doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com DOM Remington Model 1889

Traded into a well worn, but tight Remington Model 1889 12 gauge wth decarbonized steel barrels (Grade I). The SN is 58886. Can anyone tell me when this gun was made?

Also, the bores are kind of pitted. Any problems with this kind of steel and low pressure black powder loads? Thanks in advance.

Hi It was made in early 1894. Terry

That has been the tough question for a long time -- What, if any, is the difference between the "Decarbonized Steel" of the Grade 1 Remington Arms Co. hammer double and the "Remington Steel" barrels used on their lowest grade hammerless doubles and their later Remington Autoloading and Repeating Shotguns?

Not much help, but interesting.

From Fire-Arms Manufacture 1880. U.S. Department of Interior, Census Office:
The earliest use of decarbonized steel or gun-barrels is generally credited to the Remingtons, who made steel barrels for North & Savage, of Middletown, Connecticut, and for the Ames Manufacturing company, of Chicopee, Massachusetts, as early as 1846. It is also stated that some time about 1848 Thomas Warner, a the Whitneyville works, incurred so much loss in the skelp-welding of iron barrels that he voluntarily substituted steel drilled barrels in his contract, making them of decarbonized steel, which was believed by him to be a a novel expedient. The use of soft cast-steel was begun at Harper's Ferry about 1849. After 1873, all small-arms barrels turned out at the national armory at Springfield were made of decarbonized steel (a barrel of which will endure twice as heavy a charge as a wrought-iron barrel), Bessemer steel being used until 1878, and afterward Siemens-Martin steel.

An E. Remington & Sons 1854 broadsheet listed the following MATCHED BARRELS FOR DOUBLE GUNS:

Plain Iron------------$4.50
Stubs twisted plain---$8.00
Stubs twisted fine---$10.00
Cast steel------------$8.00
Cast steel, solid or drilled from single bar-----$15.00

"Cast steel" usually refers to the Huntsman hot-rolled crucible steel process of 1742 used to make farm implements. A sheet is folded over a mandrel and the long edge hammer welded to form a barrel. A more modern use refers to the Bessemer process of 1856 for converting pig iron to "Decarbonized Steel" or "Bessemer process homogenous wrought iron".

Well Drew:
The information you posted above certainly points out a couple of things I've long suspected wern't factual.

1.They didn't know at the time of production the fluid steel was stronger than twisted (damascus) steel. This is in spite of any recent "Research" to the contrary.

2.The myth that damascus barrel production was curtailed($10.00 per set) due to it high cost when compared to fluid steel($15.00 per set).

3.The theory that Firearms manufacturers only made the safety of damascus barrels and smokeless powder an issue to sell more new guns.

Jim

Jim: barrels 2-6 are Twist, and much cheaper than (quality) damascus



Cost and strength are not clearly related

From the 1891 Birmingham Proof House Trial
The strongest barrels were: COST

1. English machine forged 3 rod Laminated steel 29s

2. English fluid compressed steel, Whitworth process (fluid steel) 90s

3. English machine forged 2 rod Best Damascus 25s

4. English steel Siemens - Martin process (fluid steel) 24s

5. English hand forged 4 rod Best Damascus 35s

6. English machine forged 2 rod variegated Damascus 25s

7. English machine forged 3 rod Best Damascus 29s

8. English carburised steel, Darby’s method 24s

9. English machine forged 2 rod Laminated steel 24s

10. English “Superior Barrel Steel” 45s

11. English machine forged chequered 3 rod Damascus 29s

12. Foreign steel, Siemens – Martin process 24s

13. English steel, hematite process, from pig and scrap 24s

16. English machine forged skelp twist 12s

We have good evidence that both Twist and Laminated steel were produced in this country; it is extremely unlikely that Crolle damascus ever was.

I suspect but can not prove that Decarbonized is another way to say Bessemer, while "Remington Steel" may be referring to Whitworth's compression methods. Until some one is willing to donate their barrels and pay for the metallurgical testing... We may never know.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...=true#Post55627

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...=true#Post76679

Pete

Drew:
I understand what your saying but,and again going by the prices you've provided, you have to get to the upper tier of quality in damascus to equal of exceed the price of fluid compressed steel barrels at 90 francs. This fact to me belies the idea that damascus was phased out solely due to the cost.
Any comment inre. to the statement in your post previous from the Department of the Interior as to relative strengths of the steels?
Going back to that lengthly thread on damascus barrels and new guns being constructed by Greener:
It's still not clear to me what the source of their damascus stock might be. Newly manufactured? Old stock of either British or Belgian manufacture? I still think with the potential liability Greener is being foolhardy in manufacturing them but to each his own.
Jim

To answer the question, they are as safe as any of the barrels made back then. You can use BP or some RST low pressure nitro loads.I believe one of the reasons for the decline of damascus barrels was WW1. A lot of the workers were gone after the war. And better steels came into being cheaper than what it cost to make damascus. I disagree with the liability issue. Damascus barrel guns have always been in use and are reproofed today. It was only in the USA that they got a bad name. Sherman Bell tried to blow up over 20 " wall hangers " made from damascus and couldn't do it. Paul

Quote:
"I disagree with the liability issue. Damascus barrel guns have always been in use and are reproofed today."

As near as I can tell the proofing process, which we know is common in Europe, takes the maker off the hook as far as liability goes.
The proof house certifies the barrels are within acceptable parameters, wall thickness etc. and survived the requisite number of proof loads. The puts the proof house directy in line of responsibility and not the maker.
Any proofing that's done here in the USA is accomplished by the manufacturer and any resultant barrel failure would leave the maker open to a lawsuit. Additionally; shotgun shell makers here could be held liable if they didn't inform their customers of the potential dangers of using modern smokeless ammunition in damascus barrels and that's why they do so on the boxes.
Comparing Europe with it's regulations to the situation here is an apples to oranges comparison. If a barrel should fail on one of Greeners new damascus guns from what I can descern their essentialy off the hook from a liability perspective.
Jim