I had a friend bring over a lovely W.C. Scott Premier last night for bore measuring. Unfortunately, the gun was non-concentric to the absolute extreme and the wall thickness of the barrels about 12" from the breech, nearest to the bottom rib was only .018".

The question is: If a marginally similar barrel design could be found on say a pristine D-grade W.C. Scott for $2000, could that donor gun's vintage damascus barrels be fitted to the Scott Premier? Can non-Scott fluid steel barrels be modified and fit to the gun?

Basically, I'm trying to ascertain if there are any options out there besides:

1. Sleeving the gun
2. Lining the gun (which may not be an option with Teague any longer)
3. Full length tube inserts
4. $8000-$16000 for a new set of barrels to be made.

If it is possible to modify and fit vintage barrels to a gun, any idea of the cost? Is this a $2000 job or a $6000 job, if at all?

Thanks!

-Rookhawk

There are so many variables to consider here, but the short answer would be yes, it is possible to fit an existing set of barrels from one gun to another. Techniques such as laser & tig welding would be an invaluable tool for such a task.

What year is this Scott Premier?
What type of Premier is it, Hammer, Hammerless?
What type of Action? Treble grip?
Damascus? Steel?
Rib Extension or not?

#1. If this Premier is a treble grip gun...My thought is the barrels of the donor gun would have to come off of another Scott made gun using the same type of action, due the quirky cocking system used, along with the rib extension. At the very least...the job would include a rib relay (premier ribs over to the donor gun) and a fitting job that will require the services of a laser or very talented tig welder to build up the low spots. Probably expect to pay in the neighborhood of $2000 on up for this job.


#2. The cost of new barrels would take that option out of the equation..unless the gun was something extremely special like a Extra Special Premier, then it might be worth it.

#3. If you found a set of donor barrels, another option would be to use the parts off of the original guns barrels and transfer them to the donor set. Parts like...the lump, the forend hanger, ribs and rib extension. The lump would have to be fitted and brazed in place, as would the rib extension. The ribs and forend hanger relayed. Then all of this would have to be refitted to make it work. I could only imagine the talents of a laser welder would come into play here to build up spots that needed more meat and so on and so forth. Quite the task, and to be honest, I've never heard of it being done. It is quite possible though. I could only imagine that the price would be astronomical.

Full length tube inserts would work, but nobody really likes those.

Sleeving would obviously be the more practical solution, with Teagues not doing the lining anymore, sleeving is probably the right way to go to save the old Premier. If done right....it'll look ok and the gun will have a new lease on life.

Dustin

This gun might pass proof 'as is' for light loads, such as RST's. It might be worthwhile to send it over the pond to have proofed and if it passes, great, if not, have something else done such as teague, sleeve, etc and ship back home??

Like Buzz said the gun should be fine for light loads. I don't think you can build any value into this gun.

Dustin, I smell a money pit in the making. And the end result is most probably going to be less than satisfactory. Most likely far more will be spent on "fixing" it than the whole gun will be worth. Suggest you leave it as is. The gun could probably handle RST's forever without any problem. At 12" there's not much pressure to worry about. Much as I hate sleeving, if any alteration is done I'd go that route. Least cost and least problems encountered. (Oh, I probably shouldn't have posted--I'm sure no expert, except for often stumbling into the dreaded "money pit")

Incidentally, I looked into this same gun for myself at William Larkin Moore. Dan and Dave stated (in writing) the gun had minimum wall thicknesses of .021"/.022" but it measured up on my wall thickness gauge at .018"/.022". So I guess my gauge conveniently lies half the time or WLM was a bit over enthusiastic about their right bore measurements.

It needs a rebrown so I'd imagine the gun will end up finished out at .017" when its done.

It's a truly beautiful gun so I hope something can be done for the old girl. I told the owner to call Teague and beg/plead/cry in the hopes he'd line it for him even though he claims he's done with lining guns. The damascus pattern is externally spectacular so it would be an ideal candidate for lining.

Oh, and to answer LeFusil's questions:

The gun is a Hammerless gun. It was made in 1890. Damascus barrels. Black Powder proofs. Chambers opened to 2-3/4". Never passed a second time through the proof house after initial proof in 1890. Excellent external metal finish. Replacement stock of reasonable quality. Ejectors. Third bite.

Not sure if it is a Triplex action. I'd need to check my references to ascertain that. It is a bar action gun with "modern style" side locks, not the ducks bill design.

Here's pics of the gun if someone can ascertain the action type from them:

http://www.williamlarkinmoore.com/product_details.asp?id=3270

One option is to look for some damascus barrels with similar pattern and good wall thickness as a donor and have it sleeved with them.

Another option is the half length subgauge inserts. They reduce the increased inertia (tubed guns feel way too heavy/slow swinging to me). A set of half length 20g tubes firing a 7/8 oz load at 1200 fps should give as much utility to that old gun as needed.

With walls below .020, I'd recommend not shooting the gun. In my opinion (granted, that doesnt mean much) the stated wall thickness' are just a bit too thin for comfort. I value my eyes and hands a little to much to risk shooting a gun with that amount of meat. If its still within the 3 day inspection period, send it back. Mr. Wood hits it on the head.... its money pit.

Dustin

Restocked, out of proof, thin walls....eeek. Are the bores blown out, too?

I'm with Joe, why bother with it?

BTW: I think it's a Rogers-patent action with some Scott tweaks. There's more about the Rogers action on page 224 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=OLwUAAA...p;q&f=false


OWD

$5k is a lot of money for a gun I wouldn't feel I could shoot until another $2k was spent. I dunno the value of the particular gun, so I can't say if it's worth it or not.

You could spend years looking for a set of suitable barrels.

I'd have to say your friend is already "upside down" in this one. I would return it if you can.

does a set of briley full length 20 ga tubes, custom fit to the barrels seem like a good, economical idea ?

Thing is they put a proof load through what the chamber is opened to......there is no reproof with a requested marshmallow load.......that would be too easy

Truth is, we need to have a person on here that has worked at a proofhouse that measures barrels for a living to give us his take. 12" from breech is a lot different from 9" from breech which is "point of proof" where bore dia is measured. Every measurement from there is from breech end forward. But if the walls are anywhere near 20 thou at 12" that's right where your hands are. My waif 2 lb 4 oz barrels on my 20 ga Boss measure 32-35 thou there and 50 thou at 9" from breech....so something is amiss here

Until someone with "the Knowledge" of Proof from UK steps up and offers his insight based on measurements of thousands of guns based on current Rules of Proof, most of this pontification here is just that... hot air

Clif. You bring up some good points. I had no idea when I made my statement the chambers had been lengthened and this was a black powder proof. Clearly, this gun is out of proof. I would be willing to bet with the lengthened chambers someone has been shooting nitro loads in this thing. Also, and I hate to bring up a sore subject, but wouldn't it be nice if we had a legit proof house here in the USA where this and other guns like it could be reproofed in a standardized fashion by a competent proofmaster??!! It sure would save some headaches for the owner of this Scott.

Whens the last time anyone from any UK proof house, formerly of or current employee of, ever posted on this board?

Call Kirk Merrington, see what he says. Something tells me he'll be on the same page as most of us here.



Dustin

I have a W C Scott Damascus barrel that the barrels seem ok to me by my measurements but you need to use your gauge.Chopper lump from a 1887 hammer gun that I would sell you it would make your deal work and of course fit.call me tomorrow if you are intrested.662 378 6169xxx is my cell I'm going to be hunting all afternoon.
Monty McGee

I'd bet a dollar to donuts he'd say the point of proof bore diameter, wall thickness at that point, wall thickness at the end of the chambers and forcing cones tell you whether you have a gun........ or not. Much more so than folks worrying about barrel thinness 6-8" from the the muzzle end, as is a common measurement as its the thinnest part of the barrel. I doubt seriously an unobstructed, nondented barrel has ever been blown out 6 inches from the end from being 18- 20 thou there.

A dollar won't buy 2 donuts most places these days. ....but I'll agree with your position.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't guns over seas proofed with only one round through them? If so, and the bores are at minimal wall thickness, why would that make you feel better in shooting it. You can do the same thing yourself, either re-load to the highest pressure listed and secure gun and remotely fire it. I still don't think that one round is enough to jusify being "safe".

I don't know about other gun manufactures, but L.C. Smith in the 1920's proofed their guns with double the load and so stamped NP on the barrels water table.

Also if I missed it, has anyone ever posted what a 10,000 psi load breaks down from breech to muzzle? I just picked this at random because to me it is extermely high for vintage guns.

Someone shot it before when it was .018 it didn't get that thin in the closet

JDW,

Yes, with just one round at a proof house, you can prove a barrel safe. Keep in mind that a proof round is 2x the safe working pressure of the gun, so if it can withstand proof, it can work all day long shooting normal loads.

However, also keep in mind that any time a gun is modified (long cones, chokes, refinish, honing, nitro proof, chamber lengthened, etc), the gun must be "reproven" back in the UK. We have no such moral imperative in the states so you see guns out of proof that are dangerous, such as the gun we're discussing.

Rookhawk, I don't doubt one's ability with a barrel wall thickness gauge, but .018" thickness 12" from the breech is far out of the norm. I measured 6 sets of barrels at 12" inches from the breech and they went from .032" to .045". It is possible checking them again might find something more pleasant.

Proof House would say "Submit it for proof as this is the only way to tell. It will either pass or fail. They will not give an opinion as to whether it will pass or fail ,as it it not their remit to do so.They would tell if the gun was acceptable for proof,is. tight on face, free of pits and bulges.They would recommend that you contact an approved gun maker ,one of the Guardians and ask there opinion .

Sorry my PC is being stupid and missimg letters so I hope this make sense.

Daryl,

Actually, the .018" was a bit further up from the 12" measure. Somewhere around 15" from breech, maybe a bit less. The really odd thing was the non-concentricity. One side of the barrel closest the lower rib measured .018". The opposite side of the same tube was measuring around .028" to .035". Pretty extreme variation at the same length of measure.

At 9" from the breech it measured about .043" so the farther back one goes, the more normal it gets. There just happens to be a very thin area near the lower rib starting at around 12" from breech and continuing up to about 20" from breech.

This is all I can recollect from a couple days ago. Not my gun, not my problem. It is just that the owner is a good friend and I wanted to be able to give him the best answers possible because he is very fond of this gun and I want him to be safe and happy.

Isn't it possible that the outside portion of the barrel could be the part out of round and the bore itself actually concentric?

The damascus looks very good externally and of consistent wear. I suspect someone honed the inside and really worked out some pits in one area of the bore. I can't think of another way to get such peculiar readings from a gun. (I measured correctly and have an excellent wall thickness gauge)

"SAFE" Shoot light loads only
"Happy" Its a beautiful gun

No disrespect intended but I don't think you can tell anything by looking. We are only talking a few thousandths of a inch. The Hosford barrel wall thickness gauge measures outside wall concomitant with the inside. I think the only way to tell if the outside wall is out of round is to measure outside wall with a micrometer or caliper taking several measurements. You might be right but I think the outside wall being out of round is a possibility too as these old boys used files to strike up their barrels.

I don't see how using a micrometer will tell what the wall thickness is on a sxs gun. You can only read maybe 2/3rds of the diameter because of the top and bottom rib.

On my Starrett dial gage I can change tips and go from almost a needle to 3/8" diameter. The contact diameter of the ball bearing on the barrels would probably be in the tenths of thousands, and rotating barrel on gage would give you fluctuations in wall thickness as described by Rookhawk.

I venture to say that most if not all barrels bores are not concentric or even close to outside diameter.

Makes sense to me- as did the article in SSM about how barrels are viewed in Limey-land- and also the proof test- receiver, barrels, forearm group together- clamped in a padded vise, covered by a blast blanket- "good idea there"-- and then at least two "Blue Pills" fired through it-a good read full of useful data indeed-

Rookhawk, the farther up the barrel , from the breech, the better the .018" measurement sounds. Do you remember what the bore measurements were ? Differences in these from the nominal proof and the rest of the barrels might help with the riddle.

The bore diameters were proof stamped as 12 bore. (.729")

The nominal measurement of the bore diameters in both bores were roughly .036" according to my notes. I suspect the gun was backbored because it has a remarkable amount of choke in both barrels that seems inconsistent for a Scott Premier of that era, my own included. Chokes were something like .027" and .038". (approximately, from memory)