Larry,
Bell's #2 frame Parkers would have been safe until failure at appoximately 30,000 PSI for fluid and Dasmascus steel barrels.
Isn't that why one would want a gun proofed, for safety?
Also, when failure occured the fluid steel burst with much schrapnel. The Damascus steel split open withour much schrapnel. Maybe we should outlaw fluid steel barrels and go back to the safer Damascus?
This is all good debate but how many chamber failures has each poster either witnessed, or were brought into your shop if you were a gunsmith. I think the number that people would swear to in court will be pretty low.
Mark
Mark--We've all seen failures reported here. On the wall of one club where I shoot hangs a Superposed, the obvious victim of a catastrophic failure. (Full disclosure: No one there seems to know the cause of that failure, and it could well have been some sort of barrel obstruction--far and away the leading cause of catastrophic failures.) Some years ago, Remington settled a lawsuit involving barrel failures. 870's or 1100's, can't recall which. Perazzi barrels have failed. So it's not like it does not happen, even with modern guns. Although I'll grant you that it's pretty darned rare, given all the shooting that goes on. And that's probably credit to SAAMI's firearms and ammunition standards. (And the same with foreign proofhouses.)
As for your Damascus vs fluid rupture comparison . . . can't remember who it was (maybe Payne-Galway, pretty sure it was one of the late 19th-early 20th century Brit writers) who suggested exactly the same thing: that a Damascus rupture would just "unwind", thus posing less threat to the shooter than a "shattering" fluid steel rupture. Which, I guess, goes to prove that there's nothing new under the sun.
