Yes - that's kind of where I was coming from. Damascus barrels built with forethought of their being used with smokeless powder rounds, and so marked, are a better bet than very old barrels whose provenance and maintenance is uncertain - which, in fact, was the case with the Barlow, about which I have been unable to uncover any information whatsoever - not gunsmith, not date of construction, zilch. When that happened, I felt it necessary to consult the electrochemist I mentioned, since he was on a metallugy gig at the time.
I embarrassedly confess that I never even consulted the NRA as to their position on the issue. I did send in a request for info to Guns and Ammo to see if they had any information on Barlow, but nothing came of it. Interestingly, I just checked the NRA site about 5 minutes ago, and they have a similar slant on the safety issue, (at
https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/11/14/gun-safety-damascus-barreled-shotguns/) although I suspect that they would always err well on the side of caution for the reasons they cite - barrel quality varies widely, and it takes an expert to know what's safe.
Interesting that it's easier to find reports of failure for early steel barrels than of Damascus. Could it be that people were more inclined to the "Here, hold my beer and watch this!" kind of experimentation with a cheap gun than with a prime example of the barrel-maker's art? Sometimes cause and effect are reversed from what they seem.
And my reliance on Magnaflux and x-ray stems from the years when I raced cars, and it was routine to do so on flywheels, cranks and con rods when I'd rebuild an engine, to make sure nothing came apart in the heat of battle and took your foot with it. I still have both feet, so it must have worked.
Interesting discussion; no offense taken on the name issue - it's a tease of long standing in my life.
