doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com question for Ithaca collectors...

Usually, it is just ahead of the barrel flats. But most Damascus had milled or filed barrel flats and the mark was removed.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

What Raimey said. Have not yet found a damascus Parker with Belgian maker's marks still present.
'LLH' and 'ACL' - Acier Cockerill Liege

--- doesn't it stand to reason that barrel bursts could occur under those same conditions? Why? Do you suspect the barrels were weak? Frames crack from backthrust and barrels from hoop stress.

What do paper hulls have to do with cracked frames or burst barrels?

Hull length is increasingly important as pressure approaches the gun's design limit. Low pressure 2 3/4" loads should have no issue in a 2 1/2" or 2 9/16" chamber. Equally, it would be no trick to load high pressure loads in a 2 1/2" hull that would be quite injurious to most 2 1/2" chambered guns; they might be called proof loads.

Rktmn,
I don't know where to begin...I thought this subject would have been covered time and time again at this site, by the Department of Redundancy Department.
As you know, it's not likely that I could explain this reasoning in four sentences or less, and, as with any concept that's perceived as "new" to this board, it's highly unlikely that I could convey this vital information without some pigeon starting a sh*t storm over the words I post.
If someone else would please answer this question for Rocketman, I would be happy to assist...

Rocketman - It was my understanding that paper shells that are longer than chamber length create more pressure than a plastic shell of the same length due to the fact that the paper hull is thicker and leaves a smaller area thru which the shot, wad(s) and expanding gasses must escape. Someone please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Almost all vintage American guns have been misused at sometime or other with the wrong shells. Some guns, as we know could tolerate the abuse, some couldn't.

B French has inherited exactly the same understanding that I inherited...the story goes that Englishmen debated it for so long, that British gunwriter Gough Thomas (G T Garwood) did a published laboratory analysis of paper vs plastic and the pressure curves in short chambered guns. It has less to do with the maker than it does with the chamber length, why do you suppose the Brits were debating it? Because their short chambered guns were developing frame cracks too...and chamber bursts...
Hey, it rang of truth and sound reasoning back then, so I too accepted the concept with no further question.
Thank you Mr French...I owe you one...the last thing I wanted to do was debate a concept that I only adopted ...
Gough Thomas burned that debate to the ground back in the 60's...that's why I thought the Department of Redundancy Department had this covered.

I'm sure the English proof house loads would excede your paper or plastic tale.

You are correct, the barrels have been "polished" to the point the pattern is no longer visible.

Ithaca did not make any false damascus barrels to the best of my knowledge.

The 1910 dating is the key. Proof pressures in Europe had not changed since the late 1890's. An increase occurred around 1915 and again around 1924 (my dates are fuzzy, too lazy to look it up tonight). Those barrels were made in Belgium as Drew states. In 1910 you could purchase both smokeless and black powder shells from the Sears catalog.

Emil Flues was one of the truly great American gun designers. In the 1910 census he listed his occupation as "Experimental Gun Maker". Here is a 1911 Ithaca ad:



Pete

You're right Lowell...it's just a "tale"...maybe even an old wives tale...in fact it was my grandmother that made up the name "Gough", so you couldn't google it...perhaps it's just folklore. Definitly fiction from top to bottom...you got me this time Lowell...