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 whistle

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