Very few damascus guns made in the U.S. were nitro proofed, although most were proofed.... There have been several articles by Sherman Bell in the Double Gun Journal that deal with smokeless powder loads and their use in damascus barrelled guns. Bill
Carl Dittmar introduced American-made "smokeless" wood nitro powder in about 1875, and Capt. Money brought EC ("Explosive Company") wood nitro powder to be made in New Jersey in the 1880s. The problem with the early nitro powders was that they were unstable. Nitro powders really didn't start to catch on for general use till about 1890; even then the top pigeon shooters used wood nitro smokeless in the first barrel but preferred black for their second shot.
In my
Parker Guns: The "Old Reliable," I quote from Charles E. Parker's May 11, 1897 obituary: "I recall an instance...when nitro powders first came to be used...sportsmen asked that guns be guaranteed.... To the credit of L. C. Smith Co., it was one of the first to issue such a guarantee. Charles E. Parker in answer to an inquiry as to the guarantee of guns stated in a letter that 'When the tail wagged the dog then we would give such a guarantee...' but soon relented and, of course, did it, and did it thoroughly." Just when this happened in the late 1880s or early 1890s is subject to further research.
As to the British, most UK guns were
not proof-tested with nitro powder until 1896 when the Birmingham Guardians agitated for stricter rules and all guns
intended for nitro had to be nitro proofed. And why was the earlier proof act subject to new and stricter rules? Because, according to W. W. Greener who made the guns and loaded the ammo, "No nitro powder is trustworthy [and] for explosives of any and every strength to be in use, whilst guns proof tested only for explosives of known strength, renders the proof of a gun futile." In other words, the nitro powders of the 1870s and 1880s were too subject to post-manufacture variations of humidity, temperature, and loading to be used reliably by non-experts.
And today the "non-experts" again rear their ugly heads when it comes to shooting old wallhangers with century-old Damascus-type barrels. I suggest that those who quote Sherman Bell and Tom Ambrust for the proposition that old Damascus-type guns hold together to at least modern proof loads (18,500 psi) and tend to fail at 30,000 psi, these people ought to read the whole articles, not just the results obtained by guns not their own. If British proof marks are important to you, wouldn't you want your own gun proofed? Not someone else's! Read Sherman Bell's article in the context of the precautions they take: Hiding around the corner of a sturdy building, pulling the trigger with a long string.
I am not totally against shooting old Damascus-type guns, although it doesn't interest me. I would refer a prospective shooter, however, to p.119 of my new book,
Parker Guns: Shooting Flying and the American Experience for the graphic photo, courtesy of Paul Harm, showing the downside of one little mistake. My conclusion in the sidebar to "Villanious Saltpeter" (Chapter 16); "Perhaps we are on the brink of something that's time has come--proof testing the old Damascus-type shooters before risking life and limb." And a caveat: There is no guarantee that a fluid steel gun would have withstood Paul's 30,000 psi overload. Be careful. EDM
