Great article Dr. Drew, thank you for that.
There are dangers in generalizing, I understand, but in the cross-section of guns I've examined (and then measured for MW Reynolds for 10-12 years), the Damascus guns that I've encountered usually fell within the parameters I loosely outline above. There will always be outliers and "oddball variants", to be sure, but the vast majority of English and then American guns seem to follow my rather simplified pattern. 4-bar guns were obviously made, but are not common because of the theory put forth early-on (in the 1880s) that "overworking" the metal weakened it. "Best" and better guns built at well-established companies normally fit within my rudimentary outline, at least for the "mainstream" makers of that time.
I find myself drawn-to (and even fascinated) by this material (and it's extensive history) and I'll likely continue to read on the matter. I'll even happily "fall on my sword" if I eventually come to another conclusion, but for now this is the paradigm that I've constructed to make sense of it all. Focusing on the outliers isn't helpful and actually seems to cause most of the confusion (& even misinformation) I tend to encounter on this subject.
Now, most of that "misinformation" seems to have originated from the American gunmakers of the 1920s, and it's surprising to see how effective it actually was in helping them sell guns, even in the depths of the Great Depression ("fear" is without-a-doubt the most powerful motivator and we're getting loads of it these days from the mainstream press, eh?). Moreover, even at this late date, Damascus gun barrels cause many otherwise-rational folks to completely shun the firearms that employ it (and for many years now, I've been happy to benefit from their ignorance of the subject).
Last edited by Lloyd3; 06/18/24 06:58 PM.
