doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Minimal barrel thickness and Boss & Co Guns

Once again, you are showing your ignorance for the sake of hearing your own voices.

The barrel inside diameter is marked at the time of proof. Say .729". The barrel inside diameter is measured today. .729". The wall thickness is .023" or so. What part of "no reamer" do you not understand?

If the barrel inside diameter is (roughly) less than .010" greater inside diameter than the marked diameter at proof, it's in proof. If it's the SAME diameter as marked at proof, it's in proof and has never seen your reamer. Do you even know what a reamer IS? One must wonder.

Again, you've hunted with "a couple of English guns that have .020" barrel thickness." This is all you mention about your English guns. I'm going to make a wild guess here - that the many, many Boss and Woodward guns are not yours!
Whats yours, and whats their measurements then?
Stop beating around the bush Eric, and be specific.

Your wild guessing is wrong, as usual. You make over-the-top statements like "a fingernail would dent them" with no "specifics" as to where you have seen or experienced this yourself and you demand specifics from me? Keep blathering.

What gun is that ? Looking at the slim lines....I 'd guess she was built as a light weight ?
Better take good care of her...there's not much room for cleanup.

The arcaded fences 'sorta point toward Woodward....not known as a builder of lightweights, usually.

All you guys bragging about guns with .020 (or less) wall thickness passing proof in England, and being enjoyed, be my guests.

Dare you to try the same thing in France. The guns there are usually quite a bit lighter, except in the barrels. If you are going to have proof, why not proof it to the max?
Best,
Ted

The point of proof is to see if a given action/barrel combination is sufficiently strong to do the job it is intended to do.

This is why our guns don't all weigh seven pounds and digest 3" magnum loads.

Barrels have got thinner as technology allowed them to. Barrel profiles changed as gunmakers gained a better understanding of where thickness was needed and where it was not - and how a barrel aided handling by being balanced a certain way.

If someone comes up with a 'super steel' that can comfortably handle proof loads when 5 thou thick, will there still be calls for 20 thou in new guns? Some guns were made in the past with barrel walls a minimum of 36 thou (I have some) and others originally measured only 18. All passed proof and are safe to use as intended.

Why carry a heavyweight when you only need alightweight?

Agree with Dig's post above - +1

Agree with Dig and Ken. Well put, Dig.

My F Beesley is just a tad thicker in the muzzle, without giving-up a thing in handling.

LG have you had that pretty Beesley's barrels measured.......especially beneath the area where the forearm attaches? I'd be interested in the date of manufacture and wall thicknesses on that one. You might be suprised how thin it actually is if it weighs around 6 1/2# or so.