....Craig, these are people who had a potential interest in buying a gun. And a relatively expensive one at that. You're suggesting that both the two guys who tried it out to see if they wanted to purchase it missed what are, from the photos, very obvious bulges?....
I can't see anything that the seller or subsequent discussion provided that pinpoints the timing of the bulges. Fine, let's blame the second guy. Would you consider giving an educated comment to the following?
The damascus pattern photographed clearly. Would you expect the action to be so bright and lacking patina? Would you suppose that the barrels were abrasively sanded or otherwise struck so that some subsequent finish could show the damascus pattern?
How come there isn't any mention of wall thicknesses or bore condition. Is it possible that to match the expense and effort of the external barrel finish, that forcing cones may have been cleaned up and the barrels honed?
What caused the bulges? If it was over pressure loads, how much over pressure do you suppose? I think around a clays range, that most likely target loads were generally available. In the past you've mentioned that in some cases 2 3/4" hulls are fine in short chambers. So we may be over pressure, but how much?
How much over pressure would it take to cause that type of bulge? Is this a case of coincidental dual obstructions?
I think it was an odd place to air the unfortunate incident, and then we're left with much less than the full story. Did anyone complain about the guy shooting duck and pheasant loads? I believe in it's original condition, that gun could've withstood a little bit of over pressure. If I knew it was my fault, I would've shown the seller what happened and bought the gun. But, I wouldn't have been too tickled if it turns out to be questionable wall thickness.
So, from how the story goes, we can conclude it's shooter two?