"Who is there to sue?"Bystanders injured by shrapnel will sue the shooter for using barrels "proven to be unsafe", and likely win. Homeowner's insurance is also unlikely to cover the settlement.
I believe the old timers were mistaken, and
after due diligence am currently betting my fingers on that conviction. And Lou Smith's statement was patently false, based on the studies of Sherman Bell and others
Jack O'Connor
Outdoor Life 1942
A good many people resent being told that their much loved old guns were no longer safe. Just for the fun of it, Lou Smith (President of Ithaca Gun Co.) proofed (using 17,500 psi Proof Loads in 1942) a dozen or so damascus and twist beauties which were lying around the plant. Here's the dope: Most of the old timers busted loose with the
first proof shell. The rest did with the second. Guns tried were cheap, medium priced and expensive: but all of them went. So if anyone wants to go ahead using modern smokeless stuff in a gun built for black powder, he can; but he can include me out.
Reviewing the findings Lou writes: "These birds who persist in using smokeless powder in twist and damascus barrels remind me of the guy who made a living by sticking his head in the lion's mouth at the circus. He got away with it for a long time; then one day he didn't!"
Damascus Mythology and Reality
https://docs.google.com/a/damascusknowle...ZhIiY62Hx4/edit