Barrel sleeve/liner services in Canada?

S

Selair_Chapman

Member
Rating - 100%
142   0   0
Howdy all
As we all do, I regularly come across beautiful old rifles (in my case usually milsurps) with shot out barrels. What options do we have up here for barrel sleeving/lining services in Canada? That is, drill out the bore and install an internal barrel "sleeve" to make the bore like-new? I believe Vulcan might do this but im on the other side of the country and just wonder what other options are out there. I recently came across a saddle ring winchester 1895 in 303 that has basically no rifling left and the muzzle swallows an inverted projectile.
Cheers!
 
Last edited:
My friend does this with handgun barrels, takes them from prohib to restricted.
But I’ve never known him to do a rifle barrel.
 
Last edited:
Selair_Chapman said:
Howdy all
As we all do, I regularly come across beautiful old rifles (in my case usually milsurps) with shot out barrels. What options do we have up here for barrel sleeving/lining services in Canada? That is, drill out the bore and install an internal barrel "sleeve" to make the bore like-new? I believe Vulcan might do this but im on the other side of the country and just wonder what other options are out there. I recently came across a saddle ring winchester 1895 in 303 that has basically no rifling left and the muzzle swallows an inverted projectile.
Cheers!
Click to expand...

Reborn, if you can find anyone, or a new barrel.

Liners are for low pressure cartridges, pretty much exclusively.
 
Selair_Chapman said:
Howdy all
As we all do, I regularly come across beautiful old rifles (in my case usually milsurps) with shot out barrels. What options do we have up here for barrel sleeving/lining services in Canada? That is, drill out the bore and install an internal barrel "sleeve" to make the bore like-new? I believe Vulcan might do this but im on the other side of the country and just wonder what other options are out there. I recently came across a saddle ring winchester 1895 in 303 that has basically no rifling left and the muzzle swallows an inverted projectile.
Cheers!
Click to expand...

Not a good idea. If you want the gun to shoot, rebarrel is properly. Sleeving is an option for low pressure, straight-walled cartridges, but it's not advisable for high pressure "modern" cartridges. Keep in mind that any alteration can drastically affect the value of collectible and milsurp rifles, especially if the modification potentially compromises the safety of the gun.
 
tiriaq said:
Does anyone sleeve bottleneck high pressure barrels?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you're calling "high pressure."

There is a fellow in the US that sleeves Broomhandle Mauser 96 barrels and there are several examples of milsurp rifles with chamber sleeves, such as the 1896 Swiss straight pull, for the 30-30 winchester case.

I have personally seen two of those rifles where those chamber sleeves had been opened up to improved versions with shoulders and relatively higher pressures.

I wouldn't do such a modification on any rifle whose cartridge develops over 38,000 psi.

As for the poster whose friend is installing sleeves in pistol barrels, hopefully that person is extremely careful. There was a thread here a few years back about a fellow installing sleeves in revolver barrels. It had a pic of the catastrophic failure because the job wasn't done properly.

Universal, sleeved the rear portion of some of their M1 Carbine barrels by using surplus barrels, which had been cut off just after the gas port and sleeving that with a barrel to the breech. Google it. Interesting. I did one myself, using a take off match grade Shilen barrel with a 1-15 twist rate. It shoots very well but looks out of place as it doesn't have sights and the barrel is massive.

The 30 M1 Carbine round generates 38,000 psi.
 
Last edited:
There was a machinist in Calgary (deceased now ) who did a # of re-line jobs on 30-30's, 32 WS, 357 Mag (easily over 40,000 # pressure with handloads) and 38-55 for smokeless loads among others.

The thing with doing these pressure level barrels is that it just isn't a "hand drill in the basement & slide in a locktite gooped up liner & call'er good. If you do it like a "Brownell's direction, .22 rimfire barrel the extra pressure will walk the liner out the bore end. the the bolt in the gun wont move so the pressure on the cartridge head is exerted on the liner and the epoxy isn't strong enough to stop movement from starting, headspace is increased at every firing.

The method Roy used was to drill the old barrel out but leaving a hole smaller than the liner dia., then he precision reamed the barrel from the muzzle end to about 2" in front where the chamber was going to end ( 2" from the free-bore as it were) so that the bulk of the liner was going to be a very slight friction fit. Now he bored the chamber area a few thou smaller than the barrel liner dia. so that it was a VERY tight fit for that length of the barrel. Now he gooped up the area of the liner that was going to be a slight friction fit and (with a jig he made in the shop to hold everything straight) he hydraulically pushed the liners into the barrel with his 50 ton shop press (not sure he needed 50 tons but that is what he had available). He said he tried to seat the first one he did with a 4x4 hardwood drift and a big hammer but he said by the time he got it seated to full depth he was sure wore out and the epoxy probably had started to set up LOL.

Roy had a buddy that didn't want to go the full meal deal for his own reline job on a 30-30 (did it the Brownell's method)and 2 things happened , the previously mentioned liner walk-out and the chamber also swelled up because it had room too from the loose fit drill job. the brass at the body area swelled up and needed to be driven from the barrel with a range rod.

It can be done but it isn't cheap, the folks that had it done wanted 100 year old family heirlooms to retain their original looks but still be shootable.
 
Roy also used a bit more than what you mentioned. Yes, he did ream the barrels smaller than the sleeve diameters but he also "sweated" those liners in place by heating the barrel to expand its diameters and freezing the liner.

https://youtu.be/F5q5JqmFpHk?t=179

This is similar to the method he used.
 
bearhunter said:
Roy also used a bit more than what you mentioned. Yes, he did ream the barrels smaller than the sleeve diameters but he also "sweated" those liners in place by heating the barrel to expand its diameters and freezing the liner.

https://youtu.be/F5q5JqmFpHk?t=179

This is similar to the method he used.
Click to expand...

Using heat and cold to expand and shrink the respective parts is not 'sweating' them. Sweating them is the use of solder.
In the case of a liner, that would involve pre-tinning both the bore and the liner with solder, then heating all to above the melting point of the solder, and sliding the parts together, all while juggling with enough additional solder to prevent leaving voids in the joint.

All of which usually takes a pretty good selection of extra hands, in a limited amount of space and time, to pull off, which is pretty much why so many guy went to Acraglass or similar 'glue' formulations to install them. Less swearing, fewer burns, more time to work.

I spent a LOT of time installing bushings in airplane parts with liquid nitrogen. Once the cold part touches the hot one, you have a very limited amount of actual time to work with, and you might just as well save yourself the effort, and press the parts together from the outset.

Cold shrinking large diameter bearings or bushings with Liquid Nitrogen isn't onerous, but the amount that a small diameter part actually changes size in a couple hundred degrees temperature change is pretty minor, and the heat transfer to the room temperature or 'hot' part once they make contact, is almost instantaneous, even if you manage to fit the small diameter part on to a larger mass and cool that too.

If you really want to know how close you have to work, look up the Coefficient of Expansion, multiply that by the number of degrees temperature change, then multiply in the diameter of the hole.

Better yet...COE of Steel 0.000012" per degree F, per inch of diameter.
Temperature of Liquid Nitrogen (colder than most folks have) is between -346°F and -320.44°F

Lets say room temperature as a good starting point. 75°F sounds about right for a round number.

Call it a half inch diameter liner. .22 rimfire liners are a bunch smaller, at 5/16 inch, or .3125", but lets use .5 for a nice round number.

So, .000012" x 405°F (splitting the difference between min and max LN2 temperatures, plus the room temperature above zero) x .5 = .00243 inches, or 2 1/2 thousandth of an inch.
At least, until the cold part touches the warm one, and the heat transfers over.

Oh yeah, if you want the thing to grip the bore, the bore has to be smaller than the liner starts out, at equal temps, so you have considerably less than that 2 1/2 thousandths to fit the liner in to while hoping it stays cold while you do it.

Which tends to make me believe the guy with the hydraulic press was likely on to something! :) Like that pissing around heating and freezing skinny parts is pretty much just a waste of time, when you can press fit the parts and get a pretty reasonable interference fit.

My money is on that no matter how quick you were, you'd get about two inches of that liner in to the barrel before it locked up solid, if even that.
 
I have also done a lot of shrink fits and it's not always fun. The barrel liner is doable but it is cheaper and easier to simply re-barrel. Trying to shrink fit a liner is something I would not want to do. Even if successful in the installation, the result would likely be a reduction in bore diameter unless the liner was quite thick and the barrel very thin. Turning the new barrel to a cylinder, with a step up over the chamber, and using the original barrel as a sleeve to maintain an original look is a viable option but, here again, much more involved than a simple re-barrel and, consequently, more expensive.
 
Leeper said:
I have also done a lot of shrink fits and it's not always fun. The barrel liner is doable but it is cheaper and easier to simply re-barrel. Trying to shrink fit a liner is something I would not want to do. Even if successful in the installation, the result would likely be a reduction in bore diameter unless the liner was quite thick and the barrel very thin. Turning the new barrel to a cylinder, with a step up over the chamber, and using the original barrel as a sleeve to maintain an original look is a viable option but, here again, much more involved than a simple re-barrel and, consequently, more expensive.
Click to expand...

This. There gets to be a point where economical reasoning takes over.

A few years back there was a story put out about a Winchester 1886 being left behind in a cabin, somewhere in the Northern territories. The rifle was left at the cabin permanently IIRC and when the trapper retired it stayed there. Many years later some folks felt it would be a fun thing to find the cabin and retrieve the rifle. They did it and found the rifle was in only FAIR condition, inside and out.

This morphed into a project, which consisted of fully restoring the rifle as much as possible with its original parts. This meant the barrel had to be sleeved. Supposedly the barrel sleeve was "shrink fit" into the original and when finished, tested for safety. All went well and it was presented to the relatives of the trapper.

trevj, I've installed a lot of sleeves using the shrink fit method, but not in rifle barrels. It is likely one of the best methods to install bearing shells and even refurb cylinder walls I've come across. I will admit, great care was needed or the liner would be ruined.

As for tinning both surfaces over epoxy? I saw a black powder rifle come apart in Salmon Arm several years ago that had a sleeve soldered in place. Where it gets really critical is how close the tolerances between the two pieces is before installation. Yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir as from you posts you show a lot of good knowledge. I don't know how Roy did the shrink fit of the sleeve. He was quite innovative at a lot of things. I would have loved to see it being done.

Thanx for the correction of the nomenclature.
 
bearhunter said:
This. There gets to be a point where economical reasoning takes over.

A few years back there was a story put out about a Winchester 1886 being left behind in a cabin, somewhere in the Northern territories. The rifle was left at the cabin permanently IIRC and when the trapper retired it stayed there. Many years later some folks felt it would be a fun thing to find the cabin and retrieve the rifle. They did it and found the rifle was in only FAIR condition, inside and out.

This morphed into a project, which consisted of fully restoring the rifle as much as possible with its original parts. This meant the barrel had to be sleeved. Supposedly the barrel sleeve was "shrink fit" into the original and when finished, tested for safety. All went well and it was presented to the relatives of the trapper.

trevj, I've installed a lot of sleeves using the shrink fit method, but not in rifle barrels. It is likely one of the best methods to install bearing shells and even refurb cylinder walls I've come across. I will admit, great care was needed or the liner would be ruined.

As for tinning both surfaces over epoxy? I saw a black powder rifle come apart in Salmon Arm several years ago that had a sleeve soldered in place. Where it gets really critical is how close the tolerances between the two pieces is before installation. Yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir as from you posts you show a lot of good knowledge. I don't know how Roy did the shrink fit of the sleeve. He was quite innovative at a lot of things. I would have loved to see it being done.

Thanx for the correction of the nomenclature.
Click to expand...

Thats an understatement for sure LOL I have no doubt that he probably did try the heat expansion method but he never mentioned it to me so like trevj says it might have been more bother than effective but I do know he did quite a few with the hyd. press method. He had quite a "library" of drill bits & reamers welded to CR steel rods for use for whatever size liner they shipped him. He often lamented that liners sometimes came a few thou difference in dia. from batch to batch. Not a problem if your doing the oversize drill method for the full length but when you want a specific friction fit, it became one.

I sure do miss the guy, one of the most knowledgeable persons I had the pleasure to talk gun stuff with
 
bearhunter said:
trevj, I've installed a lot of sleeves using the shrink fit method, but not in rifle barrels. It is likely one of the best methods to install bearing shells and even refurb cylinder walls I've come across. I will admit, great care was needed or the liner would be ruined.

As for tinning both surfaces over epoxy? I saw a black powder rifle come apart in Salmon Arm several years ago that had a sleeve soldered in place. Where it gets really critical is how close the tolerances between the two pieces is before installation. Yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir as from you posts you show a lot of good knowledge. I don't know how Roy did the shrink fit of the sleeve. He was quite innovative at a lot of things. I would have loved to see it being done.

Thanx for the correction of the nomenclature.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, larger bearing sleeves or shells are really not too hard to deal with. The math works out! Which is to say, the actual amount of shrinkage of the part, once you get enough temperature differential, allows you the wiggle room you need, literally, and figuratively.
With an understanding of the actual math involved, you soon see that simple statements like "Provide a .0015" to .003" interference fit" (a true story from the CF-18 tech manuals!) works out OK for large bearings, but if you try to force a 3 thou oversize .250"od bushing in to a flight control surface with that much interference, you end up doing a lot of damage and/or rework.

I have read descriptions of the liners installed by a fella named John Taylor, in the States, where he would drill from the chamber end, and match the end taper of the liner to the taper angle of the drill tip, stopping his drilling just at or short of the muzzle of the original barrel. Apparently when done as he does it, the installed liner takes some considerable effort to detect, and by all accounts he does a pretty tidy job of it, leaving no visible seam.
 
trevj said:
Yeah, like I said, larger bearing sleeves or shells are really not too hard to deal with. The math works out! Which is to say, the actual amount of shrinkage of the part, once you get enough temperature differential, allows you the wiggle room you need, literally, and figuratively.
With an understanding of the actual math involved, you soon see that simple statements like "Provide a .0015" to .003" interference fit" (a true story from the CF-18 tech manuals!) works out OK for large bearings, but if you try to force a 3 thou oversize .250"od bushing in to a flight control surface with that much interference, you end up doing a lot of damage and/or rework.

I have read descriptions of the liners installed by a fella named John Taylor, in the States, where he would drill from the chamber end, and match the end taper of the liner to the taper angle of the drill tip, stopping his drilling just at or short of the muzzle of the original barrel. Apparently when done as he does it, the installed liner takes some considerable effort to detect, and by all accounts he does a pretty tidy job of it, leaving no visible seam.
Click to expand...

Actually, we also used the process for installing bushings in small hydraulic pumps and small pneumatic actuating valves as well. Very tedious but with some of the older equipment we were using, there wasn't any other viable option.

I've used it to install sleeves in pistol barrels, to take them out of the prohib classification. Again, very tedious. When I do a pistol barrel, I heat up the barrel to around 300F and put it into a heat sink media. Keeping the barrel sleeve cold is the biggest problem and I will admit, I've had failures. Not something I would want to do on a regular basis but there is obviously a market for it.
 
I have sleeved one or two 22 rimfires, a 32-20, a 50-70 and a 45 cal monkey tail. The 22's and the monkey tail I soldered and the 50-70 I used the thick green bearing retaining Loktite. All worked well. The Loktite sets up pretty quickly; I only had 20 or 30 seconds at best with it and had to finish with a good smack on the breach end of the 50-70 liner to seat it all the way.

I tinned the inside of the recipient barrel using a push rod and steel wool to advance the molten solder as well as tinning the outside of the liner. They all seemed to work OK

While I think of it, I drilled the 22 barrels from both ends using a piloted drill and the larger calibers by pulling a series of D bits through. Clean the chips very often and taper the back of the D bit for when you break it off of the pulling shaft and have to drive it out

cheers mooncoon
 
Installing sleeves in low pressure barrels with loctite is fine, as long as the clearances are kept minimal and the sleeves are strong enough to handle those pressures without swelling.

A very good friend of mine from Salmon Arm sleeved a barrel on a muzzle loader by tinning both the sleeve and the drilled out barrel. The thing had a catastrophic failure when it was tested. The reason we deduced for this was the sleeve was to thin and the soft solder flowed under pressure. Something had to give and the front six inches of the sleeve disappeared.

I use "Titanium Putty" to sleeve barrels for the most part. This stuff is tough. Supposed to have a tensile strength of 38K psi. I even use this when I'm installing sleeves into M1 Carbine barrel stubs. I have one of those sleeved barrels with close to 20K rounds down the tube and another with a sleeve made from a Shilen Match takeoff barrel with close to a thousand rounds through it. THE tolerances on them are both around .003in or less difference. The diameter of the insert is large enough to easily handle the pressures generated by the M1 Carbine round.

Curing the Titanium Putty properly is critical IMHO. It's my preferred method for installing sleeves. It doesn't flow under pressure and it doesn't compress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom