Does anyone have information on the general quality of the damascus barrels made in Birmingham for the hardware store or country gun store market?

In general, the quality of the damascus barrels can be judged by the quality of the gun. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are safe to shoot today.

Generally, the hardware store guns had Belgian origin barrels. Birmingham Damascus barrels were "generally" good.

So the frames, stocks, locks and small parts were made in Birmingham and it is likely that the barrels came from Belgium? Did the Birmingham gunmakers fabricate any of their barrels, or were most barrels imported from a country such as Belgium that specialized in such work?

Many Damascus barrels used on Brit guns were imported from Belgium. They were considered to be a quality product, generally speaking.

Birmingham made a very large number of barrels in mid-century, especially during the American Civil War. However, following the war when the industry turned again to sporting arms the craft of making damascus barrels began its decline. There was just no way to compete with continental makers. By contrast, English makers of fluid steel barrels flourished in late century. By 1900 only a handful of skilled damascus barrel makers remained in Birmingham.

Birmingham was producing damascus tubes of their own. They had the rolling mills and barrel makers to do it. So did the Belgians, French, Germans, Russians, Italians, Turks and to a lesser extent Americans.

No country had a monopoly on quality or junk. They all produced both. It is as Drew stated, judge the gun.

The proof marks and makers touch marks are the only way to tell where a gun came from and who made it. Pictures help.

Pete

Birmingham was still producing barrels up until 1980 and selling them to the Canuks to sell on to Saddam.Unfortunately we didn't know, we thought we were making oil pipeline.
On a more serious note yes Birmingham did manufacture very high quality Damascus, that was the equal to anyone, W W Greener got very upset with poor Belgian quality and because he carried some weight around these parts, the Proof Masters listened.It's all documented in Richard Akehurst's book.But also please beware the guns that were made in Birmingham for export during the Slave trading years.These were nothing else but junk made as cheaply as possible to exchange for goods on the African coast.How many of those have been brought back from Africa and sold to unsuspecting American enthusiasts? Carpe Diem!

One way to judge quality is by strength as evaluated in the Birmingham Proof House Test of 1893, which is reproduced on p. 26 of the Jan/Feb 06' Double Gun Classics e-zine http://www.doublegunclassics.com/alt/DGCJanFeb06.pdf
There appears, however, to be little practical difference between the top barrels tested.

Barrels were tested with increasing loads, starting with the standard Birmingham proof load of 182 grains powder and 1 2/3 oz shot (80-100 % over standard ‘Field’ loads.) Loads were increased each subsequent shot to the 12th test load of 358 grain powder with 3 ¼ oz shot! Any bulge, which usually occurred 13”-24” from the breech, was considered failure.

The strongest barrels were:
1. English machine forged 3 rod Laminated steel
2. English fluid compressed steel, Whitworth process (fluid steel)
3. English machine forged 2 rod Best Damascus
4. English steel Siemens - Martin process (fluid steel) *
5. English hand forged 4 rod Best Damascus
6. English machine forged 2 rod variegated Damascus *
7. English machine forged 3 rod Best Damascus
8. English carburised steel, Darby’s method
9. English machine forged 2 rod Laminated steel
10. English “Superior Barrel Steel” *
11. English machine forged chequered 3 rod Damascus *
12. Foreign steel, Siemens – Martin process *
13. English steel, hematite process, from pig and scrap
18. Foreign Pointille’ Twist
24 & 25. Foreign 3 rod and 4 rod Crolle’
26. English machine forged 4 rod “Boston” Damascus
32. English machine forged 2 rod “Boston” Damascus

* - Judged by the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House to be tied for first place in the second phase destructive testing (bursting or a bulge of .01”)

Greener expressed his rather low opinion of the mid-1800s British gun trade also http://books.google.com/books?id=A4TPW79...ary_r#PPA146,M1

Salopian, Saddam never did get to "proof test" his extra long Birmingham barrel, did he? I seem to remember that the US was quite Bullish about the whole concept for awhile. Then the realization struck, "finally a poor man's space gun". Way too dangerous.
npm

The Akehurst book is short but contains some valuable information and images. It really helped in my understanding some of the processes that were used.

This would hardly be the 1st time the makers in Birmingham had an open mind about who they sold to. Seem to remember several shipments from Birmingham were seized on the high seas headed this way in the late 1770's. Too bad the Royal Navy got in the way.

Pete

The gun appears to be a pretty hig quality piece. Nice wood. Profuse engraving. No rust and shiny bores. Here are proofs.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k229/rudybolla/IMG_1607_512.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k229/rudybolla/IMG_1606_412.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k229/rudybolla/IMG_1605_312.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k229/rudybolla/IMG_1604_212.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k229/rudybolla/IMG_1601_112.jpg

Not much barrel to read, but it looks to be 3 Iron 'Oxford'-a common pattern found on mid-quality level guns including B-grade Remington 1894s.

The proof is British, sometime after 1886. I do not see a Nitro proof, but I could be mistaken.

Pete