English doubles

[Bindlestiff]

Bill, I don't want to steal this thread but can you explain that? I don't own a British gun nor do I expect to but, over the years I have been told that no one can work on a gun there without proofing it, or some such lingo. Anyway, my point is that their government has a set of, what seem like stringent rules, to insure safe gunning. On this forum there have been several discussions about what constitutes thin barrels and from my view the topic never had a true definitive definition to when they became "thin".

I would have thought a recent test from a certified proofing house would indicate safe barrels.

[Bill Murphy]

A gun "in proof" only means it has the stamps. A gun in proof could have been restruck (sanded or filed on the outside) or bored out on the inside since the stamps were struck. The only way you can determine in your own mind whether the gun is still in proof, no, don't send it back to England, is to measure the wall thickness. This is the way we in this country choose to determine the safety of old guns. Proof does not impress us too much because lately we have heard from people who know, that guns have passed modern proof with barrels in the .020 bracket. Supposedly there is a low limit on the thickness of barrels that will be accepted for proving, but that limit is lower than is comfortable for American collectors.

[Double Trouble]

I thought that an English gun that was "still in proof" meant that it still had the dimensions it had when it was proof-tested. ie: bore gauge. If gun is stamped 13 on the barrels, then it was proofed at that bore diameter. If the gun now measures 12 gauge, it has been opened up to that larger bore diameter. This modification would mean it's no longer "in proof" and should be re-proofed (technically).

Now, one has no idea what the wall thickness was when the item was proofed, so like Bill said, it could have been struck/filed & you wouldn't know.

So the valid point is that proper barrel wall thickness is always a tangible measurement.

[TARNATION !!!]

Here are the barrel wall measurements:

Muzzle: .065 L .054 R
9": .037 L .032 R
15": .037 L .032 R
24": .052 L .054 R

The left barrel is marked "Not for Ball", apparently indicating choke-boring.
The original bore dimensions are stamped .728" in both, after lapping they are stamped 18.6 mm (.732") in both. I'm told they chime when suspended from the hook, too.
So lapping (honing?) reduced original walls by .002, if I have the math right. Anyway, the thickness appears fairly "stout", so sounds like they might just be able to handle a few more rounds. Soooo........

If anyone here knows any reason why this gun should not find its way to the pheasant fields of Saskatchewan, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Of course it would take its turn with the Parkers.

Cheers,
Jack (about to succumb to doublegunitis it appears)