I'm curious I am a half full glass guy.I have been shooting Damascus barrels for maybe 5 years but hunting so not too much shooting compared to a target shooter with no problem so far. I'm curious if any of responsible shooters which I assume most on this blog are have had a damascus barrel one blow up... I'm not talking about anyone with a wad stuck in the barrel.... and not your third cousin either...YOU?

nope - and i hunt with them as well

i do ( and not just damascus) check the barrels regularly for obstructions when I go through snow covered areas or have debris falling from above

I wonder how a barrel bows up from using a high pressured shell and blows some fingers off or an eye? If there is no obstruction in the barrel and a high pressure shell were to cause an issue what would really happen? Split the barrel only in the area of failure? Bulge the barrel? I can not understand catastrophic failure where a barrel does much else without a blockage.

If there is no barrel obstruction and the shell is too high pressure, and there is a failure, the chamber will probably blow. This happened to one of my best friends with several friends present. Charles Boswell damascus gun, overload with Unique.

SRH

Monty, I shoot an awful lot through my damascus guns and have never had any problem. One gun, an A. Alan from Scotland is my go to for skeet and it has digested thousands of rounds annually for a dozen years. Nary a problem even though there is some minor pitting in the chambers! Granted, all it has been fed is 6,000 to 7,000 psi hand loads. I did blow up a muzzleloading shotgun in the late 50's when I decided to load jest a teeny bit of Red Dot instead of black. Didn't know you didn't bulk load nitro......that little Belgium 16 let loose at the breech in spectacular fashion! No fingers lost though doc got to pick shot and barrel fragments out of me for awhile. Reckon this might be one of the reasons I shout at you on the phone.....? WHAT?

I've shot between 5,000 and 6,000 smokeless rounds through my 1966 Joseph Lang 16 gauge non-rebounding hammer gun, rebarreled in Damascus about 1872 by James Woodward. About 500 RST and the rest my reload tested at about 7,200 psi by Tom Armbrust. Killed Quail down in Georgia last Friday. Not a single issue in those 5,000 to 6,000 rounds - it's probably the most reliable firearm I own (including modern rifles and handguns).

Fly;
I presume you meant an "1866" Lang. It would have been kinda tough to have a 1966 gun rebarreled in 1872 since it wasn't going to be built for another 94 years.

Tamid, prevailing wisdom is that a blown chamber is high pressure, and a blown barrel further down is an obstruction.

Obstruction is always accompanied by a ring bulge.

This is no matter what the barrel composition.

I've not personally experienced any blown guns, but have seen firsthand the results of both - in fluid steel guns.

Modern fluid steel barrels have a tremendous amount of elasticity. The result of a 20/12 accident in a Beretta 390 was a HUGE ring bulge, a shattered fore end, and very slight hand injury.

A Lanber that blew the chamber as a result of a very careless hand loader behaved as expected, and this would have happened with any barrel made of anything.

Fortunately, such accidents are few and far between but the human element is forever with us whenever we participate in ANY activity.

It sounds like the proof houses in England are getting pretty good at blowing guns up...


Best,
Ted

I believe pressure takes the path of least resistance. An over pressured shell must reach catastrophic pressures to blow a chamber instead of passing down the barrel. I'm not saying there would not be damage but without a barrel obstruction how much pressure is required to blow a breach otherwise? Without a compromised barrel it must be tremendously over SAAMI pressures? Now I am not an engineer but I am a generalist who works with engineers daily, the logic prevails me. Perhaps those who understand ballistic pressures can explain.

I have only been around two blow ups on a trap field and I have been shooting for 7 years and both were re loads and of course modern guns. When I was a kid one of the few family guns was a Damascus S/S not sure maker but my grandfather's gun, probably a low end Birmingham gun and we shot everything in it from super X high brass dove loads to buck shot which I would bet was 3 drams. Never had a problem but sounds like we were way above what we should have had in it.

Sir Gerald Burrard, The Modern Shotgun, Volume 3, The Gun and The Cartridge, “The Diagnosis of a Burst” 1948

"In the case of an obstructional burst the really essential evidence is the ring bulge. If there is a ring bulge, there must have been an obstruction; and the absence of a ring bulge is conclusive proof that there could not have been an obstruction."

"A pressure burst can only occur in the immediate neighbourhood of the chamber; and so if the burst occurred ahead of the chamber cone an excessive pressure can be ruled out. But if the burst occurred at the breech, and was the direct result of a high pressure, confirmatory evidence will be found in the appearance of the brass head of the cartridge which caused the accident. For it is utterly impossible for a very high pressure to be developed without it leaving its mark on the fired case."

Burrand identified an indentation of the extractor on the case head, enlargement of the case head, flattening or fracture of the rim, lifting of the primer from the pocket, flattening of the primer against the breech face, and deep striker indentation, especially in comparison to shells of the same batch, as evidence of excessive pressure.

There are several formula for bursting pressure, esp. Barlow's
P=2 S t / D
P=Bursting pressure in psi.
S=Tensile strength of material in tube wall.
t=Wall thickness in inches.
D=Outside diameter in inches.

Barlow’s refers to a pipe capped at both ends with a static pressure (a pressure cylinder). Shotgun barrels are not designed to be pressure vessels as one end is open and the pressure rises and falls quickly.

While working on an article regarding a chamber blow-out and the formal failure analysis, I discussed bursting pressure with a metallurgist and a mechanical engineer. Both were of the opinion that we do not have a formula for shotgun barrels (non-pressure cylinder). The various hoop stress formula are helpful but again do not predict bursting.

Wallace H. Coxe, in "Smokeless Shotgun Powders: Their Development, Composition and Ballistic Characteristics" published by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in 1931 cites a study in which a fluid steel barrel was cut to 9” and capped, then a series of progressively increasing pressure loads fired. The barrel cap was blown off and barrel burst at 5,600 psi.

I also found a study by the Royal Military College of Science, sponsored by the Birmingham Proof House and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, showed that an obstruction by 2 fibre wads (total weight of 4 grams) was sufficient to bulge or burst a 12g barrel shooting a 28 gram (slightly less than 1 ounce) load. Peak pressure occurred 22mm (.866”) past the leading edge of the obstruction.

Burrard's protocol for the diagnosis of a burst

In order to give the investigator every possible chance of arriving at the truth the gun should be sent up for examination as soon as possible, and without being cleaned. Accompanying the gun should be the fired case of the cartridge which actually cause the burst; if possible the fired case of the round immediately preceding the burst, a few fired cases, and as many unfired cartridges as possible…of the batch which was being used at the time.

With this evidence available it should be possible to diagnose the cause of the accident with certainty. By far the most common cause of burst is some obstruction in the bore, and so the first thing to do is to look for evidence of an obstructional burst, that is for a ring bulge. If a ring bulge is detected the cause of the burst becomes established beyond any shadow of doubt.

Every effort should be made to try to ascertain what the obstruction could have been; and in this connection the owner of the gun should be asked to give replies to the following questions:

1. Was the accident caused by the first shot of the day through the barrel which actually burst?

2. If the accident was not the result of the first shot of the day, what was the result of the shot from the barrel which burst immediately previous to the one which caused the damage?

3. Did anything in the least abnormal occur in the case of the shot fired through the burst barrel immediately before the round which caused the burst?

4. Was the chamber apparently empty when the gun was opened for re-loading (prior to the burst)?

5. Was any member of the party using a smaller bore of gun? What size?

6. Does the shooter own a gun and cartridges of smaller gauge than the one which burst?

7. Under what conditions was the shooting taking place?

8. What was the nature of the ground on which the shooter was standing or walking at the time of the accident?

The answers to these eight questions and the actual position of the burst in the barrel should between them provide sufficient data to determine the nature of the obstruction with comparative certainty. But the fired case of the round which caused the burst and also that of the round immediately preceding the burst should also be examined for confirmatory evidence.

In order to complete the investigation a most careful examination should be made of as many live cartridges as possible from the same batch. Some should be opened, and the weights of the powder and shot charges checked in order to test for regularity of loading.

Then all the remaining cartridges should be tested for ballistics; that is pressure and velocity, and if possible recoil.

Then a most careful examination should be made of the fractured edges (and) the thickness of the wall…
(This is where the formal failure analysis and metallurgical study starts).


Wernher von Braun "One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions"

Burrard also discusses the bulge in an obstruction of this nature occurring forward of the location of the obstruction. Briefly his explanation was that when the load hit the obstruction it moved it down the barrel but velocity was checked enough the expanding powder gases behind the wads "Piled Up" to produce a local high pressure area. The barrel could be bulged or burst depending upon the severity of the Check in velocity.
He also mentioned that tests were done with both solid & hollow obstructions & the severity of the bulge or burst was totally dependant upon the weight of the obstruction, thus eliminating the theory that obstruction bursts were caused by Compressed Air between the load & the obstruction.

Good discussion here
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=357105#Post357105

And if I might rant for a moment

2-3 times/year between this and other forums, someone reports a blown up gun/barrel, might post a few poor pictures, and the usual experts (including myself) pontificate as to etiology. The OP and the remains then disappear and we have no follow up and are no smarter.
To properly diagnose a blow up requires a formal failure analysis and metallurgical study, by an experienced examiner, and costs about $1500 done right. But unless a personal injury lawyer gets involved, it won't happen, and if the case goes to litigation, we'll likely never know the results.

I believe however that MOST vintage gun barrel ruptures can be diagnosed simply by looking for a bulge and measuring the wall thickness. How hard is that?

Remember the first Parker Sherman Bell blew up in the destruction tests he reported in DGJ? Blew in the chamber area, basically peeling out from the hole for the extractor rod. I saw a Fox with a similar pressure failure, but it peeled from the outside--because on a Fox, the guide rods for the extractors ride in small channels on either side rather than between the barrels. Obvious weak spot in both cases--"weak" being a very relative term, since it took 30K+ psi to blow Bell's Parker.

I think in extremely thin barrels a split will occur before a chamber failure with or without any obstruction. The payload is in effect an obstruction and pressure behind it can cause a barrel failure. We are talking about very thin barrels or worse barrels which are thinner on one side than the other. Hoop stress only work if there is no difference from one side to another. If one side is .025 and the other is .015 I would expect more failures along the thinner area.

The only chamber failure I have seen was due to reloader error. Gross over charge of powder. The two barrel failures were due to snow/ice or mud. Guns were in duck blind, factory ammo, both guns had end barrel failures with ring bulges. Most likely one was ice in the choke area. Never know for sure.

Years ago my old friend Oscar Gaddy with the help of a noted authority did failure tests on a Parker Damascus gun. Long story short it went to 30,000 psi before it blew! These tests were covered extensively in Double Gun journal and lead to todays expanded us of old Damascus guns. I wish my old memory could pull the main author's name up because he did far more than a Parker and in fact di some real junk guns with safe results.
Dig out the articles and be surprised.
bill

It's worth noting that in all three of the blown chamber incidents I have personal knowledge of, the gun provided feedback before the catastrophic event.

They were all the result of defective shells. No mystery as to the cause in any of the accidents.

1. 11-87 turkey gun (brand new) fed shells loaded by accident with 36 grains of Green Dot and 1 1/2 oz. of lead shot. It withstood the first shot. The turkey was still flopping around... so.... "the bolt was very sticky, but I was able to chamber the second round by cycling the bolt manually". Boom.

2. Lanber O/U fed the first products of a very young man's reloading efforts. Trap shooting with the bottom barrel. Several very loud reports, difficulty opening the action, yet he persisted and nobody stopped him. Boom.

3. The aforementioned Italian made, very well regarded, and almost new O/U. Recently proofed by Italy at over 18,000 psi. Sporting clays. New shells, imported from a CIP compliant country. After shooting the lower barrel, the gun was very difficult to open. This was attributed to the 'newness' of the gun. Next, shot... Boom.

Note the pattern. The gun gave a warning in each event that something was wrong. We can learn from that.

I have been around thousands of rounds shot in Damascus including myself. NO. The only three that I have seen or have personal knowledge of were a Browning O/U GTI with factory WIn ammo, a Mossburg pump with factory ammo that my friend had just bought at Walmart and a unnamed double all with steel barrels.
Another incident that I near forgot. When I was in my mid 20's, I decided that I needed a cleaner powder, so I loaded my ML Shotgun with some 2400 powder. Needless to say the nipples blew out just over my head, but the barrels were intact and I shot it for many years afterwards with BLACK powder.

You have to remember that most of the original purchasers of these guns have past and that an unknowm number of failures were consigned to the trash heap without much further investigation or documentation. So this knowledge is for the most part lost to history.
As to litigation,
"To properly diagnose a blow up requires a formal failure analysis and metallurgical study, by an experienced examiner, and costs about $1500 done right. But unless a personal injury lawyer gets involved, it won't happen, and if the case goes to litigation, we'll likely never know the results."

Who is there to sue?

The 'old timers' I grew up with and learned from in the 1950's were quite adament against the use of damascus barreled shotguns. -Dick

"Who is there to sue?"
Bystanders injured by shrapnel will sue the shooter for using barrels "proven to be unsafe", and likely win. Homeowner's insurance is also unlikely to cover the settlement.

I believe the old timers were mistaken, and after due diligence am currently betting my fingers on that conviction. And Lou Smith's statement was patently false, based on the studies of Sherman Bell and others

Jack O'Connor Outdoor Life 1942
A good many people resent being told that their much loved old guns were no longer safe. Just for the fun of it, Lou Smith (President of Ithaca Gun Co.) proofed (using 17,500 psi Proof Loads in 1942) a dozen or so damascus and twist beauties which were lying around the plant. Here's the dope: Most of the old timers busted loose with the first proof shell. The rest did with the second. Guns tried were cheap, medium priced and expensive: but all of them went. So if anyone wants to go ahead using modern smokeless stuff in a gun built for black powder, he can; but he can include me out.
Reviewing the findings Lou writes: "These birds who persist in using smokeless powder in twist and damascus barrels remind me of the guy who made a living by sticking his head in the lion's mouth at the circus. He got away with it for a long time; then one day he didn't!"

Damascus Mythology and Reality
https://docs.google.com/a/damascusknowle...ZhIiY62Hx4/edit

Somebody, Smith or O'Connor, made the whole thing up.

There is also a mythical person frequently referenced here who does not exist, and that's the 'knowledgeable double gun smith who can tell you if your gun is safe to shoot'.

They can measure, they can opine, they can nod approvingly, they can tell great tales of the past. They cannot, and will not, give you any kind of approval that a gun is safe because of liability. Nobody can control what YOU are going to do with the gun, so any such statement of safety is foolhardy. You won't find that man search as you may... it's entirely up to you to decide.

We want it that way, right? No proof houses for us, no nanny state watching our every move.

Freedom can have consequences so be careful out there and don't do nuttin' dumb.

First, who would shoot 17,000 psi loads in their guns? Second, have the supposed tests of Lou Smith been confirmed?

I am inherently suspicious of someone who is tasked with selling new inventory that states you need to buy a new product because all of the previously sold products are no longer safe.

Exactly.

The Birmingham proof house is processing vintage Damascus barreled guns every day. Perhaps someone should put the question to them. If such barrels are failing - wouldn't that be the most logical place?

This post begs the next question: Has the Birmingham Proof House every published any guidelines regarding the safety of Pattern-welded barrels? You'd think that they'd be the people with the most knowledge. At least a basic guide that would tell minimum specifications and condition that would be expected in a gun prior to being submitted to them for proof.

I have some doubts about the Birmingham proof house. A friend who is a large bore collector and has more 4 bore breech loading shotguns than anyone wanted to know the bore diameter as most of his are different. He called the Birmingham proof house and they told him 1.053 and that was it. That is for muzzle loaders not breech loaders.

Pretty sure you're referring to Sherman Bell's "Finding Out for Myself" articles. After he blew the Parker, he continued with destruction tests on a number of "clunkers". If I recall correctly, all of them withstood at least proof load pressures.

I know two people who had modern Remington shotguns blow. It was due to defective steel and both guys received major compensation from Remington. I believe a big recall was the final result.

The calculated bore dia of a 4 gauge gun is 1.052" This is also the diameter I have seen listed in ever bore size chart from the various proof houses. A gun with a smaller bore diameter, (Common on breech loading guns) even if chambered for a 4 gauge shell is not proofed as a 4. 5 gauge diameter is .976" while 6 gauge is .919". My understanding is that most 4 gauge breech loaders will have their bores marked as a 6. I have a Birmingham proofed 12ga which has its bores marked as 14 (.693"), but if one asked the Birmingham proof personnel what size is a 12 gauge they would tell you .729" & that would be the correct answer.
the bore size of any individual gun is what the maker made it.

I recall reading some time ago that Buck Hamlin took a decrepit L C Smith 12 ga damascus & cut the chambers for a 3½" shell & then began loading it up. As I recall he used loads of Blue Dot powder & loaded both powder charges & shot loads well above anything found in the loading manuals. He ceased his experiment when the rotary bolt would no longer stay closed but was blowing open with every shot, but did not succeed in bursting the barrell. I don't recall if he had recorded the pressures of these loads or not.

Miller, all of his 4 bores that I measured were either 12" from breech or 4" from muzzle and ranged from .928 to .938. An H. Holland single barrel had a bore of .941.
I do believe in what you are saying in that each maker made them to their size.
The rim diameter of the 4 bore shells I measured were 1.180 and the base 1.065. These shells were 4 1/4" long.

Buck was looking for his ultimate turkey gun.

Howdy! My first post here!

Only shotgun barrel I've seen blown open was a Remington 1100 12 ga with some dirt in the muzzle. Rough quail country in So Texas. Friend hacksawed it to just behind the "petals" and proceeded to have a very good hunt with cylinder bore 12 ga.

I have been shooting smokeless in my damascus barrels a long time. Like so many, my loads are quite a bit lower pressure than black powder! 1 oz of shot over any good plastic wad, over 19 grns of IMR PB powder gives right at 1159 fps at right at 5K psi pressure.

So I wonder...to get that velocity, the pressure must stay up much longer. So the higher pressure is not at the breech, but somewhere forward, where pressure behind the remaining. If it were gonna burst at this pressure, it would do so where barrel steel gets pretty thin; up around feft-hand position.

David;
I do not know if it is true or not, but the story I have heard on the 4 gauge guns was that when breech loaders first began to be made the bore was kept true to size but the chamber was cut for a thin brass shell. As Paper hulls began to replace the brass ones the chamber remained un changed with the bore size being dropped to accomadate the smaller wads. If made in a country with proof laws the barrel should be marked with he actual gauge of the bore. No inbetween sizes were set up for these larger gauges. Therefore a bore which would accept a .919" gage but refused a .976" one would be stamped as a 6. I have not had opportunity to examine many 4 gauges, in fact have only even seen a very few, but have been told that most of the British built ones indeed carry the 6 mark in their proofs. "True" gauge is of course determined by the number of ball which weigh one pound. By the formula used for this calculation a 4 gauge ball would measure 1.052" in diameter.
It is also noted that in the past many makers of .410's as either 36 gauge or 12mm. Neither is correct & they are not the same. 36 gauge has a diameter of .506" & 12mm converts to .472". The "True" size of a .410 is of course just that .410". These guns though were not made those sizes, just marked that way.

I'm enjoying this thread as it seems to validate some of my own observations regarding those awful 'twisted bbls.'

Probably should have said, "Welcome, Jim Irwin!" first. You'll find Joe Wood a long time believer/user of PB as well for safe loads in those awful twisted bbls.

I'm thinking that 'Longshot' may/can serve as the modern equiv. once someone gets around to developing/testing sufficient loads to publish them and the results will prove similar. Meantime, keep that PB dear. It works just fine, thank you.

The highest pressure is always in the chamber. Pressure curves do vary, with some loads showing a more rapid decline than others. But even comparing smokeless to black--and with black, the old wives' tale was that the pressure curve was very different, remaining much higher farther down the barrel--tests conducted by DuPont and by Sherman Bell, reported in Double Gun Journal, show that the pressure curves aren't radically different.

Please check the pressure curves shown here. The powders tested all intersect at 2 1/2 - 3 1/2"
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=384719&page=2

This is a Red Dot vs. PB time rather than distance curve by Neil Winston



I've never seen a Blue Dot curve but pressure IS slightly higher further down the barrel

Sherman Bell’s pressure testing published in The Double Gun Journal Summer 2002 "Finding Out for Myself, Part VI, Smokeless vs Black", p.19, and summarized in Volume 17: Issue 4, Winter 2006, p. 39
1 1/4 oz. 3 3/4 dram GOEX FFFg Black Powder at 1240 fps and the equivalent load of Blue Dot

..........1 inch.. 6"... 12"
GOEX.... 5900 4100 2100
Blue Dot 6000 4300 2300

1 1/2 oz. at 1236 fps Blue Dot (weight not stated)
..........10,000 4,400 2000

One difference of major importance between Black & Smokeless is that black will retain a near constant burning rate regardless of other conditions. You could for instance load a 10 gauge down to a ½ oz shot load & get everything out the barrel with no problems. Smokeless on the other hand burns faster as pressures increase & of course slower under low or no pressure. Note that in the chart Drew posted that only "Oval" (a slow progressive powder) had a max pressure lower than did Black.

PB is a great powder, "BUT" personally I would be extremely leery of any load with it which gave a lower max chamber pressure than black with an equal shot load pushed to the same velocities. I have seen published data which showed Black in a 12 ga pushing 1 oz shot loads to mild velocities as being down in the 4k range for max pressures. As my loading has always been more for hunting loads to be used in cooler weather than on a range in sweltering heat I prefer loads up around the 7K range when using fast to medium powders & don't like to drop below 8K with slow powders, they just burn better at these pressures. "IF" a shotgun won't take those kind of pressures it stays on the wall at my house. One of my long time favorite powders ever since its introduction has been Green Dot for use in mild loads for my Damascus guns as it easily meets my pressure requirements & has been readily available at more economical prices than may others.

Drew;
Note that the 1½ oz Blue Dot load you posted even though its max pressure is 4K higher than the 1¼ oz load has a slightly lower pressure at 12". This tells me that ligthter load of Blue Dot is not really burnimg effeciently. I would personally not want to carry a 6K load of Blue Dot into a duck blind/swamp in freezing weather. I made that mistake "Once" with a load of 7625 with published data @ 7K pressure & it totally let me down.

When evaluating things that happen in milliseconds, it's often a good idea to look at things in percentages. Time, pressure, stress, etc.. It puts more perspective on the situation that sometimes our minds trick us into thinking is an insignificant difference.

The question over whether anyone has actually seen a Damscus barrel blow and whether these guns are safe to shoot is a question that is impossible to answer in the affirmative.
The naterial supplied during that era had virtually no quality control and metalurgical chemical composition supplied and mechanical properties supplied and the process was conducted by who knows how many barrel makers with no standardization process,record keeping and testing, hence the 'Proof House' for English guns but not those manufactured in the USA. A final possibly destructive test of the final process.
The American Sciety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) was organized and produced Standards for Boilers which had been having frequent catastrophic failures with consequences. since then ASME has published many Standards in other fields of contruction with outstanding results.
https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/boilers/the-history-of-asmes-boiler-and-pressure
How does the ASME Code as it is known, make builders, suppliers and users comply? Simple, you can't get Insurance if you don't comply to ASME and Federal and State Regulators will fine non-compliance.
Makes for a very safe society. Even your fire extinguisher pressure retaining body is an ASME vessel.
So you can discuss, argue, denigrate those that don't agree and reference the Sherman Bell articles(be sure to read my rebuttal published in the DGJ) all you want but the simple fact is THAT one cannot prove that these guns are safe collectively. You can join a forum such as this and gain a warm fussy feeling from like minded individuals but you take your chances each time you use such guns.
That is your right but lets stop the endless process of trying to prove that this manufactruing process assures safe firearms becuase it simply can't be done to objective modern scientfic standards and processes.-Dick

CHUCK: where you been buddy? Bringing Sky to paradise this winter? Please let me know if you are coming to AZ!

Anyone know of any attempt to submit damascus, barrels or blades, to cryogenic treatment and see if the process improves the metal?

I blew up a 1889 Remington with twist barrels. Somehow, and don't ask me how, I had IMR PB on top of Pyrodex in the powder bottle. I even had "Pyrodex 94grs" written on the bottle. Anyways, shooting skeet on a windy day in the winter I said to a friend, " man, these sure do kick, gonna have to lower my charge". Because it was windy and was shooting Pyrodex [ doesn't smoke as much as BP ], I just assumed the load was a bit much. On station 2 on the doubles, the left barrel let go. Shell was sticking half way out the barrel in the chamber area. The barrel steel was gone along with a rip in my wind breaker between the elbow and wrist. A piece of skin about a 1/4" thick, 1" wide and 3" long was hanging down. I said, " this doesn't look good". Put a rag around it , had the wife drive me to emergency and 23 stiches latter was shooting again. The next week I finally figured out what I had done. Sent the shells to Tom Amhurst [sp] and he said they were at 22,000psi. Sent the barrels somewhere in Calif to be tested and all I heard was that they had a sharp step on the outside right at the end of the chambers and thought this contributed to the failure. So, will all Damascus barrels withstand 32,000psi - no. But then 22,000psi is more than any normal shotgun shell produces. I've still been shooting for 10 years or more since the accident twist, laminate, and pattern welded Damascus barrels SxS's with nitro powders. I've used Nito, Solo, PB, 700X, 800X, Red Dot, Select, and Promo, all without further problems. I feel any load with pressures below 8000psi are totally safe, or a occasional regular modern shell.

I started shooting around 1956 with a damascus hammer gun & then progressed to a Damascus Greener BLE. Both these guns were badly pitted and were fed a diet of whatever cartridges were available. Never a hint of problem with either. Over the years since then I have owned & used a variety of Damascus guns from Belgian to Boss & Co, with age came the sense to check their proof status/have them reproofed and of course use the appropriate cartridges. Again never a hint of problem and that's after 50+ years shooting.

22,000 psi is 10%+ above SAAMI proof pressure.

And the gun took 8 or 9 shells to blow.

Not bad.

This is another example of a case where the shooter had indications of something abnormal before the eventual failure.

Again, we can learn from such stories. Thanks for sharing Paul.

It seems to me that when the manufacturing process is discussed, it's primarily historical curiosity at this point. Can't a pressure vessel, regardless of age, be subject to current ASME testing standards if someone wanted to do that. Do we know if current gun barrel makers are insured based on ASME guidelines?

I wouldn't think it would be logical to conclude that all non damascus gun barrels are collectively safe because the method of manufacture may be known. I apologize if you have mentioned it already, would you happen to have the DGJ issue of your rebuttal.

the original question simply was simply has anyone actually had a damascus barrel blow-

that is not safety nor theoretical - the answer is yes or no


i agree- the are they safe issue will be debated ad nauseam

A good freind of mine and a well known collector shared this picture. The reason is always given as an obstruction or improperly seated wad.



Otherwise the answer to your question is no, not yet.

I have not personally seen one blow up. Never seen a plane crash either, but I believe they are real.
Until Drew or someone determines a way to non destructively test them achieving definitive results, I won't be shooting any. What everyone else chooses to do is their business, at least so far, and I wish you all well. I don't think Obama will get that far down the list in only two more years.

I assume that you apply the same criteria to everything you do & therefore refuse to ever fly on an airplane or for that matter to ride in an automobile or ride a horse or walk or even to arise from bed, but then folks dye in bed so you can't stay there either. At the very least one should be consistent in their reasoning. You know folks even get choked & die while eating.
Bye, been nice knowing you. Have a "Safe Trip" to the hereafter. I don't think you have long left with all the risks you take on a daily basis.

Play in the road long enough and you'll get run over...

I am not an EXPERT on shotguns, or much else. My wife will gladly verify that opinion.

I have fired perhaps a thousand #8625 reloads through a Damascus barreled 12 ga. Remington 1900 and a 10 ga. laminate Baker -- with zero problems. Said handloads supposedly generated 6k to 7k psi.

gold40

I do what I have to do in this life. I take risks, it's just that what I judge to be acceptable risks and what you judge them to be are different. I do not have to shoot Damascus barreled shotguns when I want to shoot a shotgun, so I don't. Look at the bright side, less competition for the guns. As I said, I wish you all who shoot them well, and I hope no one ever sees any kind of blow up. I saw a .270 blow up years ago and that was enough for me.

I was unaware that any .270's had ever been barreled in Damascus, otherwise I fail to see the connection.
It is not that unusual to here of a modern gun Blowing Up while using approved factory loads.
Don't know about yourself, but I don't "Have" to shoot Period but I do choose to & assume you do also as you are a member here, again totally inconsistent with your reasoning.
I do have some Damascus/Twist barrels which I choose not to fire due to their condition but others which I have no qualms about using.
Among those I do not shoot is a lightweight 12ga hammer double with pre-1887 Birmingham black powder proofs. It is loose & off face & its bores resemble a sewer pipe. I keep it solely because it belonged to my Grandfather. Yet I am fully aware the man who had it before I got it (An Uncle) did use it. He was not a hunter but kept it on his farm for Varmint Control. It was not shot often but when it was it normally had a "High Brass" 2 3/4" 3 3/4DE-1¼OZ-4 load in its short chamber. In spite of all that abuse it did not blow Up.
In answer to the original question i have yet to see or here of a shotgun barrel which has blown up purely "Because" it was made of Damascus or Twist steel. Far & away the most common cause of a blow up in a shotgun is a bore obstruction, followed by a drastic overload & finally by a flaw in the barrel itself. In regards to this final cause it is well worth noting that for many years it was far more common to find a "Seam" in a steel barrel which was contained inside the walls & therefore not detected. Most of these would fail proof but occasionally one would pass & then sometime later after continued use would Split upon firing a normal load. Due to the manner in which they were built these seams were simply unheard of in welded barrel construction.