doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Myth of unsafe Damascus still alive

At the risk of posting additional misinformational twaddle, I clearly remember an earlier post that stated that early on, when fluid steel barrels were first made many people preferred damascus barrels because they'd typically bulge a little before they'd fail completely, giving the user a pre-total failure warning.
Steve

One could take 'Damascus' out of this sentence and it would still in reality be 'most', not all. I don't know if there's a study that could guarantee all barrels would be safe. I think this figures some are unsafe and the shooter at the next station could be running the numbers in their head, not perpetuating a myth. I think they're all safe to shoot if the whole gun meets some minimum standard. Then it's up to the shooter, the grounds, and subject to change.

Only a one gun test but some years back I acquired an H grade "Parts" Lefever. The stock was broken, barrels heavily pitted & the gun would not close & bolt up. Invetigation revealed the screw which holds the trigger plate had been replace & the new one protruded inside the frame & the cocking hook would strike it preventing the barrels from fully seating. Shortening this screw cured that problem & the gun in spite of obviously heavy use &/or abuse was actually quite tight. It was further noted that at 14" from the breech the left barrel had a crack in it. It appeared as if it had been hit against a sharp object giving a dent & then had subquentlly been fired with thw result being that part of the dent was raised in the form of a flap & part was still dented inward. The crack ran along a weld seam & was about �" long & open enough by shining a light down the barrel you could look through the crack & observe the opposite bore wall.
I an an expanding dent plug down under it, raised the inward part & hammered down the raised part. The crack closed up until it became very difficult to see. I then taped up the stock & pout the gun in the ol Firestone Proof House. With me behind a large walnut tree & a cord tied to the trigger I proceeded to fire several factory 3�-1 1/8 loads through it with no visible results. further proceeded to fire several 3 3/4-1� factory loads with again no visible results. I then fired some handloads containg 1 3/8oz shot with about a 3-3� dram equivalent of Unique powder. Again "Nothing". The crack did not open in the slightest & there was not even a smudge of residue which made it to the outside. In my mind at least this definitely laid to rest the old "Fact" that smokeless stressed a barrel somewhere down around the left hand position. I feel certain the Remington Express factory load would have had more pressure in the area of the crack than did my handload with more shot but a lighter powder charge & most likely a faster powder besides. This gun was barreled with what Lefever described as "Best London Twist".

The relative strengths of Damascus and steel shotgun barrels has been a controversial issue since steel barrels were first used on shotguns!
In an effort to compare the relevant strength and cost of a variety of Damascus and steel barrels; in 1888 the Birmingham Proof House compared the relative strength of 39 different kinds of barrels.
The results are very informative .In the barrel bulging test English machine forged laminated steel was the best beating out Whitworth fluid compressed steel! On the other end of the scale Foreign Damascus in three rods was the worst, resisting only 7% of the pressure required to bulge the best laminated steel barrels.
Full details of these tests is recorded in the book, Experts on Guns and Shooting, pages 538-542.
With this degree of variance in barrel strengths we must rely on barrel proof test marks an actual barrel dimension if accidents are to be avoided.

Here you go Roy
The Field March 7, 1891 Vol 77:325
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9

I can recall the thread by Tony T. where he had a barrel failure within a box or two on a newly reproofed gun. Apparently, he was on a clays range with other shooters around, and it fell on his judgement to identify the problem and stop shooting.

Craig,

Tony had a little 20b Clarke hammer gun that he bought cheap and restored, then reproofed, and passed. The Clarke had early steel barrels, not damascus. Tony fired it only 10 times at the range after re-proof, then took it home and noticed during cleaning the split and bulge in the left barrel near the chamber. Pictures in his book on page 125, 126 and 127.




Miller,

I try hard NOT to read the mounds of copy and paste drivel from a certain member, especially drop down windows where you need to view 50 pictures to find four, but thank you for pointing it out.

Keep one thing in mind here. All proofing , in reality, is just a snapshot in time. It tells you that a set of barrels held up under a certain overload for ONE firing. It DOES NOT in anyway guarantee that these same barrels won't fail on the next shot or 100 shots or 1000 shots later. IMO; The secret to good sound barrels in skill in manufacture and good quality control. This applies whether these were forged by hand or made mechanically.
Jim

Can't prove a negative. Nothing is safe or certain.

Thanks for following up Doug and Jim, I was thinking there probably is a bit more to it than just relying on proof marks and the measurements that would have gone along with it.