despite the dire warnings that it's unsafe to shoot modern loads in Damascus barrels. With which I agree, depending on your definition of "modern." There seems to be a feeling they're safe with BP, which I don't believe...I think they're safe if otherwise in good shape with BP pressures.Lower BP pressures.
I have three Damascus barreled guns. My Joseph Lang was built in 1866 and re-barreled by James Woodward around 1872, my J&W Tolley was built around 1887 and my Parker in 1891. I shoot all three of them with low-pressure smokeless loads, either RST or my reloads which have been pressure tested by Tom Armbrust.
I'm comfortable shooting them with these loads. In fact I've put over 3,000 cartridges through the Lang in the 3 1/2 years that I've owned it, about 500 RST's and somewhere North of 2,500 reloads.
If the barrels check out in good condition with adequate wall thickness I have no concern about shooting Damascus barrels with appropriate ammunition.
I have shot my Damascus Guns for 20 years. If you will read some of the DGJ articles that have compared BP with Smokeless, particularly the slower powders such as 7625 and Pb, you will find that BP cartridge pressures were actually higher than the
moderate loads that we shoot.
All of these danger tales were started in the 1950's by cartridge company lawyers putting warnings on their boxes.
Kinda similar to Frogs causing warts , if you believe that one also.
I could not agree more with Flychamps.
A gunsmith gave me a really cheaply made Belgian 12 ga hammer gun with Damascus barrels.2 1/2" chambers
I have tried to blow the barrels up as an exhibit for my Hunter Safety Classes with no success.
Even with a 2 3/4" hunting shell and a 20 ga shell dropped in first after five attempts, no obvious damage to the barrels.
The mud in muzzle worked well, split back for 4 inches.
Flychamps is on target
Mike
I shoot 5 damascus barrelled BP muzzleloading double shotguns, A damascus barrelled Joseph Lang BP muzzleloading double rifle(circa 1825), an 1890 Westley Richards double shotgun w/nitro (RST) and an 1872 Alex Henry .450 BPE double rifle (nitro for black).
Oops, forgot my 1897 William Evans double shotgun (RST)
I often shoot a 12 ga. damascus Remington 1900. My light loads use #7625 powder and 1 0z. of shot. No problems.
I sometime use it on preserve birds.
JERRY
I shoot 1oz loads with 2-1/2 drams of black powder in my 16 gauge damascus guns.
Best,
Mike
I shoot tons of Damascus guns and they operate fine. Further, the data recorded in DGJ indicates that English best quality Damascus met or exceeded fluid steel equals of age, wall thickness and quality.
Rst shells are great, as are the even better B&P sub sounds.
The one area I disregard is that I never shoot black powder. Even in non-nitro proofed guns, low pressure smokeless is preferred for consistency, low pressure, reduced recoil, etc.
I find the inverse is the problem with vintage guns; that being that non-Damascus guns are not treated with respect. Shooting modern high pressure loads through vintage fluid steel guns is an often ignored hazard.
90% of my guns are damascus and they get shot an awful lot. I do reload and keep pressures reasonable. But I'm not paranoid about loading lower than BP. Like any gun, if the barrels are in good shape they'll take a lot more pressure than we're ever going to give them. My favorite 12 gauge powders are IMR 7625 and PB for one ounce or heavier.I use Clays for 7/8 oz loads, per Sherman Bell. Though I shoot black powder in my flintlock rifles I really don't care for it in my shotguns--it's hot, dirty, and heavier recoil. Besides, with BP a quick second shot is often hypothetical.
I strongly agree with Rookhawk above when he cautions about the careless loading of older fluid steel guns. With a damascus gun we automatically know to be cautious but it's way too easy to assume all fluid steel is bank vault strong. Far from it--early fluid steel was very variable in strength and the same caution needs to be accorded it as damascus.
All the guns I shoot regularly are have Damascus or twist barrels. My Lefever "H" (1898 Mfg) has over 11000 rounds through it, of my shooting. Couple years ago it broke a hammer, fixed by Mr. Buck Hamlin, and is back in service. The reason Amarillo Mike shoots Black powder in his 16's is so that no one can see how many birds he misses for the smoke...
I've shot dozens of Damascus double guns over the years and never had a single problem. One Fredrick T. Baker gun my wife gave me when I graduated college I shot for years (the only gun I owned for many of those years)before I learned it had Damascus barrels (its barrels had been blued years before I got the gun and the pattern did not show thru the later finish). Learning this gun had Damascus barrels so many years later certainly gave me a fright; but if any gun has ever been "proofed", this would be it! As FYI, I've only witnessed one barrel explosion (thank God!); and it was not pretty, as it removed a fair portion of a man's left hand. That barrel was an Armor steel 12-bore LC Smith barrel; but there was nothing wrong with the barrel itself, a fibre base wad had lodged in the left tube about 8" from the breech. Forensic examination revealed a very evident bulge where the wad had been lodged, and damage to the barrel set itself was catastrophic; the explosion produced a gaping split open about 8" long in the left tube, the auto ejector fore iron/splinter forearm was blown off the gun and the wood forearm reduced to shattered bits; and the barrels were bent approximately 6' to the right and about the same distance downwards.
Genelang,
It would be helpful to read the Smokeless vs Black articles by Sherman BEll and also his articles over the last few years of
trying to destroy old damascus and twist junkers with proof loads. Never did it even with 18-20,000 PSI type proof loads.
Some bp and some low pressure smokeless loads in Lefever G, FE, and a very healthy(and thick walled) Syracuse "Hollenbeck". Shot the G at Sandanona Vintagers a few yrs. back with smokeless. Never hunted with any of them.
jack
I have 2, both Remingtons. One is a 1900 12 bore and the other is a 1889 10 bore.
RST shells.
If I want the stink, smoke, and messy cleanup from bp I'll shoot my Thompson Center 50 cal.
A fellow at our gun club had a 10 bore Belgian gun falsely labeled "manton" on it. Naturally it had damascus barrels on it of poor Belgian quality, not English best quality.
This fellow loaded his own shells with a scoop as though he was loading black powder but he used Nitro instead. He then loaded it all in a modern 3" 10 gauge shell...not the proof required 2-5/8" shell. Oh, then he loaded it full of about 1-1/2 ounce of steel shot.
Needless to say, this guy lost his thumb and part of another finger with his negligence. It is quite amazing that he didn't injure himself further.
Now the question is: who should be blamed? Sub-par Belgian Damascus barrel makers?
I wouldn't be surprised if this same shell (estimated at 26,000 psi) would have destroyed any fluid steel 10 gauge double as well.
Nonetheless, no one at the club will remember the 3 errors: steel shot, 8x powder beyond proof, wrong shell length. All the club guys remember is the harm a Damascus gun caused this fellow.
I Have shot Damascus barreled guns for 25 yrs or so without any problem. I use them for both target and hunting situations. I reload mostly using the old style AA hull/1 oz shot/Rem 209 Primers/Claybuster wads. I would also ad I shoot 2 3/4 in shells 2 1/2 chambers and again no problems.
P.S
The low pressure loads preform so well I use them in the steel barreled guns also ... makes life easier. Dennis
Out of my 1881 Damascus barreled 10 ga. I shoot 1 &5/8oz of lead at a chronograph 1290 fps....1 &5/8 oz of Bismuth at 1260 fps.
I 'd have more fear shooting a pre-1900 fluid steel gun than I do a high quality Damascus barreled gun in good shape.
I regularly shoot a Parker with a minimum wall thickness of .040 with 7/8 oz handloads. I also shoot 2 3/4 dram equi. Gun Clubs and AAs with no worries. Parker proofed both composite and fluid steel barrels in the same manner. You need to read the Sherman Bell articles and find out for yourself.
I quit reloading years ago, but find the Polywad and RST 'vintager' style shells very effective in my older guns, both steel and damascus/twist. I don't shoot high pressure 'modern' loads or steel in any of my old guns. The low pressure jobs don't kick and are plenty effective on the game I shoot...Geo
I shoot a I.Hollis 2 1/2" chambered 12 ga., a Manton muzzleloader in 16 ga., and a Remington 1889 in 12 ga., all damascus. Used to shoot a 10 ga. L.C. Smith 0 grade damascus gun but traded it off last year. Appropriate loads in each.
SRH
Used to shoot a 10 ga. L.C. Smith 0 grade damascus gun but traded it off last year.
SRH
Ah, the good ol' days when I had time, money and interest in digging those guns out of the western woodwork.
As to shooting damascus guns. I'll just add this:
Forgot to mention in my previous post that when scouting for possible gun acquisitions, I must admit that if a particular gun piques my interest but does NOT have damascus tubes I feel a little let down. I'm likely to pass on an otherwise attractive gun, as silly as that may seem to some
Forgot to mention in my previous post that when scouting for possible gun acquisitions, I must admit that if a particular gun piques my interest but does NOT have damascus tubes I feel a little let down. I'm likely to pass on an otherwise attractive gun, as silly as that may seem to some
I feel the same way, Krakow Kid. Damascus or twist barrels just add a certain "class" to a gun that fluid steel can never have (IMO). After all, I'm way, way past the stage of buying a do all gun. There's a special charm to reach back a century or more and join hands with the old men and to enjoy the product of their never to be repeated skills.
I use damascus barreled guns all the time. Usually stick to 28grm loads or lower.
Cheers
T
I love the beauty of a damascus barreled gun, there is just something that excites the eye. I shoot muzzle loaders and breech loaders. BUT everyone as been checked as well as possible to make sure that the barrels are in good condition and fit for purpose and I shoot them without a worry.
BUT this thread has just rung an alarm bell in my head.
How many of us have willingly shot a gun that we have been handed to shoot, without confirming it is sound!
I know I have, many times. Now that is scary.
I shoot Damascus barreled Lefevers on a regular basis. All those I shoot from a lowly H in twist to my "go to" sporting clays A 16 gauge have been examined and measured by those who are better at doing that than me. Reloading is way too hard to do in Hawaii so I use RST, Polywad and New Era low pressure ammo. I don't get to do a lot of hunting, so when I do shoot its 25-100 rounds at a time at the trap or sporting clays range. No problem so far.
I have yet to see a problem at the few side by side meets I do get to go to with those shooting good condition Damascus guns using commercial low pressure ammo.
On the other hand, I have seen a number of blown barrels, both Damascus and fluid steel. However, I rarely got the details of what was being shot and the circumstances behind the incident that caused that barrel to blow. I quit hunting public lands in New York after I saw a guy using a loaded gun as a crutch coming up out of a ravine and then attempting to blow the dirt out of the end of the barrel while the gun was still loaded. He then proceeded to resume hunting without even checking the barrel.
I shoot a Damascus Remington 1894 10ga and Parker NH Twist barrel 10ga quite bit. About a 1000 rounds a year between the two.
The term "safe" doesn't come to mind when I think of setting off an explosive charge a few inches from my face, especially in a very old gun. I think of it more in terms of managing the risk. Keep it below an acceptable level of risk and have at it. If you are the type that need "safe" as an absolute, I suggest you quit shooting all guns, quit driving/riding in autos and quit flying as a minimum. You might wanna become a vegan as well. But stay away from sprouts especially, and spinach too. Both are risky for bacterias that have caused deaths. Lots of food experts have written extensively on these as high risk foods due to the way they're grown.
I shoot damascus occasionally.
I quit hunting public lands in New York after I saw a guy using a loaded gun as a crutch coming up out of a ravine and then attempting to blow the dirt out of the end of the barrel while the gun was still loaded. He then proceeded to resume hunting without even checking the barrel.
You sure he wasn't from Maine....
One suggestion for twist/damascus barrel reloaders.
I use a "color-code" to separate my damascus loads from all other reloads. I use 12 ga. Remington gold hulls ONLY for low-pressure damascus reloads. Only gold hulls go in the damascus barrels.
Obviously there is no harm in shooting one of these gold shells in a regular barrel, but I refrain from doing so.
JERRY
Good idea. I color code the primers using a permanent magic marker.
Forgot to mention in my previous post that when scouting for possible gun acquisitions, I must admit that if a particular gun piques my interest but does NOT have damascus tubes I feel a little let down. I'm likely to pass on an otherwise attractive gun, as silly as that may seem to some
I feel the same way, Krakow Kid. Damascus or twist barrels just add a certain "class" to a gun that fluid steel can never have (IMO). After all, I'm way, way past the stage of buying a do all gun. There's a special charm to reach back a century or more and join hands with the old men and to enjoy the product of their never to be repeated skills.
I am definitely in this camp as well. The sheer variety and beauty of Damascus barrels continues to amaze me, and I shoot regularly with two Damascus barrelled guns - one an 1870 Reilly 12 bore and another an 1877 Paton 8 bore. Just a shame the over/under Purdey Damascus guns are £104k each!
Rookhawk...you know Tom?!?!?
And yes...I shoot a lot of loads in damascus guns.
Best,
Mark
I own and shoot a fair number of damascus barrel guns. Something over 20 at present. I have unfinished tubes and an example barrel sitting here. Of all the damascus guns that I own, there is only 1 I will not shoot. It is a Schrade with Bernard damascus barrels.
The reason is that the barrel walls 2" from the breech are much too thin. I measure them at .118". If you are going to invest in damascus guns, have them measured. If you are going to invest in a large number, purchase all the tools needed to properly measure them yourself. Purchase or reload shells to the proper pressures. Check for stuck wads between shots.
At this time, I shoot RST in all my vintage guns regardless of barrel composition.
Pete
I have 3 Damascus guns. One is a 3" 10 ga. Ithica 1889 Crass pigeon gun. Reload 9 K psi. shells for this and use it for waterfowl. Next is an H grade LeFever 12. ga. 28" barrells with Ejectors; reloads of 9 K psi. Last is a 1916 Greener hammer gun 12 ga. export grade that I use for ZZ birds; I shoot modern WW and Federal pigeon loads and handloads to same specs.
All have been reviewed by competant tradesman and are in excellent condition.
I love them; especially as the warnings cause folks to sell them CHEAP.
775 - Yes I do know the gentleman of which you speak. I'm rather fond of him so I with held further incriminating him for his terrible, self inflicted damascus maiming.
One thing that people are alluding to in this thread is "color coding" and other methods of marking their loads for vintage guns.
I suggest going to one level further of extreme "shell hygiene": I do not own cartridges that are not 2.5". I found that bought in bulk, I can use B&P low pressure 2.5" shells for exactly the same price as any other case priced modern ammo and frankly, the B&Ps are better. Why chance it? I just refuse to own any modern high pressure 12 bore ammo so I know I'm never going to have an accident. (or for that matter, break a wrist on a fine gunstock due to heavy recoil)
I came to the above conclusion after shooting my modern fine Spanish sidelock using bismuth shells that were hot loads. (not reloads) After discharge, the gun took some amount of work in the field to get it to open and eject. It made me realize just how hot those loads really were. Funny thing, I didn't do any better with the hotrod loads in bismuth or steel than I did with the light 2.5" loads for dropping pheasants at 40 yards. A great pattern and a square load (no shot stringing) seems to be more valuable than the extra shot and speed that modern loads provide.
I'll keep it vintage and safe for all my guns.
Very interesting reading the posts on those of you who shoot damascus or twist. I have a few shotguns from the early 1900's but none are damascus. Reason being that every time I thought I might acquire one, I would read on another forum (which I won't name) that a person is crazy to shoot any damascus gun with any load. That was before I joined this forum. Now I know condition has a lot to do with any type of gun, old or new, but after reading these posts me thinks if I come across a nice damascus barreled gun, I will be adding it to the collection. And like already mentioned, many of these can be had for cheap because of the " they are dangerous and no good for anything" stories that are so prevalent.
I do not own cartridges that are not 2.5". I found that bought in bulk, I can use B&P low pressure 2.5" shells for exactly the same price as any other case priced modern ammo and frankly, the B&Ps are better. Why chance it? I just refuse to own any modern high pressure 12 bore ammo so I know I'm never going to have an accident. (or for that matter, break a wrist on a fine gunstock due to heavy recoil)
Rookhawk,
I didn't see any low pressure 2.5" shells at B&P's site. I saw a 2.5" 12 gauge, but it was recommended for modern guns. Where are you finding the low pressure B&P's?
http://bandpusa.com/competition/f2-subsound.htmlThe 7/8oz load is listed as being 5900psi.
Cheers
Marc
I've got a few, as long as they are in good shape I have no qualms about shooting them.
Thanks, I have CFS and couldn't find the listing. I searched 2.5 and the LP's are 2 5/8. Earlier this summer I ordered a flat of 20 gauge from them using a 10% off code found at
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=134&t=252770Don't know if the discount is still in effect, but the free shipping of B&P helps. Gil
I always enjoy a "is Damascus safe to shoot" thread. I'm glad to see this one has stayed friendly.
I shoot a Damascus Parker GH 12 gauge without worry. It was manufactured in 1924. Bores are minty and measure as they left the factory. I doubt it saw many blackpowder loads and I doubt Parker made it think it would.
I sometimes get the feeling that many think that Damascus and twist barrels went away because the makers thought they were un-safe.
I have always thought fluid steel ended up being the barrel of choice because they were cheaper to produce. Damascus barrel construction was labor intensive. That, along with a dwindling number of artisans, more likely caused the demise of Damascus barrels; not safety concerns shooting smokeless loads of the day.
One of the major issues with damascus was WW1. It killed so many men in N. Europe and destroyed the apprentice system that labor prices went crazy after the war and that doesn't count the physical plant destruction.
Last night I loaded 21 grams (3/4 oz) of number 9 shot (with a little bit of crushed pasta to fill it up better) over 15 grains of AS30 powder - comparable to red dot. This was using Eley First hulls that I picked up last week they say they are 67.5mm I am going to use the 1883 greener today for a round of sporting clays with these shells.
I wonder if grits wouldn't work as well as crushed pasta or a navy bean. You could make a fine breakfast of what's left over.
I wonder if grits wouldn't work as well as crushed pasta or a navy bean. You could make a fine breakfast of what's left over.
Yeah I had a chuckle at that... I looked in the pantry for something light and dry that would not score the bore. Pasta was what got the job.
I always enjoy a "is Damascus safe to shoot" thread. I'm glad to see this one has stayed friendly.
I shoot a Damascus Parker GH 12 gauge without worry. It was manufactured in 1924. Bores are minty and measure as they left the factory. I doubt it saw many blackpowder loads and I doubt Parker made it think it would.
I sometimes get the feeling that many think that Damascus and twist barrels went away because the makers thought they were un-safe.
I have always thought fluid steel ended up being the barrel of choice because they were cheaper to produce. Damascus barrel construction was labor intensive. That, along with a dwindling number of artisans, more likely caused the demise of Damascus barrels; not safety concerns shooting smokeless loads of the day.
The British stopped making damascus in 1903. The Belgian production continued until 1937 / 1938. It was the destruction of the tremendous infrastructure that was required (mainly the rolling mills) that stopped the Belgians.
The demand had been dwindling between the wars as better steel became available for sporting gun use. Also many makers started declaring the own earlier guns unsafe. Articles started appearing in various sporting publications denouncing damascus without any mention of the pressures.
One of the major issues with damascus was WW1. It killed so many men in N. Europe and destroyed the apprentice system that labor prices went crazy after the war and that doesn't count the physical plant destruction.
If you have documented figures to back that up, I would like to see them. I believe the labor costs rose because of the increased social consciousness in Belgium about child labor (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Daens ) and the guild seeking collective bargaining (eg the Lochet strike of 1912). The makers were paying the same piece rate in 1912 that they had paid in the 1880's. The makers tried to starve the guilds out of existence, but the general public reacted by taking in the children of striking workers to feed them.
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=65846&page=22 And here Ithaca promotes the myth of rust, never mentioning the pressures involved.
Pete
The 1883 greener on the sporting clays range today.
The last picture in my partner on the way to an 18/25 - her best sporting score yet.
I use damascus barrel gun's all the time.
Back in the early 60s, in my early 20s, I bought a 12 ga., about a 1910 Baker Batavia Leader for $12 while working at a gas station from a guy who needed money for gas.
I was pretty ignorant about the gun and shotguns then and loaned it to a friend to go pheasant hunting. He got his birds with high brass loads.
One day I was wondering why this gun has funny looking barrels. Twist barrels with multiple pretty small dents in each barrel and very significant pitting and the old gun held together! The barrels were at one time cut and the chokes measure ic/ic.
Still have the gun and a set of Savage "Four Tenners".
I have the original Ithaca letter that Pete Posted and that is an excellent example of biased warnings by the manufacturers without any data that started this safety story. I am sure Mr. Thompson was told by their marketing lawyers(and he maybe one of them) to get this story out to encourage new sales.
The only good of this ,was that many of were able to buy some nice damascus guns at a reasonable price,before the truth emerged.
Stallones,
Thanks. I sometimes forget to give credit, my apologies. Like you, I am convinced it was all about sales. Much to our benefit today.
Pete
No need for credits, I saw that letter at a gun show about 15 years ago and was astounded then and even more now after seeing all of the test and data and shooting a LOT of ammo thru my damascus Guns. One day at the Sporting Clays range
a group of shooters behind me noticed me shooting my Ithaca Damascus double. They backed off about 15 feet wsaiting for it to blow up I presumed.
Of all the guns I own and have measured, the Ithaca's consistently have thick breeches. Add to the fact that Ithaca was buying some top notch damascus tubes. They are pleasure to own.
This one is mine. I am a sucker for chain damascus...
I believe Walt posted this one.
Pete
Just took the dog out today for a little training, and shot a few chukars. I was using an 1897 vintage o frame LC Smith. This is the first damascus I have had and I am gaining confidence with every shot. I am using the Winchester Featherlights, and they work quite well.
I have named all my projects and since restoring this one was like putting lipstick on a pig I dubbed it "Wilbur."
CHAZ
Love my damascus 16 hammergun, and will use it next week for the Eastern prairie chicken opener in Nebraska, affectionately known as "Grousemas." 1880's Enos James, appx. 40 thou barrel wall thickness.
I shoot an 1879 Cross Brothers often during the season. One of my favorite guns, since it is a roundbody.
PeteM: "Check for stuck wads between shots".
This is a terrific piece of safety advice, something not often contemplated by the shooter.
Many Thanks, Pete, for making the nearly obscure glaringly obvious.
This morning was a lovely cool a.m. blanketed with teal, mixed with Woodys/Woodies. I mainly shoot pattern welded tubes vs. fluid steel.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
What make is the hammer gun ?
Nice pic, Raimey. You make me jealous. No teal around heah'. Guess I'll hafta wait for the regular season.
SRH
I quit hunting public lands in New York after I saw a guy using a loaded gun as a crutch coming up out of a ravine and then attempting to blow the dirt out of the end of the barrel while the gun was still loaded. He then proceeded to resume hunting without even checking the barrel.
You sure he wasn't from Maine....
I know a guy here in Maine who blew off half his right hand. Of course, his story is a little more involved. He was hare hunting, alone, on snowshoes, a mile or two from the truck, and went in well over his head in the snow (five feet or so of the white stuff) atop a beaver pond (looked like a clearing in the forest). And he used the gun to push off what he thought was solid ground but turned out to be a log under all that snow, whereupon it went off. He managed to apply a tourniquet (not easy with only one hand), struggle out of the beaver pond, snowshoe all the way back to the truck (carrying the gun), collect his dogs, get in the truck and drive 20 or so miles to the nearest town. I'm not sure whether he dragged in the three hares he'd already shot, too. Then, he had to be driven in an ambulance (the helicopter was unavailable) all the way to Bangor - well over 100 miles but the closest trauma center - to get the appropriate surgery. And he's a diabetic who had to worry about glucose levels during all this. He told me the wardens who investigated were convinced no one could have bled that much and lived, but live he did.
The gun, BTW, was a fluid steel hammer double. So Damascus had nothing to do with it and putting his hand over a loaded barrel's muzzle had everything to do with it. (Another reason I'm prejudiced against hammerguns - no safety.)
I don't own a Damascus gun and have never shot one, but I wouldn't outright refuse to shoot one assuming I could be sure it had sound barrels and the loads were low pressure.
Hammer guns have two safeties.
Hammer guns have two safeties.
My thoughts exactly.
Hammer guns have two safeties.
You say so. Didn't seem to make much of a difference in this case.
JOe: It's a J. Novotny, Praha with Belgian sourced pattern welded tubes.
Stan: Yeah, the teal just arrived a day or so ago and this year I can't see how the migration and season actually overlap, but I'll gladly accept the happenstance. Doves are just beginning to move into the area. Decided to switch to a 16 bore with Krupp fluid steel this afternoon, but I prefer the report of the pattern welded which seems to be dampened.
Ernst Steigleder Sauer & Sohn sourced 111xxx
Another of my ever vigil assistants.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Hammer guns have two safeties.
You say so. Didn't seem to make much of a difference in this case.
How did the gun fire without being cocked? One of the guns I shoot clays and hunt with is a non-rebounding hammer gun built in 1866 and in my opinion it is just as safe as my hammerless guns with trigger block safeties.
Putting his hand over the muzzle of a loaded gun was the problem.
Muzzle control means keeping the muzzle away from yourself as well as others.
Muzzle control means keeping the muzzle away from yourself as well as others.
+1
I own and shoot a couple damascus guns, a Husqvarna 44 16ga and a Lefever G 12b. I would like to shoot them at skeet more often, but to be honest, I get somewhat tired of fending off comments about shooting damascus: "Are those damascus barrels? Are you shooting regular loads in that? etc etc.
How did the gun fire without being cocked? ...
Putting his hand over the muzzle of a loaded gun was the problem.
Muzzle control means keeping the muzzle away from yourself as well as others.
I don't know why the gun fired, other than operator errors.
There were the following fundamental errors, IMHO:
1. The gun was not unloaded when it should have been.
2. The operator's hand was over the muzzle.
3. The gun was not treated as loaded.
As to exactly why the gun went off, no one knows. It could have been that the hammer was cocked and the trigger tripped somehow, or that it was uncocked but then cocked and fired by brushing against something when being used as a pushpole, or that the face of the striker was pushed into the primer by an outside object. It doesn't really matter, though. It should have not been loaded.
I can see, as rational and even safe, using a gun as a pushpole or a crutch when in the situation that operator found himself in. But
only if unloaded. Remember, he was snowshoeing and the snow underneath him turned out to be exceptionally loose (b/c it was over a beaver pond or similar ground which leads to loose snow) and he went off his snowshoes when the snow gave under his weight. He was in snow over his head and not over his snowshoes. And getting soaked in a beaver pond when you're a mile or two from your truck and twenty miles or so from town and it's winter in Maine is something you want to avoid. What first comes to mind in that situation is to get back on your feet without getting (too) wet. I think the excitement of the moment took precedence over cool thinking. Thus, an implicit violation of "safety first all the time" and "Don't hurry - no number of seconds saved are worth an accident".
The first thing he should have done, IMHO
before he started snowshoeing into what he
thought was a clearing in the woods, was break the gun and unload. (I left out of the telling earlier, that he told me his dogs were on a hare but some distance away. Thus, an implicit violation of another principle: "no shot at game is worth an accident".)
I've had a similar thing happen while on snowshoes: if you get too close to a tree's trunk, particularly in a thicket, you'll find the snow is often quite loose and your snowshoes will sink in, even though the snow's top is no higher - or even a little lower - than the rest of the snow. When it happened to me I wound up on my back in about 4 feet of snow, debating whether to take off the snowshoes as a way of getting out
while I was unloading the gun. To address that problem, I carry a couple of ski poles while snowshoeing and use them, and will sling the shotgun until I come across some hare sign. After I unloaded my gun, I set it aside in the crook of an adjacent sapling, and only then turned my attention to getting off my back and out of the snow. And then, once I was back on my feet and regained my composure, I checked the gun and assembled the ramrod in my game bag so I could clean out the snow in the right barrel.
And only when everything was squared away did I even think about reloading and continuing.
To be fair, he found himself in a complicated situation that even the most advanced course in hunter safety might not have addressed. There werea series of subtle safety traps that he missed. If he had caught any of them, he could have avoided the accident. But he still should have unloaded his gun, first, before trying to get out of the situation.
I have shot both 16 and 12 damascus without issue. I use RST and Polywad 2 1/2 vintage loads for the 16 and for the 12 I have used Polywad and reload Federal Gold Medal hulls with the primers painted black with a marker for 4000-4500 PSI loads. I limit my reloads to the Gold Medal hulls and use the Gold Medal for nothing else to reduce the potential of any mix ups. Both my father and I have really enjoyed the beauty of the damascus barrels and the fact that a gun made in 1872 is still deliverying quail.
We both like it on the clays range when people wince at the Damascus tubes.
Plus that was just plain unsafe use so I don't think that can count a hammer gun as unsafe. Likely would have happened as a boxlock or whatever type action had it been used the same.
Last month shooting sporting clays, I was squadded with a fellow whose left arm ended above the elbow. Many years ago he lying in a duck boat and dragged a hammer gun forward to shoot. A hammer caught on something then slipped off and boom!. Yes, he did something unsafe, but a hammerless would have forgiven him.
Last month shooting sporting clays, I was squadded with a fellow whose left arm ended above the elbow. Many years ago he lying in a duck boat and dragged a hammer gun forward to shoot. A hammer caught on something then slipped off and boom!. Yes, he did something unsafe, but a hammerless would have forgiven him.
Nope. Some years ago an acquaintance of mine was pulling his shotgun from the back of his station wagon by the barrel and it discharged killing him. It did not have exposed hammers.
The only truly effective safety on any firearm is muzzle control. The safety on most shotguns is a trigger block and impact can on rare occasion cause the sear to release from the bent. Although intercepting sears can prevent this very few of our guns, and none of mine, have intercepting sears.
When I began shooting 54 years ago at eight years of age I was simply taught "don't ever point your gun at anything you don't want to destroy". It's as true today and then.
Ed,after reading the link you found I have to apologize for teasing you about your CCH.
Thanks for finding/sharing a good read.
Haven't had the time to read the whole post, but did read quite a bit of it. There were some very good points made but also some glaring errors. For instnce the bit about compressed air being the cause of obstructional bursts. It was proved many, many years ago by intentional destructive testing a hollow obstruction of same wt would produce an equal bulge to a solid one & as wt of obstruction increased a burst would be produced by equal wts. Call it what you will it is essentially the same thing as the Water Hammer ie the sudden checking of the projectile creates a localized build-up of the following gases from the burning powder which produces first the bulge & if severe enough the Burst.
Also I believe that Dynamite was produced from Nitro-Glycerine, not TNT.
The early DuPont powders mentioned required the black powder volumetric loading, not because they were "Weak" as stated, but because they were intentionally Bulked up to allow for this loading.
PS;
Incidently not certain about the classification of propellent powders vs Black powder but they are not the same. The "Unconfined Sizzling" of smokeless propellent powder is not a characteristic of Black Powder. If you don't believe that just pour some out in a pile & toss a match in it. This is why the laws regarding BP are much more strict than for Smokeless.
In reading Sherman Bell's "Black vs Smokeless" articles in DGJ,
it is now obvious that many if not most Black Powder loads were around 9000psi and our moderate loads are less. The pressure curve for 7625 is exactly the same as BP which lead him to assume as I did that it was developed as a substitute for BP loads.
Every thing that I load is targeted for about 9,000 psi.including my practice pigeon loads. I don't necessarley use 7625 but peak pressure is 9 K by design.
I have no idea just how old Bell is but I would suspect BP pressures were quite well documented long prior to his birth. I know they had been long prior to mine & I'm 73.
One factor of BP is its ability to burn at essentially a constant rate irregardless of confinement & pressure. Smokeless powder does not have this characteristic, which is why it has less restrictions on handling etc.
7625 was designed as a smokeless propellant to fit a particular niche in burn rates. The slowness of its burn in comparsion to some other shotshell propellants which makes it have a similar pressure curve to BP also makes it somewhat temperture sensitive, a factor not found in BP. It was not designed as a subsitute for BP.
Due to the temperture factor of smokeless as I want to be able to use any of my loads in cold weather if desired, I personally do not load smokeless to pressures below about 7500psi.
Others do so & seemingly get way with it, but I had some 7625 loads totally let me down in a duck swamp with temps in the low 20s F & the pressure of those were about 7K. Load was taken directly from old DuPont manual, current at the time of occurance.
Miller, I also have used an awful lot of 7625 but have had serious failures at temperatures below freezing. Downright dangerous, in fact, since in the field one isn't paying as much attention to the possibility of a stuck wad. I have since changed to PB, which has similar characteristics to 7625. It is quite temperature tolerant.
One of the problems with using old data is our assumptions. We assume that manufacturers 100+ years ago produced consistent powder from run to run. In fact, the proof houses knew very well that they did not. They had special gauges to measure the pressure of each lot and adjust their proof loads accordingly.
While I found that long series of posts on Shotworld interesting, I also thought it just a rehash of numerous posts made here over the years.
When Google Books first reared it's head, I along with many others started "mining" it. I eventually came to realize that people 100+ years ago had just as many axes to grind as we do today. It is a mistake to quote this old information without a critical view of it.
A good example of this are the old English proof house tests. The test was skewed to show that only England produced the finest barrels. It was done about 15 years before the English stopped all production of damascus. This was during a period when they simply could not compete in the international trade. Indeed, they had been losing that market for some time. The proof house was protecting it's own in this case. To this, I find no fault. We simply need to understand the situation of the day.
Pete
Last month shooting sporting clays, I was squadded with a fellow whose left arm ended above the elbow. Many years ago he lying in a duck boat and dragged a hammer gun forward to shoot. A hammer caught on something then slipped off and boom!. Yes, he did something unsafe, but a hammerless would have forgiven him.
Nope. Some years ago an acquaintance of mine was pulling his shotgun from the back of his station wagon by the barrel and it discharged killing him. It did not have exposed hammers.
The only truly effective safety on any firearm is muzzle control. The safety on most shotguns is a trigger block and impact can on rare occasion cause the sear to release from the bent. Although intercepting sears can prevent this very few of our guns, and none of mine, have intercepting sears.
When I began shooting 54 years ago at eight years of age I was simply taught "don't ever point your gun at anything you don't want to destroy". It's as true today and then.
What in Gods´ name was a loaded shotgun doing in the truck in the first place and then to compound it by pulling out by the barrels can only get you a Darwin award. If I put a loaded shotgun in a vehicle on a shoot in England I´d never be invited back !, best, Mike
[
What in Gods´ name was a loaded shotgun doing in the truck in the first place and then to compound it by pulling out by the barrels can only get you a Darwin award.
Familiarity and complacency breed contempt and lulls ones sense and sensibility.
What in Gods´ name was a loaded shotgun doing in the truck in the first place and then to compound it by pulling out by the barrels can only get you a Darwin award. If I put a loaded shotgun in a vehicle on a shoot in England I´d never be invited back !, best, Mike
My point exactly!
I was responding to the statement that hammer guns were less safe than hammerless guns. It's not the type of gun but the SAFE HANDLING of a gun that prevents accidents.
Safe handling includes keeping the gun unloaded when it should not be loaded and controlling where the muzzle is pointed when it is loaded.
I own and shoot several old damascus barreled guns English and American made.I use low pressure shells in all my old guns regardless of barrel material,no point abusing old guns for no reason.When I was a boy I often shot my uncles old hammer double using Winchester hi velocity 2 3\4" shells from the local Western Auto store.50 years later I still have that gun.It is a Crescent arms twist barrel gun that was sold by Montgomery Ward.It has 2 1\2" chambers and is right now tight and on face after many years of (unknowing) abuse.I reckon those guns are stronger than a lot of folks think!
I have shot damascus guns a fair bit in the past. The last ten years or so I have been shooting more modern guns(1920's and 30's)with steel barrels due to the better stock dimensions, not the barrel steel. I recently picked up a damascus barreled Westley to be restocked for myself. I feed all my old guns the same no matter the composition of the steel, low pressure and light loads is what they were designed to digest.
I feed all my old guns the same no matter the composition of the steel, low pressure and light loads is what they were designed to digest.
How you figure that ?
which part? I shoot only game guns. I own nothing proofed over 1&1/8" oz. They all get fed the same. A heavier proofed old gun would indeed get a higher payload, but it would still be low pressure, but not as low a lighter load.
The old boys shot some boomers, with guns and through pattern welded barrels designed for them.
The American Field January, 1879 Jamaica Plank Rd., L.I., New York "Brooklyn Gun Club vs. Philadelphia Gun Club"
Only two Parker guns on the grounds. Mr. T.E. Broadway of the Brooklyners used a Parker 10 ga. with close choke weighing 9 1/2lbs shooting 4 1/2 drachms of DuPont's Diamond Grade and 1 1/4 oz of Tatham's soft shot. For the Philly club, Mr. H.A. Burroughs shot a Parker 12 bore with medium choke weighing but 7lb 14oz. He shot 4 drachms of Hazard's Electric Powder and 1 1/4oz of chilled #7 in the left barrel and #8 in the right. UMC's new paper shells were said to be the choice of most to carry their loads. W&C Scott was the choice for most shooters with a pair of Remingtons and a Moore and a Williams and Powell. I regret to say the New Yorkers took the contest 100-93 though the birds were a good lot, and many being white, were difficult to hit while close to the snow.
American Field, Chicago, Ill., Jan. 14, 1888
LaFayette, Ind. Editor American Field.
The Erb-Bogardus match, so long talked of, took place here Jan. 4, at 1 o'clock p. m. The shooting was at 100 live birds each, Hurlingham rules, for $250 a side. Capt. Bogardus used a twelve-bore Scott & Sons gun weighing seven pounds fourteen ounces, and shot four drams of Wood powder in the right barrel and four drams of black powder in the left barrel, using No. 7 and No. 8 shot.
(This is presumably the same gun he used in the 1883 competition with Doc Carver, who shot a hammerless 12b Greener 7 lbs 12 oz.)
Mr. Erb used a Lefever twelve-bore weighing seven pounds fourteen ounces, loaded with 3 l/2 drams of King's Quick Shot powder in both barrels and No. 7 shot.
Outing: Sport, Adventure, Travel, Fiction 1889
Al. Bandle, of Cincinnati, on Christmas Day defeated the famous shot, Captain A. H. Bogardus, by killing 100 live birds straight to the Captain's equally remarkable record of 95. Bogardus shot a 12-gauge L.C. Smith gun, hammerless, 7 lbs. 12 oz. weight and shot 4 drams American wood powder in his first barrel, 1 1/4 oz. No. 8 shot in first and 1 1/4 oz. No. 7 in second, backed up with 3 1/4 drams Laflin and Rand Orange Lightning powder. Bandle shot the same make of gun, 10 gauge, and used, first barrel, 4 drams wood powder, second, 4 drams Laflin and Rand "F. F. F. extra" powder, No. 7 shot.
Great stuff Drew. I don't know what those pressures were and I guess someone could duplicate the loads so that Armbruster could pressure test them but I will bet a bunch they weren't 7 K psi.!
Jan. 2 1897
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_15/SL2815017.pdfCharles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the “Cast Iron Metal”
Grimm used a 12-bore L. C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds,
3 3/4 drams Schultze, 1 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U. M. C. Trap shell.
Carver used a 12-bore Cashmore gun, 8 pounds weight,
4 drams of Carver powder, 1 1/4 No. 7 shot, in U. M. C. Trap shell.
Carver was a big guy, 6'4" and over 250# but wow!
Great names for some of the powders.
Orange lightning.... King's quick shot ... Hazard's Electric....
I dunno whether "ZombieMax" even comes close. Doubt it.
"What are you shooting?"
"Orange lightning."
Hi Pete,
.118 is actually pretty thick. Anything over .90 in that area are generally safe to shoot. Of course, anything can happen. I have shot damascus guns with as little as .75 2 1/2 inches from the breech.
Great discussion and reassuring. I plan to take my Francotte (1891) damascus on a bird hunt in mid-February. I have shot several hundred low pressure rounds through this gun. I have used factory Fiocchi Trainer loads (7/8 ounce, 1200 fps) which the company rep said show 6500-7500 PSI. Also handloads from a Parker Collectors Association member's EXCEL file. Typically Sr 7625 and Clays at down in the 5000-6000 psi range. The Francotte is BP proofed, but I have always shot nitro. Love the damascus barrels! The only thing I don't like is that the prices of damascus guns have really gone up!
Good notes here about the early steel barrels...
Thanks for your information, and thanks Sherman Bell!
I consider both smokeless powder, and fluid steel barrels, to be a passing fad.
- Nudge
You guys are 6 years behind...
You guys are 6 years behind...
But a couple steps ahead
Jeremy
P.S. I have a very nice damascus barrelled Horsley that I had Teague chamber line and reproof. It's one of my best shooting guns.
At this time I own 11 Damascus barrel SxS's and shoot one or the other at clays three times a week. Normally it nitro between 7 and 8000psi, and on occasion some smoke. It's nice to see so many approve of shooting Damascus barreled guns.
Has anyone here put choke tubes (like Briley's) in damascus?
I ask because last weekend I saw a nice LeFever action in the Omaha Cabela's. It was a great action and barrels except that they had been cut down to 28" and there was basically no choke in either bore (0.002" and 0.006"). As a project, it would be fine except for those chokes.
Paul Harm,
Hat's off to that!
Now if we could just get the collecting world to stop using the "Damascus" misnomer.
-- Nudge
I have 4 Damascus barrels guns. Two Remington 1894 BE, one Remington 1900 and H. Pieper sidelock. These are all old guns, newest being 110 years old. I have more confidence shooting these barrels than some of the fluid steel barrels I have from the same era. In every case, they are built like the proverbial brick shithouse and arrived into my possesion in excellent condition.....mirror bores and tons of barrel wall thickness along with properly sized chambers and chokes that appeared to be original.
I regularly use a William Powell hammer gun on original Damascus made 1871. Have also used a Joseph Lang hammerless push forward underlever (1882), but parted with that as it didn't fit me very well.
I'm shocked that so many of you are literally taking your lives into your own hands. Everyone knows that these guns are potential deathtraps. Especially with modern loads. Everyone knows that rust develops between the layers of iron and steel, so even if the barrels look sound, they are just waiting to burst and cause serious injury. They can literally unwind along the seams and actually spin back and wrap around your neck like some deadly Slinky. If you don't believe me, just look on the side of any box of shot shells. I'm so concerned with your safety that I'll happily pay the shipping on any of these mankillers you send to me so I can dispose of it properly.
Always concerned for your safety,
Ken
I would love to own and use yet another Damascus gun. Just haven't found the right one yet.
With friends (?) like Ken61...Geo
I think so much of your safety, I might also might even pay shipping so I can dispose of those Mantraps out there!
Let us keep this info to ourselves to keep the prices of these misunderstood artifacts of the past.
