doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Damascus barrels and pressures

I am getting my first damascus barrel gun. This prompted a reread of an article from DGJ from Fall of '06 by Sherman Bell that conducted an experiment with old barrels, mostly damascus. The 15 set of barrels that he tested were resilient to over 18k psi of pressure, despite some of them being badly pitted.
I am not trying to advocate high pressures. I see no reason for high pressures unless you look for some significant advantage that you can't get otherwise.
His info, while not to be generalized (although I don't see the point of doing the experiment) raises two questions for me:
1. If the 15 guns that went through the testing, showed undamaged barrels (and they did) it would suggest that we are overconcerned by the damage resulted from the use of modern shells to the old barrels. By his limited testing, damage to the barrels does not happen even at high pressures.
2. If the test is inconclusive, especially for your own particular gun, (unless you put her through the proofing procedure) what good does it do to have a set of barrels proofed? Two high pressure shells will not show what is going to happen on that "n" round when the gun will blow up. As M. McKintosh mentioned in his Technicana, you shoot the gun with all kinds of loads and all of a sudden, it explodes using your regular light clay round.
I am surprised that there is no data bank in regards to predictions of how a set of barrels will behave when newly manufactured or after 50 years of regular use and abuse, being pitted or bulged or in the best shape ever. Maybe there is such a thing, but I am not aware of(like many other things). I think that with this much time and history behind us there would be some gathered knowledge to help you better predict what is going to happen to your barrels when you shoot the gun the "nth" time.
Maybe this knowledge is in the folklore, of the saying that "damascus barrels are bad omen" or other kind of popular housewife tale?
Gentlemen, any hard data to scientifically predict anything in the line of old damascus barrels? or any barrels for that reason?

You might not blow a Damascus barrel up but you can wreck old actions.

I don't risk my body parts shooting low grade Damascus barreled guns...Higher grade guns have higher grade Damascus barrels. I also stay away from pitted barrels and over honed barrels.

I realize there are many people who seem to have trouble walking around, from stumbling over "Burst Damascus barrels". However; in some 55 years of being interested in & associated with many others also interested in old classic dbl shotguns, I have yet to be showed a bursted barrrel, which could be definitively stated it burst "Because it was Damascus", Period. I have in this time witnessed a good number of Damascus & Twist bbls being shot on a fairly regular basis, though not high volume targets, with regular "Store Bought" shells. I used to tell people they should not be shooting such shells in their guns & most just laughed at me & kept right on. None of them ever seemed to have reached that Nth shell. All the burst barrels I have personally seen, both steel & damascus, had those tell-tale signs of having had an obstruction. For my Damascus/Twist bbls I try to keep my smokeless load pressures around 7500-8000 psi. I use neither max SAAMI pressures or those super low ones. My use of these guns is strictly for hunting purposes & may entail cold weather & those super low pressures scare me under such conditions, too much danger of leaving something in the bore, most efficient way of bursting a bbl I know of.

jOe,

I am certain that what you do is good practice. It seems common sense. However, do you base your decision on some existent data or the lack of it?
I don't know the full reports of the Birmingham Proof House tests on damascus barrels from 1890's, but what's reported on Revdocdrew's site shows also that damascus barrels tolerate heavy loads before they fail.

When it comes to old guns with Damascus barrels the data base is too large and varied...I don't see how any "real data" could be gathered.
It was a nice read but what "real data" was derived from Bells tests ?

'Zircon' issued a call for damascus barrels for testing 12-05. That thread is lost in internet space with Dave's change in servers, but here's a discussion on the PGCA Forum
http://www.parkergun.org/forums/forum1/1143.html
There was a post here 6-06 that testing was in progress, then nothing. I know Dave M sent him some damascus samples (whoever he is?)
There is a gentleman with the appropriate professional creditials who started sophisticated barrel testing, but was slowed by family medical issues. He is, however, still at it and intends to publish his findings in DGJ.

and the original PGCA discussion after the Bell article
http://www.parkergun.org/forums/forum1/511.html

Of all the testing I have seen, even the old British proof house tests and the later Russian tests, they are statistically meaningless. Joe is correct in this. The sample is always too small to derive any valid conclusions. My job requires dealing with statistical samples and models, so I have some idea what I am talking about.

I also sent barrels to Zircon, both damascus and fluid. He finally asked me to stop sending them. I would be happy to find out what the damascus barrels were actually composed of. I know we have some historical information, but I would like to see some confirmation.

As far as predictive models, the base data set is too small to be meaningful. For this type of model, you need data extended over time. Consider that in a single year, Belgium alone produced over 156,000 barrels. Extend that over multiple countries, over several decades. Remember you have to gather data on both damascus and fluid. Knowing the individual history of each gun, maker, barrel quality, etc would be mandatory. Certainly you need a way to determine that no blockage was involved in the failures. Other potential failure scenarios would have to be identified, verified and included in the data.

The complexity and required sample size become very large... Finally, who has the facilities, time and money to build and maintain the inevitable database that will be required?

Pete

2-piper,

Thank you for sharing your 55 years of experience. By what you state it seems that 1000-2000 psi +/- does not matter when a barrel resists to 18k psi without obvious damage and it blows up at 30K psi.

Revdocdrew, thank you for the links provided. Interesting reactions, most of them maybe too enthusiastic based on only two guns trial from 2005.

PeteM,

This is what I am surprised about. The fact that there have been so many guns built over a long period of time, yet no gathered info about safety of their use. We have the numbers and the time period.
I understand that 15 guns may not be a large enough sample to draw a conclusion. How should a study be designed to render valuable, statistically significant data? Is there a place where gun accidents are recorded?

I'm very certain that arguments concerning samples of statististically meaningful size would have been hardly worth the mention if each and every one of Bell's decrepit and suspect examples had blown on a single proof load. The response if one had burst at say 2/3 proof pressure would have been the extremely unscientific "I told you so; why would anyone think it wouldn't with all that pitting/honing/age!" As to Bell's disclaimer that his tests do not speak to the soundness for use of YOUR damascus gun, he clearly believes that some lawyer-proofing is also necessary.

jack

On a very subjective level, damascophobia has a strong hold on many of us. I wouldn't suggest that anyone begin shooting damascus without benefit of the (sound) advice of those who have so done and an examination by a competent gunsmith (with some damascus experience). I'm not a noted risktaker but have fired at least a couple hundred rounds thru four damascus doubles (two Lefevers, a Syracuse Arms, and 89 Remington Arms. None of those rounds produced over 7Kpsi average service pressure and the first few were fired by "remote control". The day of the nth round hasn't arrived for me; maybe it will. So, yea, verily I say unto you, there is the hope gained from Bell's articles to suggest that a rabbit's foot and crossed fingers may be enuf to get away with it and tell the tale. Could there be exceptions to a grand generalization such as: These fifteen didn't rupture so most damascus guns are perfectly safe with SAAMI pressure loads or even proof or accidental overloads.[?] Yeh, I'd bet there are. Unfortunately, that's what "Finding out for Myself" means.

jack

I am not looking to get a guaranteed statement that my damascus gun will function properly for another 100 years to come, being shot at high pressures. I wonder about the lack of valid data after 150 years of use of hundred thousand guns with damascus barrels or fluid steel. Big sample over a long period of time.
Using this kind of data one could predict the chances of failure of a certain barrel of a certain wall thickness, etc. That prediction will still not give anybody 100% guarantee that one would be safe using the gun, but it would provide the best answer one can get. And the controversy would be over.

Basically you're asking for the impossible. To begin with, each damascus tube is unique. No two ever made were identical. Just the nature of their manufacture would lead me to think there was a tremendous variation piece to piece. Then, they were assembled into working guns differently. The dovetailing and brazing of the lug onto the barrel tended to weaken the structure somewhat. And that was all done by hand--again a huge variance. And heaven only knows what the guns have had to endure over the past 100 years plus. No data base will ever be assembled that has any statistical reliability. So, where does that leave us? Simply to examine each piece and judge for ourselves its servicability. I know that flies in the face of the current generation that demands firm, quantifiable answers but it just ain't gonna happen. In the meantime, I'm choosing to take life and limb in hand and go shoot another round of skeet with my questionable damascus.

Joe,

All that variance will be included in the end results. The problem is collecting the data. I don't know why we got to the point where we have to blow up 15 guns to find out what's happened over 150 years with thousands of guns. We have the field observations of owners/hunters/shooters and gunsmiths. That is valuable info, but not structured enough to predict the chances of damage of the average damascus barrel.
When taken barrel by barrel, statistical approach is weak, therefore each barrel should be judged on its own merits. When you ask a gunsmith about the safety of your barrels he will tell you that they are PROBABLY safe or not. His judgement is based on experience and data he collects on that particular barrel. But individual experience is exactly that.
I am faced with one question: What are my chances of blowing up a damascus barrel if I shoot 7000psi ammo. What if I shoot 10,000psi? How many rounds would a damascus barrel last on average basis? What is the minimum barrel wall thickness to decrease the chance of barrel blow up below 1 in a mil?

I am of similar thoughts on the super low pressures and particularly the slow powders. My load of damascus moves 1 oz @ 1150 fps with 6500psi using Hodgden Clays. I feel the Clays powder is a good choice of burnrate to stay out of trouble.

Joe thar's the point I was trying to make.

The only thing I saw that Bells tests proved were they didn't blow up that firing.

A problem is stigma reporting a damascus barrel burst. Well known Parkerite had a burst barrel when a modern shell was fired in error, let us just say it was in the eastern U.S. about 2 yrs ago. Yep it did happen but nary a word about it on the wsites. Those reading here might say it was a barrel obstruction but considre the odds of that happeneing when the shell that caused the burst was a modern factory shell taken from hunting vest in error. Nope it wasn't a proof load just one loaded to current Saami specifications about 12k psi. Yep that barrel might have had internal corrosion or a mfg. flaw but how do you know yours doesn't?

You have to compare apple to apples and possibly each barrel against itself or own merit. There can be small perturbations in each tube due to manufacturing and later oxidation; therefore, in order to establish a baseline, techniques like X-ray or Magnaflux, non-destructive testing like the Austrians have the option of using, would need to be employed to identify the problem areas and then the destructive testing could commence.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

As reported in the March/April 08 Shooting Sportsman, these folks will proof test barrels for $420:
H.P. White Laboratory, Inc.
Maryland
http://www.hpwhite.com
410-838-6550

I allow myself one damascus gun at a time - just to have. This time around, it's a Remington 1894 AE 12g., which is pretty beefy and in top condition. Bought enough Gamebore black powder shells at the time and that's what it shoots.
I still do cast a weary eye at it(like a spider on your bedroom ceiling), but it looks so good behind the kitchen door. Goes well with a pot of chickin!

I keep a log of every shot thru one of my favorite hammer damascus 12ga. guns, so far it's 11,402. When I got it the first thing I did was pick a nice low pressure 7/8 load at 1150fps and 6000psi. I am not afraid of a blow- up as much as I don't see the point in beating up the old gun and myself with recoil. This summer I'll probably run another 5 to 5500 more rounds thru it on skeet and sporting clay ranges, I have all the faith in the world in this gun the next one maybe not, as stated before each gun must be judged on it's on merits. I do feel the low pressure nitro handloads are kinder on the gun than blackpowder loads, just my opinion. See ya; Bonehill

Of the tens of thousands of shotgun rounds that I have witnessed
being shot by both Damascus-twist and steel bbls, I have only seen or witnessed three barrels burst. All were steel.
One Browning, One mossburg and one double 20 ga Stevens.

I've been shooting a restored 12 gauge REMINGTON 1900 with Damascus barrels. I load low pressure 1 oz. handloads in the 5,000 psi range using IMR 7625 powder. Seems to work fine.

Also shoot a restored 1890's LC SMITH hammerless with twist barrels using the same load. The previous owner used regular factory
1-1/4 oz. loads in it regularly, to hunt squirrels.

Another fellow at the range shoots an old hammer Elsie, using a light load of PB powder.

I don't think I'm taking any undue risk, with these moderate loads.
JERRY

"Beefy and good condition", as Lowell notes, factors into any evaluation other than the whistling past the graveyard sort. Below is the breech end of a SAC Hollenbeck. I think anyone who has tossed around a few damascus doubles will agree that the wall section looks robust and the fairness of the barrel exteriors in raking light suggests an absence of impact dents.





Below are the wall thickness nos. for the Hollenbeck. I believe they suggest some surplus material and wgt. in these barrels and an overbuild from both an engineered safety and certainly from an upland gunning point of view. The interior of bores are also unblemished by pitting or corrosion rings in chambers. I suspect that they have never been honed. I have what I think is a reasonable expectation they will be capable of shooting 1 oz. loads with modest charges of smokeless powder long after I have the desire to do so.



I also have Lefever FE with a less than reassuring average wall thickness of .085" ahead of chamber both barrels and honed to minimize the "stress riser" factor of considerable pitting. Lighter barrels, higher comb. A greater pleasure to shoot and the results in the hits/misses column are better for me with this gun than with the Hollenbeck. Am I on the edge of a bit soft whistling with this one? I believe so. I have shot one round of skeet with smokeless reloads, one round 68 gr. bp reloads in a plastic hull. I shot by myself early on Sunday morning; the puller was as far from me as the cord and hearing would allow.

If you decide to trust your left hand, brain and eyesight to damascus barrels, consider that you haven't any right to ask others to share the risk. On the other hand, I've shot both the Remmy hammergun and the other Lefever at Millbrook with never a look askance. Maybe we are all crazy as bedbugs!

jack

Sherman Bell's articles are very well done and well written. What he has taken the time and trouble to do "proves" a lot, to me. Proof, to some, only occurs when the test contains the answer they wanted to see. If you want to shoot Damascus guns, use the light loads(meaning less shot), at lower velocity(1150-1200fps), at lower pressures(7-8000psi or less) that are repeatedly recommended here. If you don't want to shoot Damascus, DON'T.

1. There is no doubt that one has to look at each gun and make certain as much as possible that there are no defects to increase the risk of accidents.
2. There is no doubt that one should use the lowest pressure load that does the job, like in any shotgun or common situation.
3. Even so, accidents will happen.

What I propose is a study.
Can we gather enough info to put together a database to predict rate of accidents and to discover/clarify causes?

End goal is Probability of accidents. We have to define accidents, but it would be something like barrel burst or bulge, etc.

Population: our damascus guns. THis could be further specified in measurements of chamber/bore/wall thickness, condition, etc.

Events: how many rounds we have shot through and what ammo do we use.

Prospective study: designed between today as a starting point and next years April 20th.

Retrospective: Maybe shooters like Stallones and Bonehill can gather data from their experience.

Double Blind study: Impossible. However, the bad events can be/should be reported as cold info.


Are these data hard to achieve?

We're all risk-takers here, and from the posts on this forum over the years it seems we've got a good grip on the risks of the shooting sports and the risk of damascus or twist barrels within them. I don't see how any study can come up with anything more definitive. Nothing is "safe" and nothing is certain.

What you are looking for is an absolute assurance that what you are shooting won't blow up in your hands. You won't get that, statistically or otherwise. There is risk in life, but you try to manage those risks. With damascus barrels you manage the risk by shooting lower pressure, lighter loads, after you have satisfied yourself the barrels are sound. Also, I think people are fooling themselves if they think shooting modern guns has no risk attached to them. We think that since they are new they are failsafe. Wrong. Most of the bad things in life that hurt are of our own doing anyway, so always look down your barrels for the stuck wad. That will get you before an overcharge, more than likely. Bell's article are not an absolute, and he says that, but they are an aid in managing the risks in shooting composite barreled guns. That's all.

I agree with eeb. I shoot damascus barrels on a regular basis but do feel safer with steel even though I am positive that the risk is just as high since I will use hotter factory loads. I often go to steel barrels when I get tired of making my own low pressure loads. Stallones observations may confirm my feelings.

I think I am a pretty careful guy but one day I loaded my gun, pulled the triggers and had one barrel not fire. I opened the gun and saw that in the heat of a skeet game I forgot to load one of the barrels. Most of you know what happened but I did not realize it. Fortunately, the reading I have done here made me suspicious and a wood dowel was called for and the 20 gauge shell was pushed out of the 12 gauge gun. I learned from that experience how easy it is to make that mistake and I always look down each barrel, often waiting for the smoke to clear, before loading again. I later realized the 20 gauge shell was left over from a different day and was sort of out of sight in one of the folds in the bottom of my vest pocket.

Be careful out there.

It was determined a long time ago that "proof" was what was required to make shooting an acceptable risk. The Europeans used the professional Proof House concept and the Americans went with self-certification by each maker. If you send an old gun to a European Proof House, it will get the same treatment as a new gun. If it passes, and most do, it will be almost as safe to shoot as when new. This system has worked for about 150 years now.

The issue with Slivers proposal/request is that the statistics will be so wide as to be meanigless to an individual gun. There will be no usable "average" for damascus construction or condition. There has been no meaningful "average" for damascus use. There will be so few failures that no meaningful projection can be made beyond what we already generally know.

Unless you are dealing on the ragged edge of the steel's strength, "n" is a very large number, large enough that it is not likely to be approached in shots fired in a shotgun barrel. Experience says that if no metal "moves and stays moved" in proof, the gun is vastly unlikely to fail in usual service.

Every time you fire a gun you take a risk of something letting go. Every time you take a breath, you risk inhaling something carcenogenic. The first is optional, the second is pretty much required. Both have a pile of experience that says they are risks worth taking in the greater scheme of life.

Experts on Guns and Shooting
George Teasdale Teasdale-Buckell 1900

http://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr...ns+and+Shooting

On the subject of steel v. Damascus, Mr Stephen Grant is very clear, and much prefers Damascus for hard working guns. He related an anecdote of one of his patrons, whose keeper stupidly put a 12-bore cartridge into his master’s gun without knowing that he had previously inserted a 20-case, which had stuffed up the barrel. Fortunately, no burst occurred, but a big bulge, which, however, Mr Grant hammered down, and the gun is now as good as ever.

The average meaning for using a damascus barrel is to shoot low pressure rounds. Nothing wrong with that. And based on this notion, one choses to use the damascus cautiously, without the need to demonstrate any different. There is no obvious need to demonstrate any different since we use already the minimum pressure.
Only that Stephen Grant and Birmingham Proof House tests and Sherman Bell suggest that we are missing on a lot of function. It's like having a race horse in your stalls and allowing it only a controlled slow pace stroll so that he does not brake a leg. Of course if you go faster there is an increased risc of braking a leg.

In the case of damascus, virtually all is installed on old guns. That means that we are wise to protect the wood with low recoil loads and the action with low presure loads. One can let the old race horse gallop without the full bore effort needed to race. Yes, we could likely get more function from our damascus guns at a very slight increase in risk (the old race horse still knows how to run). The question is why would we? If you need racing effort, use a modern gun that you shoot well. If youare out for a pleasant gallop, shoot something you enjoy.

Rocketman,

It could not be any clearer. Thank you.

Your damascus barrelled guns are all unsafe to shoot. They should be correctly disposed of to avoid posing any danger to life and limb to you and those you hold near and dear. An appropriate secure disposal facility is located in Western Victoria, South Eastern Australia, staffed by approriately qualified technicians who can perform rigorous field tests under controlled conditions.

Well, it might work!

Or you could just give me all your guns!

If I have to die, I can think of worse ways to go than having a beautiful gun let go on me while I'm doing something I love. At least I'll die annointed in "holy black"!

Generations of shooters knew nothing of prohibitions against smokeless in their damascus guns, and went ahead and loosened many a gun and cracked many a headstock with mountains of Maximum, Impax, Blue Star and Grand Prix.

I suspect (in a very amateur, unscientific way) that the damascus=unsafe thing probably has a kernel of truth somewhere, somehow, but that it is mostly overblown.
RG

Old things should be treated as old things...just having is good enough sometimes. I know you don't want to save 'em for the next generation, but you don't want to blow them-up today.

I realize it would only be a ballpark, but what kind of pressure would a 2 1/2 brass shell loaded with 70gr FFG GOEX, Nitro card, 1/2" fiber wad, 1 1/8oz 7 1/2 shot and overshot card produce in a New Ithaca Gun Company 12 gauge hammergun? Gun is in good shape, tight and has some minor pitting in otherwise shiny bores. There is a similar discussion, of sorts, taking place on another forum and the anti-damsacus/twist crowd is chiming in big time. There is much more imperical data being provided here. Thanks!

Here's link to a Guns Magazine article by one of Bodinsons that contains some comparisons of bp and smokeless. For some reason, the bp loads in the article are FFFg--seems a little fast for shotgun. The transition from bp to bulk semi-smokelesss to nitro and the attendant confusion arising from the simple volume equivalency of the first two but not of the third (the origin of "dr. eq." on factory smokeless shells) has been suggested as the source of the original whispering campaign against damascus. It could be that the incidence of damascus "accidents" was high enuf to be noticable during this transition and that a significant no. of guns were sacrificed to overloads. Also, the economies of fabricaton of the new fluid steel would have been meaningless if it didn't sell because of a standpatter faith in damascus. Scare campaigns work better without qualification or elaboration--thus damascus unsafe, fluid steel safe. Why the signs above quarries say only "Keep Out" rather than Keep Out Unless You Know What You're Doing".

jack

Jack:
Either I am missing something or you forgot to put the link in.

I need a calendar AND a keeper! Sorry.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_3_46/ai_59281213

How many hammerless Purdey 'n Boss guns do you see with damascus barrels? Not many! Seems those chaps who could, had them re-barrel to steel very early on.

Compressed steel tubes in conjuction w/ the new fangled smokeless powder was a just a fad and giving pattern welded tubes, water pattern or Damascus tubes a bad name was to sell the steel maker's product; therefore, it was all about economics. The Brits couldn't compete on a global scale w/ other countries tube suppliers who had a cheaper wages. Also, the cost was directly related to the quantity of natural resources a country had and also the distance and type of transport to the source, furnace and forge. Leo Figiel in "On Damascus Steel" notes that after the pattern welded(helical or spiral wound) tube was perfected by the Turks, Persians, Afghanis, Indians(India) and the Italian Cominazzi family, the tubes could be totally filled w/ powder and ignited unlike as before on previous tube types, where they could only fill it 1/4 of the length.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I have the Bodinson article too. It's short, but very informative:


"Shotshells: Black Powder vs. Smokeless - Brief Article
Guns Magazine, March, 2000 by Holt Bodinson
Despite widespread warnings to the contrary, it was not uncommon in my youth to see hunters using smokeless shells in their Damascus barreled shotguns. I've always wondered exactly what the pressure difference was between the two propellants. Well, here's some interesting Winchester test data from the 1960s.

The first set of results was based on the objective of achieving the same muzzle velocity between a smokeless and black powder shotshell. Notice the resulting difference in pressures and the greater efficiency of the smokeless powder load.

3 Dr.Eq. 1 1/8 oz. #7 1/2 3 Dr.Eq. 1 1/8 oz. #7 1/2
Winchester Trap Load Black Powder Shotshell
21.0 grs WC-450-LS 82.0 grs Dupont FFFg
1,202 fps 1,205 fps
9,600 psi 4,900 psi
The objective of the second set of data was to determine what charge of each powder was necessary to achieve a peak chamber pressure of 6,900 psi. Notice the incredible difference in powder charges.

2 1/2 Dr.Eq. 1 1/8 oz. #7 1/2 4 Dr.Eq. 1 1/8 oz. #7 1/2
Smokeless Handload Black Powder Handload
16.0 grs. WC-450-LS 109 grs. Dupont FFFg
6,900 psi 6,900 psi
Many of the old Damascus guns are beautiful indeed -- really pieces of gun art. Most can be returned to the field with great effect. Fortunately black powder shotgun shells are readily available from a variety of sources today so be sure to use them.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Publishers' Development Corporation
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group


There are instances of shooters sending their new-fangled guns back to the makers to be retrofitted with damascus tubes, and there are guns which had faux damascus patterns applied, evidently to make them look like a superior product to steel.
RG

I shoot a couple of damascus guns and have never had a problem, i use 2 1/2 inch shells. I have only seen 1 burst barrel in my 30+ years of shogunning and it was a remington 870 circa 1990's

For the first 25-30 years of hunting ducks in the fishing village where I grew up, all the older gunners used nothing but what they considered the "best" of shells: premium-priced, high-brass 12 gauge CIL (Canadian Industries Limited) Imperials---"Blue Imperials" they called them because of their royal blue colour. They made no distinction of the guns they used them in, twist, damascus or fluid steel. As far as I know, they still don't.

In 1966, Ithaca was still at it warning about shooting the
"Dangerous" Booby Trap Damascus and twist-laminated shotguns.
[img][/img]

Stallones,

Thanks for posting that one. A fascinating document. So they assumed any time a damascus barrel burst it was some how defective. Could not have to do with extreme pressures, obstructions...


Pete

In place of specialised loads,why cant one use "gagemates,"
one or two gauge down, and shoot standard factory?
This must tone down the pressure to that 6kpsi range,no?

They might have a point about those old Ithacas.

It is interesting to note I have a twist bbl'd Lefever H on which a "Flaw" could be seen with the unaided eye. At 14"s from the breech on the left bbl tha appearence was that it had been struck on a sharp cornered object & dented in. It had then apparently been fired, resulting in a crack about ¼" long following a weld seam. One side of the crack was still dented in & the other side had lifted leaving an opening one could look through to the opposite side of the bore. This gun had been bought very cheaply as a parts gun & the bores were "Baddly Pitted". I subsequently put my expanding dent plug under the break & raised the part which was dented in & hammered down the raised flap, till one had to look very closely to see the crack. It was then placed in the "Firestone Proof Chamber" & several factory 3¼de-1 1/8oz loads fired with no visable results. Then several more 3 3/4-1¼oz factory "High Brass Express" loads fired with identical results. Finally several more handloaded shells using a lower velocity loading of 1 3/8oz shot were fired. It still sets in my rack today & one now has to use a magnifier to even find this crack. Now I realize some of those "Hidden Flaws" which cannot be seen may be miles worse than was this one with daylight shining all the way through, seems sorta doubtful though, doesn't it?? Also this flaw was not in the High pressure chamber area, "BUT" for how many years were we told that was where the dangerous area for a damascus/twist bbl bursting was, right out there where your forward hand was. I didn't then & am not going to now, because I Know for a Fact this bbl is cracked, but all those shots I fired through it "Could" have been fired from a normal shooting position & I would still have both hands & all of my fingers.

And we all know, Miller, where the cognoscenti said the highest pressures were: right above your left hand!

I recall Dr Gaddy mentioning having had a damascus barrel TIG welded with successful results. Sounds reasonable, as TIG is likely to form as good a weld as the original.

Chuck;
I too remember Oscar mentioning that. If the rest of the gun were worth it I would try that on this set. As mentioned though both bores are badly pitted their full length, also the stock was splintered & barely held together with tape. No finish remains anywhere on gun, it was strictly a parts gun. Hasn't proved to be a wise investment though, as none of my other Lefevers has broken a part yet. The main point though is, this gun was the exact opposite of all those we are "Warned" about which may have hidden flaws under an otherwise immaculate finish. This bbl (I only fired the cracked one) was already badly pitted & cracked. I didn't fire a lot of rounds, maybe 4-6 of each load so dozen to dozen & a half total (didn't reach #"N") but they didn't even open the existing crack back up enough for it to be readily visable. Anyone just visually examing this bbl, even after I told them where to look, would have to take my word the crack was there. The handload was incidently based on a "Low Velocity" 3-1½ load which was published in the Rifleman using Unique powder, but even though i was using the same case & wad I found very heavy compression would be needed to get the 1½oz of shot in, so dropped back to 1 3/8oz. This load was probably not as stressful as the factory "Express" load but it stood up to several of all three loads. The original crack as stated followed a weld line for about ¼" right out on the outer periphery of the left bbl then turned about 90° & went forward for about 1/8". On the muzzle side this little sq cornered flap was lifted up & on the breech side was still dented in. The bore plug & peening hammer put it where it was virtually invisable. "NO" touch up was done after firing & it remains virtually invisable to this day. This all took place probably over 30 yrs ago.

Just for the sake of confusion I would like to mention that I bought B&P 12 ga 2 5/8 1 oz subsonic shells at 6530 psi. The box says not to be used in damascus nor twisted steel barrels.

The following is from the question and answer segment of: "American Rifleman – January 1965

Damascus Barrels

There have been many warnings against firing Damascus-barreled shotguns with smokeless powder. Over a period of years I have seen several which were regularly used with factory high-velocity shells, and gave no trouble. Is it possible that warn-ings have been overdone? Damascus barrels of suitable quality and condition might then be usable with smokeless powder.

Answer: The warnings against firing Damascus barrels with smokeless shells rest ultimately on actual bursts which have occurred in such use. In these incidents a large piece is blown out of the barrel near the chamber. Severe injury to the shooter’s forward hand is likely.

It is true that Damascus barrels of high grade, proportioned for smokeless powder, on an action of suitable design and proportions, and in suitable condition, could be used with normal smokeless shells with safety. Few users are qualified judges.

The great majority of Damascus barrels are of low grade (how low that can be is described in the following text). The majority of them are thin. They are mounted on actions of antiquated design and material. The barrels tend to local deep corrosion because of the 2 or more metals of which they are composed.

The basic make-up of Damascus barrels is indicated by the drawing(not included here but the same as found in Greener’s edition), which is from Greener. Two or more rods of iron and steel were welded together and rolled into a ribbon, which was then wrapped around a mandrel and made a continuous tube by welding all the edges together. A Damascus barrel is thus one mass of welds from breech to muzzle. Great care was taken with the best barrels to see that the welds were sound. This was not of the question in making cheap barrels. W.W. Greener, the greatest authority on shotgun manufacture at the time these barrels were made, stated plainly that cheap Damascus barrels were literally rotten.

Mere absence of early failure gives no information about safety margin. It is entirely possible for a Damascus barrel to survive the firing of a number of smoke-less shells, and then burst by one giving a slightly higher pressure than the rest, or simply by the repeated strain.

The foregoing will be enough to show why it is not considered either well-founded or in the personal interest of NRA members to call Damascus barrels gener-ally suitable for smokeless loads.—E.H.H."

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I am sorry to bring this up again, but I remain utterly confused.
The matter is, how safe are damascus barrels to shoot.
It seems to me that we have two main opinions that reflect the answers to the matter that are quite oposite. One side is of the opinion that damascus barrels should be shot very little if any. The other side states that fears are generally unfounded and damascus barrels can be shot safely within reason.
Both opinions look to me that they are based on (more or less) personal experience (which can be extensive in certain cases) and no scientific fact or at least not statistical significant fact (if that would matter for the individual gun).
At the end one is left with his barrels to be judged on personal basis, one on one with his trusted gunsmith. Said gunsmith, with his own experience or lack thereof may render an opinion that the owner may take or not.
I believe that this matter lacks clarity. The confusion is fueled by many opinions and some examples on both sides. I think that a statistical reflection of a significant sample can help bring some light into the matter, at least for inexperienced people like myself.
I believe that we have the possibility to gather more scientific information and use it, within certain limits to predict our future.

An across the board recommendation to use damascus is just as unfounded as is the across the board condemnation. Damascus barrels are old and have generally led a life of unknowable abuse. Only an expert gunsmith/gunmaker can judge and that MUST be on an individual basis. Valid UK proof is a very good indicator. There is no average or shortcut. The USA industry condemnation centers around old, cheap, and abused damascus barrels. It simply does not consider high quality, well cared for barrels that are in proof. It was started in a time when there was generally insufficient knowledge as to use of modern loads and damascus. The UK had a different situation and consequent experience. Some Americans have drawn on the UK experience. All UK guns, especially older ones, will benefit from a lower pressure and lighter recoil diet.

There is no way to get around the individuality of older guns. Personally, I view old fluid steel barrels with the same skeptcism as I do damascus; they are individuals that require vetting before I shoot them. Vetting in place, I shoot them carefully and respectfully. Only modern guns can be treated statistically.

The fact that the UK proof houses treat damascus and steel equally should tell you that the top of the firearm safety profession believes they can be safe. I can't think of any statistic that would trump that fact.

On Don's point about modern guns, I recently had to disperse a widow's collection of various guns (no sxs's, unfortunately). One gun in the bunch was a sawed off 870 Rem. It was very used and abuse looking. But what caught my eye was the eccentric bore/wall. At about 18 1/2" long, the wall was pretty thick. But it was in the area of .035 on one side and maybe an 1/8" on the other.

This is very true. It also does not take into account that both skelp and damascus barrels were and still are being produced. The "technology" seems to be constantly "rediscovered" by small makers. They are simply very quiet and have no desire to "go into production." I recently obtained a film from the 1970's showing the barrels being made.

Pete

1. Recommendation of having each and every gun checked by a qualified gunsmith is absolute! One would ask "what is a qualified gunsmith"?
2. I see nothing wrong with information gathered on how damascus barrels/guns behave under present shooting conditions whatever those would be.
3. Such information will not serve to reassure each and every damascus gun owner that a particular gun will behave in a certain way, but will serve as general knowledge based on facts and study of these facts. It will serve as a predictor factor and not as certain factor. I am asking about prediction and not certainty.
I believe that we can design a study using the forum's members damascus guns and do it as a prospective study where we would look at certain events that we can define according to our purpose and goals. I am not a specialist in statistics or studies, but I believe that we can draw certain conclusions about behavior of said guns within certain conditions. I am curious of the sample size and lenght of study to make it statistically significant.
Simple measurements of the barrels and shooting them would be the main activity of the study.

Sliver, isn't the "study" in the public realm now? Isn't the evidence in? We know what to expect when prudence rules, and what to expect when it does not.

Ditto what King says. Just attend the Vintagers or Southern SXS shoots and you'll see evidence all around that damascus is safe to shoot when done within the bounds of prudence.

The evidence is around us, but it is not quantified. It is a vague piece of information that is interpreted according to one's fears or interests. It is used in sentences like "I think the barrels will hold OK" or "If you shoot that gun you will loose a hand".
One sees a blown up damascus barrel and the rapid explanation is clear to them: " Of course it blew up, it's DAMASCUS". You see three and you have a "certitude".
What I want to know is:
What is the chance of "a" damascus barreled gun blow up (or whatever event we choose to look at) before I shoot it. Is it 1:10, 1:1mil? Can somebody give me this piece of info? Why do I want to know it? It is because I believe only the test of time will show the qualities of this type of gun. It is not the qualified gunsmith nor the proof house that will come closer to the truth, but the numbers that stood the test of time. THat's why I am puzzled by the lack of numbers to characterise this event.
We have had the time and numbers of guns to come to a conclusion.
I will be thinking about a study design to look at this and bring it to you.

26 different British and 'Foreign' (likely Belgian) Damascus, Twist, or Laminated steel barrel types were included in the Birmingham Proof House Test of 1891.

Here's a list of the various damascus barrels available from just one Belgian maker in 1897



There were 32 barrel makers in Syndicat des Fabricants de Canons de Fusil de la Vesdre in 1907. Some were likely specialists, but most probably made Two and Three Iron Crolle and Damas Anglais.

Which Damascus barrel type do you wish to study? By which maker, in which country, with iron from which mine, and steel from which supplier, in what year of production? What minimal wall thickness or 'grade' of pitting (which we'll need to invent) would exclude a barrel from being included in the sample? What degree of internal corrosion or 'frosting'? External rusting? How many previous shells ignited in the life of the barrel will be adequate? What weight of shot and dram equivalent? What p-value will establish statistical significance?

Drew, the p value should be < .05. That would establish statistical significance.
The first step of the study will not look at the characteristics of damascus as a material for building barrels, but at the barrels themselves.
The B'ham study reflects the status of things from 1891. We will have to run our study with what we have today, barrels that have been kept well or let to rot. The study will hopefully differentiate among the well/poorly kept barrels, the thicknesses of their walls, the condition of the bore. As you know Sherman Bell's experiment suggests that even pitted barrels are/remain strong after so many years.
I want the study to tell us what's going on. I don't want to have to "believe" what my gunsmith tells me or the shell manufacturer's opinion unless it is "proof" based.
I will have to go and learn statistics and come up with a plan.

Take the example of B'ham experiment. Isn't that something that somewhat predicted what was about to happen to those tested barrels and the ones that followed the experiment? Of course, the results of the study did NOT guarantee the lack of barrel damage. It just quantified how likely it was for a certain barrel to behave in a certain way.
I think that more valid info can be gathered by this kind of study. We just have to figure out what sample size we need for statistical significance. Give me a few weeks to look into it.

I admire your spunk Sliver. We all need a windmill or two to tilt at in our lives.

Has anyone here actually had a Damascus or Twist barreled gun blow up? If so, what were the circumstances? Pitted bores or exterior? Nitro factory loads? Mud, snow, dents or other obstructions? God, I hope no one is reading this on a Braille monitor and typing a reply with a prosthetic left hand. I haven't shot any of my Damascus guns yet. No, I did fire a grade 2 L. C. Smith that I bought at a dimly lit gun show that had reblued barrels. They sure looked fluid, even in sunlight. They held with a couple shots of heavy dram equiv. factory loads. I plan to try some of the better ones and certainly the first few shots will be with warmer loads in a gun tied to a tire and fired with a long string. Subsequent shots will likely be with safety glasses and lower PSI loads than my first few. I once had a complete head separation in a M-98 Mauser .22-250. I was T-totally blind for 20-30 minutes and would rather not repeat same. I have a couple Flues Ithaca parts guns with fluid steel barrels that are shredded badly in the forend area. Yet I saw a friend fire many 3" Mag shells in a 2 3/4" (or less) 20 ga. Flues. This could just be one of those areas where prudence and common sense should be the rule.

Somewhat off topic, but here is the screen capture of a .pdf from an old article I scanned.

Silver if you want some statistics gathered I think you should do it. No one else seems to want to or need to. I really don't see how you can get any meaningful information out of it even with years of work but if you want the numbers, it sounds like you'll have to do it. Good luck.

Kinda hard to do the impossible.

I will right gladly contribute whatever data/information I may have to your project. For example, I have three "shooting" guns with damascus. I shoot a few hundred cartridges a year with them. I can offer to keep a better log of shot fired and condition pre and post. Or, should one of them have a barrel failure, I'll let you know. What statistic are you looking for?

Rocketman I hope you're still able to type when she blows.

jOe, some add meat and some spices to the threads. You are definitely on the
spice shelf! :-)

JC

hJ - I'm a lot more worried about a lot of other stuff. Wiping out in a damascus barrel failure is way down my list of probabilities.

Gents,

Thank you for your support.
I do intend to study this problem. First I need to document myself about the type of study. I would like to get some meaning out of it. If there is no meaning, it's obviously useless.
I am out for an exam now, will get back home in a few days and start reading.
I will post back once I have some idea of what I want...can do...

Me too....I shoot mine weekly.

New to the forum, but am familiar with Damascus technique, and the proud owner of a George Barlow Coach Gun from the old days. After I bought it at auction, I did a bunch of research in Damascus metallurgy, and inspected the barrels - in pretty good shape for an old black powder gun, actually. I did buy and test with black powder 12 Gauge shells, and it passed the test. But I would never put a smokeless round in it under any circumstance. The pressure profile is different enough that the stress profile would be well outside what the gun was designed for, but the very nature of Damascus barrel construction means that each one is absolutely unique. Successfully shooting 1,000 of exactly the same gun make and model successfully is absolutely not statistically relevant with a one-off item like a Damascus barrel. Let me put it this way: if you had a jar of jelly beans on the coffee table and you knew one of the beans was poisoned, would you eat any? The nature of Damascus welding is such that a flaw within the steel, opened to the barrel by a corrosion pit, is a distinct possibility because of the unpredictability of galvanic corrosion rates in these hybrid metal barrels. The only possible way to know for sure the condition of a tube manufactured in this manner is by Magnaflux and x-ray - Magnaflux for surface flaws and x-ray for subsurface.

Welcome to the forum, George. You certainly aren't too bashful to offer opinions.

However, there are many holes in your argument that I am not willing to put forth the effort to address. But I will offer one quick question............why do you think damascus barrels are any more "unique" than fluid steel barrels? Individual fluid steel barrels rupture at times, too. If they weren't "unique" too, all would either blow up or none would.

SRH

That statement is flat ass incorrect.

Your decision to not use smokeless no matter the loading in your gun is fine by me.

At your level of knowledge it's the best thing for YOU.

I think "George" might be one of our long time forum instigators coming up with a new profile name, and who just recently happened to start a thread asking about black powder and velocity. What a coincidence.

Here's a very astute observation concerning a very dumb question about black powder loads from one of our most prolific anti-gun trolls. Leave it to Ed to dredge up a 10 year old thread and assume the name of an old studio wrestler:

I do find it interesting how much modern steel barrel quality has apparently improved. I recently bought a 28" 12ga Charles Daly 512 st sxs to use strictly as a target gun, and found when it arrived that it only weighs 6lbs even, with thinly struck barrels, and yet it has 3" chambers. I can't even imagine touching off a 3" round in such a light gun. I'm worried enough about recoil even using normal 2.75" target loads in it (I will be shooting it for the first time this weekend).

By comparison, my 1890's damascus Lefever 12 with 30" barrels, and 2 5/8" chambers, weighs 6.5lbs, with similar thinly struck barrels. I have no qualms shooting 2.5" RST's or equivalent reloads in it, which is how it was designed, and I have hammered roosters out to 50 yds with those loads in that gun, and I intend to do so for many more years.

I used to worry about this stuff, but decided if my barrels (Damascus or other wise) met spec and were not pitted, that I could safely shoot them with both handloads and commercial ammo...

I shoot my only Damascus barreld gun (1897 Linder Daly 20 G) with standard Winchester AA 7/8 oz, cartridges. The barrels are MWT of 30 thousandths.

Ha ha thats the first thing I thought when I saw that name, the George the Animal Steele!

keith,

I too thought of "The Animal" immediately. I remember him with his GREEN tongue and a ton of hair on his back!

MarkLarson,

Did you mis-type the weight on your Lefever 12-er? That's incredible! My daintiest (which is also an early gun) weighs in at 7.25. My heaviest 12 is a late gun, weighing 8 lbs 2 oz, with THICK flag Damascus barrels. Buck Hamlin's comment was, "I don't care if you shoot turkey loads through these!"

- Nudge

Nudge;
I too have a Lefever 12 which weighs 6� lbs. Mine is to date I believe the highest numbered one we have recorded, unless another has come to light which I am unaware of. It has two numbers only 4 digits apart; 73,338 & 73,342 as I recall. It would be from the Ithaca era & is an H grade with
"Best London Twist" barrels. Is fitted with an Infallible SST, probably original to the gun, but is a non-ejector. The rest of my 12 gauge Lefevers weigh from just over 7 lbs up to 8 lbs.

Miller

I recall your discussing this gun on the old Lefever forum...but didnt know it is so light. Have you ever compared measurments with your others? Across the water table, between the firing pins?

Nudge

Yes, but off hand I don't recall what the firing pin spacing is. The measurement across the water table is virtually the same as an 8 lb G. I have heard of some 12 gauges built on the XX frame but this one was not.

On my 16 gauge on the XX frame the bar is both narrower & shallower than non XX frame.

My experience is that heavier Lefevers have a wider & taller breech with corresponding thicker walls around the chambers & a wider firing pin spacing.

Some time back in a discussion on this I measured all of mine & posted the dimensions. They are I suppose still somewhere on the forums here, but I'm not very good with the searching aspect of the board.

Nudge, the very first Lefever I bought is a 12 ga. FE that weighs only 6lbs. 3oz. on an accurate scale. I also have a 12 ga. I grade which is only a couple ounces heavier. But most 12 ga. Lefever guns I've weighed have ranged between 7 and 8 lbs.

About a year ago, I made a post here that detailed a bunch of weights and frame dimensions of a number of different Lefevers across a broad range of serial numbers. Here's a link to that thread concerning Lefever frame sizes:

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=506188&page=1

The small frame 12 gauge guns are a delight if you can find one, but I've only ran across a very few. I still haven't seen a 12 ga. Lefever that has the xx stamp on the frame as found on 20 and 16 ga. guns, but some people claim they exist.

You are absolutely correct; fluid steel can also be damaged by excessive pressure. The tensile strength of fluid steel, for a given barrel thickness, and assuming modern alloys, has two advantages: raw tensile strength and homogeneity. Damascus steel yield strength is typically in the 7-800 megapascal range; modern steels go up into the 2,000 megapascal range, but could also be low, in the 500 MPa range for a plain carbon steel. Damascus steel is heterogeneous, by the nature of its construction from layers of dissimilar alloys. It is the dissimilar alloys, however, that engender the problem; I had a long discussion with an electrochemist about galvanic interaction at grain boundaries and micro-corrosion at the boundaries of the different steels, which weakens and changes the tensile strength of the material over time, when I bought my Barlow, in an attempt to determine the safety of firing it. In addition, hydrogen embrittlement, which can happen with all steels (hydrogen is a small molecule that can diffuse into steel at atmospheric pressure) takes place the more so in Damascus steel because of the presence of a greater number of microscopic voids and incompletely fused interstitial surfaces. Both electrochemical processes can give rise to internal stresses in the metal, which themselves spontaneously change its yield strength over time. Finally, there is no such thing as "Damascus steel" - Damascus is a process, not a material. It is not standardized, in the sense that the number and particular alloys of steel used, the forging temperatures, and the process can all vary from barrel to barrel, as well as between manufacturers. It's like saying that cats are nice; they don't all come from the same mold, and saying a tabby is affectionate has no bearing on the behavior of a leopard.

When Damascus steel is used in the creation of a black powder gun, with insight and testing, the thickness of the breech end of the barrel is designed, as I said above, for the stress profile of a black powder round. Peak pressure in a black powder round generally happens between 125 and 200 microseconds after ignition start; peak pressure in a smokeless round at around 250 to 400 microseconds, although it is highly dependent on the powder used, which is indeterminate a priori. That doesn't sound like much of a difference, but when you are accelerating the shot payload at about 3 to 5,000 G, the distance it moves in that time is significant. That means that the peak pressure may, or may not, move down the barrel away from the breech. If the barrel profile was not designed for that, necessarily it would be subject to strain - that is, exceeding the ability of the material to elastically return to shape. In a hybrid alloy, where internal discontinuities occur, that in and of itself can initiate failure. The difference with a fluid steel barrel is that in order for that to happen, you have to have an overpressure condition relative to its design strength; with Damascus barrels designed for the firing of black powder cartridges, you don't need an overpressure condition; you only need the pressure to be in a different area of the barrel from that for which the barrel was designed, which by definition can be the case for a black powder weapon firing a smokeless reload.

Obviously, if the Damascus barrel was designed and built yesterday, and specifically for smokeless powder cartridges, the above does not apply, since it would exhibit the excellent properties of high yield strength and elasticity inherent in steel made by the Damascus process. But a barrel made 150 years ago, of questionable provenance, fired with black powder loads and subject to uncertain cleaning and a century of salt and galvanic corrosion and micro-structure Hydrogen infiltration is one that deserves closer inspection than "Oh, them old Damascus barrels could shore take it." What motivated my comment was that in reading the posts, it sounded like posters believed that there was some "mystique" about Damascus technique that made it invulnerable to failure, which I felt was bad advice and a bad rule of thumb. As old as my hands might be, I like both of them just the way, and in just the place, that they are. So I posted a cautionary word to counterbalance the impression I got, out of a sense of responsibility. To your left hands.

As for the other good-natured cracks: no, I haven't visited this forum before under another assumed name. I share a number of commonalities with "George the Animal Steele;" like him, I have a bachelor's and master's degree, but not from Michigan, like him I was a track and field and football athlete, but it was my father who was a wrestler, not I. I have been nicknamed "the animal" (when I played football as an offensive guard and defensive end, because I broke so much of my equipment, including my helmet - which may explain a lot about my occasional incoherence), as well as Rusty, Stainless, and Remington. But I sure don't look like him. Sorry if my attempt to share advice I received in good faith from a scientist ruffled the feathers of the old-timers here. Peace.

First let me say I am not a Wrestling Fan & George Steele was not a name I recognized, sorry about that. I have therefore made no disparaging remarks as to your name.
I do however see a few Flies in the Ointment though concerning some of your statements. First powders from around the range of Unique & faster reach their peak pressure Closer to the breech than does Black. Secondly most doubles built from around the 1890's onward whether in steel Damascus or twist had their chamber walls thicker than some earlier guns with the knowledge they were apt to be used with smokeless. In shoe rt They were designed for smokeless & they stated so.

As to this deterioration from Galvanic Action this is quite possibly theoretically so, in Practice however it just doesn't appear to be occurring.
In Practice it is actually much easier to find accounts of failures in early steel barrels due to material flaws than for the welded barrels. A void in the billet when drawn into a tube would leave a seam, many were caught in proof or finishing, but not all. The forging process on the welded barrels eliminated these voids. There was of course always the possibility of slag being trapped, referred to as Grey's in the welded barrels. In reality these were more cosmetically unattractive than actually dangerous.These were not drawn put into seams but at worst were no more than the vent hole in a flintlock.

George,

You're clearly not a dumb guy. And I can appreciate your approaching the subject from as scientific an angle as one can. You are not wrong about the obvious number of ways in which Damascus "process" can fail due to fissures.

BUT...and it's a big "but"...in the only real pseudo-scientific tests which were published the failure rate of the best quality Damascus was essentially right where the best fluid steel was. And those pressures were way beyond any standard load of today...and way WAY beyond the types of loads most guys shoot through their Damascus barreled guns (myself included).

What I'm referring to is a series of articles done years ago in the DoubleGun Journal by Sherman Bell and Tom Armbrust. It was NOT diffinitive, but was the best attempt yet documented which sought to really explore the truth.

Not only have a ton of Damascus guns been around since the introduction of smokeless powder, but some were even blued over decades ago by people who thought they couldn't sell a gun with Damascus barrels. Meaning, more than a few people out there have shot guns for years before realizing their gun had 'blued-over' Damascus barrels.

So...purely anecdotally...if the danger was that real, wouldn't there be a slew of news articles going back 120 years by now documenting all the deaths to unwitting gun owners? There should be THOUSANDS of published stories of Damascus guns blowing up like grenades.

Try to do a Lexus/Nexus search for stories on this and you won't get much. And LOTS of guys way older than me, who have been on ranges for decades and may have even actually seen failure incidents will attest that they've never seen one that wasn't most likely the result of some other factor...typically a barrel obstruction. I will bet that MOST have never seen one...in all their years of shooting.

If the danger were THAT acute, the stories would be legion by now. Instead, only the warnings are legion. And I'm not saying this to deny that some barrels shouldn't be shot, or don't have fissures upon inspection. (I once owned a gun with Twist barrels that I judged suspect, and never would fire.) But on the basis of both Bell's tests, and anecdotally, the lack of any REAL preponderance of Damascus failures widespread enough that we can know that the danger is both INHERENT and PERVASIVE in the very Damascus process...I just can't buy it.

Again, I can appreciate your wanting to look at the matter purely on the merits of what science suggests. But I can attest, as can many others, that as a practical matter, Damascus barrels continue to shoot on.

- Nudge