I know the general concerns about shooting Damascus and then combine that with extreme age plus barrel wall thickness plus pits, dents etc. and you end up with a dicey proposition. This is also assuming only shooting moderate to light black powder loads.

My question is only concerning chamber end issues.

How much strength to a chamber area does shooting full brass shells contribute to the safety factor as opposed to paper or plastic shells?

If there is some contribution, then would having some custom brass shells with a little thicker wall dimension add even more to the safety factor? To go a step further how about custom 4140 steel shells?

I feel stupid even asking this as the answer seems so obvious to me I feel I must be missing something just as obvious.

If your barrels were not originally made for shooting brass hulls, then there is no need to do so today.

Hi Travis,
I have never hand loaded for the .410
Are you asking if shooting a thick brass or steel shell will sort of "add" to the chamber wall thickness?
Not being a metalurgist, nor able to spell the word,I couldn't say.
But I would think that to truly have any affect of strengthening the chamber wall, the cartridge would have to fit so tight in the chamber , that extraction might be impossible.Or perhaps not.
I would also be interested in the answers of those that know...perhaps Rocketman will reply.Or 2piper.
cheers
franc
Interesting Q Travis

This Parker 20 was made in 1900 and as a kid, I shot field loads and SuperX 6 s in it with no problems.
A few years ago, a gun maker friend took it and "freshed" it up a bit as well as removing some barrel dings. When he returned it to me, even though he and another well known double man found no specific faults, he recommended that I shoot RST or other light loads and to not shoot express or heavy loads. I have followed his advice and still hunt with it a few times per year.
Most of my bird shooting is now done with newer Parkers.

Moral - have a qualified gunsmith examine your gun and pay close attention to his advice.

Good hunting!

It would seem that if a gun relied on the shell case for a safety margin, then the gun may be too questionable to fire in the first place. But, two thoughts come to mind. I believe maximum pressure is developed some distance past the chamber, and a steel bodied shell may not seal and allow gases to blow back.

This is not really a question to try to shoot a barrel that is a no-go from the get-go but more of a preservation by adding margins of safety question.

That is a good point on a steel shell and back pressure.

I would think any double gun designed to shoot shells whether they be paper or plastic should have no problem shooting properly sized full brass shells. That is possibly other than extraction.

I am just wondering if the full brass shells adds any resistance to pressure in that area?

so It was really more of just a passing thought I appreciate the indulgence.

1. Brass cases add zero strength to a shotgun barrel.

2. Maximum chamber pressure is called that because maximum pressure occurs in the chamber.

3. Steel inserts are called 'chamber adapters' or 'tubes' and allow a smaller gauge shell to be fired. A steel shell is a very bad idea because all shells must expand to conform to the chamber wall to properly seal the breech. Brass rebounds, as do metallic headed shells after firing so you can extract them.

All brass cases are not equal and the classic thin wall brass may provide different results than the thick wall RMC. I am not sure your statement in para 1 is correct. I note that Tom Armburst in his testing of the thick walled RMC brass hulls requires they be drilled as chamber pressure readings is radically off when simply measured through the solid brass hull. I am told this is because the more robust RMC hull does contain some pressure. I do not know the exact difference.

I also note there are variety of chamber adapters and not all are steel. I have often used chamber adapters from 20 to 410, 16 to 410, and 16 to 28 without having extraction issues.

Best course is to have the gun measured and inspected properly so you have confidence is shooting normal vintage (low pressure) loads through it.

I agree that trying to thicken the chamber wall with a steel case or thick brass shells as the means of making it safe when it otherwise is not would not be my course of action.

Thanks for the input by all.

My take away Is brass shell offers negligible to zero benefit.

First, while there were a Few Chambers cut for an undersize brass shell so the wad would not have tp be oversize, the vast majority of brass shells were made to fit a standard chamber, no difference at all in chamber dimensions.

Many early makers of guns if brass shells were specified bored their barrels over for the larger wads. Both the special shells & oversize wads were soon found to be un-necessary & fell by the wayside.

For a given thickness drawn brass is inherently stronger than turned brass. The turned brass shells may, or may not, have enough extra thickness to make them stronger than the drawn shells. All of my brass shell use has been with drawn shells. The oversize wads ti fit are Much, Much more economical than the turned cases.

Don't recall there being a problem in muzzle loader days & they used no case at all. Used an original I Hollis 12 gauge quite a bit with anywhere from 1 oz to 1¼ oz with an equal volume of 2FG black. Back when I was shooting it the most DuPont black powder was about the only Kid on the Block. It was still made up in Wilmington Delaware as I recall.

I would not count on the case walls adding much if any strength to the chamber. As already pointed out Max pressure does occur In the Chamber area, it peaking some distance down the barrel is an Old Wives tale which should have been laid to rest at least a century ago. Te gunmakers new it for when they started building guns for smokeless they Beefed up the chamber walls, not the walls further down. Powder curve graphs drawn from tests run in the 1920's show it plainly. These have been posted here many times.

You answered your own concerns...

Now ask yourself is the cool factor worth the risk of life, limb or eYe ball ?

Good condition damascus is just as safe if not safer than early fluid steel barrels. Have your tubes checked by a knowledgeable doublegun smith, feed them an appropriate diet of low pressure shells and enjoy.

The reasons for all the warnings regarding damascus tubes are well documented. The goal of the firearms manufactures then and today is still the same....sell NEW guns.

Ignore j0e....he shoots a Bennelli.

If the barrels check out and you want to still error on the side of caution, just shoot 2.5” low pressure loads such as RSTs. Done.

Steve brings up a good point about selling new guns.

To me, firearms are a lot like cars. Why buy new when there are SO many used ones out there. And most guns last longer than cars anyway. A lot longer.

There are a lot of nitro proof British Damascus guns out there. Some even have 2.75" chambers. If you find a nice one , let me know so I can buy it and save someone from blowing themselves up.

No one here can accurately answer your questions without knowing the condition of your barrels. Age alone does not appear to deteriorate Damascus barrels, but severe deep pitting, dents extending into the bores, and inadequate barrel wall thickness certainly does. The presence of any pits, dents, or thin walls is also more critical the closer they are to the breech end of the barrels.

There is tons of evidence that sound Damascus is safe to shoot with appropriate loads. But that is my opinion based upon my own experience. What you decide is entirely up to you.

Normal brass shells, or paper, or plastic do expand to seal the chamber and direct gasses down the barrel instead of leaking past the shell and hitting the shooter in the face. Then they rebound enough to permit extraction. Even if you made extra thick brass shells, you will still have peak, or very near peak pressure exerting force upon the barrel as soon as the wad passes the end of your shell and entering the forcing cone. But then, depending upon the thickness of your custom brass shells, you could also have undersized wads entering the forcing cones, and possible gas blow-by that would cause a reduction in pressure and a disruption in the ballistics. Of course, some folks are happy with the performance of sub-gauge inserts, but I have no personal experience with them.

Short answer... just have the barrels evaluated by someone competent and experienced in this area. Not just any gunsmith can do this. Some who don't know better are of the opinion that all Damascus is junk, suitable only for making table lamps. They might advise you to scrap a perfectly good and safe gun. If a competent gunsmith experienced with evaluating Damascus barrels says the barrels are sound, then shoot them with RST's or similar low pressure loads. Otherwise, retire the gun and buy something safe to shoot.

I saved this story from a previous DGS post about Reilly's from a few years past...re Damascus and shooting duck loads...from a story by Terry Weiland:

Six months later, I got a call. It was Edy: "Next time you're in town, I've got a gun you need to see."

It was another old English masterpiece, of a type I had heard about but never seen. A George Gibbs of Bristol, with the strange "Gibbs & Pitt's Patent" boxlock (circa 1873), a tumbler-block safety and a snap underlever. Damascus barrels, 28 inches long, and a total weight of six pounds, eight ounces. Lively as a puppy, with a French walnut stock that is eminently drool-worthy.

"Where on Earth did you find this?"

"The owner read about the Reilly and remembered he had this. He wants it refurbished."

The story of the Gibbs was simple, but with a twist. Its owner wanted it both refurbished and nitro-proofed, which would require sending it to England. It has lovely Damascus barrels, and the action is tight as it can be, even after 130 years. So Edy asked about its history. Seems the man's uncle gave him the gun when he was a teenager, 40-some years ago.

Did he ever shoot it? "Oh, yes," he'd replied. "I hunted ducks with it for years."
As the full import of that statement dawned, Edy asked, "Ducks? What with?"
To which the owner shrugged, "Canucks and Imperials, mostly."

Gulp!

For decades the ancient Gibbs with its Damascus barrels and 2 1/2-inch chambers had steadfastly digested a diet of the notorious CIL high-brass, 2 3/4-inch full-throttle duck loads, with nary a hitch. And it's still tight, tight, tight.

"What did you tell him?"

"I said, 'Forget nitro-proofing. This gun has nothing left to prove, to anyone.'"

To prove his point, Edy took it to the skeet range and shot a couple of rounds and reported that it is "lively; my Lord, it's lively.

For every old Damascus or Twist barrel you here about "Blowing Up" you'll here a thousand stories similar to this one. Plus most of those which did blow was through some act of carelessness or pure stupidity. Examples are a double charge of fast powder or more apt to be an obstruction such as mud or snow in the barrel.

I have a lovely old 16-16-8x58 Sauer Drilling (1907) which was blown by Snow in the bore, at least that's what the gentleman who brought it back from WWII thought. He was rabbit hunting in the snow & it does have all the appearances of an obstructional burst.

It has Krupp Steel barrels so mat'l is not the major factor in those cases.

I love old guns, but there is a reason to buy new occasionally. Like when you can buy something new that is impossible to find used. I have an Italian double being built to my specs. It is virtually impossible to find used what I ordered........ a 30 " barreled .410 S x S, auto ejectors, with my stock dimensions. How many used ones have you seen?

SRH

My friend owns one, and will sell it. The stock could be bent to your specs. He traded a 10,000$ Kolar for it and can't hit shi! with it. I've owned at least 30 different Damascus barreled SxSs and never had a gunsmith check one out. They shoot just fine. I will admit one blew up in the chamber once. My fault - thinking it was Pyrodex, I loaded 94grs of PB. It lasted four shots. A normal load of PB was 18grs. I received 23 stiches in my forearm and went back to the club and kept shooting- a different gun and shells. There's no way I blame the Damascus barrels and buy only guns with them. They are a art form we'll never see again. If Damascus is so unsafe, why do the British still proof Damascus shotguns and rifles. Rifles have much more pressure than shotguns. Do you need brass shells - NO. Your gun is fine the way it was built. Shoot and enjoy it.

Paul;
Was that 94 grains of PB actually weighed or was this a 94 grain volume measure. PB is considerably less dense for a given volume than Black & Pyrodex is normally measured by volume, not weight. A 94 grain black powder volume measure would be around 54-55 grains of PB which is still pushing a triple load @ 18 grains. Unfortunately smokeless powders are not nearly so forgiving of overloads as is Black.

As you stated Brass shell are not "Needed" to enjoy Damascus barreled guns, but they are an option if desired. All modern day brass shells that I am aware of fit standard chambers, they just require oversize wads except for those turned cases made to use standard wads.

Biggest problem with brass hulls & smokeless is that except for those using a 209 primer many will not give good ignition with smokeless. Years ago I loaded brass shells with an Italian imported powder named Nike, with good results, acquired it through Alcan. A fast powder such as Red Dot will normally work well also. Just be certain the wads are a tight fit in the case & that you get a good seal on the top wad.

Stan, not .410 but here are a couple of 36 gauge black powder proof hammer guns that might get close to your dimensions...just for fun

=============================================================
23746
EM Reilly 36 ga black powder proofed pre 1900 (actually 1881 per Reilly SN chart) back action, hammer gun; beavertail forestock
American and British 410 shotguns - Gabriel
https://books.google.com/books?id=PNZ0f7...gun&f=false

Argo;
Are these guns True 36 gauge?
I know that .410's were sometimes labeled both as 12mm as well as 36 gauge, both of which are incorrect. A .410 bore would be 10.41 mm, the 12 mm is approximately chamber diameter on the .410, not bore size. A 36 gauge is a nominal .506" (12.85 mm) diameter. I think a few were made, though not common. The 32 gauge is found more often with a nominal bore of .526" (13.36 mm)

I donno ... but the book can be consulted. I've just always admired that particular Reilly "36 gauge"...since I started collecting photos of Reilly's, read Stan's post and remembered it. Nice info on the difference between .410 and 36 gauge...I'll save it. Thanks.

True I own two Benelli shotguns...but I have owned, shot and hunted with a Purdey muzzle loader a W C Scott muzzle loader and several damascus cartridge guns a WIlliam Powell muzzle loader and a few more.

To say something that's 100 years old plus is as safe as a modern gun is stupid.

The ones that blow just blow...when no one can say.

It's like Russian roulette just with more than 5 empty chambers.
Was I scared...no I wasn't scared.

"The ones that blow just blow...when no one can say."

That is a complete myth.

You ever read the many threads on this? The Bell articles? Drew's Damascus site?

You show us a 'mysterious Damascus failure' and we'll tell you why it failed.

Obstruction
Overloaded cartridge
Nitro Sporting load in a blackpowder era gun
Failure to STOP shooting when the gun gave ample warning of something wrong

Usually, the Damascus failures are easier to explain than when a new modern gun bearing Italian superior proof fails with new CIP specification shells. That happens too.

Risk cannot be entirely eliminated from this endeavor, but there's such a thing as seeing threats where none exist.

Dr. Drew loves Damascus barreled guns...yes sir re.

He just doesn't own or shoot one.

Over the years there's been several Damascus barreled guns shown on here that had just blown for no reason.

THAT is an outrageous lie Joe, and you should know better. L.F. Cox sent me an email probably 8 years ago asking if I had any Damascus guns. I explained then that I had sold most of my vintage SBTs and doubles to finance our Guatemala ministry, including a damascus Parker GH, and briefly had no damascus guns.
I shot my 1906 OE 16g Smith yesterday at Ben Avery with 3/4 oz. handloads, and have done so every week since Spring. Ken Marburger refinished the "2 Iron Good Damascus" barrels.

For the OP

Damascus Mythology & Reality
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LFnSG34k3mBhLEjEgU267wAlIa215MNVQZhIiY62Hx4/edit

Barrel Strength, Composition & Birmingham Proof House Report of 1891
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA/edit

Turn-of-the-Century Shotshells, Powder, Proof & Ballistics
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F2sQuPm05IE4VWYYnCkvuXmYEzQoWd_SQgaAfUOZEFU/preview

Barrel Evaluation, Non-Destructive Testing & Load Recommendations
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

I have chamber adapters from Browning (Little Skeeters with a Browning package), Seminole ChamberMates, and GaugeMate (Silver). The ChamberMates and the GaugeMates are stainless steel, and the Browning (Skeeters) are aluminum. I don't have GaugeMate Golds but I understand they are also stainless with a gold finish. The GaugeMates and ChamberMates are no longer made and getting hard to find. I shot ChamberMate 12/20 adapters for the dove opener with old Kent Gamebore 2-1/2" black powder loads and the inserts functioned flawlessly, including the extractors. This was in an 1880's Lacey Birmingham hammer gun with "Fine London Laminated" barrels. I recently got, but have not yet used, a pair of Briley SideKicks for my Parker Bros G-Grade Damascus top lever hammer gun. The Brileys appear to be all aluminum and they will see the field next week. I recently looked around for new production chamber adapters and everything I could find (other than Brileys and Little Skeeters) looks like stainless and is oriented to preppers and plinkers. Nothing for birds or clays with extractors.

Dr. Drew, Glad to see you posting. I Have missed your thoroughly researched posts for several weeks now!

A man of the cloth wouldn't tell a little damascus lie would he ?

I do recall you telling me you didn't own any damascus barreled guns but I dont recall your added tid bits of damascus fame to finance a 4 & 1/2 day mission trip you now claim...Maybe I should say a prayer for you doc.

Ever notice how those old damascus barrels just don't sound just right when shooting gauge mates in them with modern ammo ?

Betcha we'll soon see a terse come-back containing something about St. Ambrose and cajones.

I've never tried any of the gauge mates. Bought one of the Savage .410'ers real cheap at a gun show a long time ago. Shot a few shels from it & boxed it back up, it's still on the shelf somewhere. As I recall is was about 9" long, had steel chamber & aluminum barrel & fit a 16 gauge. Added around a half pound to the gun. Too easy to load a 16 down to 3/4 oz of shot with out throwing the gun out of balance & better patterns also to fool with them 'Dapters in My Opinion.

Most of my "Welded" barrel guns over the years have been 12's & I mostly use 1 oz in them though have loaded heavier at mild velocities & pressure, but I don't fool with those Super low pressures, if a gun won't take around 8K its a wall hanger as far as I'm concerned. Cold weather squibs taught me my lesson on that out in a duck swamp back when lead was still legal fodder.

Being somewhat of the Lazy sort I do most often load smokeless for my Damascus or Twist barrels as clean-up is so much "Cleaner" & easier.

Yes, but black powder impresses the peasants so much more at dawn.

Black is cool but the cool factor wore off for me pretty quick when the day ended and cleaning time came with the temps in the teens.

I mostly used 10 to 12ga. guage mates In a nitro proofed 10ga. and with modern ammo (it threw beautiful patterns with Winchester AAs) to me the barrels just sounded or felt different than with a 10 ga loaded with smokeless powder. In my opinion the 12 to 20 gauge mates were a waste of money.

I'm not a liar Frank, unlike Keith's new BFF Dave Buehner. After the Table of Contents in L.C. Smith "The Legend Lives" there is an Acknowledgement page and oddly, being such good friends with Houchins, Dave's name does not appear.
Well done on donating calls to St. Jude's BTW.
Here are some pics from the May trip you might enjoy. Just missed the eruption of Volcán de Fuego
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/24809343

Who is Dave Buehner?

Suggesting that I have a BFF named Dave Buehner isn't doing anything to support your contention that you are not a liar.

And what in hell does a tax deductible long weekend in Guatemala or a volcano eruption have to do with double shotguns or Damascus barrels?

I was sure we'd hear something about your cajones or St. Ambrose again, but I was wrong.

However, your bizarre and disjointed rant does lend some credence to what SKB said in another thread about insufficient funding for Mental Health care. Unlike Owen, I did not miss your repetitive copy-and-paste Google research.

Disambiguation much Keith, or just psychological projection?

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=519924&page=2
"Wow Dave, only 46 posts, and you're already rolling in the dirt with the rest of us heathens!"

BTW: I've said plenty of stupid stuff on this Forum since joining in 2006, frequently proven (often by me) to be wrong. But my offer from last fall still stands. Prove with a cut and paste from a thread on this Forum that I lied (purposely deceived or fabricated an untruth) about myself or my guns, and I'll gladly make a donation in your (real) name to the NRA ILA, and I'll throw in a donation to St. Jude from Grand Slam Turkey Calls. And it's not my responsibility to prove my veracity, or justify an opinion regarding your character.
You might start another thread however, or not. No forum moderators here.

Gee Drew, you make it so easy.

You obviously lied by suggesting that this Dave Buehner guy is my BFF. I don't know him, never met him, and he is not my friend. I don't even show any affinity for him by agreeing with his notions that L.C. Smith's are the best gun ever made. By the way, it is a violation of the Rules of Conduct for you to invade his privacy by posting his full name here when he apparently prefers to use a screen name. Who are you to put him and his family at risk of being robbed or worse by thieves trolling the internet? And you obviously still don't know what psychological projection is. You also don't know what "Disambiguation" means either. It sounds as if you've been reading Cosmopolitan Magazine though.

Do you really want another lie, deception, or untruth posted here by you Drew?: I gave some to you in my reply to you in my post #517671 on 7/5/18. Here's a link so you can refresh your feeble memory:

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=517593&page=6

But I wouldn't want you to donate to anything you seem to abhor by asking you to not be a welcher and make a donation to NRA-ILA.

I'd be happy just to finally get an explanation for your absurd accusation that I somehow proof texted Scripture in your 2016 "Down One" personal attack thread that was framed around some big deadly dangerous medical mission trip to Guatemala (with "eternal significance", no less), which turned out to be nothing more than about a 4 1/2 day (presumably tax deductible) long weekend. Or how about that absurd accusation that I brought reproach to the name of Jesus by confronting you on July 5th? Do you have some Messiah complex or something?

And I'd also still be interested in knowing how you reconcile your dishonest insistence that we would be less likely to engage in personal attacks if we posted under our full names, when you went on to personally attack James M. multiple times even though you know him personally, hunted with him, and even socialized with him and his wife. Did you think going into hiding for two months would make me forget all that?

Also, you never told us why you changed your tag line which read:

"Personal attacks only reflect the inadequacy of the argument, and the character of the attacker."

Of course, you were still using that hypocritical tag line when you launched your personal attack on me, Jim, and DaveK. But naturally, with your moral superiority, why would you think that applied to you?

No need to start another thread. My opinions are based strictly upon what you post here. I can confront your apparent dishonesty and hypocrisy wherever it occurs.

Better take a dive in the Holy water Doc...

When I asked if you had any damascus barreled guns you replied "no"...I got a pretty good memory if you had said I sold them to finance a mission trip I wouldn't have forgotten that..

The only reason I asked then was because your keen interest seemed suspect to me.

Maybe you sold them or maybe you had them in a previous life....don't make no never mind to me.

jOe - you've lied about me once, and then called me a liar twice. I'm going to chose to let this one...lay. Your discernment regarding my motivation is incorrect.

Keith - think about some new material. Your insults were once at least entertaining; they are now repetitive, boring and increasingly difficult to follow. When you google "projection" check out "looseness of association" also.

and your new friend Dave has been at this awhile, using several, including his actual, names

https://shootingsportsman.com/community/guns-ammunition/sharing-l-c-smith-information/

http://gundogforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=31578

What's so hard to follow Drew? You have lied, and you have been intentionally deceptive. I've backed up my assertions with your own words and deeds, and you have come back with your weak lame response that my posts are boring and repetitive. Not that I'd really expect someone like you to honor the terms of your challenge. Dave is not my friend, but you persist in that lie too. He did not post his full name here, and what he did anywhere else does not give you the right to post his name here. Stop making childish excuses. Now we have you calling jOe a liar too. I know which one of you I believe is telling the truth. Since you were apparently able to understand me the first time I posted it on 7/5/2018, I will repeat my exact words I used to reply to you then concerning your lies and hypocrisy:

Originally Posted By: Drew Hause

Here's the problem Keith. "You will learn that here on the internet, you can pretend to be whatever you want to be" only applies to those who cowardly hide behind internet anonymity. Those with the cojones to reveal their identiy, like Larry, and Michael, and Greg, and King, and many others here, EVEN ed, don't have that choice, and likely are more careful with their words, and insults.

Please save us the smart azz come back claiming to be someone you are not. Sorta sounds like jaeger doesn't it? Or whining about being personally attacked. Or JamesM delusional paranoia that you are being threaten.

And BTW: those who continually insult other adult males suggesting they are behaving like women, or are F.A.G.s, frequently have some gender identity conflict with self-loathing projection.

P.S. You can find my home phone and address at the bottom here. I can't hide like you, and I am neither a liar nor a coward
http://www.picturetrail.com/homePage/gracemedicalmissions

I suppose I could have given Drew the last word here, but there is so much unadulterated bullshit in this one short post that it screams for a reply.

Drew, you said, ""Please save us the smart azz come back claiming to be someone you are not."

Drew, please show us exactly where I have ever claimed to be something I'm not.

Drew, you are once again going on about your moral superiority for posting under your full name. For years, you posted under a screen name, as do most intelligent gun collectors. Many here besides myself still do. You made the stupid choice to change, and now wish to belittle anyone who isn't as dumb. If any thieves or crackheads ever decide to make a home invasion attack on your premises because you are stupid enough to post your interest and collecting of guns under your full name, I hope you are home alone. I believe you have endangered your family in your vain attempt at moral superiority.

You make a good point about posting under our full names, but once again shoot down your own argument, just as you did in your heart-wrenching "Down One" thread back in 2016.

Drew's Heart Wrenching Personal Attack "Down One" thread

I still laugh when I think about that thread Drew. You framed it around some deadly dangerous medical mission trip to Guatemala, and spoke about the horrible spiritual warfare you were enduring as you mentally prepared for it. You made it sound like God was calling Moses when you told us about the "eternal significance" of your personal attack on JamesM, Dave K., and me.

As it turned out, your big dangerous Medical Mission trip to Guatemala turned out to be about a 4 1/2 day trip... little more than a long weekend. Take out travel time, and it looks like little more than a fund raising tax shelter to me. But that's just my opinion. Now my neighbor went on a Religious Mission trip last year and spent two months helping African natives. And he never bragged about it or used it as a framework for personal attacks. I hope you get a nice income tax break for your grueling ministry. But other than that short absence, you never really left this forum, as you had disingenuously stated. You were logged in virtually every day to read your thread and to see who was fawning over you, and sympathetic to you. That's pathetic.

Up until that time, your Tag Line at the bottom of every post was: [b]"Personal attacks only reflect the inadequacy of the argument, and the character of the attacker."


I repeatedly asked you about the hypocrisy of making a personal attack on us while you used that Tag Line. You couldn't give us an answer, and instead, you changed your Tag Line. Smooth move there Reverend.

You made the plaintive argument that by posting under our full names, we would be more civilized, and less likely to launch into personal attacks. But just as you did in this idiotic post, you shot yourself in the foot by making a personal attack on JamesM. You know Jim personally. You know his full name. You hunted with him and socialized with him and his wife. Yet that didn't stop you from making your personal attacks on him, right up to the time he left this forum.


jOe realized that this is another hypocritical personal attack by you, and he also saw right through that filthy lie about Jim:

Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe

An attack by a preacher whats the world coming to ?

Ps...James gave up on this place because of the socialist liberals that are allowed to run rampant on here.

But you had also made personal attacks on Run With The Fox even though you knew his name and where he lived. Your Bro Larry made personal attacks on Francis even though he knew he was a combat veteran. No complaints or whining from crybaby Gregory about that personal attack on a military veteran. Go figure.

I repeatedly asked you about the personal attacks you were making then, while you made your disingenuous case for posting under full names. You never replied. You also made the false and dishonest statement that I had "Proof texted Scripture." I repeatedly asked you where I did that, and again, you couldn't reply or show us without admitting that it was another falsehood from the Preacher.

It wasn't enough that you and your fellow Liberal F.A.G.'s succeeded in driving Jim (JamesM) away. You still continue your personal attacks on him even now... even though you know his full name. Worse yet, you are resorting to lies to denigrate him by accusing him of delusional paranoia. Jim specifically told us why he became disgusted with this place. jOe remembers why, as do lots of other guys. But that didn't stop you from accusing him of "delusional paranoia". It seems that your personal attacks on Jim are continuing even when he isn't here to defend himself. Now do you see why you are called Fake Ass Gentlemen?

That sounded a lot like another time when Jim took a break from posting, and your Libtard pal King Brown kept lying by saying Jim had exhorted us to kill his one of his anti-gun Liberal Left heroes, George Soros, and lied even further by saying that Jim had contacted Connecticut police about Newtown and that he was under "emotional strain."

King was asked to prove those false statements and personal attacks, but was predictably silent, choosing to fade away and change the subject. That's why I almost choked when you listed him among the virtuous and righteous ones who post under their full name. King has shown me that he is perhaps the single most dishonest guy to ever post here. He has been shown to flat out lie and post false data on many many occasions to advance his Liberal Left anti-2nd Amendment and Socialist dogma. Hell, the guy can even deny ever seeing any anti-gun sentiment posted here, even when his lying nose is shoved into a quote from Ed Good saying that the U.S. has too many dangerous guns and it is time to disarm.

I also got a kick out of you attempting to twist my words once again, and sneaking in another personal attack in the process. It was very dishonest of you to attempt to suggest I have some gender identity conflict by comparing guys who pretend to IGNORE me to a menstruating woman. That is exactly what they act like. But you went further to twist the acronym F.A.G.s into something else. Each time I used that acronym in this thread, I followed it with (Fake Ass Gentlemen). I then went on to specifically explain it, and its' origin, to dhanks. But fraud that you are, you still had to twist it to suggest that I might have gender identity issues. What a stand-up guy you are Drew! Actually, I think that may be your problem since you feel the need to repeatedly tell us about your "cajones", and the acronym F.A.G.'s seems to really hit a nerve in you. Do you take it personally when you see a Doughboy in an old movie about WWI referring to a cigarette as a fag?

Then you go on by once again telling us that you are not a coward, and that I can look you up and even call your phone number. You told us that you aren't a liar, but you've shown us otherwise. Is the notice that I can call you and find you some weak testosterone laden call-out? Do you want me to call you and threaten you? What exactly are you trying to prove?

During your fake "Down One" absence, I received a PM from a member here that you consider one of your "Bro's". I still have it. He told me that he'd like to see you return to the forum, but was concerned that I'd launch an attack on you. I assured him that I would do no such thing unless you personally attacked me. After my reply to him, you returned within minutes, so I assume he relayed my words to you. Since that time, I've specifically avoided conflict with you. We recently sparred a bit over my belief that SSRI drugs may be a contributing factor to mass shootings, but it remained quite civil. But now it looks as if you'd like to resume your disingenuous and dishonest personal attacks. As you wish. At least you won't have to worry about getting criticized by your fellow F.A.G.'s and Thread Police. They likely won't be squealing to Dave calling for censorship either.

And as TV Pitch Man Ron Popeil used to say... "Wait, there's more!"

Here's your reply to that post of mine from 7/5/18 Drew... along with my response to you.

Originally Posted By: Drew Hause

You win Keith.
We both have claimed to be a follower of Jesus, and it is possible my words, like yours, have brought reproach to His name. For that I'm sorry.
Please consider those of St. Ambrose of Milan
“No one heals himself by wounding another.”

[b]"We both have claimed to be a follower of Jesus, and it is possible my words, like yours, have brought reproach to His name."

And now Drew says that it is possible my words here have brought reproach to the name of Jesus! Really??? One might think he would have considered those words of St Ambrose himself, before launching another personal attack on JamesM and myself.

This guy never quits. But as I said... here on the internet, you can be whatever you want to be... even a Bible quoting man of the cloth... until you get tripped up by your own words and deeds.

Just ask Jagermeister, and the Award Winning Wine-Maker King, and the brilliant guy who gets his tag-line from a coffee mug.



By the way, in response to Drew's edit... I do indeed have knowledge of your PM exchange with Jim, and I did see your personal attacks on Francis... the kind of personal attacks you preach about, and the kind you claim wouldn't ever happen if we posted under our full names. I am not interested in the number of Mission trips you have made to Central America. They have nothing to do with the subject of double guns, as you and the Thread Police continually whine about here, when someone makes an off-topic post you don't like. The points I made about how you framed your 2016 trip to Guatemala, and your use of it to launch personal attacks, and to pretend you left this forum when you were logged in here virtually every day are still valid. My opinions have not changed a bit. Too bad you couldn't use your editing time to show us how I brought reproach to the name of Jesus.

I am a sinner. But my big sin here is my inability to turn the other cheek when attacked by frauds and hypocrites.

Amen....pass the plate.

Hey jOe, did ya see that the preacher started a new "Shooting Damascus Barrels Part II" thread to inform us that he is not a liar?

I guess he doesn't wish to respond to the ones I caught him in above. You didn't really apologize to him like he said you did, so in my opinion, that's nothing more than another lie. This is getting so weird.

I wonder why he seems to be trying to transfer his disingenuous behavior onto you and me? That doesn't seem to be a very civil, mannerly, or Christian thing to do.

Doc you really surprise me digging up all this evidence of your tall tales.

I thought it well established who the liar was...and it's not me.