doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com British Damascus discussion in DGJ

I recently picked up a bunch of the older Double Gun Journals and have been reading through issues I haven't seen before. I specifically looked up Issue 5 Volume 1 from the Spring of '94 to read Keith Kearcher's article on finishing Damascus. It really wasn't of any specific help, outside of hearing that Kearcher worked hard to develop his process and wasn't going to share his knowledge.

There was a very interesting article in that issue "Black and Nitro, Damascus and Steel" by John Brindle. Brindle reviewed a study at the Birmingham Proof House in 1888 where they tested to destruction 3 samples each of 29 different types of barrels. Really interesting stuff. And some really heavy loads needed to destroy some of the barrels. But a couple of questions came to me while reading the article:

1) A couple of the strongest barrels were "English machine forged laminated steel and English machine forged best Damascus". I've never heard of machine forged laminated or Damascus before. Can anyone provide any information on machine forged lamintated or Damascus barrels?

2) Brindle states "We have already seen, too, the difficulties experienced by users of choked Damascus barrels, in the form of bulges in the choke, when the wall thickness in this region of the barrel was insufficient." So that statement has me wondering if I've screwed up by opening the chokes on a couple of my guns with Damascus barrels. Can anyone provide any specific information on that topic?

I'm not a technical expert but hopefully I can offer a little information for you:
'Machine Forging' took over from hand forging as the cost of labour increased and suitable machinery was developed. I would imagine that over time it became possible to produce a more consistent forging using machines that weren't subject to the human vagaries of Monday morning/Friday night etc!
Example of this might be the Greener laminated silver steel that they promoted in many of their late C19th guns.
As to bulging at the choke, we see this a lot nowadays with modern proof testing (in both damascus and steel) and, although barrels that have thicker MWT''s in the area immediately behind the chokes are LESS likely to bulge, wall thickness is most certainly not the only factor.
Degree of choke, profile of the forcing cone from barrel to choke, elasticity/hardness of the barrel material and probably many other factors have an effect.
In fact, in most cases, once the bulge has been knocked down/struck off/lapped out, the barrel passes proof. It has been suggested that the 'working' of the barrel, rather than weakening it as if often suggested, 'work hardens' the metal, putting it in a more 'spring state' which can then react to the proof overloads in a proper way.
It is most likely that reducing your choke constriction will decrease the likelihood of bulging your barrels at the choke rather than increasing it as the bulge referred to is in the area just before the choke, not in choke constriction itself.

Thank you Toby.

John Brindle, author of Shotgun Shooting: Techniques & Technology published a 5 Part series in The Double Gun Journal “Black Powder & Smokeless, Damascus & Steel”.
Volume 5, Issue 1, 1994 discussed the 1891 Birmingham Proof House Trial
The report was originally published in “The Field” March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325 and reproduced in Sporting Guns and Gunpowders: Comprising a Selection from Reports of Experiments, and Other Articles Published in the “Field” Newspaper, Relative to Firearms and Explosives by Frederick Toms, 1897
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9
and Experts on Guns and Shooting, G.T. Teasdale-Buckel, 1900
http://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr7Lp8C&pg=PA538&source

A review of the 1891 Report is here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cvqRzkg0wEjhAAcFWr8gFi7aPFRsSIJ_hahfDxmrNAU/edit?tab=t.0

Damascus Quality
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YJxP1k3PzmtmrG1HEGxd8X6g0-1GL0KNY8WMIMkdKr0/edit?tab=t.0

A water driven forging hammer is far more consistent and reliable than making tubes by hand.
Water, then steam, drove the Industrial Revolution.