Dr. Drew:
In a general sense, your above stated assertion is true "Damascus quality is best determined by the over-all quality of the gun". But...we have all seen very good wood on lower-grade guns. Are you telling me that the same never happened with barrels? Considering the variety available in the late 19th and early 20th century, that seems somewhat unlikely. What would be immensely useful for many of us here (it's your own fault, you've spoiled us badly and now it's never enough) would be a grouping of different barrel-types by range of strength, assuming, of course, standard (unaltered or corroded) dimensions. Say Sir Joseph Whitworth fluid steel and others of that upper-strength range (Krupp, Siemens-Martins, Winchester Proof-steel, etc.), then stepping down in 10 or 20K psi burst increments to the truly scary stuff (like aboriginal scelp that can't stand 25K PSI). Nothing hard and fast here, just relative groupings in ranges of "safety" (i.e., tolerable pressures) for lack of a better word. I realize that truely scientific, exacting, and repeatable data is going to be spotty at best here. But...even ball-park estimates would have significant value when evaluating a gun for purchase and/or resurrection for most of us.
The English Trials of 1892 (or whenever that was) is a good starting point, but the descriptions of the actual barrels being tested are fairly cryptic as who exactly made them and how (& where) they were marketed.
What say you? (Really, all I'm asking for here is a PDR for Damascus and early fluid steel barrels.) We can expect that by, say...noon tomorrow?
Last edited by Lloyd3; 03/01/16 07:29 PM.
