doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com damascus shooting

Well if he is talking about shooting Wally World type modern factory shells he is right they are not safe to shoot. If he is talking about worn out guns with heavily pitted barrels or barrels honed so thin that they are paper thin the he is right again. If he is talking about shooting reloads in them of such poor quality, that most Skeet shooters seem to shoot on a regular basis, then he is most like right again.

Now if he is talking about guns with no pits, not honed to death, using the proper type and pressure level loads in barrels that have been inspected by a competent gunsmith then he is wrong. I was very timid when I started shooting Damascus barrels about 20K ago. Now I just use the right shells win guns in proper conditions and enjoy the heck out of them.

Blanket statements are used by experts and fools. The difference, if their is one, is that experts want to be paid for their opinions, even when they are wrong, fools give us their expert opinions for free right or wrong.

I take his reasons and opinions with a large grain of salt. Safe is safe and it is up to the operator to make sure things are as safes as possible. I hope his expert opinions do decrease the prices of a couple of guns that I am looking at. Maybe if I forward the article the seller will cut his prices in half.

I hear it at Gun shows all the time when the common Hunter walks by looking at a table full of vintage sporting arms and they make a comment about Damascus barrels being unsafe to shoot. Or they explain to their kids how they can't shoot guns like that.

I don't even interject anymore. I just allow the ignorance to amuse me.

Those are the same type of people who think it os the coolest thing to pull both triggers at the same time when shooting a double. And then post a video on YouTube about it.

What is an EXPERT ? Seems to me those with a great deal of knowledge never define themselves as expert. The term "expert witness" always seemed an oxymoron!
Best,
Craig.

and Praise the Lord!

A lot of ignorance out there as it pertains to damascus barrel guns. Too bad someone like Roster who has a forum to talk from adds to the ignorance.

I agree with the earlier poster who said he wished Roster did not write for SSM. I could do without his articles too. In SSM it seems he has an agenda on the steel shot issue.

We know that many people for years loaded their own cartridges for personal use in a small and large capacity using black powder.

The reasoning for the early reports of issues of damasc and nitro are as follows.

Lack of education/fundamental understanding of the differences between blackpowder and smokeless, leading to seriously overloaded cartridges, the scoops and measures for black throw large volumes of powder, average joe using the tools he has reloaded with for years gets new fangled smokeless to try without understanding the differences the volume load his measures throw would obviously be overloaded.

Thin barreled guns, like the early CF guns that were converted from percussion or muzzle loading guns with very thin svelte barrels to start with, and often no radius to the action rarely pass nitro proof now and obviously did not back then.

( if you want proof that these early CF guns fail NP look at the June Holts sale catalogue in stocks actions and forends and you will see several of those i describe )

Damascus type steel probably doesn't even need to be mentioned, but apparently it'll come up in court. Maybe a little caution is wise when shooting any hundred something year old gun, particularly the safe mono steel ones. I also wonder if the proof process has anything at all to do with the decisions that shooters make.

I'd wonder if other experts might join in and start calling for proof of damascus barreled guns in the US just to 'settle' the issue. Thank you Demonwolf and your fellow countrymen for commenting about the realities of proof when you brought up trying to get your Trantor patent gun back in proof. That gun will still need a responsible shooter to operate it.

I haven't followed the skeet game for a while, but I wonder if it was a thin issue that needed filler.

There are so many variables when it comes to old guns.

I do not put iron faith in proof i have two out of proof guns on ticket, an antique and the tranter patent, i have shot many more, but i fully support it at point of sale as you really can't assume the person buying has the same knowledge or understanding you have. And even then the best informed of us using our best judgement realize we are not infallible i strongly believe that individuals using these old guns understand this.

Antique guns in the collectors market in the uk are bought and sold as antiques, but if an individual wishes to enter an antique onto their certificate its assuming that if they are doing so they also have the knowledge to use it safely, many of these antiques are out of knowingly out of proof and many of them end up being entered on to certificates and legally shot.

Its not illegal to own and use an out of proof gun, just illegal to sell it.

The Lang tranters patent still poses an issue for me, i have shot it and shot reasonably well with it on some wood pigeon with black powder loads. Part of me wants to leave it out of proof and enjoy the gun. Part of me want to BP proof it just so it can be sold if i ever might need to. Part of me wants to nitro proof it, so it can be a real usable piece today and of interest mechanically.

If i do re proof in any way i will keep a record and picture the whole process of prep right through to the proof house where i will probably take it in person, if i decide to proof, i think if i do it this way even if it fails we all could learn something from it. - and then the next project can be making some new barrels!

Over the years, I have testified in 35 different court cases at the federal or state level, throughout the country in the field of firearms and ammunition.

The court generally qualifies you as an "expert witness" in a given field or specialty. Personally, I never liked the term. I always felt (and still do) that a true expert does not know everything. A true expert knows where to go to get the correct answer.

Each court is different, as is the judge presiding over the case. Some judges will instruct the jury that even though you are testifying as an "expert witness," he or she is merely offering an opinion.

I have personally witnessed well respected "firearms experts" testify incorrectly in open court. Some even acknowledge that they were wrong during rebuttal. I never wanted to be that person. I always did my research, checked various sources (not just one), and used original factory data if at all possible.

Someone's freedom is on the line here , and you had better be right. The defendant may very well be a real bad guy, but he deserves a fair and honest trial. That's the way I always approach it anyway.

A little off-track to the subject matter, but Craig mentioned what is an "expert" so I chimed in.

Interesting he said he has testified in court cases on Damascus guns. That would have records available.

If there have been recent court cases on Damascus guns failing I have never heard about them. Not to say it's impossible just you would think they were reported. Who would somebody sue, maker long out of business ?

Could it be another reporter caught fabricating facts ?

Boats