Thanks Pete and Steve. I think a large part of the appreciation I have for vintage doubles is the amount of hand work and craftsmanship that went into making them. As I learn more about the process of producing Damascus barrels, I come to realize just how unaffordable these guns would be to the average guy if built today.
That really never hit home when I was bombarded all my life with so much misinformation by various gun writers about how Damascus was made, and how and why it was so inferior to fluid steel. How many of us spent decades reading that Damascus was just a bunch of (rusty)iron and steel wire wrapped around a mandrel, and heated and hammer welded? That stuff is still being printed in gun magazines today.
I did read somewhere recently that U.S. gun makers were paying around 6-7 times as much for unfinished Damascus tubes vs. fluid steel tubes from European sources. I think the figures were something like $3.50 for Damascus tubes and $.50 for a pair of fluid steel tubes before WWI. I suppose if we knew wage rates and subtracted materials cost and manufacturer profit margins, we could get a rough idea of the total man-hours that went into a pair of Damascus barrels. Supposedly, this large cost difference was part of the motivation for gunmakers to begin the propaganda that Damascus was inferior and even dangerous to shoot with modern ammunition.
