Barrels below minimum wall thickness

[Topdogpippin]

A friend purchased a pair of Cogswell & Harrison Victors from a well known auction house. No 2 gun has one barrel at 15thou. I directed him towards Teague’s to enquire about having the barrel(s) inserted with a liner but they declined the work (reason unknown). Cam anyone recommend someone that would line the barrels he doesn’t really want to go the cost and detraction to originality of sleeving. Any thoughts or referrals gratefully received. GW

 

[Kalahari]

I think Teaque stopped their glued in liners some tome ago because of problems with the process.

David.

 

[enfieldspares]

Teague ceased offering lining as there were problems that emerged a little down the track that hadn't been fully expected when the train set off. The Vintage Gun Journal of Diggory Haddoake has an article about it. Sleeving however has gone on in leaps and bounds. The old method being further developed with the use of ribbon welding so that for all intents the join is invisible. But like all things there is a money price. A simple sleeving job using the original method may cost some £400 whereas to have it done by this ribbon welding may cost into four figures.

 

[Muir]

The wall thickness of the barrel is fifteen, one-thousandths of an inch???~Muir

 

[Apthorpe]

The wall thickness of the barrel is fifteen, one-thousandths of an inch???~Muir

Yes. 20/1000 is the minimum thickness usually considered safe in older English guns, but lesser thicknesses may be ok to use. Wall thicknesses tend not to exceed 30/1000s by much.
That said, there are idiotic proposals to ban lead cartridges here, so soon we'll all be binning thousands of skilfully crafted sporting guns in favour of some camouflaged super-magnum semi-auto drainpipe to achieve the same terminal effect on game.
Proponents think that the litter of plastic wads and considerably louder noise will endear us to antis.

 

[brock and norris]

with respect sir the barrels are worn out !!!! the only recourse is to sleeve .or have new barrels . The gent does not want to do that . They are out of proof and should not under any circumstances be fired . I know the gent bought these barrels at auction and the wall thickness was given by the auction house at the time of sale .so if he does not want to sleeve they are a tomato stake

 

[Uncle Norm]

It mystifies me why folk continue to buy vintage guns that have already served two or three lifetimes of work, if they want to regularly use them in the field .
A thing of beauty for a collection is another matter of course, but worn out guns are just that...… worn out.

When one considers the regular and very costly repairs required to keep them going, it makes no sense at all.
Having a Holland or Purdy in the hand is a delight but have you seen the cost of a new mainspring for them .

I have a young friend who is a highly skilled gunsmith and it amazes me how much money owners will spend every year almost, to keep these (in proof) wonderful old but worn out guns going.

Each to their own of course

 

[Lateral]

Yes. 20/1000 is the minimum thickness usually considered safe in older English guns, but lesser thicknesses may be ok to use. Wall thicknesses tend not to exceed 30/1000s by much.
That said, there are idiotic proposals to ban lead cartridges here, so soon we'll all be binning thousands of skilfully crafted sporting guns in favour of some camouflaged super-magnum semi-auto drainpipe to achieve the same terminal effect on game.
Proponents think that the litter of plastic wads and considerably louder noise will endear us to antis.

20 thou, .5mm ??? That is incredibly thin

 

[Apthorpe]

20 thou, .5mm ??? That is incredibly thin

Yes. You'll find few that are over 30 thou.

 

[8x57]

A friend purchased a pair of Cogswell & Harrison Victors from a well known auction house. No 2 gun has one barrel at 15thou. I directed him towards Teague’s to enquire about having the barrel(s) inserted with a liner but they declined the work (reason unknown). Cam anyone recommend someone that would line the barrels he doesn’t really want to go the cost and detraction to originality of sleeving. Any thoughts or referrals gratefully received. GW

Was the gun sold as a working gun (therefore presumably in proof) or was it sold as stock and action by the auction company with the barrels thrown in for decoration, a practise that a local auctioneers regularly practised.

 

[Mr. Gain]

I have a young friend who is a highly skilled gunsmith and it amazes me how much money owners will spend every year almost, to keep these (in proof) wonderful old but worn out guns going.

Keeping your skilled young friend in work seems like an excellent argument in favour of running a vintage gun!

Last year I spent a couple of hundred pounds on the new mainspring required to get a gun from the 1860s shooting again. It made a tiny contribution to the livelihood of one of the few people still exercising an historic craft, and transformed the character of the gun from "disabled" to "enabled". I shoot a handful of cartridges through it every now and then, but take a great deal of pleasure on every outing in the exceptional skill and good taste of its makers, and more in being the current agent of their intentions by bringing down the odd bird (did I mention it handles beautifully?).

The gun itself cost only a few hundred pounds, but I would have to spend many thousands (many more than I have) to acquire a new gun of the same quality.

The guns mass-produced today offer ample performance and superior metallurgy, are readily repaired or replaced, and some are superficially attractive, but I can't think of one that has genuine "character". As a result, the gun becomes merely a tool, and all that matters is how reliable it is and how you shoot with it. Not nothing. But not everything, either.

 

[Uncle Norm]

As a person with a lifelong passion for classic English guns, I couldn't agree more. I even made a Westley Richards pinfire work again and bagged a few ducks with it. The point I was trying to make is that many of these worn, beautiful pieces of craftmanship just won't stand lots of shooting without problems developing.
Unfortunately some folk buy them for use on 100/200 bird days with the inevitable breakdowns etc.
Indeed it does keep my young friend in work. I love watching him make parts from scratch and fit them to perfection. He has salvaged some wonderful old guns and made them work again. No bodge jobs though...….. he simply wont do them.

 

[enfieldspares]

Greener wrote of making a gun barrel and then progressively taking it down thinner and thinner and thinner. Yet at each time it safely fired a full charge cartridge without bulging or rivelling. When he had done as much as he wanted to make his argument he took a pocket penknife punctured through the sidewall an ripped the knife up the full length of the barrel to show thin it really was. One of the London best makers was wont to make their barrels at the limit of what today would be considered the minimum recommended. Which of course is why they handled so well.

 

[Muir]

I own a pair of SXS shotguns and a combat shotgun but I am not a shot-gunner by any means. This is all quite interesting to me.~Muir

 

[Heym SR20]

A friend purchased a pair of Cogswell & Harrison Victors from a well known auction house. No 2 gun has one barrel at 15thou. I directed him towards Teague’s to enquire about having the barrel(s) inserted with a liner but they declined the work (reason unknown). Cam anyone recommend someone that would line the barrels he doesn’t really want to go the cost and detraction to originality of sleeving. Any thoughts or referrals gratefully received. GW

I would have a chat with Diggory Hadeoke at Vintage Guns. He wrote an excellent article on modern day sleeving - Twenty First Century Sleeving

and cost for a perfectly servicable job is from £1,500. Now Cogswell's are good guns, but they are not London best so originality etc is not the be all and end all. Rather having a gun sleeved means that you pretty much starting again so you now have a gun that has original barrel thickness and will be good to go for several more decades. And given the increase need for non-toxic shot, having a gun sleeved is somewhat future proofed. Given that it is a pair of guns, what is No1 like? No reason to do both, but any decent gunsmith should match them as closely as possible. However if No1 is also very thin, then a sleeved gun will be thicker thus weight and balance will be a bit different.

If sleeving is done properly, it no longer completely wrecks value. Yes its not as valuable as unused gun that has full original barrel wall thickness, but is a lot more valuable and usable than a gun with min wall thickness and no or little life left in it.

I would suggest that for not a huge amount of money sleeving No 2 would return this set of guns to be truly usable. No 2 would be the main use, with the No 1 to come out on days for double gun use!!

Also check where actually it is thin - barrels are normally measured at a point about 8" from the breech.

Teague liners didn't work that well and usually resulted in much heavier than needs be barrels.

 

[Uncle Norm]

A friend purchased a pair of Cogswell & Harrison Victors from a well known auction house. No 2 gun has one barrel at 15thou. I directed him towards Teague’s to enquire about having the barrel(s) inserted with a liner but they declined the work (reason unknown). Cam anyone recommend someone that would line the barrels he doesn’t really want to go the cost and detraction to originality of sleeving. Any thoughts or referrals gratefully received. GW

Have a word with Matt Simpson of Simpson Brothers. They are trade members on here. Matt knows his trade and will tell you how it is with absolutely no bull-shine.
01832 226376.

 

[enfieldspares]

Odd that sleeved guns are somehow looked down upon yet what else are today's Beretta guns in both O/U ans S/B/S but sleeved guns for all intent and purpose? Both my French Fusil Robust 28E are built on that same monobloc principle.

 

[Uncle Norm]

Odd that sleeved guns are somehow looked down upon yet what else are today's Beretta guns in both O/U ans S/B/S but sleeved guns for all intent and purpose? Both my French Fusil Robust 28E are built on that same monobloc principle.

I think it is simply a long established (dyed in the wool) prejudice in the UK, which perhaps originates from some early techniques ? As you have mentioned, the latest techniques are excellent with no visible evidence, other than the proof marks.
If the originals have beautiful Damascus, I can well understand the reluctance to sleeve though.

 

[Topdogpippin]

Thank you Uncle Tom for your helpful direction I will feed that across to my friend.

enfieldspares, thanks for your observation but have you ever tried to sell a vehicle with a replacement engine particularly in a classic vehicle, whatever the validity of the prejudice it exists and does affect residual values (such as they are on a pair of C&H Victors which he paid £800 for) I just bought a “Browning” 325 over a 425 and any later Brownings which I could have bought for the same, or less money why, they were constructed using the chopper lump principle. All the subsequent derivatives were constructed using the modular method of mono bloc, cheaper and less skill involved, diluted by the expediency of unit cost production.

 

[Topdogpippin]

Other contributors many thanks. Muir your reaction is not unusual, not much thicker than a soft drinks can, but different metal of course! I have a Greener FH35 and I paid the top end for it as it wall thicknessed at a minimum of 40thou which was the factory max. I am not sure how the auction house described it, if I knew he was bidding for it I would have advised against it unless he wanted a pair of attractive wall hangers. Worth spending the money if they were ‘family guns’ or one has shot with them for years but under these circumstances a waste of money. As stated I never go into the field with the Greener without a back up gun, my ‘smith in Bath has already had to make one mainspring for it £££ but worth it as I have owned a few SXS’s including Lancaster, H&H and Purdey but I shoot this better than any of them and take pleasure in doing so.
I will feed your collective observations, and that of my ‘smith, into him. Much appreciated.
TDP