|
|
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
433
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,499
Posts545,462
Members14,414
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,630 Likes: 75
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,630 Likes: 75 |
What is the acceptable amount of wall thickness on an English double.
Looking at one that has 21 to 23 thousands wall thickness.
Also on a dished out comb with 1/2" cast off, how would it look to have it bent back 1/4"?
Mike Proctor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518 |
There are those that have a personal minimum of .025 and thicker. There are many fine English guns that were built with MWT of less than .025 that are very capable of shooting appropriate nitro powder loads and are wonderful dynamic handling guns. The Birmingham Proof House will inform their customers if the MWT falls below .020 even though it may have passed proof. Is the gun you're referencing still in proof?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,630 Likes: 75
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,630 Likes: 75 |
Not sure since I have only been discussing with the owner and failed to ask. Its a pre 1900 Royal and I beleive it is 21 and 22 or 23. I too always heard never buy one below 25.
Mike Proctor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,964 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,964 Likes: 89 |
Mike, a gun with 20 or 21 will probably shoot forever without any problem. The thin walls will become a major factor though if you should dent the barrel in that area. There's not enough metal available--or marginal at best--to properly raise the dent and hone the tubes. If that doesn't bother you then have at it and enjoy the gun!
When an old man dies a library burns to the ground. (Old African proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 879
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 879 |
Would also depend on where the measurements are taken. .21 near the muzzle is different than 2 inches in front of the chambers
Last edited by tudurgs; 10/25/10 07:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
 From 1891. Pete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
Griffin & Howe's website talks about .20 being the standard for minimum BWT. As Tudurgs says having that near the muzzle is one thing, near the breach or just where you place your hand around the forend is another!
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 518 |
Griffin & Howe's website talks about .20 being the standard for minimum BWT. As Tudurgs says having that near the muzzle is one thing, near the breach or just where you place your hand around the forend is another! .20 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 52
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 52 |
You have to be careful where you put that decimal.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
Get a dial caliper and look a .020 it might change your mind about what's too thin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
