Jim,
I think we are in agreement. ...Except on the point about the safety of damascus. I don't find any additional confort in a 100 yr old fluid steel barrel than a damascus barreled gun of reputable maker...respecting the pressures they were both designed for, of course. 100 yr old guns is 100 yr old guns. Be cautious and judicious.
Miller,
Please, tell us more about your concern of "seams" in fluid steel barrels. Is this primarily a concern of yours about vintage or modern barrels?
Chuck:
Over the years I've seen some really nasty damascus failures and here in lies the rub. Damascus barrels,at least the ones I've seen, tend to blow out right around where your off hand is located on the forarm. This,to me is just abount as dangerous a castrophic failure one can have with a shotgun. The only blown damascus barrel shotgun I ever personally owned(a Colt 1883 Hammerless) purchased at a garage salefor $20 failed at this point.
According to the owner who was only slightly injured, It was a first shot of the day with a low base load. It blew a strip 2" to 3" and perhas a 1/4" wide long right out of the side of the left barrel and he insisted there couldn't possibly have been an obstruction in the barrel. I had bought the gun with the intention of getting it sleeved but it didn't really fit me that well. I sold the gun to someone for parts years ago but I wish I would have taken some pictures. I have examined several other damascus failures over the years,some high end guns and some clunkers, but only with a cursory interest.
Moving over to fluid steel examples I personally have never handled a double with a burst barrel as described above. I have seen bulged barrels,dimpled barrels and split at the muzzle barrels due to an obstruction of snow or mud. I have yet to see a burst barrel though. This is also true of pumps and autos,bulges,splits at the muzzle but no bursts.
Again; If you or anyone else wants to shoot damascus barrel shotguns it's a free Country,or at least it's free till November,so have at it. But I for one remain unconvinced there are no real risks here. I've never read Sherman Bells articles but would certainly like to review his testing methodology and particularly the size of the samples he used.
Jim
