Yes, you read that right.

A friend (now deceased) had a wreck of a Purdey hammergun brought back to wonderful condition. One really nice detail was that the the 'smith in England suggested sleaving the barrels with some damascus tubes from another gun.

The work was incredible and if you didn't look REALLY closely the pattern change from the old breach section to the 'new' tubes we almost impossible to spot.

Now my question, the gun was re-proofed, passing 850BAR (I think) nitro without a problem. But when I was looking at it I noticed it was not stamped 'Sleeved' as is the norm. I asked the owner about it and he looked surprised and looked at the gun and said he had never noticed that detail.

So do you think the proof house just missed that detail? I would assume sleeving is sleeving no matter what the barrel material, correct?

Since the owner has since passed away I couldn't ask any more questions, nor do I know where the gun is now. His son likely knows but I don't want to bother him for what is just a curiousity question.

Thanks!

I believe it to be a mistake.
Smallbores ?

Sure it's sleeved?
I've a Greener which shows a subtle change in pattern near the breech, I believe from being a different, thicker section of tubing when the barrels were first forged - not sleeving later.
I've a John Manton 15b which shows a similar thing; you can see the spot in the pattern where the different sections were welded together.
That siad, I guess if a decent set of damascus tubes were available, it could be done.
RG

never mind

Not to be rude, and those are very pretty pictures but YES it was sleeved.

So back to the original question, did the proof house just miss that detail and re-proof it? Or did they forget to stamp it? What kind of paperwork does the 'smith have to file with the proof house when submitting a gun.

Just so we're clear. YES THE GUN WAS SLEEVED WITH A SET OF DAMASCUS TUBES FROM ANOTHER GUN!

Mike, if the job was as well done as you say, I'd go with the proof house missing it.
(And the smiths forgetting to tell them) ;-)

JC

JC,

I don't have much confidence in the PM system here, but check yours.

Best,

What is the possibility of such a procedure being performed today? Anyone interested?

Today, you would more likely have Teague pull a new tube inside the reamed out damascus. No need to mess up the exterior of the original barrels.

This is the 1st example of this type of work that has surfaced. I know during the golden years of damascus it was common. Found on old article that talks about cutting out pieces of a barrel and welding in pieces from a donor barrel.

I am betting it was reproofed. Would they have to restamp it back then?

Pete

I could be wrong here, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Keith Kearcher has done this.

Maybe Keith Kearcher did this one.

No.

Keith Kearcher did not do this work. I believe I know which English shop did the work, but I am not 100% sure and for obvious reasons I can not ask the owner.

I believe the original barrels were cut or one of them had a crack from an obstruction. Again, I can't ask the owner.

My curiousity is more about how this would have 'slipped' through the Proof House.

Note that in the original posting it is stated the gun "WAS" re-proofed. The question concerns the "Sleeve" mark. Anyone know at what point this became a requirement for a sleeved set of bbls.
Perhaps it was sleeved & re-proofed prior to this requirement, or perhaps it was submitted for re-proof with no mention of having been sleeved & as was all Damascus the proofer just failed to notice this fact. Or perhaps he just forgot to place that mark upon it, several possibilities here, may never know for certain.

Back when? I may not have been clear. This work was done within the last 5-6 years.

Drew,

No offense was intended and I was planning to copy a couple of those pics when I got to this computer. That was the best pic I have seen of the barrels with the damascus muzzles. The auction catalog pictures were posted a couple years ago but I don't remember that picture.

Murph,

I think you may have seen this gun.

Looks like a job for Myth Busters...

Hello Mike,

For all the excellent things this BBS provides, PMs are not its forte.
I added a dedicated email to my profile.

Best,

JC

Bamboozler is correct. Keith did a sleeve job damascus to damascus. There was no attempt to match the patterning and the change in patterns was quite visible. I don't know if he has done others but if you have a project in mind Eightbore give Keith a call. As far as the lack of a sleeve mark my guess is Jaycee's got it. The smith neglected to tell the proof house and if the patterning was well matched, it just sailed on through as another damascus reproof.

This is probably the one....

See your email.

'The one....' what?

This "one"....An American job would explain it not being marked.

If you don't read the posts, why do bother to reply to them? To make the reading comprehension easier I have put it in bold/red this time. From the original post in this thread.