doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Wall Thickness Question

Thanks for the responses, I will reply shortly with answers.

22/23 are not that thin unless it is very near the breach. They were struck thin from the start to get the weight down and most likely were .025 from the start. I have a LeFever 20 which is untouched and both barrels have long sections that are .020. Just by luck they have not dented but thin barrels may dent easily. This 20 is under 5 pounds.

If you like them and like the feel, then after making sure the thin areas are several inches past where your hand rest buy them. But understand if like the light weight feel of those thinly struck barrels sleeving them to get more thickness will destroy that feel. I’ve heard countless people complain about sleeved guns feeling heavier than they were before the were sleeved. Hello, more metal means more weight.

Barrel walls on Brit 12s often have barrels below 24 thou. and are in proof. I have a nice London SLE made in the 1930 - in proof and with barrels of about the same thickness as the ones you posted about.

I think I would worry if the barrel were much under 20 thou. and some lightweight 2" 12s came from the factory with barrels below 20 thou.

If you like the guns, buy them.

Here is what I was able to find out on the pair:

Proof .729

Bore Size:

No 1: .733 LH, .730 RH
No 2: .730 LH, .730 RH

Thinnest point 22 thou is 12" from the muzzle.

Is the seller unwilling to share the end-of-the-chamber and 9" from the breech wall thicknesses?

I agree with others that .022" from mid-barrel on is adequate, and commonly found in light weight and small bore doubles.

It would be prudent to recheck those numbers under a 3 day return policy.

That's correct. If it's a rare case where you can still get information from the maker, with a gun that light, you might discover it left the shop with walls that thin. Or you might discover that it's been honed a whole bunch over the years. One way you can likely spot honing if there's been much: Measure the bore diameters and compare to what you find on the barrel flats--whether it's an actual diameter or whether it's the older style 12, 13/1, etc. If it's been honed so much that it's now out of proof, I'd certainly stay away from it with MWT that thin. Unless maybe it's way out at the muzzle.

Woops. Missed your last post. Bore diameter does not look to have been messed with very much. Looks like one of those cases of a pair made very light. If the guns were made in the 70's and those are the original proofs, I'd say you're good to go.

I have a Hollis SL that I shoot occasionally, that has MWT about that. It's well down the barrels, and I only use low pressure stuff in it, so no worry there. My biggest concern, as others have mentioned, is denting it.

Guns with barrel walls that thin should be used with extreme care, IMO. Hunting is not necessarily the issue ......... but handling them around vehicles, in workshops, on shooting carts ........ anyplace where those barrels can strike a hard object to dent them, is how damage usually occurs. There are plenty of other suitable guns that are not so prone to barrel damage. I'm no big fan of super lightweight shotguns, anyway. Others may be, and that's fine. But, lightweight guns require an entirely different shooting style for me. I have learned to adapt to them, so that I can shoot my .410 doubles reasonably well, but it takes a conscious effort when you shoot 9 lb. 12s and + or - 5 lb. .410s.

SRH

How long are the barrels?
If they were made in the 70's, then they have probably not been re-proofed. Assuming that and given the bore sizes stated - the barrels should be original as made.