So, without original specs no claim that the gun was original can be made. That's the problem, you only know what you see now not what it started out as.
Without knowing the strength of the material AS IS no amount of measuring and pontificating can arrive at a 'safe' value.
Thus the need for caution, which was notably absent.
Bell's articles and the internet discussions about the damascus guns currently in regular service has led to a rather cavalier attitude by some people.
I have a shooting acquaintance who is a well known gun dealer. His comment upon seeing my Parker on the line at skeet was that 'those are stronger than the regular barrels'. He has read and misunderstood Bell. He's not alone.
Consider that a 'low pressure' load is a low CHAMBER pressure load. This gun didn't bulge in the chamber, it bulged further down the line. Discounting the million to one double identical obstruction, we have a progressive burning load making up for the lack of chamber pressure by holding a residual pressure longer. It found the thin spot didn't it?
My personal strategy is to use very fast power in very light loads. The chamber is the strongest part of the barrel. I want a quick peak to a low value, and I don't mind the resulting 960 fps and very low recoil.
I've never used, nor will I ever use, a commercial shell in my damascus barrels.
