I have been looking at an old british made shot gun with damascus barrels recently. The dealer is reluctant to sell me the gun as it is damascus and he doesn't want to be liable if there is a failure and i get injured. There are no gunsmiths i can ask to check the barrels out and looking online for what to look out for is a fools errand eg. "damascus barrels lose strength every year even if they are not shot".

The gun is in excellent condition with no corrosion. The barrels are not pitted, dented, rivelled or corroded. The only thing i can do is measure the barrel wall thickness, but can i use penetrant dye as used in weld tests, or ultrasound to find cracks or rokes ?

One opinion, with pictures
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

A lot of people on here seem to shoot them without issues and I have become a recent convert.

It seems like the original quality of the damascus and wall thickness are the most important factors, moreso even than the things you conventionally look for like bore condition.

Dr. Drew's link above is extremely informative and a great starting point.

Thank you for that Drew, interesting reading.

Dan, yes i believe a lot of people still use damascus, and why not of course ? If they are in good condition, then use them, there is a haze of urban (and rural) myths about damascus though.
Another thing i considered was an informal proof test, using modern 2 1/2" cartridges, of course if i did that and the barrels gave up, i'd have forked out for a useless gun.

It has been shown repeatedly that, all things being equal, damascus is every bit as strong and usable as the steel of the time, sometimes rather better!
When you buy a late 1800's gun with steel barrels do you crack test them? I suspect not, yet the steel barrels that predate Whitworth's fluid steel process were no better than the damascus they were competing with.
The big advantage of damascus is that IF it bursts, it tends to 'birdcage' ie unravels along the weld joints, rather than turning into a hand-grenade as does steel.
I am perpetually amazed at what damascus will put up with. I have successfully reproofed damascus guns down to 0.014" MWT (not that I would recommend it but the gun had to be in proof to export and it was a family heirloom).
And I regularly successfully nitro reproof damascus down to 0.020" MWT and below. Rivelling is the big problem, not bursting.
I often wonder if the occasional stories that one hear of burst barrels are more to do with poor homeloads, obstructions in barrels and distracted shooters not checking their barrels between shots. And suddenly it is all the fault of the gun not the stupid a*** shooter.

Toby, are black powder cartridges available from any of the major uk makers ? I have been on several websites, lyalvale, hull, eley and i cannot see any listed.

bonny: where are you?

Ireland ed

Amen! The one instance of damascus barrel failure, of which I have first hand knowledge, was just that ................ poor homelands (reloads). I tried to explain to the owner, beforehand, about pressures and certain powders and hulls, but to no avail. Chamber blew out. Classic results of an intensely high chamber pressure.

SRH

Its amazing, you mention damascus to people who are knowledgeable about all aspects of shooting and firearms and all the hackneyed nonsense comes pouring forth. I cannot think of any other area in guns with so much myth surround it.

Myths and lies repeated often enough eventually become truths as a result of countless repetitions by countless idiots.

The myths about Damascus barrels being a "time bomb" and "unsafe with any load" will carry long into the future and may in fact, never die.

I love the Myths and lies, they have helped me get a lot of good deals over the years.

From early Sears catalog



.

Damascus Mythology and Reality
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LFnSG34k3mBhLEjEgU267wAlIa215MNVQZhIiY62Hx4/edit

Thank you Dam, Gary and drew.

I have a black powder proof Belgian gun (Francotte) that I shoot with nitro loads mostly of my loading. I keep the pressure under about 600 PSI for my loads. Generally 4500-5000.

I had the barrels checked by a good gunsmith, then x-rayed at my friend the physician's office. Then I had the barrels checked by an aircraft mechanic...I've forgotten the coating process.

There were no defects shown in any test so I continue to shoot 7/8 an 1 ounce loads in this 12 bore. It was made in 1891-1892.

Fiocchi makes a trainer load for 12 gauge...7/8 ounce that is according to the factory between 6500-7500 psi (probably less). It may be a good starter load for damascus barrels in otherwise perfect condition.

Little creek, good idea about the fiocchi training load, however i'd guess they are for 2 3/4" chambers, when the chamber of most old guns are 2 1/2". Most 2 1/2" cartridges available are game cartridges and are pretty pokey, i'd not use them unless i knew 100% the gun would be safe with them.

bonny,
An outfit called Peter Dyson used to sell BP shells. I dont know the practicalities of sending them across the water though. If you are looking for 2 1/2" light loads there are many available, I use Eley Impax 1 ounce a lot, not sure of velocity etyc as I am in the Med just now. Eley "First" also have a 1 ounce load in 2 1/2" case and something like 7/8 ounce also. I think Hull Cartridge etc do similiar loads.
I don't know that there are any praqctical advantages to using BP loads in a damascus (BP proofed) gun as opposed to a light load nitro. Main thing for me is to check bore diameter against proof marks and just as important, remaining wall thickness.

Gamebore in the U.K. are the only manufacturer of Black Powder cartridges as far as I know. They only do them in 12 and 20 bore but did a few in 16 bore once. Quite expensive so far earlier to make your own. One thing to watch for with today's so called light one ounce loads is that a lot are made to function through semi autos so have a bit of pressure. If you live in Ireland I thought there was still a Proof House in Dublin that you could consult with. Lagopus.....

Thanks Lagopus, i thought eley did them too. No there is no proof house in ireland, i don't know if there ever was, but seeing as the gun trade here was so small i doubt it.

For your interest Bro. Bonny

"The Irish Industrial Exhibition of 1853: A Detailed Catalogue of Its Contents"
John Sproule, 1854
http://books.google.com/books?id=cNKl8YYZejsC
There are two processes by which a bar of iron is converted into a tube for the purposes of the gunsmith. First the simple though imperfect method of employing a flat bar, equal in length to the required barrel, and in width somewhat exceeding its circumference, and rolling it up until the edges overlap, to be finally welded along its entire length. Of late years an improvement has been effected in this method by the introduction of steam-power. A short bar is turned up and welded at one heat, and is then drawn out to the required length bv passing it through successive rollers. Such barrels are only used for the plainest work, and an much inferior to those produced by the second method. In this more perfect process the bar of iron, now called a strand, is coiled round an iron rod or mandril of the same size as the required bore; and the spiral so formed having been brought to a welding heat, and struck on the end to join the edges, becomes a continuous tube in which the grain of the material runs round the barrel, thereby insuring the greatest amount of resistance to the expansive force of the charge. The advantages of the latter method are numerous. The fibres of the iron, instead of being torn asunder by bending the bar parallel to its length, are rather condensed and closed together; and, accordingly, the better description of barrels have been manufactured in this manner for a long period. Among these are included the varieties called stub-twist, plaited-twist. laminated steel, Damascus, &c., which all partake so far of the common character that they are forged according to this process, but differ in the preparation of the strand. Thus, in stub-twist, a bar of iron is made as follows: — A quantity of stubs, i. e., small pieces of iron or steel, are raised to a welding heat, and consolidated by a few blows, and then drawn down between rollers to the required size. The excellence of the material depends on the quality of the stubs employed; that being in most repute formerly which was manufacture I from horse-nail stubs, or old horse-shoe nails collected by the farriers. Of late years these have deteriorated in quality, and it became necessary to apply, in the preparation of the strands, other processes which have for their object the purification of the iron, by twisting and hammering, and the introduction of carbon by a partial admixture of steel. The first of these — that of making plaited twist — is conducted as follows: — Two square bars of stub iron are separately twisted at a red heat until the whole rod has the appearance of a four-threaded screw, the threads being formed by what were the angles of the bar in its untwisted state, the one having a right-hand turn, the other a left. These rods, so prepared, are welded side by side to form the strand, and the grain of the iron presents, when finished, that feathered or plaited appearance whence it derives it’s name.
Steel barrels are made in a somewhat similar manner as just described, the material instead of stub iron, being prepared from soft steel, which is decarbonized in the course of manufacture.
The process of making Damascus barrels is more complicated, as involving a greater number of stages. The strand in this case is composed of three or four twisted rods instead of two, and they are all generally twisted in one direction; but it is in the manufacture of the rods themselves that the essential difference consists. These are no longer stub iron or decarbonized steel, but are formed of from twenty to four-and-twenty alternate layers of iron and steel welded together. The effect of this arrangement is, that when the barrel is finished, and an acid applied to the surface, the iron layers are rapidly eaten away, while the steel remains comparatively intact; and the whole presents that beautiful pattern, celebrated (long before the method of production was understood) as some secret prowess known only to Eastern armourers, and supposed to have originated in Damascus. The credit of rediscovering it in these countries a due to a Dublin house, a Messrs. Rigby, of Suffolk- street, whose experiments were brought to a successful result in the year 1817.

There was I believe well documented cases of Damascus barreled guns bursting at a point several inches down the barrel in the early days of Smokeless powder. Two wrong conclusions were drawn from thee bursts.

1st was that smokeless burned slower than black & thus stressed the barrel more at a distance from the chamber. Prior to the 1920's with the advent of progressive burning shotshell propellants all smokeless shotshell powders were faster burning than black.

2nd was the fact the Damascus was the cause. At that point the vast majority of guns in use were damascus so if a barrel burst it stood a very high likelihood it would be Damascus.

Another member here several years back posted a most plausible cause of these bursts. At that point shells, even factory ones, were being loaded with primers which had been developed using Black Powder. Smokeless is harder to ignite. I once read of a "Test" performed on a modern made .50 Cal Muzzle Loading rifle barrel. The barrel was filled half way with powder & the other half with balls & fired. It withstood this load with flying colors. A normal charge of powder was then dropped own the bore & a single ball pushed "Part Way" down the bore. Upon firing the barrel was blown apart at the obstruction.
It is highly likely something similar was occurring in these early "Damascus" bursts. Upon firing just enough ignition was occurring to drithe shot down he bore a bit & then complete combustion took place. This actually resulted in an Obstructional burst, but the barrel was known to be clear prior to firing the load. It was actually becoming its own obstruction.
Similar occurrences have taken place in high capacity magnum rifles which wold handle a full compressed load of a slow burning powder without a hitch. Some shooter then desiring a softer recoiling practise load would load a half charge of the same powder & Blow the gun to bits.
The possibility of this occurring with shotshells loaded to a very low pressure with slow powders along with the likelihood of squibbs as the temps fall is Why I "Quit" the practise.

To me this is the first commandment when dealing with and shooting vintage guns...

Thanks all. The gun is high quality, i wouldn't really bother with it otherwise and is in very good condition. The only issue is it is a little tarnished from sitting in a gun case or gun rack. Nothing that a good polish wouldn't sort out. Mechanically the gun is good too, no butchered screw slots or signs of the usual kitchen table stupidity.

Thank you for restating that explanation, Miller. I agree that this detonation could very well have been the cause of those barrel destructions.

One thing I do not quite understand, tho', is your comparison between the burning rates of smokeless powders and black powder. If what you stated is true, it must have something to do with being confined, because smokeless powders of today, when burned in an unconfined condition, burns MUCH slower than black powder.

When I was actively competing in BP rifle and shotgun matches I would occasionally participate in a "mini-seminar" for civic organizations, SCV chapters, shooting ranges, etc. We would basically just give a brief explanation of black powder and how it should be used, stored and handled in regard to firearms. One part of our demonstration was a burning rate demonstration, in which we poured a small "stream" of each in a little trough that had been routed into a 1" x 6" x 10' board. The end of the line of each was lit, and you watched as it burned the length of the 10' board. In a nutshell, the smokeless burned, at a constant but fairly slow rate. When the black was lit, in a flash it was all burnt and gone, instantaneously. For visual understanding of what we did, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXGkJkdvoIc

SRH

As Miller said, Progressive Smokeless (DuPont Oval) burns slightly slower than BP. Progressive Burning DuPont Improved Military Rifle (I.M.R.) Powders were introduced in 1914. DuPont Oval was developed for the 1922 introduction of Western Cartridge Company’s 12g ‘Super-X Field’ 2 3/4” 1 1/4 oz. 3 3/4 Dram Equiv. shell.



The early Bulk and certainly Dense Smokeless did not



Modern dense; possibly Hodgdon Clays. Courtesy of http://www.arizonaammunition.net/



Shotgun Smokeless Powder DDT HAS been documented experimentally
http://www.trapshooters.com/threads/smokeless-powder-ddt.245629/

Stan;
Yes the Slower & faster in my statement is as appl;ied in the shotshell. As can be seen in the charts Drew posted DuPont Oval was the only one which had a slower pressure rise than black. The rest were all faster reached a higher peak & then fell off quicker. As DuPont Oval, or other progressive shotshell powders were not available for about the first 2½ decades of smokeless powder use it becomes obvious those early bursts were not brought on by the cause to which they were attributed at the time.
Black Powder has the unique attribute of burning at essentially the same rate regardless of other factors,so yes it will burn unconfined while smokeless can be hard to ignite that way. The more heat & pressure is applied to smokeless the faster it burns.This is actually the attribute which allowed it to act in such a manner as to cause those bursts through delayed burning, a type of a "Semi-Hangfire" if you will.

Thanks, Miller, I felt it had to be in a confined space. But, it's more than being hard to ignite, evidently. Interesting that it performs so much differently when unconfined.

SRH

I think I remember seeing a written statement published by Ithaca, saying Damascus barrels are dangerous and should not be used. Of course I assume this was to boost new gun sales. Has anyone seen this, or am I more confused than my lovely wife contends?

Deflagration ?

RevDocDrew,
Have you ever seen any pressure curves with black powder vs the modern powders typically used for low pressure loads such as 800X, imr7625 etc? It would also be interesting to see the curves of RST's or polywad as well.

It may be in another thread and I missed it.

Evidently, outside the confines if a shotshell. But, not when confined inside it.

SRH

Bill: the pressure (vertical axis) and time (horizontal axis) numbers are quite similar in these 3 graphs. Transpose the 3 Dram Black Powder curve over the other 2 graphs. It peaks about .75 millisecond.
Alliant e3, Red Dot, Green Dot & Unique all peak before .5 & obviously much higher pressures

Possibly Hodgdon Clays vs. BP



Red Dot and PB (no longer available). I think this was Neil Winston's work



Alliant data for 1 1/8 @ 1200fps 12g
Alliant e3 - 17.2 grains = 10,950 psi
Red Dot - 18.3 gr = 10,300 psi
Green Dot - 21 gr = 8900 psi
Unique - 22 grains = 8900 psi
Green Dot and Unique pressure curves are indistinguishable.

Bonney, et. al.- I mentioned using modern 2-3/4" Fiocchi loads in my damascus gun. As per Sherman Bell (double Gun Journal series on "Finding out for myself"), I have long forcing cones in my Francotte. That, according to Bell, who has pressure tested various nitro loads, is a recommended practice for shooting 2-3/4" shells in damascus. The Bell series of articles began in about 1999 and had at least eight editions. Required reading for old gun users.

Bell did a destructive test comparing steel to damascus barrels in I believe, Parker guns of similar vintage and good condition. The damascus gun blew it's first barrel with a load of about 29,000 PSI. For what it is worth.

Drew-- it looks like 3f black powder developed about twice the pressure of 2f in these charts. 1. Am I reading this right and 2. Do we know which granulation they used back in the day? If it was 3f that would seem to alleviate concerns about using low pressure smokeless in composite barrels.

Which graph are you looking at judge ? Just so we know.

Note that while both listed loads of black used 3 drams, the 3F load was pushing 1¼ oz shot while the 2F one was pushing 1 1/8 oz. The heavier shot load would account for part of the pressure increase along with the finer granulated powder. A third factor which can enter is they were taken at a different time & place so actual powder components can play a part as well. Quality of the charcoal used is a major factor in black Powder quality. I seriously doubt it is safe to say that switching from 2F to 3F will normally double the pressures if all else is equal.

Bonny -- The first graph and the third in Drew's posts. about 9k vs 4500 psi. If black powder loads pushing 9000 psi were regularly used in Damascus barrels (big if) that's similar to a lot of modern smokeless loads. Just saying. I do recall Bell's articles suggesting the black powder of old was stronger than the 2f we use today.

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.

Black Powder Pressures:
3 dram / 82 grains FFFg 1 1/8 oz. (1200 fps) is about 5000 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 Drams (83 gr) Curtis & Harvey’s No. 4, T.S. Black Powder (similar to FFg) was about 6500 psi.
3 3/4 dram GOEX FFFg with 1 1/4 oz. (1240 fps) is about 6000 psi.
4 drams of FFFg / 108 gr. with 1 1/8 oz. (1420 fps) is about 7000 psi.

1895-WWI Smokeless Pressures were similar to that of shells available today:
12g
1 1/8 oz. 3 Dram Equivalent of BULK Smokeless was 6500 - 7500 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 Dr. Eq. of DENSE Smokeless was 9000 - 10,000 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 1/4 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless was about 8500 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 1/4 Dr. Eq. DENSE Smokeless was 9500 - 10,500 psi.
16g 1 oz. 2 3/4 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless was about 7000 psi.
20g 7/8 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless was 8000-9000 psi.
7/8 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. DENSE Smokeless was about 11,000 psi.

From Sporting Guns and Gunpowders: Comprising a Selection from Reports of Experiments, and Other Articles Published in the "Field" Newspaper, Relative to Firearms and Explosives, Volumes 1-2, 1897

British 1 1/8 oz. & 1 1/4 oz. Service Charge pressures + 10% for modern piezo transducer numbers

No. 4 is not equivalent but is similar to FFFg BP
Curtis and Harvey’s No. 2 (“T.S.2”) was a fine grain fast burning Black Powder somewhat similar to GOEX FFFg that produced pressures substantially above that of the standard proof Black powder.




"E.C." and "Schultze" were initially 42 grain = 3 Dr. Eq.
'S.S.' was Smokeless Shot-gun and was discarded as pressures were excessive in loads above 3 1/4 Dr. Eq.

Drew, in your previous post where you listed black powder pressures and 1895 to WW I Smokeless pressures, were those figures CUP or LUP or have they been adjusted for modern transducer pressure readings?

Mark II, you are not confused about a letter from Ithaca warning shooters about the dangers of Damascus barrels.

Keith: I should have made it clear that these are modern piezo transducer estimated numbers based on the original LUP.

12g
1 1/8 oz. 3 Dram Equivalent of BULK Smokeless was 6500 - 7500 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 Dr. Eq. of DENSE Smokeless was 9000 - 10,000 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 1/4 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless was about 8500 psi.
1 1/8 oz. 3 1/4 Dr. Eq. DENSE Smokeless was 9500 - 10,500 psi.
16g 1 oz. 2 3/4 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless was about 7000 psi.
20g
7/8 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. BULK Smokeless was 8000-9000 psi.
7/8 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. DENSE Smokeless was about 11,000 psi.

Details here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F2sQuPm05IE4VWYYnCkvuXmYEzQoWd_SQgaAfUOZEFU/preview

So what amount of powder would be needed for a light to medium load, pushing 1oz of shot, fibre wad, 2 1/2" chambers ? Just for walked up game and informal clay dusting ?

Thanks for posting that Gil. I hear that Damascus guns with lots of engraving and highly figured wood are especially prone to bursting. I will pay 10% over current scrap steel prices for any such gun sent to me for safe disposal.

So according to that letter, the gun is unsafe with the ammunition it was originally designed for ? It sounds like ass-covering corporate speak to me. Or throw that in the scrap bin and buy a new shotgun.

Does it make you a domestic terrorist targeting high profile skeet ranges if your damascus barrels burst while shooting a round or two? HEHEHE. Sorry couldn't resist.

It is this simple. Ithaca sells guns. Any company wants you to keep buying new products to keep their profits alive, not hold on to the old until death do you part. In other words, throw away your damascus SxS and buy a Model 37.

21

1909 Ithaca with Twist barrels and the "NITRO POWDER PROVED" mark



Still offering these time bombs in the 1918 E.C. Simmons catalog



Then in 1942 Lou Smith claims these same barrels fail with a single proof load?!?

Jack O'Connor Outdoor Life 1942
A good many people resent being told that their much loved old guns were no longer safe. Just for the fun of it, Lou Smith (President of Ithaca Gun Co.) proofed (using 17,500 psi Proof Loads in 1942) a dozen or so damascus and twist beauties which were lying around the plant. Here's the dope: Most of the old timers busted loose with the first proof shell. The rest did with the second. Guns tried were cheap, medium priced and expensive: but all of them went. So if anyone wants to go ahead using modern smokeless stuff in a gun built for black powder, he can; but he can include me out.

The Parker GH Damascus barrel studied by Sherman Bell took 29,620 psi before the chamber blew.

Just trying to be helpful
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=432872

The legal department wanted to limit the product liability. They have written a document with an extremely broad brush that can then be trotted out in a court room to say, "See? We told you so. We fulfilled our product safety obligation."

I think you are correct David. Also who ever got the letter scrapped his old gun and bought a shiney new Ithica.

They sure don't like twist barrels over on shotgunworld and neither did Jack O'Connor.

In this thread they're really going to town so much that a moderator threatens to suspend or ban anyone who opens another thread about the subject. Never did like that forum very much anyway.

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=432969

Did you notice that the argument kept changing:
1. "Damascus barrels were never proved."
Pitifully wrong

1902 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."



2. "Damascus barrels were never proved for Nitro powder."
Wrong.

Chain Damascus Smith proved c. 1931 when at Hunter Arms for repair



J.& W. Tolley 12b hammerless



3. "Damascus barrels were never proved WITH Nitro powder." Like peak psi with BP somehow is different than peak psi with Nitro?!?
Very likely wrong, but Steve Helsley is going to confirm with the Birmingham Proof House that if Nitro Proof is requested for re-proof of a Damascus barrel, that Nitro powder is used.

1888 J. Blanch reproved in 1999 (Crown over R) using Nitro Powder (according to an e-mail with the Birmingham Proof House) for CIP Service pressure 740 BAR = 10,733 psi; Maximum statistical individual pressure 850 BAR = 12,328 psi; and Standard proof 930 BAR = 13,489 psi. Courtesy of Greg Baehman.



And variant #3a "Early smokeless powders, that were referred to as Nitro ie. "E.C." and "Schultze" are not modern smokeless powders."

Proved with "E.C." No. 3



4. Then finally 850 BAR service pressure proof is not adequate...because I say so despite CIP standards

St. Augustine "It is no advantage to be near the light if the eyes are closed."

Mr. Wakeman should run for political office with his double speak ability. He is very informative about a lot of different shotguns but with old doubles I think he is a little out of his league.

He's not the first idiOt to declare he's a gun X'spUrt....

You boys are on dangerous ground even to think of disagreeing with a certain shotgun "expert" who knows all, on sgw.

He'll never meander over to this site our guns are too old and obsolete.

I wonder what he would think of James Purdeys NEW damascus shotgun ? not alone are the barrels damascus, but (horror !) the action too. Probably means its twice as dangerous !

http://www.purdey.com/guns-rifles/damascus-guns/

Bonny: that Purdey is manufactured using Damasteel http://www.damasteel.com/
Production methodology
http://www.damasteel.com/production.html
http://machinedesign.com/article/damascus-steels-from-powder-metal-1118

In a 2009 press release "Purdey's Secret Weapon", Purdey announced the production of an all Damasteel shotgun.
"All parts other than springs, tumblers, seers, cams and non-visible screws and pins are fabricated from (Damasteel.) Each visible part of the gun- action, forend iron, triggerplate, bow and guard, rib, fins, etc.- were cut from re-forged billets so as to procure the best display of the pattern available in the steel."

HOWEVER
W.W. Greener produced new shotguns with vintage damascus barrels in 2007-2008.
From the Greener website in 2007:
"Barrels - are made of the highest quality steel and bored to maintain the famous choke boring improvements, made by W W Greener in the 1870s, to optimise shooting performance, and to ensure patterns of shot guaranteed to meet customers' exact requirements whether for game, wildfowl or clay pigeon shooting. A few pairs of guns are being made with interchangeable steel and Damascus barrels."

Courtesy of Vic Venters (Dec. 2008), who wrote an article in the Sept/Oct '07 issue of Shooting Sportsman regarding the Greener guns:
"They are indeed newly made damascus barrels, built on vintage tubes that David Dryhurst -- Greener's master gunmaker -- has been collecting since the '60s and '70s. Some are old Greener stock, some are English and no doubt some are Belgian. A few of these sets came from Dyson...They are not lined. The guns are being made in 28-ga up through 12, and maybe in 10-ga. At least 25 of these damascus-barreled guns are made or are under way, and I believe more have been ordered since I last asked. At the time of my writing, none had failed English proof. The guns are proofed under standard CIP pressures per the particular gauge.
Most are on sidelocks; some are on reintroduced "G-Guns" -- Facile Princeps actions with Boss ejectorwork. Greeners are a small best maker -- but demand has been so great that I am told they have again closed their order books. They were the last British maker to manufacture their own damascus tubes, and are the first to again offer them in commercial quantities."

Also see the October 2013 "The Field"


Griffin & Howe offered a new Purdey hammergun with vintage 3 Iron Oxford tubes, in 2013.
"The Damascus barrels are proofed for 2 3/4" modern smokeless loads."


Bill Blacker & Sons is currently manufacturing replacement barrels using vintage damascus tubes
http://www.billblacker.co.uk/

The catch here is "Peak". I do recall reading that in the early days, in England at least, that nitro proof was done with black powder. the reason cited was that in those days they did not truly have a suitable smokeless to proof the gun for both black & smokeless at the same time. A coarse black could be loaded as to give the needed max/peak chamber pressure while simultaneously giving a suitable load to test the entire barrel. The fast burning smokeless powders of the day when loaded up gave an increase in chamber pressure but with a quick falling of that did not test the forward 3/4ths as heavy as did the black used. A still heavier load of smokeless could actually damage the chamber area but never truly "Proof" the forward portions.
The French of course did proof "With" smokeless but even with their tremendous pressures developed it is questionable if they actually gave any stronger overall proof than did the Brits & were likely skating on thin ice in the chamber area.

That Wakeman guy is unbelievable. He could argue with a fence post. And he's been doing it for years.

I guess it keeps the prices down for all of us.

I wonder what he would think of my vintage rifles.

First we have this test described by Jack O'Connor,

Jack O'Connor Outdoor Life 1942
A good many people resent being told that their much loved old guns were no longer safe. Just for the fun of it, Lou Smith (President of Ithaca Gun Co.) proofed (using 17,500 psi Proof Loads in 1942) a dozen or so damascus and twist beauties which were lying around the plant. Here's the dope: Most of the old timers busted loose with the first proof shell. The rest did with the second. Guns tried were cheap, medium priced and expensive: but all of them went. So if anyone wants to go ahead using modern smokeless stuff in a gun built for black powder, he can; but he can include me out.


Then we have the testing done by Sherman Bell in the Double Gun Journal which tested a Parker GH Damascus barrel that took 29,620 psi before the chamber blew.


So which one is correct? Or are both correct? Or are both wrong?

Does anyone have a copy of the sherman bell article or articles in which he done those proof tests ?

I don't have copies, but I have the original printings in the DGJ. I'm sure many of us do. Wouldn't be surprised if you could still order he back issues from them.

SRH

Which issues were the articles in do you happen to know stan ?

The number of damascus barrels which have passed British Proof over the last century simply Pales the blowing up of a single barrel set. How much more "Proof" does one need.
Some years back I bought a F grade Lefever Parts Gun with "London Twist" barrels. 14" up from the breech in the left barrel was a crack. Appearance was it had been hit on a sharp object which dented it in & perhaps cracked it at the same time. It had subsequently been fired which resulted in one side of the crack being lifted with the other side still into the bore with a gap showing that you could look through & see the opposite wall. Bore was very rough & pitted as well.

I put a dent plug under it & raised the inward side & beat down the outie until you had to look close to see the crack at all. Then proceeded to place it in the "Firestone Proof Chamber" & fired several rounds through that barrel. These included factory 3¼-1 1/8; 3 3/4-1¼ & some handloads with 1 3/8oz of shot. I examined the barrel after each shot & at no time did I ever see any sign of any soot even on the outside much less any opening of the crack. What did this prove, well very little actually except that this particular barrel even though already damaged withstood those number of shots which were not "Low Pressure" loads, nor proof loads of course.
I think it does "Confirm", not prove, that the danger in Damascus has been highly magnified & does not lay at some distance from the breech as has been often stated. When Bell blew up those two Parkers, one Damascus & one steel, they both eventually blew in the Chamber area at near the same pressure level, around 30K psi as I recall.

The Double Gun & Single Shot Journal “Finding Out For Myself” series by Sherman Bell with technical assistance from Tom Armbrust
Vol 10, Issue 2, Summer 1999, Part 1, p. 9
Vol 10, Issue 4, Winter 1999, p. 21 - Destructive testing of Parker GH Damascus
Vol 16, Issue 2, Summer 2005 - Destructive testing of Parker VH Vulcan Steel
Vol 17, Issue 3, Autumn 2006, p. 12 - Destructive testing 8 Damascus doubles
Vol 17, Issue 4, Winter 2006, p. 28 - Destructive testing 7 Damascus
Vol 18, Issue 1, Spring 2007 -
.....Destructive testing on a Damascus barrel with thinned walls; calculated by O.D. - I.D., not measured
.....Destructive testing using various obstructions, including a 20g shell
.....Destructive testing using a shell loaded with 3 1/4 Drams by volume or 56 grains of Unique
.....(similar to “Infallible”) with 1 1/4 oz. shot. The chamber burst with the first shot. The 3 1/4 Dram .....Equivalent load is 24 grains of “Infallible”.
Vol 19, Issue 2, Summer 2008, p. 18 - Destructive testing 1 Damascus, 6 Twist
Vol 20, Issue 3, Autumn 2009, p. 108 - Destructive testing 1 Damascus, 5 Twist
“Bottom-Of-The-Barrel Wall-Hangers”

The Remington Proof Loads used by Sherman Bell and Tom Armbrust were reported to be 18,560 psi.
Total 28 vintage doubles/54 Twist and Damascus barrels + 2 Vulcan (Fluid) Steel

Good discussion here
http://doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=190599#Post190599

A Parker GH with Damascus barrels and the Parker VH with Vulcan Steel barrels were the subjects of destructive studies in the Double Gun Journal Vol. 10, Issue 4, Winter, 1999, “Finding Out For Myself” Part II and Vol. 16, Issue 2, Summer 2005, Part IX.
Both guns were subjected to sequentially higher pressure loads at about 2,000 pounds/square inch (psi) increments. The GH testing started at 11,900 psi and one chamber ruptured at 29,620 psi. The VH started with a Proof Load of 18,560 psi. Both chambers bulged at 29,620 psi and ruptured at 31,620 psi.

Here is the Failure Analysis of those Parker GH and Vulcan barrels posted on a public internet forum by 'Zircon' in 2007
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=234280&start=20

What that proves is as long as there are no extenuating circumstances even cracked barrels can hold together under load....that is where I worry about old Damascus barrels, will they add that extra level of safety when something goes wrong....are there hidden flaws between the layers that would cause the barrels to burst instead of bulge.....even in good looking examples that pass proof.... Im just not a fan of shooting them....they look nice but when you put it to your shoulder give me a few seconds to step away.....

When you're stressing something that's a 100+ years old It's just a matter of when....

I thought ferrous alloys didn't have a fatigue limit, doesn't that apply to damascus as well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

Should have qualified with not an engineer or metallurgist before I bite off more than I can chew. Genuine question.

Homeless joss, if the load steel is subjected to is 40% of the UTS of that steel, then there is no fatigue limit.

As mentioned previously here is a link to a 2011 thread on Shotgun World that has a tremendous amount of solid information about Damascus barrels. Worth long read. This link picks up well into the discussion. If you're really into the subject go back and begin at page one.

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=259371&start=40

Drew beat me to it, bonny. Thanks Rev. Been busy today.

SRH

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but one question begs to be answered, IMO. If damascus barrels were so all fired dangerous, why wouldn't the proof houses refuse to prove them? They could just simply say that they do not approve of anyone shooting them, so will not accept them for proof testing. Yet, they don't.

Duh?

SRH

Thank you Joe, an interesting article, especially on that site, i thought "the big i am" would have appeared and scuppered the thread, or the usual lot of people with the " my brothers wifes uncles best friends next door neighbour told me about damascus barrels and they're weapons of mass destruction" crap. Sherman Bell certainly put up and shut up, did the work and didn't rely on heresay and myth.

And in the end Sherman Bell only proved what the guns he tested did...

A proof house is different than an American strapping an old gun to a tire and just seeing if it blows.....I'm sure some vintage guns fail proof and some they refuse to proof. Documented fact is some failed when they were sent for proof a 100 years ago.

When it comes to vintage guns damascus or fluid steel I don't think there's a blanket statement as to which are safe and which are unsafe.

Maybe not as different as you imagine Joe, its basically doing the same thing.

I've heard that argument on a different forum (Sportsman maybe?) saying that Sherman Bell can only apply his results to those guns he tested and no others.

Don't know.

Go out to the garage.
now examine that big bright shiny lump sitting there.
It is a deadly dangerous killer.
More chance being maimed or killed by it than anything else.
Are you folk who are too scared to shoot Damascus guns still brave enough to drive ?
Even slowly or sensibly & safely ?
O.M

My Tundra shuts off at 112 mph....it will tow my Airstream at 90 mph with ease....and I feel like a super herO every time I shoot my 130+ year old damascus barreled Scott with heavy Nitro loads....

How's shooting a 100+ year old damascus gun make you feel Moses ?

Do you shoot light wimpy loads through yours or heavy manly nitro loads ?

Truth is I don't think anyone here is scared....

OM,
Some folks are so cautious they miss out on life. Back in Oct my 16 yr old and I were on a hunting trip in west Texas and we had the 4 wheelers. Our stand is about 2-1/2 mile back on the lease. After the evening hunt, we played "tag" in the dark all the way back to the camp house. Thru the canyons there are 400 ft almost vertical drops right off the road. It was invigorating for an old man to say the least. Quite the ride. When we got to the camp house, our hearts were racing, we were smiling and laughing.
It is a memory that will last my son his lifetime. Smart? Nope.
Living life? Yep!

My point? A 14yr old young man was climbing a tree at the church with his friend. 7-8 ft off the ground, he slipped and fell, broke his neck and is now in a wheelchair. That young man would give anything to be able to "ride the edge thru the canyon".

My son and I are going skydiving in Sept for his 17th birthday.
I did it when I was a young man, and it is a cherished memory to this day.

All damascus barrels? Dangerous? Your joking right?
I'm going to shoot some Herters 1oz factory in my new to me 16ga Sterly..the horror.

Im sure a lot of you remember the movie Heat.
#1 "Stop wasting my MF time."
#2 "I could get killed for telling you this S#$%."
#1 "You could get killer walking your doggie."

I hope it is clear that I/we are trying to help individuals make informed and rational decisions as to the use of ANY vintage barrel, Pattern Welded, Decarbonized or Fluid Steel, and the loads that might be appropriate. We all recognize that the man pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for subsequent events. If we only shoot/hunt alone, we can use whatever shotgun and load we wish (if legal).
But most of us shoot clay targets with others, and hunt with a friend, son, grandson or granddaughter. We must ask ourselves what will be our explanation should a piece of shrapnel from our gun pierce the skull of a friend or grandson, leaving them paralyzed, mute, and bedridden the rest of his not-much-of-a life? And what is our plan to pay for the lost wages, pain & suffering, and life-time care?
Sorry to be a downer, but this is reality, esp. if we choose to use something "proven to be intrinsically dangerous". And I bet ol' Randy on ShotgunWorld would be happy to testify in the civil trial, which you WILL lose if no effort was made to determine the integrity of that Pattern Welded barrel.

Exactly right Rev,
At the end where you say "pattern welded barrels", it should say the same as the beginning of you post, "ANY vintage barrel". To throw caution to the wind is irresponsible and just plain stupid. Just about as stupid as saying all damascus barrels are dangerous. Anyone who would not use calculated caution should probable find another hobby.

In all my vintage guns, steel or damascus, I shoot <6k psi in my 12's and <7K in my 20's. Except the Sterly. I have shot 8.2k in the damascus 20 and I'm comfortable with the results.
Barrels were checked by a competent smith for thickness. Most of my self imposed parameters have come from reading your works.

My boy means more to me than anything. Would I let him shoot my Damascus 20 or shoot skeet when I am shooting it? You bet! I feel I have done my due diligence with respect to my barrels.
Read, minimal, calculated risk.

After purchasing my older double, built 1935, my next purchase was a MEC reloading press and reloading manual.

Definitely hand in hand Treb!

My Damascus gun is 127 years old & has 2 1/2" chambers.
I shoot Mag-tec brass with 7/8 oz shot & 80 gr 2f black.

I make sure to regularly check the condition of the tyres on my Ford & service its brakes at regular intervals & drive it within its limits according to the conditions. Even though if I souped the motor & put big NITRO wheels on it we could go harder.

My auld g0n was designed & proofed for the type of load I shoot in it.
Because it is in g00d condition & the previous owner has shot 2 3/4" factory shells through it I have complete confidence in its safety.

Hot & heavy loads go out the end of a Mossberg 95 goose gun or a British double 3" chambered 30" barrelled live pigeon gun. Which, by the way, is over 100 years old.

Just as when I want to drive hot & hard I drive my Fiat 131 super brava with brake & tyre upgrades.

Horses for courses & the same reason we don't shoot at grizzlies & buffler with a 22lr.
Even up close
O.M