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
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (2 invisible),
877
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,475
Posts545,172
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,335 Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 377 |
As I understand it, chrome plated bores are no more safe from "bridging" than un-plated bores. The chrome does protect from abrasion by the steel. Bridging is the cause of barrel bulges in tightly choked guns. Steel shot does not give whereas lead, when it "bridges" does, hence no buldge. Best, Dr. BILL
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 629 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 629 Likes: 1 |
Gentlemens: I know that the monoblock is not the traditional construction method, but from a purely mechanical stand point it makes good sense and has to be less expensive to manufacture. All things considered I believe the gun would be the better for it. As for the join one option would be to laser weld it. The HAZ (heat affected zone) is so small with this process that there would be no significant effect on the metallurgy, or the solder that holds the tubes in the block. The joint would simply disappear after striking and polishing. Besides, Mr. Hurst hates engraving barrels... I have no opinion either way with the chrome. It would take away the option of custom chokes and chambers. Glenn
There is no sacrifice too great for someone else to make.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,698
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,698 |
For your onfo; I just got off the phone with Buck Hamlen ( Lefever restoration expert). He said that after measuring a large number of light weight guns in his shop that 1.055" between firing pins would be sufficient for 12 thru 20 ga. guns. He also suggested a sear pin as in later mod's over screws for holding sears. This would further lessen the cost and be superior in his opinion. Buck also strongly felt that a straight rib extension would also save a great deal of cost over a dolls head rib extension and was every bit as strong.
In so far as single triggers go, Buck said that the Infallable single trigger was the best available other than a Win. 21 trigger. However, he felt for those shooting sporting clays, the double trigger to be the best bet.
Regarding chrome plating bbl's. Buck pointed out ( as you Eightbore) that a bbl shipped with full and full chokes couldn't practically be altered --- forcing cones included. Perhaps the tubes should be furnished without the plating until chokes and forcing cones were finished. Accurate Plating in Fla. could plate the bores "after" this finish work is done. How about some opinions here guys ???
Buck and I also discussed the use of one ejestor frame for both ejector and extracter bbl;s in order to keep cost to clients down. His opinion was that this was easily done by making on cut a small amount wider. Guess this is another way to go. Regarding other areas of the Lefever, Buck didn't feel the need for further changes except for tightening the tolerances. His opinion was that a "New Lefever" built with the best modern steels, machining and heat treatment would be far stronger and superior to the original guns. When asked about monoblock bbl's, he didn't like them & prefered dovetail bbl's. for their looks only. I understand this as I don't like the look either.
All for now boys, more to come as I get it. Ken
Ken Hurst 910-221-5288
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15 |
Glenn, The welding of the tubes into the monoblock would be in lieu of solder, not in combination with solder. Solder would contaminate the weld.
The weld width of an EB or laser weld is very narrow and once normalized and blended, neither the owner nor maybe even an engraver would be the wiser unless bright blueing is done. TC Contenders have either an EB or laser weld holding the lump on the barrels. Likely, the larger framed gun they make also used this process.
The advantage of the monoblock system is that the monoblock could/should be made by the reciever makers and control of the barrel fit is more easily assured.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,698
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,698 |
Excelent point Mr. chuck !! More ideas and info to ponder towards making up of a gun incorparating an old classic with new modern improvements. I will pursue this ides with Mr. Steve --- I know he can do it. Will also have to present this idea along with the other info to the bbl makers while getting del. , min orders and cost established. Thanks again. Ken
Ken Hurst 910-221-5288
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15 |
Ken, It's unlikely you'd be able to weld in the area between the barrels (about 1/4" or so), but I don't believe that would an issue at all as far and strength goes. Remember, you're replacing solder which has relatively low strength.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,698
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,698 |
Mr. Chuck ---- My thought was to possibly have the mono blocks made here by Steve, forward same to bbl maker and have bbl's welded to mono block there. Maker would then polish welds down, regulate and fit ribs before sending to us. What do you think ? Ken
Ken Hurst 910-221-5288
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 377
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 377 |
Ken, just to be the iconoclast/philistine, what about chrome lined bore with loooong forcing cones built in and Teague/Briley type long, square threaded, choke tubes fom the factory. Decreases cost if monbloc is TIG/lazer welded and decreases finishing costs for the barrels. Further with choke tubes, barrel length is much simpler. Just random thoughts since we are "dreaming". BILL
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,125 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,125 Likes: 198 |
I see no reason for chrome bores unless the barrel maker charges less for them. As far as no tox requirements, guys who shoot five figure guns don't shoot steel, they shoot no tox that is perfectly compatible with old guns and soft barrels. If monobloc is chosen, I'm sure that it will be fairly seamless and will not require an ugly engraved seam. Ken's idea of a U.S. manufactured monobloc with final barrel and rib construction somewhere else seems to be a very novel and workable idea. That would take the worry about lug and doll's head fit out of the "import" equation. That is some of what sunk the ICD ship.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15 |
Ken, Your concept sounds viable. The monoblock concept would save a bunch of handwork if the monoblock was machined/ground to fit the reciever breachface.
On a segment of Shotgun Journal, they showed Bruce watching a gunmaker fit a monoblock to a O/U prior to tube installation. I don't know if the tubes went into stepped holes with no barrel coming all the way to the breachface, or not. Something to think about. From structual standpoint, there's no reason to extend the tubes all the way to the breachface, especially if soldering is replaced with welding. The problems with not extending (stepped hole) the tubes all the way to the breachface include close tolerance of the monoblock hole depth and barrel steps along with a potential to get moisture/crud in any gap. On my sleeving job, I welded the breachface of the tubes to the monoblock.
|
|
|
|
|