There have been some great, make that fantastic observations and comments made on this thread, but the notion that Damascus was/is an "inferior" technology is bollocks. A more accurate statement would be that good damascus was getting too damn expensive and time consuming not to mention dirty hard work to produce, and when compared with fluid steel...well, it just became more economical to produce and with the advent of alloys....probably "eventually" became stronger than damascus steel. The thousands of WORKING guns out there with Damascus, Laminated, twist barrels that have had thousands of rounds thru them (some of these guns dating back to the mid 1800's) without blowing up would be a testament to that statement I should think. This is one of the first cases, with an actual story, pics, etc. that I have seen on a blown Damascus barrel. Other than in the Sherman Bell articles in the DGJ, and those were done on purpose to "prove" a point. Now, I have also heard of blown Kreighoff barrels...blown Beretta barrels...and even a blown Rizzini barrel...but I've never seen the pics or the evidence....kinda like all these blown damascus barrel stories.
Another thing....why do so many discount or poo-poo Sherman Bells study into the strength of damascus barrels? Is there ANYONE out there who has done more exhaustive research and testing of damascus to disprove or challenge Mr. Bells findings?
Very Curious.
HOmelessJOe,
How do you know for a fact that the apprentices made the "cheap" damascus for low-mid-good quality guns and the masters only made the barrels for the "best" guns? Please name your source for this info if you please...I would like to read it for myself and learn something new.
Dustin
