1881 Scott Dimple:

[Bruce P Bruner]

This 1/16” dimple is 7-3/4” from the muzzle on 30-5/8” barrels. The wall thickness at the muzzle is .068. The depth isn’t much, can’t really measure. It is visible in the bore. Based on the photos, is this something to be concerned with? I would like to avoid having to refurb the barrels because I like them in their current original condition.
Personally, I think it’s of little consequence, more cosmetic than worrisome. Suggestions and thoughts from the collective are appreciated.

[charlie cleveland]

probably never hurt the shooting of it but I would have it fixed...if you don t have it fixed it will probly worry you more than any thing else....should not be hard to fix...charlie

[Drew Hause]

Bruce: I've seen images of barrels with similar dimples felt to have been caused by errant shot.
If visible in the bore I would suggest the 'dent' be lifted. Done right, it won't mar the beautiful refinish.

[Aaron Beck]

I also assumed an errant shot, I have a similar set of barrels but decided to let sleeping dogs lie, especially with a composite steel barrel.

[Drew Hause]

Aaron may be correct. 8" from the muzzle the pressure is <1000 psi and likely less than 500 psi if Bruce is using low pressure loads.
Blowing up the image, the defect is immediately adjacent to the riband end weld and I would be very apprehensive about the use of a hydraulic dent lifter.

[Bruce P Bruner]

For smokeless loads in composite barrels 1160fps is what I use, very mild and to be honest they seem almost too mild. Not complaining, just an observation.
The 1-1/2Fg & 2Fg black powder loads have delivered similar results as the smokeless.
Someone has the ability to correct this barrel. I’m hoping to not disturb the barrel surface to the point of requiring a refinish. I can rent the Hosford dent removal tool. I don’t care to learn on the job with a shotgun that deserves experienced hands.
I posted the query with an open mind and everyone’s thoughts are appreciated. Thank you!

[Aaron Beck]

To me, fussing it seems like unneeded stress on the integrity of the original material, offset by uncertain gains in the aesthetic department.

[Dean Romig]

IMO that dimple is insignificant it terms of safely shooting the gun.





.

[Bruce P Bruner]

I don’t have a lot invested in this gun, the combination of the dimple and the stock that had been shortened for a LOP of 12-5/8” decimated its collector value. Consequently, to obtain a proper fit I had to add 1-3/8”. A Silver pad and two spacers were fitted for an acceptable 14” LOP. Previously, it had a thin piece of red rubber inner tube over construction paper, glued and attached with over a dozen carpet tacks. After judiciously removing the tacks and scraping away the paper, the face of the butt had two opposing angles and after a touch on a belt sander a flat mating surface was obtained. It won’t win any beauty contests, though it is a quality shotgun that I can use and enjoy. A classic vintage shotgun doesn’t necessarily have to be a show stopper to have value and be appreciated.
By leaving the barrel “as is” avoids additional stress caused by aesthetic correction. This double has endured 142 years and I’m extending its useful life. I may contour the sharp edges of the Silver pad for a more traditional “continental” look.
Thank you so much!

[charlie cleveland]

that's a sharp looking gun ....if we only new the storey....charlie

[Breck Gorman]

If it can be seen in the bore, for the small price it would cost to lift it, I would make it go away. Any obstruction, no matter how small, is still an obstruction, and can lead to more problems