|
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
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,500
Posts545,474
Members14,414
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 52
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,733 Likes: 52 |
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.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 820 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 820 Likes: 1 |
Someone shot it before when it was .018 it didn't get that thin in the closet
monty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,271 Likes: 202 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,529 Likes: 80
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,529 Likes: 80 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106 |
Isn't it possible that the outside portion of the barrel could be the part out of round and the bore itself actually concentric?
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 707 |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
"SAFE" Shoot light loads only
"Happy" Its a beautiful gun
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106 |
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) 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.
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
