First, i am not "knocking" Damascus barreled shotguns, but do have a few business/legal questions.

I have satisfactorily owned, shot clays, and hunted with several Damascus barreled SxS's. I use my own handloads, below 6,000 psi with zero problems. I'm comfortable using a Damascus shotgun with proper loads.

My question concerns any legal issues with a commercial dealer selling Damascus barreled shotguns. My impression is that many/most/some dealers won't sell these shotguns, due to a potential legal liability if the new owner were to be dumb enough to shoot modern high pressure factory loads.

We have a few attorneys on this board. QUERY: (1) Does a gunshop incur any legal liability in selling a Damascus shotgun? (2) Do they ask the buyer to sign any special acknowledgement or legal release? (3) Are you aware of gun shops that won't sell a Damascus shotgun because of potential legal liability? (4) Have there been actual lawsuits tried on this question?

I see the big gun auction houses (Julia, RIA) selling Damascus guns....

Is there a legal issue here, or are some dealers just overly cautious?

I have bought several Damascus barreled guns from dealers. None had me sign anything other than the BATF form 4473 (these were not pre 1899). None related to me any warning about What to or Not to shoot out of them. Beyond that someone else will have to answer.
I am not personally aware of a dealer refusing to sell a damascus barreled gun but perhaps if there were none on the racks, this was why & I just didn't know the reason.

I'm glad we're not signing releases to buy old guns. That could get out of hand very quickly.

A liability release isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Local gun club requires a release form be signed to shoot.

"So, dues will go down because we don't have to buy insurance now, right?"

Blank stare.

There's a definite trend towards extrapolating liability as broadly creative minds will go. Hopefully we don't help. The only person that should be liable for anything is the person that makes the decision to discharge any firearm.

I am fairly certain firearms dealers (and manufacturers) enjoy broad immunity from liability. Probably moreso than other retailers who can be sued all the way down the chain for manufacturing defects, failure to warn, etc.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws/gun-industry-immunity-statutes/

Firearms manufacturers certainly do not enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits for defective products. They are, however, protected from frivolous lawsuits filed in an attempt to collect damages arising from the intentional misuse or criminal use of their Constitutionally protected product. Here's a story about the Class Action lawsuit filed against Remington over the malfunctioning triggers of Model 700's

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/remington-settlement-deadly-rifle-defect-too-lenient/

However, attempting to sue a dealer for selling an antique Damascus shotgun that blew up because some idiot fired 3" Magnum slug loads in it would be the same as attempting to hold a car dealer or even Ford Motor Co. liable for an accident where someone was injured in a Model A Ford that didn't have seat belts or airbags.

So who are these dealers who are purportedly refusing to sell Damascus guns? And will they also refuse to sell a .38 special just because some idiot may force a .357 Mag into the cylinder?

Many states do not allow suits if you contributed to the failure. Example, putting a 3 1/2" shell in a gun made for 2 3/4" shells. Or driving a golf cart on the road at high for it speed then hitting a telephone pole.

As to Damascus failure most people understand guns made 100-150 years ago might be weak due to age alone and a reasonable amount of caution should be excercised.

We have been warned against using Pattern Welded barrels by Industry experts since SAAMI passed this resolution March 26, 1937:
“That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition.”

“These shells must not be used in guns with Damascus or Twist Steel barrels” warning appeared on shell boxes shortly thereafter.

RST boxes state: "To prevent injury to shooters or bystanders, use only in modern shotguns (not Damascus twist barrels, etc.) with proper gauge, load, and chambers."

SAAMI continues that warning; see p. 12 & 13
http://www.saami.org/PDF/FAQ.pdf

Those of us foolish enough to ignore that warning can not then hold a dealer responsible for our foolishness.

HOWEVER - should a piece of shrapnel from my damascus barrel penetrate the skull of my friend (or grandchild) leaving them bed-ridden and mute for the rest of their not-much-of-a-life, I will most certainly be held responsible.

The hard question is "What exactly IS my obligation to assure the safety of barrels which have been deemed by experts to be intrinsically unsafe?" and does "But a gunsmith said 'Should be fine with light loads.'" represent due diligence?

Liability is generally tied to causation. Sometimes liability is divided or tied to the last party who could have prevented an occurrence.

Manufacturers of new guns are held liable under products liability for manufacturing defects. If damascus barrels were to become commercially produced again today it might become a question as to whether the product was the cause of an occurrence or was the user for firing modern ammo despite the published warning on the shell box out of which he pulled the shell...Geo

Damascus barrels are actually discussed in the below case in connection with a failure to warn claim. Tossed, no negligence on part of manufacturer. Great description of facts though.

‘The uncontradicted testimony of plaintiff's own witnesses, Crysel, and of defendant's experts, Hill, McLain and Houser, is that the gun in question is in fact an old, twist steel Damascus made gun, the manufacture of which type guns was discontinued about the turn of the century. This type gun was made by twisting small steel rods around a mandrel, then subjecting them to intense heat to weld the rods and hammering them while they were hot. The mandrel was then withdrawn and the work smoothed or polished. All the experts who testified agreed that the Damascus type gun is inferior to the construction used in the manufacture of modern guns and none of them would fire a Damascus gun, even if it were new, because to do so would be unsafe. All of defendant's expert witnesses testified, and a casual inspection will show, that the gun was old and rusty, the barrels were pitted, the stock was broken and held together in part by a steel band around the stock in front of the trigger guard placed there by plaintiff's witness, Crysel, and the general condition was poor. The gun was offered in evidence as Defendant's exhibit D-1 and it is apparent to the Court, who is not an expert, that the gun was, in fact, unsafe. The experts who testified could not determine the exact date of manufacture of the gun, but since the manufacturers discontinued making this type gun around the turn of the century, as they testified, the particular gun in question must have been made before the year 1900. The experts also testified that deterioration in Damascus made guns takes place merely by the passage of time since slag which is bonded in between the welds when the twists of metal are hammered together on the mandrel will absorb moisture, thereby speeding corrosion in the barrel. This corrosion weakens the welds and tends to pull them apart.
‘Plaintiff offered no evidence to show that the shell in question which resulted in the rupture of the barrel was overloaded, improperly manufactured, or in any wise defective, and in that respect he has failed to make out his case, unless the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. In spite of plaintiff's lack of evidence, the defendant, in the Court's opinion, has shown by uncontradicted testimony that the shell was not, and *332 could not, have been overloaded, and that there was no defect in the shell or the manufacturing process. Mr. Hill, a witness for defendant, described in detail the mechanical process used in the manufacture of shotgun shells, with illustrative drawings and charts, and the Court is convinced from his testimony that the machine used in the manufacturing process could not possibly produce an overloaded shell. The inspection processes were also described in detail by this witness, both while the shell is being assembled and manufactured and after the shell has been loaded, and from those inspection processes, mechanical, visual and manual, any shells showing abnormalities, imperfections, improper crimping or too much wax are promptly discarded.


Singleton v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 131 So. 2d 329, 331–32 (La. Ct. App. 1961)

Older shotshell boxes did contain a printed warning, not to use in Damascus/Twist barrels. Most NEW shotshell boxes omit this prior warning language....


"We have been warned against using Pattern Welded barrels by Industry experts since SAAMI passed this resolution March 26, 1937:
“That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition.”

“These shells must not be used in guns with Damascus or Twist Steel barrels” warning appeared on shell boxes shortly thereafter."