doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Poll-Damascus and modern ammo?

How many of you shoot modern ammo(high pressures) in damascus barrels frequently? If you know about the barrel dimensions it would be nice to have them mentioned.
Just a frugal poll to prove nothing, but some anecdotal info.

Load: 2 3/4" round with 1 1/4 oz and 3 3/4 dr.eq.

Barrels: 2 3/4" chamber, thickness at chamber is .095", 9" from breech is .045" and thinnest is .025". Not nitro proofed.

NO, The pressure is likely way to high and the recoil would be
detrimental to the gun and the shooter.
All of that shoot damascus use low pressure (7000psi) area and 2 3/4x1 oz type loads.
You can kill everything that will need to shoot at with 1150 ft/sec 1 oz loads. Those 3 3/4x 1 1/4 are for unknowledgeable Bozos or for a Benelli.

I agree, low brass, 2 1/2 dram equivalent, 1 oz. for 12ga. I shoot them all the time, no problem in any of my, 15 or so, sxs's with Damascus and twist tubes.

binko

I have been using Winchesters AA Lite powder and on Hodgdon's site you will find a few different loads using Rem hulls and Win AA hulls giving 970 fps and 5400-5700 psi using 1 oz and a few in 1 1/8 oz.
I load these in 2 1/2", roll crimp, for a 1892 WW Greener and in 2 3/4" fold crimp for my L.C. Smiths. No felt recoil and they do just fine.

Boy is this thread going to get interesting.
I know guys that shoot whatever they want in their Damascus guns, with no regard to pressure or load weight.
And others who won't even shoot clays with someone who is shooting a Damascus gun.
Personally, I stay with low pressure loads, under 7500 PSI.

Dave M.,

I know of the theory about the low pressure and damascus barrels and I know most of us follow that.
I am just curious about how many of us don't.
As you mentioned, I found many hunters that have their background in the older days that would shoot pretty much what they get their hands on through the damascus barrels.

I stick with low pressure...geo

Low pressure.

I don't shoot twist or Damascus barrel guns. My Grandfather's 1890-vintage heavy 12-gauge PH-Grade twist barrel Parker Bros., and my Father's 1895-vintage 12-gauge Remington Model 1894 Damascus barrel AE-Grade have digested carloads of 3 3/4 dram equiv. and 1 1/4 ounce of shot Super-X or Federal Hi-Powers. Grandpa bought the Parker in 1901 and it lived on a farm where six boys were raised, all hunters, and it saw a lot of use. I'd be willing to bet that Dad was using Super-X or their equivalent in the Parker for these early season Ducks at King Lake, Minnesota, in 1932.



Prior to getting his Model 1894, my Father had a Remingon Model 1900 KED-Grade. He gave it to his younger brother when he returned from WW-II. It finally suffered damage of the chokes being pounded out and breaking the solder holding the barrels together when my cousins used it during the early days of steel shot.

I use low pressure 7/8ths oz.in my 16ga hamer gun. My Parker GH has a small crack in the right barrel five inches form the muzzle so I put some Briley full length 20ga. tubes in it. The guy I bought the Parker from was shooting low pressure shells in it and did not know about the crack.

Regards, Gordon

I shoot low pressure 2 9/16" hand loads in my 16 Lefever twist gun. 105 yrs. old, no cracks in the original wood, and still going strong (shown below in silver prior to refinish next year). I shoot it near-weekly at skeet, but always do get comments from the Benelli crowd about it being a damascus gun, as though I didn't know.

Respective of Researcher's post, it is hard to imagine 100+ yr. old guns such as mine and many others here (and many with original short chambers) not having had many(tens of?)thousands of normal 2 3/4" high pressure store bought rounds shot in them during that time. Better safe than sorry however.

I dont shoot damascus only because I dont own a gun with damascus barrels.
I do have a funny memory of me giving Eightbore a lecture on what an idiot he was for shooting such a suicide machine back at the old and now unfortunately gone National Capital Skeet & Trap Club.
I was new to shotguns at the time and was dumb enough to believe everything I had read. He does still talk to me though, so curmudgeon is not accurate, pretty patient with a fool actually.

Holy Crap....is that an American Water Spaniel I see?? Those old waterfowlers sure knew their business didnt they?? The Parker and the vintage pic is cool, but that AWS takes the cake!

Dustin

Only in piece with RECENT REPROOF for nitro baby!

Because of government regulation it is now a complex, time consuming and costly process send damascus guns to the U.K for nitro proof testing. In the past I have resorted to the following proceedure to satisfy my self that the gun I wish to shoot is safe to use with low pressure loads;
1/ I inspect and measure the barrels, and chamber length to ensure that they are, "in proof", relative to the Black powder marks.I also check to ensure that the barrel wall thickness is at least .020 inch.
2/ I check to ensure the action is tight and not, "off the face" and that the barrels are free from dents, loose ribs and serious pitting.
3/My improvised method of testing is to wedge the gun in an old tire with the butt inside the tire walls with the barrels resting on the outer,opposite tire wall. I load the gun with field shells having 1 1/4 ozs, shot. I fire the barrels individually using a long string so that I am out of harms way. If the gun is sound after this test, I repeat the proceedure but for the second test I try to discharge both barrels simultaneously.If the gun is not damaged in any way by this test I am comfortable using it with low pressure loads.
I would hasten to add, that testing in this manner is strictly at the owners own risk. It dose not confir the kind of guarantee that a formal proof house test provides.

I've always been told that Curly was a rat-tailed Irish Water Spaniel.

He looks too small to be a Irish water spaniel and his nose doesn't seem pointy enough either He very well could be though, "Curly" looks alot like my "Bear"


Anyway, back on subject here, I would not shoot high pressure loads thru any of my Damascus guns. That doesnt mean I wouldn't shoot "modern" loads thru them. I've shot polywad, rst's, noble sports, Federal golds, B&P's thru all of my Damascus guns. This bird season I've been shooting my Lefever FE with chain damascus barrels with B&P "high pheasant" loads, it handles them with ease. When I load my own, mostly for target shooting, I use IMR 800X and stay in the 5000 psi range, plenty cupcake enough for these old guns to digest with no problems what so ever.

LP for me...reloads, 2 3/4"

I have 3 damascus guns. The thinnest way out around mid length is in the mid .02's and the thickest in the mid .03's.

Holy Crap....is that an American Water Spaniel I see?? Those old waterfowlers sure knew their business didnt they?? The Parker and the vintage pic is cool, but that AWS takes the cake!

Dustin [/quote]

Took the words right out of my mouth! That is a great photograph. No way that is an Irish water spaniel, that is an AWS and it looks a bit like my Lady. Sorry limited water photos.

I don't shoot Damascus or twist steel barrels, just some early (1890) fluid steel barrels. However, according to some old British tests (sometimes referenced, even posted here), those early fluid steel barrels were weaker than good or better quality Damascus barrels. Like lots of your "weak-barreled old doubles", mine has seen lots of use and repairs, even had the ribs resoldered by a local do-it-yourselfer. It is my deadleast old hammer double.

Can I get a membership card in the "Dangerous Barrels Club?"

Thanks,
Niklas

I will shoot damascus with low pressure loads. With all the usual safty checks and no less that 0.020 wall thickness.

tim

I use damascus barrelled gun all teh time with modern loads. The key is to use a load suited to the gun. with american guns, you need to guess what will work and I'd expect most to err on teh safe side.

With British guns you just need to match the proof marks to teh ammunition myou are using. If the gun is still in proof and sound, it will be safe to use with the corresponding loads.No need to go ultra-low pressure, just stick to the correct loads n the correct length hulls.

I favour Game-bore 'Pure Gold' 2 1/2" loads in true 65mm cases loaded with 1oz of No.6 and fibre wads for almost everything except ducks and geese. Hull also produce a good fibre-wad 65mm shell and Eley Grand Prix is a load I use in my 16-bores with damascus barrels. All these guns have 2 1/2" chambers and corresponding proof marks.

I shoot Gamebore's black powder shells in my Remington 12g 1894 AE. The barrels are thick and heavy, so I feel pretty good when pullin' the triggers. I'd have to say, the gun doesn't get much of a workout - it was bought just to have an American damascus gun around.
I think the barrels are the thing, no matter how careful your loads are. Pitted barrels might cut loose with a bottle rocket fired from 'em!

Just a generalization, but bore pitting is on the inside of structure that is stressed much more highly on the outside than inside. The pits would have to be extremely deep to make much difference in the ability of the barrel to handle pressure, IMO. The fact is that many a gun owner will go thru countless hours of hand wringing over a few pits less than .010" deep and have a number of guns laying around with similar depth engraving on the outside of the chamber area of a gun, a much more highly loaded area.

What Chuck said. Also, pitted damascus barrels from tests posted here were shown not to give way any faster than non-pitted barrels.

And don't forget the roll marking or engraving of the maker in the tapered area of the barrel.

Pitted barrels could be an outward sign of something deeper - something lurking in the metal itself.
...but shootem if you gotem eh!

so how about these? they have their 7/8th oz shot charges listed as making 5900 psi....

https://www.bandpusa.com/Shopping/product_info.php?cPath=65_70&products_id=98

I bought a box of the 1oz loads, though I'm sure they could get me a flat or two of the 7/8 loads if I so desired.

I bought the 1oz loads because thats all my store had in stock, and I decided that I would try them out in my Stevens 311A...

The 1oz loads feel pretty much like a regular 2 3/4 shell...sounded the same too...i will probably see if they can get me some 7/8oz to run through the W.C. Scott....

I just want to remind everyone here that Sherman Bells testing was hardly up to scientific standards and,as far as I'm concerned,didn't really prove anything.
I love the look of damascus barrels and feel this was a real art form but I also recognize the inherent weakness in this type of construction.
Having said that I also believe that their prudent use with proper low pressure shells certainly minimizes the possibility of a burst and if that's your thing go for it.
Jim

I would like to see actual scientific evidence that damascus barrels are inherently weaker, and if so, by how much.

The Sherman Bell guns were exposed to pressures of 30,000 psi which is 4 times more than the usual damascus load of 7000 psi. Even the 850 bar proof of the English 2 1/2 round is just around 12,000 psi, way below the destruction level.
Would you feel safe shooting 850 bar rounds in a 850 bar proved gun?

I shoot 2 1/2" low-pressure loads in my Damascus Parkers most of the time but I will not hesitate to shoot anything BUT magnum and steel without the slightest concern. My major interest in shooting low-pressure loads is not because of the Damascus barrels but in the probability of subjecting the rest of the gun to any more stress than it deserves after more than a hundred years of hard service, e.g., hinge area, wood at the head of the stock and around the top and bottom tangs, etc.

I shoot a lot of the B&P 2000 1 oz loads. They show from their web site to be about 6500psi and seem to be perfect for our guns..

It's not about whether or not damascus is weaker or stronger than any other barrel materials.

It's about the probability of a catastrophic failure of a barrel that could be hazardous. That would include consideration of the margin of safety above the working pressures of the loads used. It would also include the probability of firing an unintended high pressure load exceeding the ultimate strength of the barrel. It would also include the probability of firing with an obstruction in the barrel.

It seems to me the real issue is more about the probability of a obstruction than any other issue.

William Greener tested some bars of various damascus metal by pulling them till they broke (Prior to wrapping into a bbl). The better grades showed tensile strengths of 60-76K psi. Some cheap bbls which contained no steel showed only 40K or less. This was 1834, no doubt these cheaper bbls fell by the way side & bbls were likely produced which had even higher strength than the Best of '34. By way of camparsion Wrought Iron has a strength of about 48K, Low Carbon open hearth steel about 56K while a piece of plain carbon 1035 steel will show from 83 to 96k depending upon its temper (1300°F to 800°F). More modern 4140 alloy steel (A common steel for gun bbls) starts at 110K at a temper of 1300°F up to 180K at 800°F. These are the tempertures to which the steel is tempered or drawn after heat treating. There is no question modern alloy steels used in todays guns exceed the strength of the vintage gun bbls whether steel or Damascus. Plain carbon steel having a carbon content greater than about 40-45 points was not really suitable for gun bbls so most early steel bbls are not really stronger than good damascus/twist bbls. By the time the breech loaders became commonplace most of the really poor damascus had been done away with. In speaking of a CA 1900 vintage Parker, Smith, Lefever, ETAL I think it really matters little which type bbl it has.

Posted this when it happened. Beautiful conditioned Baker. Had the gun less than an hour of pickup at the FFL. I shot 8 shots, brother got to the 11th and it went. I think he broke the claybird. Found the wad( torn up) out in the yard with the rest of them. All OK, both peppered pretty good. Load was RemSTS,Clays,Windjammer,1oz.,PSI 5800, PW press. No more comments on 20ga. up the tube. Gun blew on the mentioned load. No need to rehash the who/what done it. Brother and I continue to shoot vintage SXS's and most are damascus.Randy

Randy,
Just curious...what was the measured wall thickness on your poor Baker? What was the condition of the bores? Was anybody hurt when she gave way?

Fortunately no one hurt, just peppered with steel pieces. Drew a little blood is all. No tools to measure wall thickness. Gun was in remarkable condition. Beautiful bores. Choked F/F as I remember. Posting may still be in the bone pile of BBS, maybe a couple years by now. Randy

Well, thats great no one was seriously hurt. Did you ever think to send the barrels off to have the walls measured? Maybe the bores were beautiful cause they might have been honed and polished at one time during its life? Very curious. I use almost the same load you use when I shoot my Damascus guns, I almost exclusively use IMR 800x for my loads, they are so mild I cant see them blowing up a cardboard wrapping paper tube.

Again, glad to hear no one was injured.

Dustin

I believe this was a pic Randy sent me of the shell.

Randy, that Baker 20ga. would not be Damascus. it would have been fluid steel. I may be wrong though. I didn't think the 20ga. Baker was anything but fluid steel.

Dave;
I don't think he said it was a 20ga. I think he was saying there was positively not a 20ga shell ahead of it in the chamber.
I have no idea as to cause, but I don't much believe 5800psi caused thar & that kind of swelling in the head of the casing.

RMC's Baker, if he is an experienced loader with the PW 800 series, is the classic "primer in the powder" type of blowup. A double powder charge would be extremely unlikely. However, when such an accident happens, step one is to dismantle all remaining shells to weigh the powder charges and look for other signs of problems. I don't care if I have 100 more loaded shells in the same lot, I will cut them all to pieces and weigh all powder charges.

RMC's Baker should have had plenty of wall thickness at the point where it blew up. If there was no obstruction, those barrels must have been honed within a nanometer of their lives. IMHO, if you're going to be buying and shooting damascus doubles it makes sence to invest in a barrel thickness gauge. This seems like a must have tool to me.

tim

I have seen a shotgun proved in Birmingham at 850 bar with a 2 3/4 chamber lenghtened from 2 1/2 and a barrel wall thickness of 83 thousandths at the muzzle end of the chamber.
My damascus barrel that I shot the 3 3/4 dram eq. with 1 1/4 oz load is 95 thou at the same spot. Not nitro proofed.
I still wonder how much do we increase the risc of blown up barrels with the higher pressure rounds?
If that Baker barrel was blown by only 6500 psi, there is nothing really safe to shoot.

I don't own or shoot Damascus. However, I believe it is "safe" to do so with "modern" loads, assuming either a) a reload at appropriately low pressure; or b) factory loads matching the proof level of the gun in question.

I don't even use American factory ammo (that is, from Win/Rem/Fed--with one exception) in my steel-barreled, in proof, 2 1/2" Brit 12's from the 1930's. The exception would be the low pressure "vintage" loads Federal made up for Midway, somewhere in the 6,000 psi range if I recall. I either shoot shells like RST's or Kent Gamebores, or else I reload to appropriate low pressures. I'd feel safe doing the same thing with a Damascus gun, if inspected and given a "pass" by a knowledgeable doublegun smith.

Midwayusa claims they are 5,000 psi.
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=613940

I would not be surprised if some measured closer to 6,000 psi. That would still put them in the very low end of the sprectrum.

Pete

Pete, what piece of information do you have that would cause you to be less than surprised if the Federal loads for Midway measure 20% more pressure than claimed?

Eightbore, Could you elaborate on the "classic primer in the powder type of blowup"? I'm not familiar with this. I'm also inclined to agree with Miller that 5800 psi did not cause that type of deformation of the case head. Maybe a wad from the previous shot lodged in the bore, was blown out with the destructive shot and found downrange with the rest. I don't routinely look thru the bores of my guns before reloading even though that is inherently easy with a double (except for a Darne). Maybe this Baker is a reason to try to develop a habit of looking before loading.

That's why it pays to only shoot Vintage Damacus barreled guns that were originally High Quality...the higher grade guns had higher grade barrels.

Keith, I am not familiar with any definitive testing of the results of a primer in the powder charge accellerating the ignition to a dangerous pressure. However, I have read of barrel failures that seemed to have eliminated other obvious causes. Some testing of the effects of a primer added to the powder charge would be interesting. Some loaders (the machine, not the person) effectively eliminate the possibility. Some loaders make it more possible by design. Some loaders (the person, not the machine) leave powder cannisters open, making it possible for a loose primer to drop into the powder cannister. Bad idea. On another aspect of this discussion, I think it is very unlikely that a wad would be left from a previous discharge close enough to the breech to cause the pictured blowup. I also think it is rather ridiculous to be discussing a barrel blowup without first eliminating the possibility of thin walls.

Since were are all trying to be Sherlock Holmes on this Baker blow-out, it seems that only Randy can answer most of the questions that all are trying to figure out.
Indeed the greatest pressures would be right where it blew, so if Randy would give some information of said barrels wall thickness, I think we are all speculating, and I agreee with Bill's last sentence.

I have a piece 2" X 1/2" from the blown area. It came from the area adjacent to the straight tear near the breech. Measurement wall thickness is .112" at that point. If anyone would like the series of closeups etc of the Baker and could post them here please send me your email and I'll send the photos. Unless a loose primer was in the 8lb Clays jug, the loose primer seems unlikely. The only unusual thing is the rear of the tear seems to be following a weld line, if that is possible. Other than that, I don't have a clue. The photos give a good view of the evidence. Hope some new light can be placed on this incident. Randy

JDW, thanks for the statement agreeing that measurements of wall thickness are normally step one in diagnosing a blowup. Thank you RMC for the attempt to give pertinent measurements. Unfortunately, many more measurements are neccesary to eliminate "thin walls in the area of the blowup" from the possible causes of the blowup. All past suggestions of primer related blowups have been without testing to prove the primer at fault. Is anyone willing to give this a shot? Is anyone willing to donate shotguns, however cheap or worn, to the testing? I will agree to test with one or more primers in the powder charge, with one or more witnesses, and report the results. Give me some time, but it is the dead of winter, so I can do it. I will accept no more than six working shotguns. They don't have to be fluid steel, but Damascus guns should be fairly intact and show evidence of having been fired in the last thirty or forty years. If you want your shotgun back after testing, all you have to do is pay for shipping. Email me if you want to ship me a gun. Pre 1898 guns would simplify the process, but later guns will be accepted. I will reply with my shipping address. wilmrph@verizon.net Bill Murphy

Pete has been sent the photo file on the blown Baker. If it doesn't crush his computer, some interesting pics will be up for your review. Thanks Pete. Randy

Randy,

Thank you for sharing. Randy sent 21 photos. I opened a new thread as this one is getting a bit long.

Pete

Here's A Nitro load I shoot in my 1881 Scott 10 ga hammer gun...the gun was reproofed at 4 tons with 3 & 1/2" chambers.
Federal 10 ga. 3 & 1/2" hull, Win.209 primer BPD wad with 20 ga. Fiber fillers 1 & 5/8 oz of Bismuth 4 shot, 33.6 grains of IMR 7625, 1260 fps. I shot this at a measured 40 yards.

I don't know if a cocked wad has been discussed yet since I haven't followed this thread completely. But cocked wads are the most common type of problem I've encountered in a PW. Usually stems from a worn/deformed wad guide or shell plate (indexing). The cocked wads I've encountered most often have the lower base area folded up sideways but the shotcup in the normal orientation. The only tattle-tale sign was a bulged side of the shell. The crimps were normal.

I'm wondering if a pressure test of weighed charge shells with the wads straight vs cocked is valuable?

On the 4140 steel, I believe most barrels will be near the lower end of the numbers quoted. Barrels are typically very soft, even modern barrels. The exception seems to be the hammer forged barrels that are work hardened.

Chuck;
According to an older Machinery's Handbook chart 4140 when drawn to 1300°F has a Rockwell hardness of C20 & shows a yield strength of 85K & tensile of 110K. This puts the yield higher than the tensiles Greener tested. Remember though his tests were reported on in 1834. No doubt by 50yrs later these strengths were most likely improved & those really low ones totally weeded out.
Interestingly around 1981 I read an article in a "Machining Trade" magazine where the Ithaca Corp was reporting on their switch to "Roto-Forged" bbls for their shotguns. Sure was not even similar to Ads appearing in the Gun Rags, which stated what an expensive process it was but they adopted it in order to give the "Consumer" the best possible bbl they could make.
In this article one of the cost cutting advantages mentioned was they no longer used 4140, but a lower grade of steel, which due to the process ended up with essentially the same strength. This saved them many $$$ over the course of a year & labor savings of course amounted to much more. As I recall they had totally amoritized the switch in approx 2 yrs. Wish I had managed to save a copy, but was in the Co's magazine & was just showed to me as was well know I was a gun enthusiast.

Chuck, thanks for the observations on cocked wads, and especially the explanation of how they happen in a PW loader. Cocked wads in a 12 gauge gun are largely eliminated by paying attention to the situations you mention in the PW, condition of wad guide fingers, and full indexing. However, I have not experienced the phenomenon of cocked wads remaining in the barrel except in .410. The off sound of a cocked wad in the .410 has always resulted in an inspection of the bore before an accident happens. I don't believe a cocked 12 gauge wad would remain as close to the chamber as the Baker blowup would indicate, even if the wad did remain in the barrel. As you mention, a 12 gauge wad has a secondary gas seal, but the .410 wad does not. That is why the cocked 12 gauge wad almost never stays in the bore and the .410 cocked wad often remains in the bore after firing. As far as your question about pressure generated in a cocked wad load, it would probably be a bit lower than normal because of gas leakage past the shotload. If gas leakage past the shotload was unrestrained, I would guess the pressure would be very low. Cocked wads in 12 gauge loads is largely eliminated when using a fully supported wad like the Federal SO which is almost impossible to cock. Wads like the Winchester 12 gauge variations are not fully supported and can easily cock in the seating operation. In the loader, the Federal SO would remain intact while the mouth of the shell would be destroyed, giving the person loading the shell a "clue" that something is wrong. Thanks again.

Miller,
I meant the lower end of the 110k to 180k range your referred to for 4140. Most barrels will be in a fairly soft condition for their alloy. So, the 100-130k range sounds likely.

I read that article about Ithaca somewhere as well.