doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Nitro Proof Damascus 2-1/2 inch

I have a Westley Richards Gold Name with nitro proofed Damascus barrels. The bore dimensions are marked 12 over1 and the bores both measure .739. Am I correct that 12 over 1 is .729 + .010 for a total of .739? The bore are bright and shiny. Is there any reason I should not use RST, Gamebore and B&P 2.5 inch ammo in the gun? How about Winchester 2-3/4" extra light?

12 by itself is .729. If it is opened more than .010 it is out of proof. 12 over 1 is .740 out of proof at .750. This according to Shotgun Technicana by McIntosh and Trevallion

Looks like you're good to me proof-wise, but what is the wall thickness?

https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/proof-sizes

I have shot a few rounds of very light factory loads in my 2.5 inch chambered damascus barreled SLE as an experiment. No noted adverse effects, although I wouldn't call myself comfortable with it. Also bores are at .732 as proofed (or near) with .030 MWT.

I have a wall thickness gauge. What is considered minimum for Damascus?

Not sure, but I had a hammergun originally proofed as a 12 bore at .729 that had been hogged out to .783 with 10 gauge chambers. It was fairly high quality laminated steel. MWT was about .90 at the forcing cone and .021 out near the chokes. I thought that was fine with low pressure loads. Someone had obviously put some heavy loads through it at some point because there was evidence of riveling. I think the bigger risk is pitting and/or inclusions, but it sounds like you have a pretty clean gun where that is less likely to be an issue. My other damascus guns have had MWT's of 030 and 040. None have given me any issues.

Also, there is that late 1890's proof house test where damascus outperformed early steels so it is all relative to some degree. Drew has a lot of info on that, and I am sure will be along shortly.

Under the Supplementary Nitro Proof rules of 1904, 12g 2 1/2” and 2 5/8” chamber guns were proved for service load 1 1/8 oz.
In 1925, the 2 1/2” & 2 5/8” 12g maximum service load was 3 Dr. Eq. with 1 1/8 oz. shot with a mean pressure of 3 1/4 tons by LUP = 9,800 psi by Burrard’s conversion.
Post 1954, the "Highest Mean Service Pressure" for 2 1/2” chamber was 3 tons = 8,938 psi

12 means bore .729 - .739"
12/1 means bore .740-.750" (11 is .751)
13/1 or 12 would be much more common. Is there a Crown over R reproof mark?

Pattern welded barrel strength
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cvqRzkg0wEjhAAcFWr8gFi7aPFRsSIJ_hahfDxmrNAU/edit

Wall thickness recommendations
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

Please let us know the end-of-chamber, 9" and minimum wall thicknesses and location thereof.

be safe...

if you must shoot it, then shoot black...

be safe...

Here is the photo of the proofs. Unfortunately upside down but I didn't want to wait 4000 seconds to repost

https://imgur.com/gallery/WsJWhDu

In viewing the proof marks on the barrel flat photo you supplied, I see the Birmingham viewers mark with the letter "E" on the left of the crossed sceptres indicating that this gun was re-proofed in the year 1954. There are other marks associated with this re-proof such as 2 1/2" and the 12 inside the angle pointed square. The 2 1/2 inch and the 1 1/8 oz marks leads me to believe the gun was reproofed early in 1954.

Yep.



The original proof was likely 1887-1896. 1896-1904 would be marked 1 1/8 oz Max. 1904-1925 1 1/8 oz Shot
Some of the previous proof marks were over-stamped with NITRO PROOF 1 1/8 oz. The large 12 over C in a diamond is from the reproof.
The gun was originally proved at 13/1, was honed (thereby 'spaining the mirror .739" bore) and then reproved at 12/1

The wall thickness numbers are critical regarding choosing the appropriate loads.
ed is well aware that today we can easily reproduce the pressures of the black powder loads actually used when the gun was manufactured.

If you wish to be ruled by fear, so be it. Life will always have risks. My personal rule-of-thumb is 20-thousands and up is "safe" for modern shells provided the tubes are in good shape (no deep pits, no bad dents). However, IMHO the real risk of "modern" ammunition in old guns is the shock back through the head of the stock. 100-plus year old wood is unpredictable at best. If screws are turning and gaps are appearing then re-evaluate your use.

Drew;

When I was looking over the proof marks and specifically the Birmingham viewers mark I could not then and still cannot make out the letter at the top of the first viewers mark (just between the sceptre hilts); but my guess is it is a B or a D indicating that the original 13/1 bore diameter was overbored in the early to mid 1920's. Can you see what the year code was of this early viewers mark?

You may be correct, but I can't read the mark either. 1920s would be late for damascus, and again, the orginal mark would be 1 1/8 oz Shot. It looks like the 1 1/8 oz. over-stamped something on the L flat, followed by CHOKE.
My very limited list of WR SNs indicates 1884-1893 1400 - 1500. 1924 starts at 1800

Drew;


I went back and edited my wording above to say that the original OVERBORE work from 13/1 was likely done in the mid-1920s according to the unreadable Birmingham viewers mark----Which is what I meant to write. Your complete analysis of the life of the barrels by viewing the proof marks is correct.

The serial number is 6964. The top of the receiver in front of the toplever is marked: " Westley Richards patent ejector". The water table has a use mark of 1969 for Deelys ejector patent and A0658 for Anson & Deely's boxlock patent.

Added: end of chambers, 2-1/2" from breech face .760 both. At 9" from breech, .739 and .741.

drew an udders should be aware of safety concerns re shooting smokeless powder loads in twist steel barrelled guns go beyond just duplicating bp pressures...

but den, mebbe not...

Viewer's marks:

https://imgur.com/gallery/nXq7oPI

lloyd, with all due respect...

living in fear of doing something stupid is learned by experience...

experience also teaches us not to take unneccesary risks, just because we can...

and thank you for your concern that shooting smokeless loads in old guns increases the possibility of damage to the old wood and metal parts...

but then that assumes that shooters value old guns and their preservation...

more so than massaging ones ego...

back in the eighties and nineties, there were healthy interstate competions between shooters of original muzzle loading shotguns...

i remember selling fine condition original muzzle loaders to shooters all over the country...

the boys had a good time...

at the expense of those old guns...

occasionally I see some of erm advertised for sale, mostly with cracked stocks, loose hammers and dangerously worn tumbers...and barrels with bulges, cracks and pin hole leaks...

but den, the boys had ah good time...

and the same thing happened to original flint lock rifles back in the sixties and seventies, during that fad...

and so hit goes...

I much appreciate all the technical input. The other comments...not so much.

I reload low pressure shells for my Damascus guns I clean them don't over oil them I load 7/8 or one ounce at around 1200 fps I have been shooting old guns for 45 years .I completed with a 16 bore ml back in the 70s and 8os never broke a stock or had lose hammers or bulges but I didn't buy junk I had a nice greaves another guy who completed shot a Gibbs no problems

All the sudden a 100 plus year old shotgun falls apart because someone uses it for what it was designed sounds fishy unless the dealer sold crap

According to the WR site, this gun was made between 1882 and 1891.

nothing lasts forever...

the more you shoot an old gun the sooner the old wood will crack and the metal parts will fail...

I think this one is going to come down to wall thickness. Been a bit of mischief in those bores.

Best,
Ted

I'll try tomorrow to master my wall thickness gauge. I have chambermate 28 gauge inserts I can use if safety is questionable. With an ounce of shot the open pattern in a 12 is deadly.

BS!

I have a Joseph Lang non-rebounding hammer gun completed March 6, 1866 and rebarreled in Damascus by James Woodward around 1872.

I've shot over 6,000 of my reloads and RST cartridges in it since I've owned this gun with no damage to wood or metal and have made no repairs. And I will continue to shoot it in the future and fully expect to leave it in shooting condition to my grandson or granddaughter, whoever wants it the most.

Well made old guns will stand up to multiple human lifetimes of shooting, provided the gun is not abused by an idiot.

OK, I set up my Manson wall thickness gauge in my vice. .160 breech wall thickness, .090 at both chamber ends, .038 at 9" from the breech, tapering all the way to .025 right behind the chokes. The .025 is the thinnest wall anywhere. Opinions?

Go hunting. You’re good.

Best,
Ted

I wouldn't worry about that at all for RST or equivalents.

Googled that, and now I know more than I did yesterday. Thank you!

Bro. Fudd. This is a helpful thread regarding measuring wall thickness
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=615160

Vol423 - you have confirmed that the chambers are still 2 1/2"? If so, I am in agreement regarding the safety of those numbers. I would not however use even low pressure 2 3/4" shells.

Yes, chambers are still 2-1/2". I will only use RST and B&P 2-1/2" factory ammo until I find a reliable low pressure handload.

Nothing has been mentioned about the condition of the bores, today, or, if a good ‘Smith has had a look at the condition of the gun, overall, and the condition of the barrels in particular. Damascus is not my cup of tea, but, many use such guns every day. I believe that a good gunsmith, one familiar with English guns, proof, reproof and Damascus barrels should probably have a look at it. Kirk Merrington is retired, but, takes on projects that interest him, and this would be right up his alley.

I’m guessing that a gun that checks out OK for low pressure ammunition of the 2 1/2” variety will actually be OK with low pressure 2 3/4” ammunition. The difference in pressure is slight, and it is easy to use off the shelf components to produce what you need, which, can be used in doubles that do not have a low pressure requirement.

But, take the gunsmith’s advice.

Good luck.

Best,
Ted

I thought that I mentioned the bore are as perfect as I can see. I think they were honed before they were nitro proofed in 1954.

Calling the bores “bright and shiny” is not the same as a qualified gunsmith putting a bore scope into them and looking at the condition under magnification, doing an inspection to the exterior condition, and examining the gun for any other issues.

No free lunch, dude.

Best,
Ted

Ted's comment reminds me of a visit I made in 1990 to a Swiss expatriate gunsmith Alfred Galifant, who lived near Philadelphia. I visited him regarding a Holland Royal I had purchased for the princely sum of $900. (As an aside I bought it from john Wayne's doctor. It had been given to him by another patient, a Hollywood actress. The barrel was bulged by a left- behind base wad. ) This gun too was nitro proved Damascus. It had a bulge in the left barrel about 8 inches from the breech. I wanted to know if it could be repaired. Alfred said that sleeving was the only solution. To me except for the bulge, the bores looked perfect. But he went to great lengths to detail all of the flaws he could see from his inspection. I don't know if he saw anything at all, or if this was his way of getting the price down because he tried hard to buy it. I later sold it because the stock had 3/4" cast off and I'm a lefty. A man named Holland bought it with a plan to hammer out the bulge. I hope he didn't hurt himself.

By the way Kirk has a young assistant. He used to work for Griffin and Howe. I've forgotten his name. I just talked to him about this gun. He told me he thought it would be fine to shoot but he also suggested an inspection.

Thank you, sir. I'm an erstwhile quality control dimensional inspector, and that thread is a deep dive.

My opinion is not better than other's, but .090" at the end of the chamber is the lower limit, for me, for damascus. No concern with 4140.
We know using long for short chamber shells will raise the pressure an average of 700 psi. Bell's study is 1/2 way down here, and note we have NO modern data regarding 16g and 20g
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

And max. pressures are at 1-2" with today's powders.



SO I would not use a 2 3/4" shell in this gun.

That said, B&P Comp One 7/8 oz. is only 5,800 psi, and some nominal 2 3/4" 12g shells measure shorter after firing. Things obvious change, but I've done some dumpster diving at the club and measured a bunch of empties.

he who plays with fire...

sometimes gets burnt...

but then the presense of danger just increases the satisfaction...

sorta like...no, ah betta not...

Just had a read through this thread.

I'm curious about Drew's statement re: the 1904-1925 Birmingham Rules of Proof. My understanding was that during the 1904-1925 period, Max. Shot, or Grains were omitted after the Nitro Proof 1 1/8 designation? Am I mistaken on this? At least that omission seems to be the case for my two 1904-1925 Birmingham shotguns.

UK Proof

Diggory Hadoke's Vintage Guns website also shows the the Nitro Proof as having the SHOT mark following the Nitro Proof designation. Vintage Guns Proof Mark Dates

I'm now a bit confused.

_______
TC

This is from Dig's chart that you linked



The Supplementary Nitro Proof Revision of 1904 is here from The Gun and Its Development, 1907
http://books.google.com/books?id=3HMCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA280
p. 291 mentions the 1896 Rules "Maximum" mark, and p. 292 shows the MAXm. powder grains and shot mark. I don't know when that was discontinued and only the "oz. Shot mark" was stamped.

https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/rules-of-proof-5-london-

This is an 1896 Lancaster marked “E.C.” (No. 1) 42 grains = 3 Dram with MAXm. SHOT 1 1/8 oz.



A Tolley 1896-1904 1 1/4 oz MAXm but not the grains



1904-1925 London Proof - no oz. SHOT
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/rules-of-proof-6-london-
1904-1925 Birmingham reproof - no oz. SHOT
https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/rules-of-proof-8-re-proof-

Thanks Drew. Maybe it was a hit and miss thing with some of the marking. I know I had emailed the Birmingham Proof Master a few years back asking him about when the date mark stamping started re: post 1921, he said "in theory" the date marks were used starting in 1921. To me that meant maybe they were hit and miss until the new 1925-1954 Rules.

This is one of my other threads showing barrel flats 1904-1925 without the Max, Shot, Ounces, etc. Barrel Flat Markings

My understanding from the above UK Proof website link is that for Nitro Proof marking between 1896-1904, Max, Shot and Grains or combinations thereof were used. Between 1904-1925 only the load designation mark was used, ie: 1 1/8 or 1 1/4; Max, Shot or Grains were not used. Between 1925-1954 the load designation and ounce mark were used.

________
TC

I sent the Westley to Mike Orlen for stock bending. He confirmed my barrel measurements except his results showed thicker walls than me. I must be leaning on the post too much. Mike had no reservations about shooting 2-1/2" nitro loads in it. He also told me he hangs his barrel wall gauge from the ceiling by a string to measure. That would reduce the tendency to bend the post.