This thread prompts me to ask several questions re dovetail lumps vs. chopper lumps. I have read that, for best guns made during the damascus barrel era, chopper lumps would not have been possible, because damascus is insufficiently hard to resist wear on the bites and hook. (And also because the lumps couldn't be fabricated by winding the barrels around a mandrel?) How were damascus barrels fastened to the lumps? Brazing? Dovetail?
I suspect that the first fluid-steel-barreled best guns would have used dovetail lumps. When were the first fluid steel barrels introduced? When were the first chopper lump barrels introduced? Was there a transition period during which some best guns still used dovetail lumps and others chopper lumps? When did chopper lumps become de rigeur?
I have also read that chopper lump barrels are themselves a compromise, because the steel characteristics that are ideal for the barrel tubes are different than the steel characteristics that would be ideal for the lumps, in that the barrel steel needs to be more resilient, while the lumps should be harder. Are localized hardening techniques used on the bites and hook?
Do guns go off the face and need re-joining sooner because of the use of chopper lumps than they would if better steel could be used for the lumps? Might dovetail lump barrels using an ideal steel for the wear areas result in a more durable gun?
The British auction report in the latest DGJ mentions that Boss has rebarrelled some of its guns using dovetail lumps. While this would save the need to fabricate and fit the lump area, it would require cutting and fitting the dovetail. I wonder how much labor is saved?
It appears that some older best guns could have original dovetail lump barrels.
