doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Damascus guns are DANGEROUS! LOL!

It's nice to see a gun mag take a break from rah-rah "articles" about the next amazing rifle caliber that merely recreates what .270 or .30-06 have been doing just fine for 100 years...but with more expensive ammo and a soul-less Tupperware stock.

I dont know anyone who subscribes to, or buys these. They seem to only exist as an advertisement flyer for Hornady, Remington, etc.

NDG

Here was me thinking all the doom and gloom South Sayers had given up on this subject. They seem to have stopped on this side of the pond after a large number of gun users sort of fought back in the 60s & 70s. This dangerous chant was uses by large numbers of gun retailers to aid in the sales of cheap Spanish guns and at the time a lot of very serviceable top maker Damascus barreled guns where scraped. In the end the proof houses said that if a Damascus barreled gun was in sound usable condition and IN PROOF it was safe to use Cartridges of the correct chamber length and shot load. Unfortunately you folks do not have that luxury, so this scare story will be hauled out and polished up with regular monotony to see who will believe it.

I shot damascus hammer guns on two occasions recently at skeet. Both times, a fellow participant came up to me afterwards with astonishment plastered all over their face. Could not believe someone would actually do that. Both are nice guys so I explained why they are every bit as safe as fluid steel barrels with proper wall thickness. I think they are still skeptics...

Damascus, we ended up with the warning about modern shotshells in Damascus guns and about shooting longer shells in shorter chambers as a result of the shotshell industry in this country. It dates back to the 1930's on our side of the pond. We didn't get those cheap Spanish guns until well after WWII . . . by which time we'd figured out that reasonably priced Japanese shotguns--like Japanese cars, trucks, and television sets--were definitely not cheap junk. The Spanish had to work harder to overcome the reputation they'd earned with their cheap guns.

Unfortunately? ........ hardly. You're happy with what you've got on your side of the pond, we're happy with one less foot on our neck over here.

Tell me this, if the proof house is such a bastion of reasonable thinking, and so reputable, over there why did your gun users have to "sort of fight back" in the 60s and 70s? All the proof house did was restate the obvious. Maybe they aren't so believable over there after all? Or, do you just have that many unscrupulous gun dealers there?

SRH

Previous thread regarding proof testing in the U.S.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=581069

U.S. makers, for the buying free citizenry, proved (and continue to prove) their guns without the "help" of the Federal government.
"All our guns are tested with heavy loads..."

I would think the answer would be yes to both questions....a stiff pill in an old gun only proves it survived once.

Shoot modern ammo in an old vintage gun and it's almost sure to eventually come off face.

Stanton Hills Who the hell do you think you are the "Witch Finder General" talking of boots on necks I come from a country where the Government are inoculating the population by the tens of thousands a week for Covid and yours is doing what? I think you should be taking notice of that Brit saying "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" . What level thought processes do you have asking me to answer for the Proof Houses and gun retailers of the 1960s 70s, oop'ss I have just dropped my Chrystal ball. If you want to talk so sarcastically trying to score points or is it just seeing who can piss higher up the wall pick another person and another subject. And if that is all too hard ,just grow up and act like a less arrogant self opinionated person you never know you may be liked.

Looks like I struck a nerve ...............

To start with it's Hillis, not Hills. Common mistake, even over here.

Several points I'll make in reply to your reply.

1. I just can't make the jump from governmentally mandated proving of guns to COVID19 vaccinations. Sorry.
2. When you decide to show public pity for us Americans because we don't have proof houses, by pointing put how "unfortunate" we are not to have them, you open yourself up to being the one who should "answer for them".
3. This has nothing to do with a pissing contest. In spite of your many excellent posts explaining much of the British gunmaking trade, and your excellent help to so many of us on the gunsmithing forum, you have shown yourself to be an arrogant Englishman with your not-so-subtle comments about our lack of proof houses, and in many other ways. As long as you try to slip in these "holier than thou" comments, like how unfortunate we are not to have proof houses, you should be ready to defend your statements.
4. My post has nothing to do with being liked. It is about trying to understand why you are so adamant that Americans are to be pitied because we have no proof houses.

Hope your blood pressure didn't get too high.

SRH

We're more than a bit OT, I slept on it, but couldn't stifle the need to address UK vs. US COVID vaccinations
The data is a few days old:
UK with 66.65M population has given about 15M shots
US with 331M population has given about 60M shots
Arizona with 7.3M has given 1M shots
(BTW: Yuma had the highest PCR positivity rate per capita in the WORLD about 6 weeks ago. Things are much better in AZ now, but the disease and death rate on the Navajo Nation per capita has been the highest in the US since the start of the pandemic)
And the recent 100 years storm has significantly slowed delivery of vaccine, and the US is geographically a big country.

Because of the limited supply, the US prioritized first responders, heath care workers, the elderly and most vulnerable.

As of last week, 95% of those in England > 70 y/o have received the vaccine.
SOMEONE in the British Govt. however decided some lives were not worth "wasting" vaccinations (and ventilators) upon
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-19-patients-with-learning-difficulties

That said, there has been a reluctance to be vaccinated among the young and healthy for a disease with a survival rate > 99% and in which >80% of deaths have been among those > 65 years old; >30% above 85.

Comparing the quality of heath care in the UK under the NHS and that in the US (and the ethics of rationing health care ie. who gets to decide?) is entirely another matter. But the principle IS relevant to who gets to decide which guns are "good" and which are "bad"?
At Stan's advanced age and having spent > 5 minutes under water, he may have been denied ICU care in the UK after his near drowning.