doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com How many of you shoot twist guns regularly?

From Frederick Toms' Sporting Guns and Gunpowder, 1896
'Experiments On the Strength of Gunbarrels' discussing the Birmingham Proof House Trial of 1891 starting on p.9
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAA...lt#PPA11-IA4,M1

"These experiments serve to show what a very large margin of strength there is in a good gunbarrel, when ordinary charges are used. They also tend to prove that the brazing process (if properly carried out) does not injure the metal to any appreciable extent. It has frequently been alleged, by opponents of the proof test, that, although the barrels may pass through the proof without any apparent injury, yet the large charge strains the metal to such an extent that the barrels are likely to burst afterwards when used with ordinary charges. The fallacy of this argument appears obvious when the fact ia taken into consideration that the barrels which gave way earliest under these tests had withstood the strains of nearly thirty successive trials, the first of which was rather more severe than the definitive proof- charge, and the average of the whole was about four times as great as the regulation proof; while the steel barrels were tested forty times, with charges averaging nearly five times as much as the ordinary proof-charge. Taking the cumulative grain test, as calculated in the Birmingham experiments, the strains undergone by each of the two steel barrels were rather over 110 times as great as that of the definitive proof test; and those of the Damascus were rather over 120 times the definitive proof in the case of the barrel that had undergone the brazing process, and nearly 130 times in the barrel that wae not brazed. So that, although the steel barrels showed the greater amount of endurance, the strength of the Damascus was so much in excess of all ordinary requirements that no fear need be felt of their giving way when the work is properly done."

Nice chart Pete....but most of the twist barrels on cheaper guns were not English made.

I don't have any Twist guns but I would shoot them if I did. I shoot Damascus barreled guns.

Sherman Bell's articles are good reading, and they probably do contain some truth, but they are hardly scientifically reliable research.

binko, I think that once fluid steel became available, the gun companies came up with some out of focus hocus pocus and put up a new marketing campain. Everyone needs these new and improved barrels. Come in and buy a new gun or at least get your old gun re-barreled. Lou Smith at Ithaca was at the pinnical of guilt here. The gun companies were in bed with the writers. And when statements or ideas (even if incorrect) are in the press long enough we start to believe them. I wonder how many beautiful damascus guns were needlessly re-done because of this fallicy?

This is why I read this board, you can always learn something new, thanks guys!

Tim, I think you are "over the target", and you will probably catch some "Flack", but you only catch flack, when you ARE over the target, and I agree...that's probably why I don't think I'll ever own an "Itchica", kind of sore about the bad rap they allowed Lou to put on Damascus.

I read that somewhere before, but thanks for reminding me.

you da man,
binko

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........Heres 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!"

Tim, we gotta put up the flack shield, I told you.

rev, you would need to check the amount of advertising that "Itchica" bestowed upon "Outdoor Life" in 1942. I don't nowhere nearly believe that any failed, never the less ALL, unless the load was a lot greater than indicated.

Follow the Money always, if you want the truth.
binko

jOe said, "A long way from an actual proof test."
Modern proof loads used with critical measurements taken before and after firing. That would be what is called an actual proof test jOe........... Grant.

Forgot to add....I shoot an ancient W.H. Hamilton double barreled hammer gun, with, no doubt, short chambers. Says:
>Twist Belgium< on the top rib. The old gent I bought it from, gave me several part boxes of the shells he used in it.
Yep! 2 3/4 High Brass Federals....... Remarked; "she kills ducks good, but she's a little too tight for pheasants; tears 'um up too much." I shoot suitable low pressure loads for hand-thrown clays........... Grant.