|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,135
Posts571,032
Members14,674
| |
Most Online19,682
Mar 28th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 820 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 820 Likes: 1 |
I just got a sleeved hammer gun I has 2 1/2 chambers I'm thinking for convenience making them for 2 3/4 . It an early 16. Do you see any problem with that or any reason I shouldn't
Monty
monty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707 |
I see a reason or a few.
1. Removing that 1/4" of metal doesn't make the gun stronger and better able to shoot 2-3/4" ammo, it makes it weaker.
2. If you're not sending it back to England for reproof you're molesting a gun and making it illegal for sale in most of Europe. That will make the gun less valuable even in the USA.
3. 2.5" chambers shoot 2-3/4" loads just as safely/unsafely as their equally loaded and pressured 2.5" load counterparts.
4. You remove a safety. By keeping it 2.5" there is a modicum of warning to any future operator that this gun is special and needs soft loads. By lengthening the chambers, the next owner may feel entitled to feed the gun any 2-3/4" load leading to potentially dangerous results.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292 |
I just got a sleeved hammer gun I has 2 1/2 chambers I'm thinking for convenience making them for 2 3/4 . It an early 16. Do you see any problem with that or any reason I shouldn't
Monty Yes, to save your fingers and other body parts........     Best,
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,859
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,859 |
This subject has been discussed in the past with much vigorous controversy. You can tell by the choice of words posters have used so far (using the negative term "molesting" for instance). If you're intent on going this route you might try simply extending the forcing cones, with the modern thin plastic walled shells, merely extending the forcing cones will give good results without taking the gun out of proof (unless the Brits have changed their laws).
Steve
Approach life like you do a yellow light - RUN IT! (Gail T.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 Likes: 1 |
Jeweler didn't say it was in proof. It could have been sleeved in the USA.
And I agree; Shoot it as is with 2-3/4" low pressure loads or extend the forcing cones and shoot it with 2-3/4" low pressure loads.
Best,
Mike
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 10/07/11 11:30 AM.
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,660 Likes: 8 |
Totally agree with Mike and Steve.
Surely the "leave the guns original" police will continue with its rants, but if you
shoot the proper 2 3/4 loads with extended forcing cones, you should be all right.
See Sherman Bell's article in the DGJ (Winter 2001) on this topic. Scientifically clarifying.
JC
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,465 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,465 Likes: 89 |
Leave the chambers and forcing cones alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,620 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,620 Likes: 8 |
My advice would be to take the money you would spend on the Chamber Modifications and buy some proper 2 1/2 Shells.
If the old gun has very abrupt forcing cones you might consider having them relieved, more so to accomadate modern folded crimps and shot cups than anything else.
For the 16 I load 2 1/2 shells exclusively and I ain't giving up nothing for upland game or targets.
Last edited by postoak; 10/07/11 02:00 PM.
Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 Likes: 1 |
Upon further consideration I don't know if I know enough about sleeved guns to recommend the lengthening of the forcing cones. I don't know how thick the new chamber walls are in the sleeved barrels or where the old metal meets the new metal in the "monoblock".
I would leave everything alone I think.
Best,
Mike
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 10/07/11 01:27 PM.
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,859
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,859 |
Amarillo Mike makes a good point, I agree. Now I suppose if you could get useful information from whoever did the sleeving...
Steve
Approach life like you do a yellow light - RUN IT! (Gail T.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
