Thanks for post this. It is good to know there are other options out there. Sometimes the web in general gets hung up on favorites as if there are no other options.
Have you done any testing on measurement variation by putting pressure on the gauge or other slight miss use?
Bore and thickness gauge decision made
Re: Bore and thickness gauge decision made
"I have more than I need, but not as many as I want"
"The search continues on many fronts"
Life Member, A.H. Fox Collectors Association.
"The search continues on many fronts"
Life Member, A.H. Fox Collectors Association.
-
ASavageFox
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:23 pm
Re: Bore and thickness gauge decision made
Jess,
Yeah I used the hosford quite a bit already... I have checked all of my guns with the exception of two.
As warned about extensively in the video and attached literature... if you "manhandle" the end instead of just using one finger in the ring... it will give very erroneous measurements (but that should be obvious and easy to fix ... it does happen out of human nature). Slightly angling the unit while sliding makes very little difference... the biggest issue is not letting the tool rest at the muzzle which again can be easy to do if you are doing several set of barrels in a row... is seems to give about a .004 error in most cases if you do this.
Some interesting finds.... almost all of the guns that I checked were thinest at the portion of the barrel 180 degrees from the rib... otherwise stated... perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the barrel on the horizontal plane.
Even on barrels that I feel quite certain have not been messed with... barrel wall thickness(BWT) is not terribly consistent at any given location down the barrel on the circumference... to clarify... at say 10" the BWT will vary greatly as you move around the circumference... if you move "down" the barrel on a consistent circumference location, they are more consistent... this seems to make sense if you think of the way a tube would have likely been struck. In the end this mean that though the ID maybe perfectly circular (or close at least) the OD is often actually oval or irregularly shaped (this was also seen on a picture that Silvers posted about filling the keel)
Also interesting to compare the relative barrel wall thickness at the choke to the bore restriction... despite how it may seem that a barrel wall thickness gauge could be used to check choke.... turns out that at least one gun I had was more heavily struck at the muzzle thus giving a smaller barrel wall thickness than would be expected by the amount of constriction.
I really enjoyed having this gauge... I feel like I can very easily and very thoroughly check a set of barrels.... I was actually running 7 longitudinal lines on each tube... I could do both barrels in 3-4 minutes max and feel very comfortable that I covered the entire barrel.
All of this just goes to show these guns were built by hand....
Yeah I used the hosford quite a bit already... I have checked all of my guns with the exception of two.
As warned about extensively in the video and attached literature... if you "manhandle" the end instead of just using one finger in the ring... it will give very erroneous measurements (but that should be obvious and easy to fix ... it does happen out of human nature). Slightly angling the unit while sliding makes very little difference... the biggest issue is not letting the tool rest at the muzzle which again can be easy to do if you are doing several set of barrels in a row... is seems to give about a .004 error in most cases if you do this.
Some interesting finds.... almost all of the guns that I checked were thinest at the portion of the barrel 180 degrees from the rib... otherwise stated... perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the barrel on the horizontal plane.
Even on barrels that I feel quite certain have not been messed with... barrel wall thickness(BWT) is not terribly consistent at any given location down the barrel on the circumference... to clarify... at say 10" the BWT will vary greatly as you move around the circumference... if you move "down" the barrel on a consistent circumference location, they are more consistent... this seems to make sense if you think of the way a tube would have likely been struck. In the end this mean that though the ID maybe perfectly circular (or close at least) the OD is often actually oval or irregularly shaped (this was also seen on a picture that Silvers posted about filling the keel)
Also interesting to compare the relative barrel wall thickness at the choke to the bore restriction... despite how it may seem that a barrel wall thickness gauge could be used to check choke.... turns out that at least one gun I had was more heavily struck at the muzzle thus giving a smaller barrel wall thickness than would be expected by the amount of constriction.
I really enjoyed having this gauge... I feel like I can very easily and very thoroughly check a set of barrels.... I was actually running 7 longitudinal lines on each tube... I could do both barrels in 3-4 minutes max and feel very comfortable that I covered the entire barrel.
All of this just goes to show these guns were built by hand....
Cheers!