What is this called? The pointers mark a subtle, darker spiral of coloring that appears the length of the tubes. Since it's regular and goes throughout each ribband section, it must have been intentional, possibly by using strips of a slightly different steel composition when the billet was stacked, in order to bring out this feature. To me, it looks like the steel in one of the three irons was intentionally different to create this effect.

This is usually not brought out when using the Original Parker Process, but is visible when I use my "German School" process, designed to bring out maximum pattern detail. These Parker Grade Three tubes were shot under fluorescent light, the feature is much more prominent in daylight.

Regards
Ken

Interesting observation. I'd think different composition, based on your comments about finishing schedules. I wouldn't think it would be worth the effect to do intentionally, particularly since you mentioned that original finishes didn't make the distinction.

The 'twist' appears(?) less turns per inch than lighter areas. Maybe, the darker ones were from a different 'lot' of raw materials, maybe even from a different shop/forger, then stocked and used randomly when making a barrel.

The smaller strips that appear lighter, may have been worked more, possibly had more heatings to reduce to a smaller size than the dark ones. Could be, if materials started out the same, more carbon moved because the lighter ones look 'muddier', less crisp, than the darker ones.

Only thoughts, I'm probably seeing it wrong.

Well, I'm currently fostering two suspicions. One, the Original Parker Process described by Gaddy may have been the description of their process for twist tubes, as three iron colors considerably differently. And two, the use of logwood was an "industrial shortcut" which saved time (cycles) at the expense of pattern detail. I've found that at the end of my process logwood has little effect, as the steel is already very black.

All this appears to have been common on higher grade tubes, I suspect it was one of the differentiations between higher and lower grades. It's entirely possibly that some U.S. Maker's methods simply were not refined enough to bring the feature out, thus not coloring them to their full potential.

Or, they did show the feature originally, but the ravages of time and additional recoloring eliminated it. I'm leaning towards this explanation, as I'm sure the buyers (U.S. Agents in Leige) were aware of it, and passed that information to the U.S. Makers. It was, after all, a marketing feature that would denote higher quality tubes.

A while back there was a Wilkes-Barre thread with a set or "Very Fine" tubes I restored with this feature. I'm currently coloring a WB "Extra-Fine" set, their highest available quality. We'll have to see if they show the same feature.


Regards
Ken

Ken,

I remember reading a thread not too long ago on this affect and remember Dr. DREW added information, but I don't recall where/when. I like the contrast and feel it should be highlighted, not subdued.

John

Only wondering. Is it being considered a higher or fine grade based on color difference, or better materials/methods. If it's better materials and methods, I'd think the barrel maker would use only best materials on highest quality barrels.

Is the darker or lighter colored material being considered extra fine? While they appear to be generally twisted in the same direction, I believe the same material twisted in opposite directions can appear a different darkness than each other.

There does not seem to have been much attention paid to selecting and working matching materials in those barrels. What characteristics of the tubes alone would make them be considered higher grade or extra fine? Only asking to learn.

Craig,

I'd say the quality standard was due to degree of variation.
The more varied the pattern, the higher the quality. This can include many factors, from number of irons, to size and shape of scrolls, to varying the types of steel within the irons. All can be varied while maintaining the production standards required for the barrels to pass proof.

Remember, we're talking about an artisan industry capable of creating virtually any type pattern, including actual words/names. This is why I'm of the opinion such variations were completely intentional, and used to denote quality.

It's a huge difference when you put a Parker barrel like the one in the pic next to say, a set from a Remington Model 1900 KED or a LC Grade 0.

As for Parker's, it's interesting to note that Grade 2 guns usually have very nice tubes, but the patterns on each tube vary widely, often not matching very well. Possibly this was a detriment when they were made, but now the variation of the tubes make them that more interesting.

You also have to remember that tastes were much more eclectic during the Victorian and Edwardian eras.

Regards
Ken

As an observation: As the grades increased normally the pattern size decreased but you also find fewer deviations in the pattern and few or no end welds the length of the tubes. Baker's Batavia guns almost always show an end weld somewhere. I don't think they cause a weaker tube but they aren't worth bragging over.

Within a given Maker the difference in definition could be pattern size. Where Fine & Extra Fine defines the size of the pattern, thus smaller wires and many more of them within an area of the tube. I missed buying this Ithaca Flues not long ago. It was a late Quality #1 gun with these mismatched Damascus tubes:


The lower(LH) tube has the standard(size) pattern. The upper(RH) extra fine pattern.





I own an Ithaca, Lewis, Quality 2, that has Extra Fine pattern from the breech forward approx. 5", then changes to Fine pattern for the remainder of their length. I can try to take pictures if it is of interest.

John

Neat stuff. I did a Huskey hammer gun set not too long ago with one tube two-iron, the other Washington.

I suspect such matchings were made by the Maker, and based on tube availability. Possibly due to shipping damage.

I've been experimenting with my own PH, trying to make one tube black, the other brown. Thinking it could be kind'a a Showpiece gun. I'm just not happy with it yet.

I agree, the higher the grade, the better the tube pattern matches for the pair.


Regards
Ken

Thanks for the follow up Ken. I was coming from the thought that tubes were sourced from Europe in a rough turned state. The pattern was probably not visible at that point, but also likely to change some with final machining and finishing.

Maybe better tubes might have been separated in a larger order, but I don't know if Parker would have dedicated resources to pair up tubes. I can see where a British best gun maker might have specified unique and matching tubes, for some of their guns, but that level care may not have translated to American production guns.

Only thoughts is all. It just seems to me that to select for some characteristics would require tube rough finishing steps that I don't know were actually done.

From what I've read, it may have been on DocDrew's site, the rough tubes were sent wired in pairs. Totally reasonable if intended for double guns.

It's also reasonable to believe the tube makers were aware of what the patterns would look like when finished. Remember, they ordered specific ribband patterns from the rolling mills.

The most likely explanation, is that the steel used in that rod had a different alloy content, causing it to have a finer grain structure and become more reactive to the solution. Why it is different, is a quandary. Different supplier than the other rods, different batch of steel used???

Craig is correct that, at least in some places, the twist rate seems slower than the other rods. A lower twist rate can cause the lines in the pattern to be broader.

Another possibility is the number of layers used in the darker rod. It looks to be about 15 layers. The image isn't clear enough to accurately count layers in all the rods. If the other rods were made up of more layers, this would also cause the lower count rod to appear darker.



It was my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that barrel tubes were mostly finished on the outside, and bored and chambered before they were marketed to the gun manufacturers. This was necessary in order to proof them before sale.

Having the tubes ground to near finished wall thickness for proofing, would allow for viewing the patterns to select closely matching patterns for paired tubes.

That all makes sense.

Now, back to my earlier iteration, I'd contend that the effect was intentional, since it's observed in all ribband sections of the tube. If it was unintentional or a mistake, it should be localized to one section.

I was hoping DocDrew would be able to provide a specific name for this feature.

Regards
Ken

An added note, at the end of the manufacturing process, the tubes were coated with Sulfuric Acid before shipping. I use this myself for the initial etch. This creates a "skin" on the tubes and makes the pattern very visible. This would aid in matching decisions for tube sets.

Regards
Ken

On most guns "Made in America" you will not find the definitive proof marks. On some you will find the provisional proof marks, but not all. none of my Lefever guns have any proof marks at all, though I know that some have the Belgian provisional marks. The provisional proof was a proof applied to a rough tube, un-finished on either outside or inside & un-chambered. Definitive proof was applied after the barrels were essentially finished & had been joined together.
My feeling is that American makers bought the tubes "In the Rough", bearing only the provisional proof & then finished them to their purpose. In the process of finishing many lost enough metal on the OD to lose the provisional mark.
If you find a set having definitive proof then that set of barrels was jointed & finished in Belgium. I cannot say absolutely that none were, but I have yet to see a set of barrels from a noted American maker carrying these definitive proof marks.

Thanks for this information 2-piper!! I should study the proofing process more. I can't envision how they contained the proof load in a rough tube.

Ithaca Gun Co. tube storage area. Some appear as joined sets while many others appear to be stored as individual tubes.

Walt, great picture. Do you have an idea of the date ?

It appears to me that the variation in your barrels is just the result of using a ribband that had a differing composition of iron and steel. Whether this was intentional or accidental is a matter for conjecture.

I'm interested in what you said about rough barrels having a coating of sulfuric acid applied before shipping. I'd assume this would have had to have been neutralized after bringing out the pattern, or all you'd see is a coating of heavy rust.

It has always been my understanding that what Miller says about the proof process is essentially correct. I believe the tube are rough bored for the provisional proofing, but they are not chambered. But I have never been able to find out exactly how the proof houses breeched or contained the proof charge in unfinished and unchambered barrels.

Leave it to YouTube. Apparently, a temporary breech plug is fitted during initial proof. Here's a link to the video. For some reason, I can't attach it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3aHnxsj7y8

Please enlighten.... What is a "rolling mill"?

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=477972&page=1

Here's the thread that discusses it. I suspect the mills produced the "irons" made from the stacked "billets". These were in the untwisted form. I think the barrel forgers twisted and combined the Irons into the actual Ribband before forging them around the Mandrel.

Regards
Ken

Keith,

Here's a section of 2-iron English Laminated tubes that were etched with Sulfuric Acid, neutralized, then oiled. No rusting, and the pattern is highly visible. I suspect the rough tubes were shipped and received by the Makers in this state.




Eventually, I colored the section in Brown & White.



Then, I colored them Black & White. They're obviously one of the sections I use for experimentation.




Regards
Ken

Ken, I have seen the use of a drop of sulfuric acid in a hidden place such as the action flats to identify whether reblued or heavy patina barrels are Damacsus or not. By the way, that test sections look very nice, both in the brown and white, and black and white finishes.



A rolling mill is the machinery used to roll steel, aluminum, copper, or other metals into various shapes... depending upon the configuration of the rolls. There are many variations of rolling mills, but all depend upon some source of power to drive the rolls. The top and bottom rolls rotate in opposite directions to pull the material through the rolls of the mill. Rolling mills for pipe or round bars will typically use a series of three rolls 120 degrees apart to drive rolls which are shaped to produce a cylindrical shape. The material is fed into these rolls, and they are squeezed down under enormous pressure and typically reduced in thickness while at the same time increasing in length and/or width. In a flat roll mill, a 20-25 ft. long slab may result in a coil of flat rolled steel hundreds of feet long. The separation of the rolls is adjustable by the use of massive screw-downs that raise or lower the rolls by moving the bearing chocks on the roll necks up or down. A mill may consist of one set of rolls mounted in massive cast iron mill "stands", or multiple "stands" may be set up in series to provide several steps of reduction.

Modern steel rolling mills may develop 900 metric tons of force or more, and may be driven by a series of motors developing 10-20,000 horsepower or more. Early rolling mills used water or steam power to turn the rolls. The material may be first heated red hot to 1800-1950 degrees F, which makes it softer, so more reduction is possible per pass. This is called hot rolling of course. Cold rolling results in much less reduction, and the enormous force changes the grain structure of the steel. Cold rolled steel is usually "pickled" in acid before rolling to remove mill scale so that the scale formed during hot rolling is not rolled into the surface. Rolled-in scale is considered a defect that will also quickly dull any cutting tools used to eventually machine or cut the steel. Annealing, a long slow heating to above critical temperature followed by a slow controlled cooling, is often necessary to relieve the stresses or work hardening caused by the rolling process.

In the production of ribbands for Damascus barrels, layers of iron and steel were stacked in differing alternating layers, both horizontally and vertically, to produce the final pattern. These billets were heated to a welding temperature and forge welded into a solid mass. This process was eventually mechanized by doing the forge welding with rolling mills instead of hammers or powered trip hammers. This speeded up a very labor intensive hand forging process and resulted in more uniformity. These flat rolled strips, were then twisted and forged welded or rolled with other strips to produce ribbands which were then forge welded around a mandrel to produce a rough Damascus tube. My description of the process is very abbreviated, incomplete, and simplified for brevity. You can look at these links for much more information on this fascinating process that was used to produce gun barrels before we had the technology to make homogeneous bars of gun barrel steel and to do deep hole drilling.

http://www.damascus-barrels.com/index.html

https://www.theexplora.com/the-making-of-best-damascus-barrels/

http://www.hallowellco.com/damascus_twist_barrels.htm

I wonder if the acid wash/treatment of the relatively rough tubes was to remove forge scale. It may have been a way for the smith to quickly scan for defects. Forge scale can also be pretty tough and the various rough machiners may have preferred that it was removed first. I wonder what acid treating would do just before shipping, I don't know, maybe it was better around an ocean environment, but?

I would guess that a basic pattern might, or might not, be seen, but to be discriminating about it, I'd think tubes would have to be brought to a relatively high surface finish, before etching, to see the pattern. Truly special order tube sets, or standard pattern extra fine sets, would probably have to be kept paired from the original forging shop, through the whole process.

I wouldn't think much resources could be spent digging through stacked rough barrels. There may have been confidence in how a barrel would finish if it came out of a specified order, but, luck aside, truly mirrored matching and other intentional patterns probably required a price premium. In most cases, particularly in production, it seems like the barrel tubes were nothing more than a component.

I seem to recall having read in the past, perhaps Greener, that the tubes were rough bored, but not to finish size. Would not have had any choke at that point. The breeches were threaded as I recall & a breech plug with touch hole screwed in. The large proof charge would have then been muzzle loaded. The barrels were then laid on a frame with a powder train connecting them. A large number of tubes could be proofed at once. When the train was touched off the tubes fired & recoiled into a sand pit behind them. They were then examined & stamped if passed. This proof was primarily for the gunmakers protection as it prevented a lot of work being done a faulty tube. More tubes failed proof I believe in this provisional proof than in the later Definitive proof.

I have little to contribute, but will do so anyway a little at a time. It drives Bro. Steve nuts when I talk about "scrolls", but that's the only way I can get a handle on the patterns, and Dr. Gaddy did

1. The McKinley Tariff of 1890 set the average ad valorem tariff rate for imports into the United States at 48.4%. “Sporting, breech-loading double-barrel shotguns” had a 35% ad valorem PLUS an import duty of $1.50 if priced less than $6; $4 if $6-$12; and $6 if priced greater than $12. “Single-barrel breech-loading shot-guns” had the same 35% ad valorem PLUS an import duty of $1. “Forged rough shotgun barrels” i.e. non-joined tubes, however, were exempt from the tariff which allowed the US makers to continue to import Damascus tubes from (mostly) Belgium to fit and finish here.

Nov. 30, 1895 Sporting Life
"How Shot Guns Are Made and the Process Through Which They Pass Fully Explained"
The beginning of the manufacture of a gun is the barrels, and it is generally known that no barrels are made in this country except the rolled steel, which is used on the Winchester gun. All gun barrels are now imported, although an attempt was made a few years ago to produce them in this country, but with only partial success. England, Germany and Belgium supply most of the barrels, the latter country doubtless producing the larger quantity.
All gun barrels, whether imported direct from the makers in Belgium, or through an importer in this country to the gun manufacturer, are received in rough tubes, which very much resemble a couple of gas pipes, but being somewhat larger at one end than at the other. These barrels or “tubes” as they are called, are merely tied together in pairs, with small wire and 40 to 50 pairs are packed in a box.

2. The Banc D'Epreuves Des Armes a Feu De Liege (Proof House for Firearms of Liege) First Obligatory Proof Load for 12g breech plugged tubes intended for “Double-Barreled Breech-Loading Sporting Guns” was 21 grams = 324 grains = 11.8 Drams powder and 32 grams = 1.12 oz. shot

For comparison, British Provisional Proof (tube bored, ground, and with chamber cut and threaded for a plug) 1855-1925 for 2 1/2” and 2 5/8” 12 gauge shells for a service load of 3 1/4 Dram Eq. with 1 1/4 oz. shot was 9 3/4 dram “T.P.” (Tower Proof “R.F.G. 2”) No. 4 or No. 5 Black Powder with 1 1/4 oz. shot.

3. After Belgian First Obligatory Proof, the tubes were marked with the Banc D'Epreuves de Liege provisional proof mark



The mark so rarely remained after grinding and final finishing by U.S. makers that it is my opinion that it was purposefully struck lightly.

4. Bro. Ken linked the previous thread discussing the rolling mills. No doubt generic 2, 3 & 4 iron damas crolle' ("Oxford" & "Turkish") rods were prepared in mass, as likely were less complicated patterns; ?"American Flag" and Chain. Desire Mineur, of Prayon, Liege, claimed exclusive rights to "Chain-pattern" damascus in 1904, but I suspect most of the barrel makers were fabricating some variant thereof. The proprietary patterns probably were "stacked" into the "lopin" by the barrel maker, the sent to the rolling mill.

More on Ken's specific pattern later.

OK, thanks.

Sooo, now we can refine somewhat the roll of the Rolling Mill. Am I correct to believe the Lopins were prepared by the Barrel Maker, then sent to the mill to be forged into an Iron. The irons then came back to the BM for twisting, and combining with others to create the Ribband. This would mean the RM provided strictly the service of forging the lopin into the iron, as opposed to the RM creating the lopin, forging the iron, and selling it to the BM. If the RM was forging BM lopins, the BM not only had control of the pattern, but how heavy (thick) the barrel would be, since different guns required different barrel types. Now, this would be the case for proprietory patterns, but would mean that for more standard ones, the BM would buy the pre made irons from the RM. Make sense?

Regards
Ken

Ken, I think a rolling mill is a machine, and maybe not so much step in the process. I believe it's purpose was labor/time savings for components that required significant reduction through the process of drawing. I'd suspect there was also the side benefit of more uniformity to what ever pattern was being created. But, I think it's less desirable to appear too perfect for something that's being admired for its handmade qualities.

There was a comment about twisting at high speed, I think probably a reference to a production forging operation and not likely something the hand hammerers could do. That was just a thought about what a mill may have been doing in addition to running stock through their rolling mills. Only thoughts is all.

Ken: I agree with PeteM that the vast majority of lopins were "stacked" at the rolling mill:
"There is a general myth which goes something to the effect that each barrel maker made the pattern. That is simply not the case. The rolling mill would schedule runs of the patterns it had orders for. The barrel smith would pay the mill for the ribbons they needed. The barrel smith would then forge them into complete barrels..."

HOWEVER, per Monthly Consular and Trade Reports, “Report by Consul Robertson on the Manufacture of Fire-Arms in the District of Verviers and Liege”, 1885
https://books.google.com/books?id=7EhJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA136&lpg
The lopin was stacked by the barrel maker, then sent to the rolling mill.

It is my opinion that proprietary or complex (think words in the pattern) lopins likely originated with the barrel maker.
"Runs" of generic damas' crolle rods originated at the mill, and as the process became more refined and mechanized, so did the ribbands. The 1891 Birmingham Proof House Trial Report listed a bunch of "machine forged" pattern welded barrels. Someone's eyes and arms still had to helical weld the ribband into a barrel however.

The barrels “in order of merit of endurance” (strength) were judged by the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House to be:
* Tied for first place in the second phase destructive testing
1. English machine-forged 3 rod Laminated steel
2. English fluid compressed steel, Whitworth process
3. English machine-forged 2 rod Best Damascus
4. English steel Siemens - Martin process *
5. English hand forged 4 rod Best Damascus
6. English machine-forged 2 rod variegated Damascus *
7. English machine-forged 3 rod Best Damascus
8. English carburised steel, Darby’s method (invented in 1890 to add carbon to steel)
9. English machine-forged 2 rod Laminated steel
10. English “Superior Barrel Steel” (process and source not documented) *
11. English machine-forged chequered 3 rod Damascus (no clue as to what pattern this might be - have never seen a British "Bernard" pattern) *
12. Foreign steel, Siemens - Martin process *

I can not conceive how damascus barrels with predictable designs including names could be done. Yet it was and I see that as one of the peaks in human industrial artistry.

What I'd like to know is if modern methods could produce damascus barrels as safe as steel why doesn't someone do it???...Geo

The twisting of red hot iron or steel is a commonly employed blacksmithing technique. This link I provided yesterday documented the fact that even that twisting process was mechanized when it came to twisting the rods that were incorporated into the ribbands.

https://www.theexplora.com/the-making-of-best-damascus-barrels/

I would tend to think that the localities where Damascus barrels were produced tended to be similar to the areas where steel mill sprung up most anywhere. Some of the larger mills would have specialized in rolling larger orders for larger customers, and smaller producers would have incorporated numerous smaller processes into their operations. And it has always been quite common in the iron and steel industry for smaller producers to buy and refurbish outdated equipment to run small scale operations.

One of those smaller operations could easily have been the production of billets or lopins, and rods and ribbands to the local barrel making trade. It would have been as natural and sensible for the Barrel Makers to outsource and make use of more mechanized methods to increase production while reducing costs as it is for companies to do the same today. If Damascus barrelmaking had not been rendered obsolete by much cheaper fluid steel and a shortage of skilled labor after WW I, it isn't a stretch to imagine a highly automated and CNC controlled method of producing Damascus components and tubes being developed over time. But the monotonous uniformity of a highly mechanized process would not be able to produce the unique works of art we admire today.

Because so few people would be willing and able to pay for it, that it would never be a profitable venture. Even the CNC produced Parkers and Ithaca fluid steel doubles couldn't survive for very long at today's labor costs and with consumer's wages that have generally lagged inflation. But you're IGNORING me, so you won't see this unless you peek again.

To the original question regarding the inconsistent coloring, I would agree with Steve (usually a good idea ) that the mill mixed steel of different origin, and not purposefully.

We've discussed pattern staining, and there are links here to threads
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGInyr3CsRadXkmTYRak4TWK-pCB3cN5Wgg51u_SnEM/edit

Iron & steel sources
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V-qkkHrs7yJakMkakxkiMx8FzJjGXUg0EDm8-_AQPiA/edit

I think Geo that intricate damascus designs are more common than you might suspect.

I was able to catch a video of a seminar sponsored by a large blacksmith organization where a knife maker now passed on, Bill Fiorini, explains how he was approached by Holland and Holland to do a match pair of damascus shotgun tubes with the H&H name woven in along the entire length.

Maybe just talk but he made a few damascus barrels for the Bowen revolver folks that could contain their higher power magnum chamberings. He explain the H&H commission never went through because they wanted to make him jump through too many hoops. Too bad, could've been a great legacy gun for both parties.

Damasteel comes to mind as a modern damascus barrel maker, but their stuff just doesn't look right. I believe they supplied the material for that horrendous Purdey over under one off.

Craig, I know that Steve Culver who posts here, has made a 2 inch damascus barrel for a pistol he built. Damasteel doesn't look like damascus and I don't think it is made the same way damascus was.

I agree the Purdey looked awful. I had not heard of the Bill Fiorini you mentioned, but if he was considering making a pair of damascus barrels for H&H and they planned to make a gun of them, then it seems that it is at least possible for damascus barrels to be fabricated which would be safe for modern loads...Geo

Hmmm, I'm afraid I'm still in disagreement. My point all along has been that this coloring feature is anything but "inconsistent". In fact, that's been my major contention, that the coloring feature is consistent through all ribband sections. What is also not easily seen (due to lighting) is that the feature is present on the other tube as well. For me, it has never been an issue of intentionality. I was hoping someone would know the name used by the Barrel Makers for this feature.

Drew, I'll remind you of the 20ga Ithaca set I did, where the steel in one of the ribband sections colored clearly differently.
That was probably a manufacturing error, this feature, IMO, is not.

Regards
Ken

Here's how this type of feature develops during my coloring process. This is a freshly boiled, uncarded set. The band is visible, but once etched and finished it will look similar to the Parker pic.



Here's a shot of a set from a humble Batavia Leader, a gun not really known for elaborate tube patterns. You can see it's actually more complex, it's a matter of the process being able to bring out the features. It didn't surprise me, given Baker's relationship with Heuse Riga-Fils.




Regards
Ken

To me at quick glance, I see differences. In the original Parker picture, the dark coloring is clumped towards the right hand side. That's what made me think composition, of a rod or three, and there are signs in the finished picture that different rods were used to make the ribbands.

In the first of the latest pictures, I'd try to look closer, but I think I would be seeing ribband weld connection areas. I think to arrive at the final barrel, those surfaces would have been exposed to the most heat cycles at forge welding temps in the open air before they were finally welded and were worked the most.

In the final Batavia barrel, I'd want to take a closer look, but it doesn't look more elaborate. I think the features appear larger because the construction was simpler, less layers. I'm probably wrong, but I don't see a ribband type construction, maybe just single rod wrap. I think this type of barrel is the opposite direction of 'fine' or 'extra fine', maybe cost saving but certainly bolder appearing on finishing.

Only opinion, thanks for the interesting topic, your thoughts and the pics.

Craig,

Nah, the coloring and pattern on the Parker sets are consistent. It's the poor lighting quality that makes the coloring appear differently, due to glare. The Batavia Leader should end up with a darker periodic band like in the pic, but it's still going to be a type of Twist.

Regards
Ken

I think this effect is called an "oopsie" but we no doubt have a lot more to learn about lopins, patterns, and staining methodology.

There IS a "Barber's Pole"; Two Iron Crolle Damascus Twist, Laminette Double, or Doppelter Laminett with two crolle rods with an "on edge" Twist rod on each side.
Obviously the "twisted around a pole" appearance is from the patterns, not the differential coloring



Bro. Steve figured out the "Damascus Twist" lopin of the Batavia barrel



The 'end on' of a ribband can be seen in the middle here



I suspect the pattern of the dark stained steel is just by chance



Unlikely anyone has done more restorations today than Paul Stevens. You might ask his opinion
barrelfinishers@gmail.com
https://m.facebook.com/StevensAndJohnson/

I'm cross-eyed from looking at patterns, but this is the only one I could find with a similar anomaly.
Charles Lancaster refinished ('browned') by Craig Smith with 4 Rod 'Oxford' right barrel, and 4 Rod 'Finest' Oxford left



No idea if this was a salesman's pattern demonstration gun, or another oops, but there is a consistent more darkly colored band at the breech end straight ribband edge welds.

This is the usual Parker Dam3 refinished by Dale Edmonds

LOL!! Yep! All of us modern damascus smiths are entirely focused on the four pointed “stars” in the pattern. My little brain just doesn’t understand counting scrolls.



My reply about the coloring difference being a mix of different steels, was more intended to provide a reason for the colors, rather than an opinion on whether the difference was purposeful or not. I doubt that we can be assured of knowing the answer to the question of purposeful or accidental, unless contemporary writings about it can be found. That it is accidental is highly plausible though, I believe. I expect that the rolling mills had bins full of patterned rods. That a few rods may have remained in inventory for extended periods of time is possible. Then when finally sent to a barrel welder, it was delivered along with rods that were made later with steel of different alloy content. Too, I can envision stacks of rods in the corner of the barrel welder’s shop; with the same mixing of rods possible.


I am currently working on a post for this forum, which will explain how patterns with names in them are created. This post will be in answer to another thread on this forum, where I promised to provide this information. It’s taking me a while to pull the post together. I’m creating a bunch of illustrations and the accompanying text to describe the process. I’ve found that illustrating and describing what is happening inside a damascus rod as it is being twisted, to be similar in difficulty to describing what is going on inside a bowl of soup when you stir it. Putting all of this together is going quite well. Will post as soon as I have it completed.


I am certain that damascus barrels can be made of modern steels! I have done it! The question for a manufacturer is; “is there a sufficient market for it?” Greener has been offering guns with sets of damascus barrel tubes. These barrels are made from old barrel tube forgings, supplied by Peter Dyson. So apparently, there is at least a small market for damascus barrels. Whether it is worth the expense of tooling up for an entirely new process to make these barrels, is uncertain. I met Ugo Beretta at the 2014 NRA Annual Convention. He asked me for my contact information so that he could have his people contact me. But as of yet, they have not. I would really like to sit down with a barrel manufacturer to discuss this possibility!


Honestly, I see no reason why a mechanized process would be destined to create monotonous uniformity. Knowing that it should be avoided, would only require steps in the process that were designed to create irregularity. Could be done.


I knew Bill Fiorini. We discussed the making of damascus barrels quite a lot. I have some photos from one if his demonstrations. As far as I know, Fiorini never created Damascus barrels by the process of wrapping ribands around a mandrel to create a coil and then forge welding the coil into a solid tube. Bill made damascus barrels, by wrapping a damascus steel strip around a solid steel rod and then forge welding the entire mass together. The edges of the damascus strip were overlapped and scarf welded together, as the damascus material was at the same time being welded to the solid rod. The barrel’s bore is then drilled through the solid rod in the center of the welded assembly. There is absolutely no issue with this process, as it creates a very sound barrel tube. But, it is impossible to accurately recreate the old damascus barrel patterns by this method. My sole intention with making damascus barrels, was to recreate the patterns found in old barrels. Thus, I wrapped the damascus on a mandrel, as was done by the old barrel smiths. Below is a photo of Fiorini, doing one of his barrel welding demonstrations.

[img:left]IMG_1969_1 by Steve Culver, on Flickr[/img]

I have a pictures of a couple of Fiorini’s barrels. Below is one of Bill's barrels. I heard about the H&H and Bowen dealings, but not from Fiorini. Bill and I never discussed it, so I don’t know much about what happened there. I’ve never seen photos of any completed functioning weapons built with Fiorini damascus barrels. Would love to see pics, if any exist.

[img:left]3656981147_b233fddeed_o by Steve Culver, on Flickr[/img]

I am aware of at least one other blacksmith who utilized the same process as Fiorini. His name is Heinz Denig. Below are Denig pistol barrels. Something that I find objectionable about the damascus wrap over solid rod barrels, is the ring seen at the muzzle, created by the solid rod being exposed. Just my opinion……

[img:left]Heinz Denig Barrels by Steve Culver, on Flickr[/img]


Damasteel is a powdered metal technology. I don’t know their exact process, but do understand a bit about how it is made. Essentially; two different steels, each in powdered form, are poured in layers. The powdered steels are then heated and put under pressure to forge weld them into a solid bar. Creating patterns in Damasteel can be done by many of the same manipulation processes that we use on pattern welded Damascus steel. I think some of the patterns available from Damasteel are created by disturbing the layers of powdered metals, before they are heated to fuse into a solid form. Kind of like sand painting in a jar.


I’ve actually made two Damascus barrels. My first barrel was 3 ½ inches long, in two iron Crolle pattern. My second barrel was 4 ½ inches long, in Bernard pattern. Both of these barrels were built into functioning weapons.

[img:left]Laffite's Revenge by Steve Culver, on Flickr[/img]
[img:left]Small Montage by Steve Culver, on Flickr[/img]


Ummm… Actually; I have realized that this billet arrangement isn’t quite correct. SORRY!! It’s very close, but not quite. I need to fix it and send you the proper stacking.

Thanks Steve. Only fun conversation here. The picture of Bill forging, might imply that he could've replicated an accurate recreation of a traditional pattern, if not in exactly the same spirit. What I'm getting at is he is forging a rectangular cross section, a 'ribband' so to speak.

In his videos, he explains why he came up with forge welding to a solid core. He explain his interest and research was based on classic British Gunmaker writings, but he couldn't get any machine shop to clean up the 'meandering' rough bore because it would catch and break whatever boring bits or reamers they were using. The solid core was intended to allow normal deep hole drilling.

He also explained that the core could be completely drilled out and the bore finished in the damascus. But, he intentionally left the 4140 core or fitted a modern liner for higher pressure rifle and pistol cartridges. I believe if the mono steel muzzle ring appears uniform, it was likely an intentional liner.

On the Bowen website, there are pictures of three completed revolvers under the 'gallery' and 'workshop' sections that were supposed to be Bill F.'s, and the style looks to be similar to one of the finished barrel pictures that you showed. It kind of looks to me like he used a four iron ribband approach. My only unfair criticism is that it looks to me like he had to exaggerate the damascus just for the sake of being damascus, where I believe pure barrel making might have called for much tighter and finer twist.

It came to my mind that there's a dvd out by Ray Rybar called 'Scripture Damascus' that explains his way of how to construct billets and uncover words that get forge welded in the middle somewhere. But, I don't mean to take anything away from and I'm looking forward to your comments. Thanks for the time, knowledge and experience that you're willing to share.

Steve's quote:

"My reply about the coloring difference being a mix of different steels, was more intended to provide a reason for the colors, rather than an opinion on whether the difference was purposeful or not. I doubt that we can be assured of knowing the answer to the question of purposeful or accidental, unless contemporary writings about it can be found. That it is accidental is highly plausible though, I believe. I expect that the rolling mills had bins full of patterned rods. That a few rods may have remained in inventory for extended periods of time is possible. Then when finally sent to a barrel welder, it was delivered along with rods that were made later with steel of different alloy content. Too, I can envision stacks of rods in the corner of the barrel welder’s shop; with the same mixing of rods possible."

As to the issue of intentionality of the feature, I'll reiterate that the feature is consistent throughout the tubes. I'd say in order to create the regularity of the effect throughout all Ribbands, the same steel layers in the same position in the iron lopin would have to match, then that specific composition rod would have to placed in the same order within each Ribband. To me, only that would enable the feature to "match up" throughout all Ribbands along the length of the tubes. I have to set up my proper camera gear in order to get some better pics, I've just been too busy.


The perception of scroll vs. star is a fascinating subject, as I'm one who initially sees scrolls. I also see stars, but only when I intentionally look at them. Consequentionally, my QC standards are based upon the clarity of the tiny scroll welds, which are the smallest feature of the pattern. They usually take many, many cycles to bring out, especially if they're of a more angular shape like Horseshoe. Often, just one Ribband section will have angular crolle, and then it is the clarity of that specific Ribband that determines when the pattern is completely "filled".

Regards
Ken

What a concept

Appleton's Dictionary of Machines, Mechanics, Engine-work, and Engineering, 1873
http://books.google.com/books?id=zi5VAAAAMAAJ
“Gun Barrels”
http://books.google.com/books?id=zi5VAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA936&dq
…a thin riband of Damascus…is sometimes veneered round iron…

I think PeteM found this Franklin Warner 1916 patent. Not sure if it went anywhere post-WWI

I think the value of seeing the 'stars' in the pattern might be to help understand the components, as they are the 'rods'. The rods are an intentionally created component that probably most control the appearance of the pattern.

I think it's good to note that the scrolls are welds, sometimes the C's line up, sometimes they're offset, some have more 'zipper' that Steve described. The weld surfaces have no where near a decent finish before they're joined and probably contain slag. I think it's a good thing that your finishing schedule can uncover detail, but a weld may be the least controllable part of creating an intentional appearance feature.

A 'star' was buried on the inside of a rod, protected from the forge, then uncovered by machining and finishing. A 'scroll' or a length of weld is visualizing, from the side, a surface of the rod that was likely directly exposed to the forge environment, maybe flux, and more working than the star. I'd agree though, better barrels for finish appearance, probably came from smiths that did more meticulous, not necessarily slower, forge welding.

Here's another of those extremely subtle variations that sometimes pop up. This one is on the rib of an LC rotary bolt ejector gun. The tubes in the pic have been boiled but not carded, so, despite the crappy shop pic you can see that there is a subtle "flame" pattern on the matted rib. This feature only appeared towards the end of the process, and since it's the finest and most subtle feature of the tubes, the QC on the rib pattern will now determine when the coloring process is complete.



Regards
Ken

If you're looking at the consecutive v's that're pointing towards the muzzle, that may be a 'herringbone' forging effect that's caused by the rolling mill. Maybe. What might happen is that the rolling mill doesn't tend to widen the stock, so to draw out the length of a 'rod' longer, the center gets pushed forward in front rollers. Maybe, it could be what you are showing there.

Clearly pattern welded ribs are another fascinating aspect of the barrel maker's art
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zEE1xuaNuR26Drg3E_IMUEpA_YThLMP0VSIx2xJM9bA/edit

http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/21182597

This would be spectacular refinished in 'black & white'



It is my opinion that the rib material was rod material, ground at another angle

Sure, I considered calling it "Herringbone". But, when I think of a herringbone pattern, I picture a little larger angle, shorter legs, and a fairly defined pattern. I opted for the more descriptive "Flame".

Regards
Ken

Great pics Drew,

That rib in the first pic is fascinating, the way the stars as well as the crolle "flow". What do you think, a simple 2-iron rod that was somewhat drawn out after twisting?

Regards
Ken

Sorry Ken, I wasn't trying to name it, just using a descriptive term that could lead to why it shows the way it does. In your picture, I couldn't make out a center weld. If so, it may be a two rod bar with opposite twist, or it may be a single rod. Either way, I was just guessing as to what happened at the mill to create the pattern.

I also think Doc Drew's first picture of the rib was kind of neat. I see three rods. I think I see the pattern of each rod sort of pinned to the weld lines then a bit more draw towards the center of the rods, the twist area. Interesting pictures guys.

The rib may also be a 3 Iron "Oxford" ribband, but the scrolls are smaller



4 Iron "Turkish" barrel with "Washington" rib

Is this "Stub Twist?"

Excuse the crappy, grainy, shop picture. These tubes are from a heavy, 10ga Birmingham gun done in Brown & White marked "Laminated Steel". The pattern is somewhat different than regular Twist. The tubes are going through the last stages of pattern management before being polished and lacquered.




Any opinions?

Regards
Ken

Ken,
I am not sure of the twist pattern. It does not look like the "stub" twist on some of my Ithaca guns.

What I do notice is that both barrels have the same Left Hand twist. Most all doubles are mated with one tube LH, one RH.

John

Plain Twist/Skelp refinished by Paul Stevens. The thin iron (silver) and steel (brown) alternee are more distinct



Black & white



Stub Twist refinished by Paul Stevens



Stub Twist was made from a 1:1 ratio of horse-nail stubs (iron and the supply of which was inadequate by the 1850s) mixed with chopped coach spring steel, fused ("puddled") into a "bloom of iron", then hammer forged or rolled into a rod.

Plain Twist was not "puddled"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BdbWHfJmr2EyvzcPybid7pwlEliH6m9pr1LxMESM3W0/edit

Thanks, it looks like Plain Twist/Skelp. It's very similar to the Paul Stevens tubes. My picture doesn't do it justice, it also has a very nice patterned rib. Once it's done I'll take out my real photo gear and take it outside for a proper picture.

Regards
Ken

Is anyone familiar with this pattern?

3 Iron "Oxford". This has a somewhat similar rib but your scrolls are finer; refinished by Paul Stevens



Yours would be spectacular in "black & white" but as an English gun "browning" would be most appropriate

Just an observation reference to Owen's gun. It also has a LH spiral in both tubes. Just doesn't look right to my OCD eyes.

John

Good eye John. I think Bro. SKB posted this one

[img]http://s1168.photobucket.com/component/Download-File?file=%2Falbums%2Fr484%2Fmelissamatz%2FIMG_0184_zpshavmjbt6.jpg[\img]


Here's and old muzzle loader

I find it very hard to take pictures that show the true colour of barrels I have browned, I have ben so busy of late and have not had time to post but will try and upload some browners.

Ok I give up how do you now upload pictures I used to use photo bucket ? http://s668.photobucket.com/user/barrelbrowner/media/20170927_141648_zpsvul51e43.jpg.html