doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Sleeved Barrels

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