WC Scott hammer guns ?

[Kensal Rise]

Mr. Starr:
It isn't the honing of a bore that's bad. It's honing that renders the barrel wall thickness too thin. Have any honed bore measured for thickness. If there's enough thickness left in critical areas (generally over .025), it's safe.

And... the Scott Premiere grade was every bit as fine a gun as any made in the UK. It just didn't have a maker's cachet the others did.

Not all Bonehills were made with snap on forends. But most Bonehills are nowhere near a good Scott for quality.

[Milton C Starr]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

Mr. Starr:
It isn't the honing of a bore that's bad. It's honing that renders the barrel wall thickness too thin. Have any honed bore measured for thickness. If there's enough thickness left in critical areas (generally over .025), it's safe.

And... the Scott Premiere grade was every bit as fine a gun as any made in the UK. It just didn't have a maker's cachet the others did.

Not all Bonehills were made with snap on forends. But most Bonehills are nowhere near a good Scott for quality.

I meant as far as the Bonehill I used to own and the one I was looking at both have the snap on forends. That Bonehill was a tough gun however , someone rechambered it to 10 ga 3.5" magnum . I reckon someone couldn't afford a Ithaca NID magnum so they took a reamer to their old hammergun . I never shot 3.5" shells in it only RST lite loads. The guy I sold it to I explicitly told him not to fire 3.5" shells in it and to order shells from RST if he intended to fire it . Well he shot 3.5" shells in it anyhow . Never blew up but I still thought it was a reckless thing to do . But that Bonehill still held up to abuses it wasn't designed for . I try to be gentle with my guns but when you buy one with 100yrs plus of service there's no telling what previous owners out it through . The Scott 10 gauge with the mirror bores does not have the wall thickness listed .