doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Wall thickness 15 & 17, but still in proof?

I find this 1868 Reilly 12 bore, SN 16443, to be quite attractive. It was previously sold at Bonham's in 2004 and is now being auctioned this December by Holts: But wall thickness is 15 & 17.. ..and it is still in proof? Is this possible?
https://www.holtsauctioneers.com/as...++1810+&refno=++221326&saletype=

E.M. REILLY & CO.
A 12-BORE 1866 PATENT ROTARY-UNDERLEVER HAMMERGUN, serial no. 16443,
circa 1868, 29 1/8in. nitro reproved bold damascus barrels, the rib engraved 'E.M. REILLY & CO. NEW OXFORD STREET. LONDON.', 2 1/2in. chambers, bored approx. true cyl. in both, wall thicknesses at 15- and 17, Jones patent rotary underlever, carved percussion fences, action incorporating J. Cole and G.S. Melland patent extractors, patent no. 1339 of 10th May 1866, rebounding sidelocks with faceted flat side hammers, bold acanthus scroll engraving with ropework bordering and naive game scene vignettes of partridge, pheasant and grouse, 14 1/2in. figured stock including horn buttplate, fore-end with crosspin release and horn finial, weight 6lb. 10oz.

Of course it is possible. Just a few days ago, you were complaining about a little politics posted here, and said this:


So what good is it to keep things 100% pure Double Gun, when you obviously haven't learned much from the double gun content posted here? Did you inquire where those thin spots are along the length of the barrels. By now you should know that those wall thicknesses could easily survive firing out near the muzzles, even with a proof load. But they would be the subject of another barrel blow-up Thread if they were just ahead of the chambers, where pressures are still near peak. I'd like to assume you know matchbook thin barrels are much more easily dented, but it appears that is assuming too much. The Preacher has posted pictures of various pressure curves hundreds of times... and it appears that wasn't enough times for it to sink into your head. Asking naive questions like this is not making us all look stupid... just you.

BTW, did you ever find any proof to support your sheer conjecture that E.M. Reilly actually employed over 300 gunmakers?

The barrels are the usual slightly messy 3 Iron c. 1868 found on good guns



It is unfortunate that images of the barrel flats were not included in the listing so we could know when the barrels were reproved, and the original bore and bore at the time of reproof.
Forgive the rant but how hard is it to include the location of that .015" wall? If at the distal 1/3 of the barrel it may well have survived proof.

'Section 2 Firearm under the 1968 Firearms Act' is defined as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24 inches (61 cm) and a bore not larger than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges,[5] plus one in the chamber. I did not find an exception for the age of the weapon.
That must mean the gun is required to be 'in proof' to be sold

https://www.gunproof.com/legislation
"The Proof Acts lay down that no small arm may be sold, exchanged or exported, exposed or kept for sale or exchange or pawned, unless and until it has been fully proven and duly marked."

If those minimum wall thickness measurements are in the last third of the barrel then I'm not surprised it passed proof. The pressures fall off rapidly towards the muzzle. Most barrels I've measured seem the thinnest from just behind the chokes to eight or nine inches back. It's less than I would want but guns that thin do pass proof.

I have a gun that is 19 thou in a small spot about five inches from the muzzle. I've shot it extensively without a problem.

British proof works on the internal diameter of the bores at 9 inches from the breach.

A gun goes out of proof if that measurement is increased into the next bore size.

The system does not measure the subsequent loss of wall thicknesses that may result from external striking down, unlike some European proof houses that mark the weight of the barrels at proof and only allow a percentage weight loss before the gun ceases to be in proof.

The good news is that minimum wall thicknesses are generally in the front end of the barrels where the pressure curve is low.

The bad news is that there is little margin for dent raising or bulge striking down in the thin areas.

The Gun Trade prefers to avoid anything under 20 thou for that reason but some lightweight guns (particularly 2” 12 bores) May have been less than that when new.

let common sense and good judgement prevail...

Gene,
That is a black powder era shotgun. Proof numbers and hunting loads from that era do not really transfer to where we are now. You need a lot more information then you have to actually make a good decision about how to put that gun to use.

It is beautiful, no doubt, but, how useful it would actually be is still a question.

Best,
Ted

It was estimated at £ 300 - £ 600 at Bonhams in 2004 (don't know the sale price):
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/11176/lot/373/

It's advertised at Holts as estimated £ 300-500.

I've asked Holt's to send me photos of the barrel flats and asked the questions Dr. Drew mentioned about wall thickness. I have a Reilly 12 gauge hammer gun I shoot about as well as I can and don't need another but am curious about the gun. If it's being sold as a complete gun, it had to pass a modern proof at some point. It just has a quality about it that is appealing - right before UK Damascus got better, forend attachments changed, before the engraving became really tight English scroll, it has surely early rebounding hammers - the patent was taken out in 1867 - the earliest Reilly rebounding hammers is SN 15126 (spring 1868), and it has the Jones underlever.

Holts asked again for the Reilly SN date chart. I thought they might actually use it...but the chart has SN 16443 as spring 1870. . .they listed it as "circa 1868". close enough.

29 1/4" barrels - Reilly standard was 30". Wonder if an inch was sawed off?

This just back from Holts. Need some help interpreting the proof markings on the barrel flats: thanks.

Argo44: That is a beautiful gun, period.

I can't imagine that you would use it hard, and for the art in it alone, I would own it. If I were to ever use it, it would be only on a "special" occasion (perfect conditions) and with very low-pressure shells. I would also have it measured by a competent 'smith to determine the thicknesses further down the barrels (closer to your hands). Once you've satisfied yourself as to all the potential "risks" (I proof test each of my own damascus guns with a fairly stout load, measuring both before and after with calipers, changes in any dimension means "no-go") then, and only then, should you (or do I) use them or... condone their use.