The first thing that comes to mind with a re-load is of course an error in reloading. But we are talking about a 100+ year old barrel of to me of a dubious manufacturing process.
Put all these factors together and it's a recipe for disaster.
Can we assume that the "dubious manufacturing process" of Damascus barrel making might have gained some credibility after over 100 years of use... especially considering that so many of these guns continued to be used long after the low pressure ammunition they were designed to digest was no longer generally available? And don't these barrels continue to this day to withstand nitro-proof tests in nations which still require proof testing? That ought to count for something, especially considering that even modern steels can still be rolled with inclusions which could compromise their integrity. It would be very interesting to see accumulated data from the European Proof Houses to gain an understanding of what guns fail, and why. I'll agree that an error in reloading was the most likely culprit that blew up this Remington.
Going back through this thread, I noticed that the 12 ga. A.J. Aubrey pictured on page 2, that likely blew up due to a 20 ga. shell being stuck in the forcing cone, has very similar oxidation and bare metal along the fracture as the Remington. I still believe that is just fresh bare metal which quickly oxidized after the blow-ups.
