doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Blown Baker

Is Sherman Bell's article available online? I would like to read it.

Not all untoward events are the result of stupidity, unless relying on factory loads is prima facia stupid. This happened to me a few years ago while duck shooting with Destry, down in Louisiana. My 1927 Parker Bros GH doubled with much recoil and wouldn't open without me taking off the fore-end, and even then the extractor wouldn't extract the shells. I cut a ramrod from the blind timber and pushed the shells out. The mouths of both shells looked like pictures I have seen of over-long shells from back in the old days when they liked to use 3-inch shells in 2 5/8-inch chambers to buffer the shot as it entered the forcing cone by giving up paper rather than deforming pellets.

My ammo was store-bought Bismuth factory loads in shells head-stamped Eley. I switched to Kent Matrix-Impact loads, and kept the Eley shells for further examination when I got home. The Eley shells measured 3 1/8-inch open except were part of the mouth was destroyed. I opened a couple of unfired Bismuth/Eley shells from two other boxes clearly marked 2 3/4-inch and they measured slightly over 3-inches open. As I type this I have the shells in hand: The Eley/Bismuth (marked on the box and on shell) measures 2 7/16-inch closed, while another marked Winchester/Bismuth is 2 1/4-inch unfired. The Winchester shell does not state its length, while the Eley says "2 3/4" and opens to over 3 inches!

A point here is that no one can pull shells out of a bag in the duck blind (and heat of the moment) and distinguish 2 7/16- from 2 1/4-inch, and the boxes said "2 3/4." I am thankful that I was shooting a relatively "modern" Parker with alloy metals reflecting Lindberg's recent jaunt across the Atlantic, rather than some circa pre-internal-combustion-engine fowling piece hammered out in a blacksmith's shop. The Bismuth loads were for ducks and were, of necessity, "Max Dram Eq. 1 3/8 oz number 4s." I called Ken Levine at Bismuth to report the incident and received what amounted to a huge shrug and "so what." I documented the transaction in the Internet with pictures several years ago, and simply post this now to re-state my caveat:

Be careful. Examine your shells, especially factory loads. Look for protruding or defective primers that might fire simply by closing the gun. Compare new shells to old ones that are known to be of proper length. Wear shooting glasses, always, and ear protection on the range and at the traps. I'll be 68 this month and enjoy constant "music" every waking hour...sort of like the rush of a tin waterfall. I never slip shells in the chamber without looking down the barrels...never. And while I like the old Parkers, late 1920s and 1930s are old enough for me. I wonder what would have been the result if I had slipped those over-long Eley/Bismuth shells in my old 1896 Parker BH with ca.1900 Titanic Steel barrels... EDM

I went to the Greener site and will agree they are offering damascus barrels,apparentely as a second set, on new guns. They don't go into any detail and I was unsuccessful in finding their email address so I could contact them and ask some detailed questions.
I also started thinking back to all(considerable) the time I spent up until the 90s shooting trap and skeet. I have basically had to quit due to a chronic rotator cuff problem so I don't know much about what has transpired since. However. I can't remember one instance of a catastrofic gun failure with the Remington 1100s,Perazzis, Winchester 101s, Browing Broadways and the slew of other trap & skeet guns that were prevelant at that time. Problems sure; but a blowup like the Baker pictured at the start of this thread; Never.
There also were still plenty of shooters using classic Parkers, L C Smiths A H Foxes(me) and I still don't remember anyone having a blown barrel. However I also don't remember anyone shooting a damascus version of one of these guns. Call me overly conservative but I'll still err on the side of caution and maintain that shooting damascus guns is a crap shoot.
I also concur with EDM post above that it's just too easy to make a mistake. If these Greeners are truly just damascus and not lined damascus I have to wonder what would happen if someone started feeding one 3" Magnums as a regular diet?
Jim

I understand where you're coming from, but there's really no such issue. I'm sure warranty will be standard. Nitro proof will be conducted to current proof standard and so marked on the flats, just like the Brits have always done it with all barrels. They will be safe with the ammunition they are proved for.



Again, there's no need to. There's no way to "insure" any user from the consequences of his own idiocy. No liability arises from damage due to use of ammunition other than that proved for and marked on the flats.

Just to set the record straight on new damascus barrels on new WW Greener guns: I wrote a 3500-word feature article on these guns in the Sept/Oct '07 issue of Shooting Sportsman magazine, based on 5 visits to the WW Greener gunmaking workshops over about a 10-year period.

They are indeed newly made damascus barrels, built on vintage tubes that David Dryhurst -- Greener's master gunmaker -- has been collecting since the '60s and '70s. Some are old Greener stock, some are English and no doubt some are Belgian. A few of these sets came from Dyson, but Dryhurst began collecting damascus tubes long before they became fashionable (again). He was way ahead of the curve in anticipating the renewed popularity of damascus. The guns are being made in 28-ga up through 12, and maybe in 10-ga. At least 25 of these damascus-barreled guns are made or are under way, and I believe more have been ordered since I last asked. At the time of my writing, none had failed English proof -- and that is your warranty. The owner must be smart enough to shoot the shells the gun was proofed for. The guns are proofed under standard CIP pressures per the particular gauge. They are not lined.

Most are on sidelocks; some are on reintroduced "G-Guns" -- Facile Princeps actions with Boss ejectorwork. Greeners are a small best maker -- but demand has been so great that I am told they have again closed their order books. They were the last British maker to manufacture their own damascus tubes, and are the first to again offer them in commercial quantities.

The article in not online but a back issue can supply more details, should anyone care to investigate. Hope this helps.

I agree guys. If someone has the coin to buy a newly made Greener with damascus tubes...he's probably not a nincompoop who would throw in a three inch magnum just to see what happens.



People who drop that kinda coin on a gun like that probably know the proper ammunition to feed their gun.

Thanks for the clarification Vic. I took the liberty of adding your comments here
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfg2hmx7_1742r4n6vcz

Now when is Dryhurst going to find the English Damascus Rosetta Stone!?

Dr. Drew:

I am speculating here but if Greener's ever had a British damascus 'Rosetta Stone' it may have been disposed of when the Greener firearms collection was sold off to America in the 1960s. (See English author/photographer David Grant's recent feature article in The DGJ on "Greener's Oldest New Gun" for more details.)

However, the Greener records do list the type of barrels and barrel steels used on their guns per the respective serial # -- so if a Greener owner can get those details from the firm and photograph the gun, a photo archive of at least Greener barrel types and descriptions could be developed example by example. (I will ask Dryhurst (again) when we speak.)

Thanks again Vic.
Steve Helsley's collection of William Powell & Son damascus guns, and the factory ledgers, have allowed us to do just that http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20258609
Unfortunately, the ledgers note 'Best Damascus', etc. rather than '3 Rod Oxford', etc.
The excellent pictures in Purdey Gun and Rifle Makers: The Definitive History by Donald Dallas also give a good idea as to the patterns Purdey considered 'Best' through the 1800s.

Jim, there's your "warranty" information. People will stick 3" shells in guns clearly marked 2 3/4". Not much the manufacturer can do about that, other than to mark his gun properly. In this country, of course, we've now reached the point--due to litigation, I expect--that you'll see many guns marked "Read owner's manual before using." Well, as the kids used to say . . . duh.

You must've missed the Remington recall of either 1100's or 870's due to barrel failures. I can't remember which, nor when it happened, but someone else will I'm sure. Assuming the Baker barrel failure was due to either an obstruction or some sort of critical reloading error, such an incident might just as easily rupture a modern steel barrel in the same manner you see in the Baker photos. One of our "teaching tools" in our hunter education classes is a blown up side by side, about the same place as the Baker . . . only this one has steel barrels.

Ed's comment about mismarked ammunition deserves further discussion. I have a box of 00 buck 12ga high brass Winchester shells, came to me straight from Winchester. Only thing is, the box is marked "Winchester AA Light Target Load"--and it was one of a flat of AA's, the only difference being all the other boxes really DID have the proper contents. (I called Winchester and told them they might want to check that particular lot.) If I, like Ed, had been using those shells in a dark duck blind, then I too might've simply fumbled open the box and stuck them in the gun. An error more obvious than the one Ed encountered, and at least quite clear in the light of day. (I certainly would've caught the problem before I shot a round of skeet with them!) So such things do happen, but I think they're pretty rare.