doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Barrel pinhole repairable?

Keith, I remember reading the same "unwind" theory, from a British gun writer back when fluid steel was the new kid on the block. There was also the famous British test, 1890's I believe, in which good Damascus won out as being stronger than the best fluid steel. Of course fluid steel has improved a lot since then, and much of the bad rap Damascus gets comes from cheap guns (mostly from Belgium) sold in American hardware stores back around 1900 or so.

There's no guarantee that any barrel won't blow. Modern ones from reputable makers like Remington and Perazzi (or was it Krieghoff--or both?) have failed. Sherman Bell didn't have much success finding Damascus guns--even cheap ones--that would fail under anything approaching normal working pressures.

This is a damascus demonstration rod showing the edges of a 3 iron ribband being hammer welded after having been wrapped/wound around a mandrel



I will gladly send a check for $100 to anyone who would send me the remains of a pattern welded (Twist, Crolle Damascus, or Laminated Steel) barrel that "unwound" in a reverse manner.

Drew Hause revdoc2@cox.net

A discussion of pattern welded barrel flaws and defects may be found here http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfg2hmx7_220dpc9nsck

The Birmingham Proof House Test of 1891 is here http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfg2hmx7_242cxhh9hfq

Maybe "unwinding" was a poor or incorrect choice of word for a failure or venting leak that followed the pattern welds. I do have a twist barrel H Lefever that has a small visible hole at mid point around the forearm that does appear to follow the twist on the exterior. But there is also heavy pitting in that region on the interior that probably started the failure. What I was trying to convey is that, from what I've read, when Damascus fails there is bulging and possible venting along the lines of the pattern, but not the sharp splitting and fragmenting we see with blown fluid steel tubes. Supposedly, the greater ductility of either the iron or steel, I can't recall which, prevents rupturing across the bands, but instead follows the weaker welds. Again, this is from what I've read and fortunately, I haven't personally experienced it. Compared to some of you guys, I'm still in kindergarten, but happy to be corrected and eager to learn more. That's why I said I'd like to see and hear much more about what actually happens when Damascus does fail. Thanks for those links Drew. I've said before that I accidentally fired some high dram equivalent loads in a grade 2 L.C. Smith that was reblued Damascus that sure looked fluid. This was before I knew it was not wise to shoot modern loads in vintage doubles. And I know a guy who accidentally fired heavy 3" mag turkey loads in a short chambered twist Lefever H grade gun with no ill effects. All in all, cheap Damascus on cheap guns probably did cause most of the bad rap, while the poor designs and inferior materials that led to these same cheap guns shooting loose at a rapid rate did not carry over to their better made counterparts. This is always a fascinating subject and I hope others will weigh in.

I've seen bulged fluid steel barrels and I've seen barrels that split at the muzzle due to an obstruction but I have yet to see in fifty + years of this a fluid steel barrel with a hole blown in the side like I've seen with damascus barrels. Unfortunately I never bothered to record these damascus mishaps or take pictures.
If someone has an example of a fluid steel barrel with a hole blown out of the side please post it here indicating the manufacturer and approx. date of manufacture.
Jim

1930 Specialty Grade L.C. Smith with "Nitro Steel" barrels



http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17546456

Several reasons for possible blow-ups in days gone by have been given. One is that many shooters in black powder days had simple loading tools. Some early smokeless powders, known as bulk powders, were designed to utilize the dippers used for black in loading. Some early shooters no doubt decided to give some of the newer powders a try & if they weren't really familar with the concept of "Dense" powders simply dipped the desired Dram charge with their old dipper. A 3-dram dipper full of Infallible for instance, an early dense smokeless, would have given 50+ grains, while a 3 dram equivelent of this powder was about 24 grains, thus a double charge. As damascus was the predominant bbl mat'l at this time it often took the blame.
Another stated factor was that primers continued to be used which had been suitable for the easier to ignite black, but were really unsuited for smokeless. The result could be a partial ignition which pushed the charge a ways down the barrel & then finally the main charge ignited. This was very close kin to dropping a powder charge down the bbl of a muzzle loader & then pushing the shot charge or ball as the case may be only part way down. No more efficient method of bursting a bbl has ever been devised, the projectile itself becoming an obstruction to the powder gases. This is believed by some & I tend to agree, that this is where the tale arose that smokeless gives it max pressure at a point several inches down the barrel, because this was where these bbls burst. If however these loads had been fired in a steel bbl, Designed for smokeless, the results would have been the same, the problem was with the shell, not the bbl. Fortunatrly it didn't occur a lot & when it did the odds were just stacked that it would happen in a damascus due to their wide use. Reliable pressure tests have shown that with given loads of about the same intensity, generally speaking smokeless will generate higher pressures in the chamber, the curves will cross at about the end of the chamber & the black will carry sligjtly higher pressure for the rest of the bbl. (This is also something to consider if thinking of loading very low pressure loads with a "Slow" powder. If you do this by all means forgo a few lps of pressure & use a "Hot" primer")
Thus if a bbl which had proven suitable for use with black powder burst from use of a similar powered load of smokelss, & it burst any place other than in the chamber it was almost 100% to have been from some cause other than the fact it was Damascus.

Larry, you're right but not in the way you think. In the Birmingham tests the best English laminated barrels did win the overall total score, even outdistancing the Whitworth fluid steel. However, the devil is in the details. Three barrels of each type metal were used in the test. That is, three of the English Laminated, three of the Whitworths, etc., down the line. The barrels were scored by averaging the combined grains of gunpowder and shot each type consumed before failing Birmingham proof standards. With the English machine forged laminated steel, in three rods, one barrel failed after the third proof, another on the fourth, and the last one on the fifth. The Whitworth barrels all withstood four proofs before being rejected. So, the Laminated barrels withstood an average of 4,248 grains of powder and shot total during their test and the Whitworth 4,227 grains average. Therefore the English machine forged laminated barrels were given first rank. There is more data concerning this test but this was the crux of it. It is interesting to see how variable the results were in the laminated barrels and how consistent the Whitworth barrels were. Each welded barrel had its own characteristics which often differed dramatically from its sibling.

It is also interesting that most of the continental damascus barrels failed miserably, many of them not accumulating more than a third of the powder grains of the English laminated before failing.

Having said all this, I love my Belgium welded damascus barrels and these tests don't worry me at all. I load to reasonable pressures and these guns have stood up well for more than a hundred years (or 150 years) and keep on ticking with the best of 'em.

Drew;
That Elsie bbl surly resembles an obstruction to me. Look at the bulging present, including the lower rib, just behind the forend hanger. Then the raised up flap has a distinct bulge to it. All signs of an obstruction, rahter than a metal flaw.

Joe;
If I am following you correctly then there were 12 firings with the Whitworth bbls (3 bbls X 4 proofs each) then they averaged 352¼ grains per firing or 12.88 drams. Is it safe to assume this was done in the manner of a provisional proof using a rough tube fitted with breech plug, thus loaded as a muzzle loader. I haven't really checked, but seriously doubt that size powder charge would fit in a shell casing.
5 + 4 + 3 firings for the laminated also totals 12 firings. What accounts for the extra 21 grains of powder? Did each firing use a slightly heavier load?

Quote:
"That Elsie bbl surly resembles an obstruction to me. Look at the bulging present, including the lower rib, just behind the forend hanger. Then the raised up flap has a distinct bulge to it. All signs of an obstruction, rahter than a metal flaw."

I agree with this assessment. Something stopped the load dead at that point.
Jim

Jim: you asked for "an example of a fluid steel barrel with a hole blown out of the side"

I am in complete agreement that barrel failures can be explained by human error:
In the choice of barrel material
In manufacturing/boring/honing
In the choice of shotshells
In the choice of shotshell components or the loading thereof
In failing to check for barrel obstruction
Etc.