doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Has anyone ever had a damascus barrel blow up

You have to remember that most of the original purchasers of these guns have past and that an unknowm number of failures were consigned to the trash heap without much further investigation or documentation. So this knowledge is for the most part lost to history.
As to litigation,
"To properly diagnose a blow up requires a formal failure analysis and metallurgical study, by an experienced examiner, and costs about $1500 done right. But unless a personal injury lawyer gets involved, it won't happen, and if the case goes to litigation, we'll likely never know the results."

Who is there to sue?

The 'old timers' I grew up with and learned from in the 1950's were quite adament against the use of damascus barreled shotguns. -Dick

"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

Somebody, Smith or O'Connor, made the whole thing up.

There is also a mythical person frequently referenced here who does not exist, and that's the 'knowledgeable double gun smith who can tell you if your gun is safe to shoot'.

They can measure, they can opine, they can nod approvingly, they can tell great tales of the past. They cannot, and will not, give you any kind of approval that a gun is safe because of liability. Nobody can control what YOU are going to do with the gun, so any such statement of safety is foolhardy. You won't find that man search as you may... it's entirely up to you to decide.

We want it that way, right? No proof houses for us, no nanny state watching our every move.

Freedom can have consequences so be careful out there and don't do nuttin' dumb.

First, who would shoot 17,000 psi loads in their guns? Second, have the supposed tests of Lou Smith been confirmed?

I am inherently suspicious of someone who is tasked with selling new inventory that states you need to buy a new product because all of the previously sold products are no longer safe.

Exactly.

The Birmingham proof house is processing vintage Damascus barreled guns every day. Perhaps someone should put the question to them. If such barrels are failing - wouldn't that be the most logical place?

This post begs the next question: Has the Birmingham Proof House every published any guidelines regarding the safety of Pattern-welded barrels? You'd think that they'd be the people with the most knowledge. At least a basic guide that would tell minimum specifications and condition that would be expected in a gun prior to being submitted to them for proof.

I have some doubts about the Birmingham proof house. A friend who is a large bore collector and has more 4 bore breech loading shotguns than anyone wanted to know the bore diameter as most of his are different. He called the Birmingham proof house and they told him 1.053 and that was it. That is for muzzle loaders not breech loaders.

Pretty sure you're referring to Sherman Bell's "Finding Out for Myself" articles. After he blew the Parker, he continued with destruction tests on a number of "clunkers". If I recall correctly, all of them withstood at least proof load pressures.

I know two people who had modern Remington shotguns blow. It was due to defective steel and both guys received major compensation from Remington. I believe a big recall was the final result.