I don't have much trouble understanding how the "irons" or composite rods could be sized, thinned, stretched between rolls. How precisely are the edge welds achieved once the spiral is on the "negative draft mandrel"? Is there an unstated suggestion here that somewhere in the northeastern U.S. existed a powered hammer akin to a predecessor of the Rotoforger which Ithaca used on the steel billets for the 37. Different ends here I admit. If the output of Belgian hammer jockies wasn't up to he demand, where's the equipment or the record of the equipment that replaced them? The patent drwg of the faux applique machine is interesting. Where's the drwg of a machine that could make the real McCoy?
jack
Jack,
Good questions. From my very limited understanding in reading some of Claude Gaier's work. The relationship between the US and Belgium can be traced back to the American Revolution. (Belgian Gunmaking and American History by Gaier.) Gaier notes the huge volume of firearms destined for American shores after the revolution began. We are aware that during the American Civil war there were official and some not so official observers from Europe. One of the lessons that the Belgians took home was the impact of mechanization in the making of firearms. Several companies took this to heart. Gaier points to FN and Pieper as taking up the "new way" of using factories and machines. ("Quatre siècles d'armurerie liégeoise" by Gaier. Also "Les hommes, les armes et les machines du Chevalier Pieper & Cie 1859-1957" by Michel Druart.) This was stepped up over time. We like to think of a Belgian cottage industry in sporting firearms. This was also true. Gaier notes the there was almost a class hatred between the cottage firearm maker and the factory worker.
I stated all that for a reason. I have pictures of both methods. The end of damascus production in any reasonable volume was some time in the 1920's.
Since the formation of the EU all patents are now under one authority. I have tried to use their web search engine to find exactly the sort of patents you are asking about. Unfortunately, my attempts are futile and frustrating. There is something I am not getting, but the results are always worthless. I guess, I should start trying to pry that information out of the American patents. You are correct, some one was making these machines. If we can identify an American source and date it, we are closer to understanding.
Also, Robert's caution about damascus for blades is correct. It is a different product. Which is why I did not attempt to track that Rochford reference above.
Pete
