Grade O top lever Hammer 16 with 34" barrels

[Harold Pickens]

I had a stock lined up, but it is for a 1 frame.

[Mills]

If the barrels are sound, it would be an expensive, but worthwhile project. I would have a new stock made, if it were mine.

[charlie cleveland]

some fair looking stock blanks come on ebay from time to time...and even complete stocks also...i look forward to seeing this gun completed...charlie

[C.O.B.]

This is definitely a project that will take lots of time and money. I doubt the investment will ever be recovered but thats not what it's about anyway. Good luck with it Harold.

[Harold Pickens]

Absolutely right Rich. But I am looking into it, just to see if it is possible/feasible. I first need to find out if the barrels are safe/shootable, and if the barrels can be fitted to the action. Then of course, I need a stock.
If the gun can be put back into shape, and I like it, will see about refinishing the barrels etc.
Was at Brett Hoops house yesterday, and the wall thickness seemed to be OK on his gage. May try a little more barrel clean-up tonight with a frontier pad .
Because of the extensive barrel and fitting to the action, I talked to Dave Fjeline, and will send it out to him this week, and will have some answers then.
Been meaning to call you, will try this week .

[Harold Pickens]

I wondered about that myself Edgar, don't know how many of these 34" 16's were made, maybe only about a dozen. Shipped it out to Dave Fjelline today

[Mills]

Dave can work miracles. He's worked a few for me

[Harold Pickens]

Dissapointed, but not surprised , with the opinion on the 34" gun. Dave Fjelline checked it out, and pronounced it terminal. It was in rough shape, and he deemed it not feasible to repair, and Dave loves hammer guns, the longer the barrels, the better.
I knew when I had it sent to me that I was taking a gamble-and I lost the bet .
Sure did get the old juices flowing, thinking about a 34" 16 ga.

[Mills]

That is disappointing, but it happens. I have lost some bets too

[edgarspencer]

I started thinking about your gun, after reading John Davis' article in PP. The entry dated October 20, 1883 talks about the front face of the rear barrel lug, and how it is what keeps the barrel from pushing on the roll joint. You indicated that the barrels fit onto your other 16, so, it stands to reason that the gap between the end of the barrels, and the breech face, could not be closed by moving the barrels back. Therefore, the breech end of the barrels would have to be built up, all the while working around the rib extension.
In conversation with Dave one time, he remarked how many people were unaware of the perfect fit of the rear lug, front face to the mating surface with the gap of the receiver.
I'm sorry he deemed it a non starter, because if he wouldn't attempt, I don't image anyone else will either.