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

Would make sense. I thought something must be going on.

I honestly don't understand Roster having a column at Shooting Sportsman. Here is a fellow who actively campaigns against lead shot and vintage guns. What he really seems to like is modern autos and steel shot. So why is he writing for that magazine? He would turn all of our vintage guns into museum pieces if he had his way.

He sure got us talking about him and the magazine, didn't he? I hope no one went out and bought an issue due to this discussion.

Here is some more of Roster's hogwash...

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2013/ShotgunWorkshop.htm#.VXCJB89VhHw

Interesting. In his steel shot lethality tests on pheasants, he thought that the overall wounding loss rate of 12+% was pretty good (I guess compared to waterfowl). Based on records I've kept of over 1500 wild pheasants shot and recovered (note: Roster's steel shot lethality test involved PRESERVE pheasants), I'd say that wounding loss rate is about 2 to 3 times higher than it should be.

The one conclusion he made from that study, with which I do agree, is that if you're hunting with a decent dog and you drop a pheasant inside of 30 yards, there's very little chance you'll lose him. Beyond 40 yards, your chances of losing cripples increase significantly. Distance increases aiming error, and the longer it takes your dog to get to a cripple, the greater the bird's chances of escaping.

But to my knowledge, there has never been a blind study done comparing the lethality of steel to lead on pheasants. Such studies were conducted on waterfowl.

Here is a copy of the article. I cut it down to make it fit better in a picture.

I guess the various European proofhouses don't do "sound science". They might be surprised to hear that from an expert witness.

Thank you Woody

NOT very informed

Winchester 1897 in 1904 H.H. Kiffe catalog

"The barrel of this gun has been proved with 9 1/2 drams of powder, and 2 1/2 ounces of shot."

British Definitive Proof 1855-1925 for 2 1/2� and 2 5/8� 12 gauge shells for a service load of 3 1/4 Dram Eq. with 1 1/4 oz. shot was 6 1/2 dram black powder with 1 11/16 oz. shot



Pete Dickey, �The Winchester Model 97� Feb. 1985 American Rifleman
Damascus barrels were regularly offered up until 1914 [but] cannot be considered �Smokeless Powder� guns.

1917 E.C. Simmons catalog "Bored For Nitro Powder"

The top is the edge of the barrel segment blown out at the time of a burst and the fracture is clearly ACROSS the crolle pattern; steel is grey-black, iron silver-white (3% Nitrol etched). The crack appears to be in the iron alternee.
The straight lines in the lower right are evidence of shear deformation at the time of the high pressure burst.
Additional metallurgical studies, including scanning electron microscopy, showed no corrosion and no low cycle fatigue.



More bad science?

Thanks Woody, very much for the piece by Roster. He does make it sound like either we're shooting short mags, or completely incompetent for everything else.

Larry, I know you're a big fan of the CIP and proofhouse system, but has your research dug up the science behind the 'brass hammer top lever standard' that our friends from the UK explained to Demonwolf for reproofing his Tranter patent gun. Roster may not be too worried about Europe, his agenda seems to be inclined towards the US.