal
But no issue date.

I was able to register, but there is a fee to open the PDF for each issue to search for the patent frown
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/The_Engineer_1881_Jul-Dec

He may have made bicycles also
https://books.google.com/books?id=ewszAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1386&lpg[size:17pt][/size]
Whenever sleeving comes up for discussion the question arises on how chopper lump can still be regarded as the best barrel jointing system.

A tube change in a monobloc design returns the barrels to their original condition. Sleeving a chopper lump can never do that.

Comparing sleeving to rebarreling with monobloc barrels is a logical question, (monobloc barrels are affordable) but one that has been rejected every time I directed it to British gunsmiths. The usual explanation is that monobloc is not compatible with "best" work, but somehow sleeving is. The other excuse is that on the monobloc you can "see the joint", which reminded me of the Morecamb and Wise comedy show, where Morecamb harped on about Wise's hair, insinuating that Wise wore a toupe and he could see the joint.
Posted By: Chantry Re: An Inadequate History of Barrel Sleeving - 05/01/21 04:24 PM
Much to my surprise I might even be able to contribute to this thread.

I have a Rigby 16 g that was re-sleeved (fluid steel to fluid steel) and re-proofed in 1955 for a 2 1/2" shell at 3 tons PSI. The join is barely visible and this is with the bluing at about 60%
I have a William Moore 12 gauge hammer gun that has been sleeved. The joint is invisible, except for a small area under the forearm. Whoever did the bluing matched the damascus monoblock and the sleeved barrels so well that you are barely able to tell that the two are of different composition except in very bright sunlight. I have no idea who did the work, but it is as good a sleeving job as ever I've examined. In addition, it really is a very nice gun, probably one of the two nicest I own.
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com