doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Myth of unsafe Damascus still alive

I was at the gun club yesterday and walked on the field with a SxS. One older gentleman asked me if it was 'twist' barrels. I said no and he said good because if it was 'twist' he wasn't going to shoot on my squad. So, it appears the myth of dangerous Damascus is still alive and well at least in some parts of the world. I tried to convince the old boy that stuff is really a myth and if the barrel walls are thick there really is no problem with Damascus barrels. I might as well have tried to convince an oak tree because he thought I was surely full of hot air and misinformation.

I have been similarly confronted by a range shooter more than once. My efforts to refute his statements were in vain. I might as well have been talking to a stump as the guy's eyes glazed when I started discussing working pressures, proof pressures, barrel wall thicknesses, etc.

More DGJ, less Guns & Ammo.

Ken

Happens quite often and sharing knowledge with a person like that is usually wasted time in vain.

The solution: Shoot high score. Last time someone confronted me I shot high score on the trap line and put the gun on the rack and walked away.

A little while later a few shooters not involved who overheard the commotion go by the rack to look over a 122 year old Parker with Damascus barrels. They come find me and we talk guns and we have an open and positive discussion about Parkers, other vintage SxS, and barrels.

Samuel Butler
A blind man knows he cannot see, and is glad to be led, though it be by a dog; but he that is blind in his understanding, which is the worst blindness of all, believes he sees as the best, and scorns a guide.

Drew:
I really enjoy reading those great words of wisdom quotes you post
Tom

buzz
I am new to east coast and went to Bull run shooting center out side of warrenton va. and was told i cannot shoot my damacus RIGBY hammer gun on their public range. But my damascus PARKER box lock was ok.

Morons. I have not seen or heard of that kind of selective imbecility. Your Parker must not have had "rabbit ears". There are a number of ranges here in Virginia where a bunch of us shoot our damascus guns without hassle. Flying Rabbit outside of Harrisonburg and Central Va Sporting Clays in Fluvanna to name two.

Gave up long ago, attempting to dispel the Damascus stories. Now I encourage them and suggest they get rid of these dangerous things and let me dispose of them properly. Drew is right......

Not sure what is going on at the Bull Run range in VA as my father shot both Damascus and Non-Damascus Hammer guns there for years.

John Bunyan's debating technique might work

"A Discourse Touching Prayer" 1662
Therefore give me leave a little to reason with thee, thou poor, blind, ignorant sot.

Public perception is a difficult thing to change, especially when it�s multi-generational. For years manufacturers told people not to shoot their ammo in old "dangerous" damascus or twist doubles. We also had tons of cheap, poorly built doubles imported into the US which hurt the double perception over the years because of their lack of quality. An example of this - my grandfather in law displayed a few JABC hammer guns on his insurance office walls for the last 50 years. This type of antique display, which occurs all over the US in people�s homes, stores, etc, skews perceptions and has for generations. People have been trained that when they see pattern on barrels or external hammers to automatically assume the gun is an antique/dangerous to shoot. Manufacturers sold a ton of the latest and greatest semi autos and pumps this way.

If you did the math I bet you would find the numbers are just not in our favor. There are probably far more JABCs imports than there are quality made composite barrel guns floating around for the general public, or even shooting public, to see.

The vast majority of gun club clay shooters also aren�t reading double gun forums, DGJ and Shooting Sportsman articles that explain or debunk the old myth. Unless somebody published a number of detailed yet easily understood articles for years in common magazines like Guns & Ammo or Field & Stream, I don�t think we will ever see the myth disappear.

A good answer to give the fellow who wouldn't shoot with a composite gun on the squad would be "No, this one is not Damascus, but I'll go and get the one in the car."

On the bright side as long as this myth is perpetuated the prices of fine old damascus barreled guns will remain depressed and provide the educated buyer great opportunities to enjoy these fine old guns at a more reasonable cost just like the notion that the 16 gauge was dead a few years ago.

I'm not sure how much this is a divide across the Atlantic, but here in the UK I periodically shoot with a Damascus barrelled gun, thin walled, but unaltered since nitro proof in the 1980s. I have never had a negative comment and have always had interest and appreciation from fellow shooters.

I was hunting woodcock with a gentleman and told him I was shooting an LC Smith built in 1897. His first question, "it's not damascus is it."

"Yup."

CHAZ

Drew, great! Dave is correct also. I long ago gave up trying to talk to someone whose attitude is "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". Sooo...I won't....and by the way, you better sell me that old Purdey you have hanging above the fireplace, those Damascus barrels are dangerous, ya know.

Or you could quote Oliver Cromwell to the damascus doubters:
" I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

drew: is it sot or sod?

I still remember as a young boy when you would purchase a box of shells the top flap would have a warning on using "Modern" ammunition in damascus guns

Good point, Mike. And America with it's litigious attitude, or 'sue the bastards, it's good for commerce' attitude, IMO mandated that inscription be placed on those shotgun shell boxes in an effort to prevent lawsuits for the ammunition companies. It's no wonder the myth of dangerous Damascus is still alive and well after all those years where that sentiment was beat in to the consumers head. And as someone mentioned above, wanting high sales of pumps and automatics probably had a lot to do with demonizing Damascus as well.

Probably impossible to confirm, but when was the last documented barrel burst on a damascus-barreled gun? You certainly hear about steel barrel guns failing from time to time. (There was a post on Shotgunworld just this week about a Spanish gun that had a barrel burst - fortunately without injury).

If safety is truly the concern, shouldn't these people be asking their squadmates about their reloads as well as their barrels?

Wasn't it about 15-20 years ago that an ambulance-chasing attorney sued Remington about "dangerous" barrels? It was a class action case, and I received about $100 from the settlement (I had a lot of Remmies at the time) I sent the check to an organization which fights BS lawsuits

I think it is a variation of the general Progress Myth. You know, "every new product is better than the old one". Of course, marketers and manufacturers take to it whole-heartidly; and so are the gun magazine editors, who are dependent on the amount of ads their publication generates.

Damascus barrels are easy to use as a support to this myth, because they are distinctly different in their looks.

They are all dangerous - please send your damascus guns (especially Parkers and WC Scotts) to Jay's Home for Wayward and Unwanted guns. I'll be happy to take them off your hands.

Glad some people think they are dangerous - makes it a heck of a lot easier to buy them for a reasonable price.

Doverham: I've posted several times on Shotgun World the offer to send $100 to anyone who would send me a section of pattern welded barrel that "unwound like a spring." No takers as yet.

Have also made it clear that no one on the internet can tell someone if a gun or barrel is safe, lest a personal injury lawyer confuse me with an expert
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=366087

Ithaca sent out letters warning not to shoot those "dangerous" damascus guns. Translation; we have these nice fluid steel barreled guns for sale.

How many Vintagers, Southern SxS and other events have been held without a burst barrel of any kind? And that's just in the US not counting the UK. It's fun being the contrarian.

This is an example of the start of this nonsense:
[img:left][/img]

Question from the new guy who is still learning. How careful are you all in selecting ammo, factory light loads etc..?

"Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?"
Sir Bedivere

MNGUNDOG---I think we all try to use loads sensibly , and around 7000psi or below. In my 1865-1870 guns, I try to stay about 6000-6500 psi and after turn of the century go back to 7000psi. One of the major reasons is to not damage the wood fit around the action and locks with sharp loads.

When many of us started out we were sucked into manufacturers' myths of big noise, heavier load, larger gauge are better. Over time we discover less noise and recoil provides better results and more pleasurable shooting. The biggest dividend comes from practise. Go shooting, forget shopping.

Ditto Mr. Stallones and King Brown. I use 7/8 oz handloads over Clay Dot at around 7,000 psi. They never fail to bring down a clay or a dove if I do my part. I also occasionally use 1 oz factory at + or - 1,200 fps.

I would throw out another bone to chew on. IF damascus barrel are so weak and dangerous,why aren't all the gun shows littered with examples of guns,even JABC's, with blown barrels??? Instead they are littered with old doubles that rattle when shaken,with missing hammers and broken stocks,obviously subjected to serious abuse and Lord knows what loads,and yet the barrels,even badly pitted remain
intact. I too have read the warnings on the manufacturers shell boxes all my shooting life, and thank them for contributing to my collection....

Pretty careful. I shoot RST exclusively in my damascus guns, especially those with short chambers. The good new is there has been such a resurgence in damascus that ammo is generally available (although probably not from the big-name manufacturers).

An excerpt from a 2011 article by Masssad Ayoob:

"Blow-ups" happen with shotguns, too. From the 19th century into the early 20th, it was in vogue to use Damascus steel in shotgun barrels. This was a legacy of lower pressure black powder. Modern smokeless powder that became state of the art in the late 19th century created greater pressures, and soon Damascus steel was rendered obsolete in the manufacture of shotguns. Unfortunately, guns are the ultimate "durable goods," and old shotguns were fired with new shotgun shells. People started noticing that they blew up when this happened. As the old guns got older and the steel deteriorated, and the new shells became more and more powerful, they blew up more often.

By the time this old man started learning about guns in the 1950s, it was already understood that you didn't fire modern shotgun shells in old Damascus barrel shotguns! Unfortunately, this wasn't understood by everybody, and the tragic gun blow-ups kept happening. Half a century later, this writer owns exactly one Damascus barrel shotgun. It's a fine old Lefever double-barrel I inherited from my dad. When I was young, Dad would fire light trap loads through it. The gun is a half a century older now, and so am I. I follow a simple rule with it: I don't fire it at all. It remains silent, a legacy of the past, like the stand-up 1940s radio I also inherited. It's a decoration, not a tool anymore. I would advise anyone reading this to treat their Damascus barrel shotguns the same way.

I took exception and emailed him. I pointed him to Sherman Bell�s DGJ articles. I pointed him to Drew�s site. I pointed him to the Vintagers. I reminded him of English proofs. I explained the difference between fusion and filler welds. Waste of time.

We exchanged a few emails, he said it was all very interesting but, he stood by his opinion that Damascus is unsafe.

Last time someone gave me shit I had a �hold my beer and watch this� moment and intentionally doubled my Lefever twice. That will actually shut them up. They don�t need to know they are � oz fluff loads.

I'm new to the subject of fine double guns, hunting has been a lifelong passion of mine, given my schedule and location I'm able to get ample amount of hunting done. I somewhat disagree with your notion, however that is subject to another thread entirely.

I have always found it amazing that so many who have no experience with a thing have become an authority on that same object.

Two years ago I was told by a wizened old fella in his late 20's or early 30's that I could not catch big trout on my bamboo fly rods because they would tear up the rod. I asked him what he thought was used before the advent of fiberglass or graphite or what he thought of Ted Williams catching tarpon on bamboo rods. He gave me no answer and walked away. I had another equally experienced fella of greater age, probably in his early 40's, tell me that in these times you couldn't kill a deer with a longbow or recurve because you couldn't get close enough and they were too slow, deer would jump the string every time.

Can anyone tell me where these kinds of people are cultivated? Surely they were not born and had any kind of life experience.

Masssad Ayoob again shows us that he's full of crap.

I believe with certainty we're all learning here, friend. Opinions make the forum.

The people you mention of all sorts of experience but no evidence to support their beliefs are common as rain. I'm certain they think the same of me. It has nothing to do with age.

Huh?? There we go with the flowery language again, King.

Ed Good, it's "sot" not "sod" in this case, as in "a drunken sot" an alcoholic.

Just a comment, buzz, to member asking where people who believe strange things come from, as if it were peculiar. The examples he gave referred to age. I regret my language was flowery; I try to avoid it.

So we have Ithaca in the mid-late 1960s advising against shooting modern loads in Damascus guns and I am sure other companies were doing the same at this time. When would the earliest letter of this type exist? five years after they quit making damascus guns, 10 years, maybe more? I think it would be interesting to chart out when all thr major manufacturers in the US stopped selling Damascus guns.

Additionally it would be interesting to chart the evolution of the shotshell from year to year to compare what rounds were being sold when the manufacturers transitioned from offering Damascus barrels to only steel. I guess my question is something like which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who really drove the train on the change from Damascus to fluid steel barrels, the gun manufacturers or the ammo manufacturers? I tend to think it was the manufacturers simply because the ammo companies wouldnt put the cart before the horse and make new rounds that supposedly couldn't or shouldn't be shot in the guns that were readily available.

Personally I feel both world wars forced and trained manufacturers to supply large volumes in short timeframes and that made it so the slow hand made Damascus wouldn't ever cut it again from a production standpoint, especially after we learned to mass produce our own fluid steel barrels. (Not to mention every GI getting out of the service had a new need for speed and firepower after shooting machine guns - remind anyone of the current trend in AR-15s?).

TwiceBarrel, you mention something I've read and heard for a decade now and it seems to be as much if not more of a myth than Damascus barrels are unsafe; That one can get really sweet deals on Damascus barreled vintage guns because the vendor does not know that they are, in fact, safe to shoot and worth as much if not more than some of his other vintage guns with fluid steel barrels.

I have NEVER come across a situation where this is the case. NEVER.

Please understand that I am not attacking you, it's just that you happened to be the one who repeated this old chestnut that's been floating around for a longtime.

The situation has gotten to the point now where a lot of people are savvy and more often than not they'll charge more for a vintage gun with nice Damascus barrels than if it had fluid steel tubes.

Has anyone here ever been able to take advantage of a situation where they got a real steal of a deal on a vintage gun with Damascus barrels because the seller thought they were worthless?

I'm really curious about this. If you have profited in this way I'd also like to know, if you can recall, the year of the deal.

Well here are three examples:

8 years ago I bought a LC Smith Quality 2 10 gauge first year production gun built on the massive frame used for 8 and heavy 10 gauge guns that retains most of the faded case colors and damascus pattern remaining $220.00

2 years ago I picked up an 1890s vintage 16 gauge Lefever F grade absolutely beautiful wood, most of the faded colors and 100% damascus pattern $900.00

Earlier this year I found an early 1900s vintage 16 gauge Lefever G grade good colors but the barrels only showing about 40% damascus pattern $400.00 barrels beautifully re blacked by Dale Edmonds $300 total $700.00.

If you are looking for these types of values stay away from the specialty vintage gun dealer because they do indeed know the values. Only the F grade Lefever came from a brick and mortar operation the rest came from small (hobby) dealers.

Channing: I think the transition to fluid steel, rather than the introduction of Western Cartridge Co. 'Super-X' in 1922, and the Peters 'High Velocity' and Remington's 'Nitro Express Extra Long Range' loads shortly thereafter. The "These shells must not be used in guns with Damascus or Twist Steel barrels" warning did not appear on shell boxes until the late 1930s.

Hunter Arms was one of the earliest American maker to offer fluid steel on other than the highest grade guns. Crown steel first appeared with the Pigeon Grade in 1893, No. A 1 (SN 1130) in 1894, was also used for the No. 3 about 1895. The other U.S. makers soon followed and the 'rough forged tubes' were almost certainly Belgian - except Remington, and later Winchester.
See https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=17ixogftgITEblNUWtmFBv96ZvgjK6eFell8GsAWd-KI

Damascus production in Belgium essentially ceased during German occupation of WWI. J. Delcour-Dupont in Nessonvaux tried to revive production after the war, but according to Puraye, the last year damascus barrels were made was 1930 and by then all the U.S. makers had long since transitioned to cheaper fluid steel tubes.
So inform the public that the old fashioned Damascus barrels were dangerous in order to sell more 'new and improved' guns, including the increasingly popular repeaters.

Buzz,,,huh???
I understood kingbrown just fine, what the hell was flowery about his comment???
Was it the mention of rain?..or, are you just saying something blooming daft that a-rose from between your tulips, bud?

franc

Yes, probably just something blooming daft that a-rose from between my tulips there, bud! ;-))

I was ignorant about twist barrels in the early 60s. I had bought a Batavia Leader for $12 from a guy who needed gas. After sitting in the closet for a couple years unused by me a friend was going to go phez hunting and asked to borrow it.

He returned the gun stating he had got his limit for two days. He was using Super x loads.

AFter gaining a little more knowledge about the gun I realized it was unsafe. That old circa 1910 twist barreled Baker had significantly pitted bores from one end to the other and about 12 small dents on the barrels and held up to those Super X loads. Still have the gun and and there was no appearant damage. One thing that probably helped was someone had cut the barrels and the chokes measure IC/IC.

Y�all keep bringing up examples of American made damascus barreled guns as being safe and I imagine that most are, after all with no proof houses American manufacturers over-built their guns to avoid blown barrels and subsequent lawsuits. However, at the same time the US was being deluged with extremely poor quality damascus (twist) barreled guns from overseas. Many of these guns may not have been safe even when they were brand new (JABC�s). It could be that American manufacturers, without pointing a finger, were damning damascus barreled guns in general because of all the poor-quality import guns that were still in daily use. Without having to pass proof, the US must have been a great dumping ground for such low-quality crap.

This is just speculation, based on a somewhat cynical view of human nature, but knowing that it was going to the US, all the foreign manufacturer probably had to do was inform his proof house, pay a small bribe and the gun automatically passed proof with no worries about it coming back on them should a barrel rupture. Another JABC washes up on our shore.

Steve

Outstanding points, Rockdoc, and very likely valid.

It was just less than 10 years ago I became interested in double guns. Was at the skeet range with some friends and one was shooting an LC Smith. He let me shoot it a little, and I was absolutely hooked. His gun had steel barrels, and after a cursory glance at popular "knowledge", I also reralized I needed a steel barreled gun. I looked around and overpaid for an I grade Lefever with fluid steel. I enjoyed the gun very much and wanted more, but realized that fluid steel barrels on old Lefevers were simply not a dime a dozen. So by necessity I began to look more closely at damascus guns. It's not been so long ago that I can't remember that the "expert" articles and the forum conversations were still 25 to 1 concluding that damascus was not safe. It was confusing and frustrating, because as soon as I had convinced myself that it would be safe, I read one more thread or article that seeded doubt. Many of those came from this forum even.

Finally, I decided I would get a damascus gun, and bought a G grade Lefever for a very fair price. The owner assured me he'd shot it safely without issue, and I picked up a case of RST shotshells and headed to the range. The two buddies I was shooting with would not stand near me, and I remember the great reservation I felt shooting that first round. I kept feeling the barrels for bulges, and looking down the tubes for tell-tale signs of impending doom. I must have broken less than 10 birds on a game of skeet because I was so focused on my loss of life or limb that could happen at any moment.

I lived, learned, kept shooting that gun, and lost my fear and ignorance. Then I bought more damascus guns and shot them without being blown up. With each new one, my friends continued to act the same way, standing back and commenting about my stupidity. They loved the old doubles too, but "wouldn't take the risk" of shooting damascus guns.

It took a few more years, but they have recently all come around, and are shooting damascus guns as well. We all like quality american guns (LC, Parker, Lefever, etc), and are confident in the quality of these barrels. None of us would be unwise enough to pick up some junk old twist gun and think to do the same thing.

I guess my long winded story leads to this statement. Even someone who wants to understand has a hard time becoming confident on this topic because of the massive volume of mis-information. One may want to become educated, but I remember that it was very difficult to make that leap. I'm glad I did, or I wouldn't now have some really amazing and functional pieces of classic american sporting culture.

Correct-o-- Sot- as in the Shakespeare character Falstaff-- now sod, besides meaning lawn or green grass, as in the Irish blessing(?) Sod you, Mate- refers to the Biblical village of Sodomy--long since "gone with the wind"--

A-rose- either Gertrude Stein- "A rose is a rose is a rose" or possibly- my favorite late lady painter- georgia O'Keefe- she loved the shapes of roses- very feminine in nature, and a beautiful o'ject d'art!!

The 1902 Sears catalog reprint I have Has several "articles" about how those new fangled steel barrels are safe to shoot and won't blow up, And they are as good as a twist barrel. It's all a matter of economics. The manufacturers want to sell whatever they think they will make the most money. Good barrels are good barrels. The main deal with Damascus is it is so much more labor intensive, and the loss of almost 30% of the raw material during manufacture. Plus to properly finish the exterior of Damascus takes 2 to 3 times as long. The early fluid steel had the potential of inclusions inside the barrels with no indications it would fail. Good is good, abused is abused, and crap is crap. Caveat Emptor

Indeed. When both Meriden/Aubrey and Crescent began offering 'Armory Steel' 1909-1910 the future of pattern welded barrels in this country was determined.

I shoot Damascus with low pressure reloads, and agree with most of what has been written above. I've never had any problems.

Just wondering: Has anyone in this group actually had a Damascus or Twist barrel "blow-up" in normal use? I suspect it is very rare.

There was one failure of a damascus barrel on a fairly high grade Lefever or Smith as I remember reported on this forum some time ago. The barrel failed just in front of the chamber. On careful investigation it was determined that the cause of the failure was due to a gross overload most probably caused by a double powder drop on a reload. You may be able to find the thread in the archives.

Randy McCune reported the Baker chamber blow out, and images are here
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17546456

Notice how many of those blown up guns are STEEL! Dangerous stuff!

There are two things which are absolutely amazing to me. First is that the strong modern guns tend to blow up as often or more so than the old ones. This though is probably explainable by the much greater use (& Abuse) of the newer guns.
2nd is just how many of those old "Cheap" JABC or equivalent guns I have been aware of over my lifetime which habitually shot off the shelf shells of every description including the Express & Magnum loads & even though often pitted, loose & off face just kept right on going without Blowing Up. While these guns are not very desirable guns I really think that being "UnSafe" is actually the least of their faults.

The most recent accident at our gun club was with a Verona O/U that exploded at the front of the monoblock with catastrophic results. No reason has ever been determined but the shooter has undergone several years of surgery and recovery. He will never have any sense of feeling in his left hand again. When I examined the blown barrel I was amazed at how thin the barrel metal was that slid into the monoblock. Scary stuff indeed!

I really let most threads like this just pass into the bit bucket. However, there are so many myths....

No one "flooded" the American market place. Those guns were made at request of American companies and stamped with their house brand.

If you read the Congressional Records of the day, there were complaints of unfair business practices because the labor rate in Belgium was cheaper. The joke is the American companies complaining the loudest often times employed women and children in their factories. I have yet to read a complaint concerning buyer safety because of poor manufacturing.

Again, the companies complaining the loudest had sweetheart deals with off shore makers to provide them with damascus barrels. After WWI, the American steel industry needed a market for their increased production, hence the cry about damascus. Also, the metallurgy got better. We had learned how to keep sulfur and silicone out of the steel. Finally, the cost of labor increased. Small communities like Nessonvaux were turned from their centuries of gun making into auto production.

Regarding the proof house speculation. You do realize that those at the proof house were government employees! They risked imprisonment for taking a bribe. Before we get into, "Well it could have happened", simply show me 1 documented example.

I own 30 guns with damascus barrels. I shoot 29 of them. The one I do not shoot, is because I consider the barrel too thin at the chamber. If others choose not to shoot damascus, that is fine with me.

Pete

Ok PeteM. You are an expert on this subject. Since you are an expert how do you dispel the very common myth that there is rust 'between the welds' of the Damascus or twist steel that cannot be seen with the naked eye or measured with any sort of common instrument. This is an argument used by the nonbeliever who believes these welds rust over the years, often times more than 100 years, thus rendering the Damascus steel incompetent. How do you prove to people who are more ignorant than you in terms of Damascus that this rusting process in the welds of Damascus is a myth and nothing to be concerned with? Because in the not so distant past and before I was educated by experts such as you, I used to be an ignoramus who believed Damascus was dangerous and not to be fooled with.

buzz,

I find the internet next to useless for such endeavors. I only try to present information that can be documented. My interest lies in research more than proselytization.

I do take exception to this forum. As in general most of us are here to learn. Many of us have learned by listening to those here. I consider Miller, Daryl, Raimey, Marc and others to be much more knowledgeable.

Thanks for considering me an "expert". It is more than I think of myself. I am simply a student who is willing to learn and share.

Pete

Pete,
since I'm admittedly a bottom feeder in the doublegun world I've seen a lot of JABC's while looking for that "pony in the pile", and I mean clunkers! I can't imagine some of these guns being much better when they were new as they were when I saw them. As far as my speculation is concerned, it was simply that, pure speculation (based on my own cynical world view, which I stated as well) and reviewing my own words I don't see how anyone could take it for more than that. If someone agrees with me fine, if not that's fine too.
Steve

I think this is the gun you were speaking of, a Baker, and not pictured in the picture trail link posted above.

As I remember the considerations by the owner were either lengthened chambers poorly done as seen by all the excessive unpolished tool marks, or an overloaded powder charge as noted by the hull remnant showing signs of excessive pressure, which is obviously a 2.75" Remington Hull, or both.

Thanks for posting the photos I was referring to. Did you notice the way the brass on the fired shell appears to have flowed into the extractor cut and the way the primer is protruding from the shell head? I think that this lends strong credence to the overload theory, however, the barrels do seem awfully thin in the area where the forcing cone should be evident. At any rate one or a number of bad things contributed separately or in conjunction with each other to cause the only unintentional damascus barrel blow up not attributed to an obstruction I have seen.

Doug;
I did find those exact pictures in the picture trail linked above. Maybe you just failed to scroll on down far enough.
PeteM;
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I believe I have learned more from you on damascus than you have from me. Personally I consider you one of the Experts in the field of Damascus barrels.

Pete: Have you ever thought of being a politician? Your answer to my question re 'rust between the welds' was absolutely evaded. Bill Clinton couldn't have done a better job of dodging the question. And you are right too about all the bullshit here. But unlike some of you, most of us do not have a PhD in physics or metallurgy and we are just trying to understand this damascus conundrum in layman terms. So Pete, since you are an expert, I'm asking you again to scientifically prove to us that rusting does not occur in the welds of Damascus steel, particularly that which is over 100 years old.

Buzz, you are asking an impossible question no one could answer in the way it is phrased. The closest anyone could come would be to report observations. Theoretically, it would be possible but I have never personally heard of such an occurrence. I have seen/read of instances where corrosion (pitting) has penetrated through a barrel but cannot recall of any being directly linked to a faulty weld.

"not pictured in the picture trail link posted above"

Apparently an internet epidemic of psychologic scotoma.

St. Augustine
It is no advantage to be near the light if the eyes are closed.

Exactly. So Damascus really is by definition a bit of a conundrum. Most Damascus barrels are likely safe and this was established with Sherman Bell experiments trying to blow them up. But, are there any unsafe Damascus barrels out there and if barrel walls are thick, ie greater than .020" can it be unequivocally assumed that these barrels are safe? I'm not 100% sure on this? I think a good experiment would be to take a nice big lot of these barrels and do a cross section analysis under an electron microscope and examine these barrels for rust. One would have to use trashed barrels because who would want to ruin a good gun in the name of science. But to me this would be a good scientific experiment. Has anyone ever taken a look at these barrels in this manner?

What would that really prove, Buzz. To be meaningful the sample would have to be huge. And even at that it would still not represent the whole. And I would imagine a series of any barrel metal would result in discover of many variables--steel, damascus, laminated, etc. In all respect for your inquiry I think you're debating something that has no answer or value.

Well......how else would one be able to test as to whether rust actually compromises the Damascus welds or rather if indeed this is all myth?

Bro. Buzz.

There was a call on the DoubleGunBBS and PGCA sites in 2005 "Contribute Junk To Advance Barrel Strength Knowledge" with the hope of obtaining vintage barrel samples for composition and strength testing. This was posted by �Zircon� in 2007. Unfortunately, the testing effort apparently ended thereafter.

http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-55364.html

January 2007

I am doing a failure analysis of a pair of Parker barrels - one set damascus, and the other set homogenous Vulcan �fluid steel�. These barrels were used in the study by Sherman Bell and Tom Armbrust, published in Double Gun Journal. They subjected each barrel to increasingly heavier loads and they both failed at about 30,000 psi. Modern ammo gets up perhaps to 12,000 psi. Most folks that shoot these old gals use shells loaded to the 7,500 psi range.

During the failure analysis I noticed that the fracture length for the Vulcan barrels was substantially longer than for the damascus barrels. A close examination of the fracture surface showed progressive, low cycle fatigue marks on the damascus barrel. The crack advanced slightly with each increasingly higher pressured load. On the Vulcan barrels, both sides failed by a brittle fracture mechanism. By this, I mean the barrels let go in one fell swoop. Even though both sets of barrels failed at 30,000 psi, the behavior of the damascus barrels was superior to the Vulcan barrels, owing to the fact that the Vulcan barrels failed in a brittle fracture mode. A ductile fracture trumps a brittle fracture every time.

One of the (myths) with damascus is that it will fail at the welds where the original rods were forge-welded together. When I looked at this particular set of damascus barrels using a metallographically prepared sample, and up to 1,000X optical magnification, I saw NO EVIDENCE of weld joint failure, slag in the weld joints, porosity in the weld joints, etc. I have about 30 old barrels in this study, homogenous, damascus, and twist included. I am a practicing metallurgist who holds an M.S. degree, and am qualified to state the observations of barrel integrity made in this posting.

On the two old Parker barrels, there is a screw hole that comes up from the bottom and pins the extractors in place. Both barrels failed at that hole, because it takes a (segment) out of the side of the chamber and is the thinnest portion of the chambered area.

The damascus barrel let go by a mechanism known as low cycle fatigue. Each succeeding round had higher and higher pressure. After several rounds, a crack started at the extractor screw hole. Each successive round caused the crack to open up just a bit further, until finally the overpressure could not be contained and the (barrel) failed in a ductile fashion. Ductile failures in steel look like a taffy pull at about 1500 to 3000X magnification using scanning electron microscopy. There is a cup and cone appearance with a lot of micro-voids present. This appearance is a dead-set giveaway to a ductile fracture.

The "fluid steel" barrel failed by brittle rupture. The fracture surface is more or less smooth, but has some "rivulets" in it that point back towards the initiation point, which again was the screw hole. The fracture surface was about 3X as long as for the damascus barrels. In other words, the same 30,000 psi final internal load created a lot more fracture surface in the homogenous barrel than in the damascus barrel. This indicates that, for an equivalent-length fracture, it took less energy to open up the homogeneous barrel than for the damascus barrel. The words in the Sherman Bell article were that the Vulcan barrel failed much more abruptly and (violently) than the damascus barrel.

So the verbal description of the failures during firing and the visual observations of the fracture surfaces are in accord with each other. Both barrels ripped lengthwise for some distance and then the rupture terminated in a circumferential crack. In the case of the damascus barrels the crack spiraled around with the weld pattern, but it was not on a weld, rather it was on one of the in-between areas. After the damascus pattern is formed by wrapping rods together and forging them into a strip (the "skelp") which is wrapped around a mandrel, spiral paper-tube fashion, and is forge welded together. These spiral welds remained tight and the parent metal is what failed. This may seem pretty amazing, but in many, many instances the actual steel welded structure is stronger than parent metal.

Many microphotographs, chemical analysis of the steel, etc. (will) make up the (anticipated) article. I'll also be looking at several other barrel ruptures and measuring the strength of the various barrel steels in the "hoop" direction as the barrel will always fail in hoop tension with a lengthwise crack. Any internally pressurized cylinder has 2X the force in the hoop direction as in the longitudinal (axial) dimension, so it's no wonder why barrels all seem to blow out with lengthwise cracks.


TSI Inc. in MN performs industrial metal testing, and has evaluated a limited number of pattern welded barrels http://www.tsi.com/

Drew: Thank you for that posting. That study was clearly in support of Damascus and a great start to testing ESP by a metallurgist. He states there were 30 barrels but from the statements it appears only one Damascus and one steel barrel was actually tested. The best study designs are large studies with comparison group. I think you are right and it was unfortunate that more testing wasn't done after 2007 to really get to the bottom of this. But I agree with you guys in that I believe most Damascus barrels with thick minimum barrel walls are indeed safe to shoot.

At the risk of posting additional misinformational twaddle, I clearly remember an earlier post that stated that early on, when fluid steel barrels were first made many people preferred damascus barrels because they'd typically bulge a little before they'd fail completely, giving the user a pre-total failure warning.
Steve

One could take 'Damascus' out of this sentence and it would still in reality be 'most', not all. I don't know if there's a study that could guarantee all barrels would be safe. I think this figures some are unsafe and the shooter at the next station could be running the numbers in their head, not perpetuating a myth. I think they're all safe to shoot if the whole gun meets some minimum standard. Then it's up to the shooter, the grounds, and subject to change.

Only a one gun test but some years back I acquired an H grade "Parts" Lefever. The stock was broken, barrels heavily pitted & the gun would not close & bolt up. Invetigation revealed the screw which holds the trigger plate had been replace & the new one protruded inside the frame & the cocking hook would strike it preventing the barrels from fully seating. Shortening this screw cured that problem & the gun in spite of obviously heavy use &/or abuse was actually quite tight. It was further noted that at 14" from the breech the left barrel had a crack in it. It appeared as if it had been hit against a sharp object giving a dent & then had subquentlly been fired with thw result being that part of the dent was raised in the form of a flap & part was still dented inward. The crack ran along a weld seam & was about �" long & open enough by shining a light down the barrel you could look through the crack & observe the opposite bore wall.
I an an expanding dent plug down under it, raised the inward part & hammered down the raised part. The crack closed up until it became very difficult to see. I then taped up the stock & pout the gun in the ol Firestone Proof House. With me behind a large walnut tree & a cord tied to the trigger I proceeded to fire several factory 3�-1 1/8 loads through it with no visible results. further proceeded to fire several 3 3/4-1� factory loads with again no visible results. I then fired some handloads containg 1 3/8oz shot with about a 3-3� dram equivalent of Unique powder. Again "Nothing". The crack did not open in the slightest & there was not even a smudge of residue which made it to the outside. In my mind at least this definitely laid to rest the old "Fact" that smokeless stressed a barrel somewhere down around the left hand position. I feel certain the Remington Express factory load would have had more pressure in the area of the crack than did my handload with more shot but a lighter powder charge & most likely a faster powder besides. This gun was barreled with what Lefever described as "Best London Twist".

The relative strengths of Damascus and steel shotgun barrels has been a controversial issue since steel barrels were first used on shotguns!
In an effort to compare the relevant strength and cost of a variety of Damascus and steel barrels; in 1888 the Birmingham Proof House compared the relative strength of 39 different kinds of barrels.
The results are very informative .In the barrel bulging test English machine forged laminated steel was the best beating out Whitworth fluid compressed steel! On the other end of the scale Foreign Damascus in three rods was the worst, resisting only 7% of the pressure required to bulge the best laminated steel barrels.
Full details of these tests is recorded in the book, Experts on Guns and Shooting, pages 538-542.
With this degree of variance in barrel strengths we must rely on barrel proof test marks an actual barrel dimension if accidents are to be avoided.

Here you go Roy
The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9

I can recall the thread by Tony T. where he had a barrel failure within a box or two on a newly reproofed gun. Apparently, he was on a clays range with other shooters around, and it fell on his judgement to identify the problem and stop shooting.

Craig,

Tony had a little 20b Clarke hammer gun that he bought cheap and restored, then reproofed, and passed. The Clarke had early steel barrels, not damascus. Tony fired it only 10 times at the range after re-proof, then took it home and noticed during cleaning the split and bulge in the left barrel near the chamber. Pictures in his book on page 125, 126 and 127.




Miller,

I try hard NOT to read the mounds of copy and paste drivel from a certain member, especially drop down windows where you need to view 50 pictures to find four, but thank you for pointing it out.

Keep one thing in mind here. All proofing , in reality, is just a snapshot in time. It tells you that a set of barrels held up under a certain overload for ONE firing. It DOES NOT in anyway guarantee that these same barrels won't fail on the next shot or 100 shots or 1000 shots later. IMO; The secret to good sound barrels in skill in manufacture and good quality control. This applies whether these were forged by hand or made mechanically.
Jim

Can't prove a negative. Nothing is safe or certain.

Thanks for following up Doug and Jim, I was thinking there probably is a bit more to it than just relying on proof marks and the measurements that would have gone along with it.