Replies

For higher quality shotguns, their damascus can be stronger than the “fluid steel” of the day.

It's not about how strong the barrels were when they were made. I agree with the relative strength THEN. Damascus barrels were actually superior barrels when new than many cold rolled welded barrels and hammered steel barrels. BUT, and it is a big but, over time the discontinuities in the Damascus barrel forging technique allows for internal corrosion to form in the hammered wire forging that that forms the Damascus barrels. This corrosion between the mechanical/welded/pressure joining of the metals that are at the core of all damascene metals is unavoidable, weakening the mechanical welded heat bonding because oxygen is incorporated in the joint by its very nature. . . starting the formation of rust at the creation of the barrel. With age, all damascene barrels LOSE considerable strength.

Barrels in that period were ALL proof tested with black powders that were far less pressure producing and slower burning than modern faster burning, higher pressure producing smokeless shotgun powders. Now add the corrosive nature of black powder and the even greater corrosiveness of the fulminate of mercury primers used during the useful life of most of these damascene barrels and its effects on accelerating the corrosion between the domains of the metal in those much more porous barrels. Shooting shotguns with Damascus barrels with modern loads is NEVER advised.

I am past manager of the Olde Sacramento Armoury and I was the appraiser and buyer of used and antique firearms for Simms Hardware's Gun Department — which was named #1 Gun Dealer in the United States in 1971. . . and was a qualified expert in the California Courts on the identification and values of Antique firearms back in the 70s. We labeled every damascene barreled shotgun a wall hanger, a non-shooting relic and instructed all sales people to instruct buyers that they were never to try shooting them as they were considered unsafe. We had several "educational pieces" on hand with blown chambers to show them what would happen if they tried. A couple of those looked brand new. . . and were made by some of those "top names" in gun making from London and New York. They still blew.

By-the-way, I CRINGE every time I see the people on Pawn Stars shooting fine antique firearms, claiming they have a greater value if they are "fireable!" Every time one fires a vintage gun, one takes the risk of breaking, damaging, or destroying it. . . and more wear is added, degrading the value of the gun. Operation, timing, etc.,condition, are ALL determinable by examination by a qualified expert without the weapon being fired. I've seen their "expert" dry firing a percussion Colt revolver onto the vintage, original percussion cap nipples without protective covers, which will damage both the nipples and the hammer, demonstrating his complete lack of proper handling knowledge of even NEW percussion guns, let alone valuable antiques! Aaaarrrrggghhh!!!!

I don’t agree on the proofing.

The English proofing houses started “Nitro Proofing” in 1904, and the French in 1900, the Eibar (Spain) house in 1910, I think. The Belgian proof house was “nitro proofing” back to 1891 to 1892. One has to look for the proper proof marks, which were different for “proof” vs. “nitro proof,” just as you’d see on a Colt SAA revolver. You have to look for the serial # and the VP proof for evidence of being able to handle smokeless loads.

But even with that, the idea that smokeless has a “much lower” pressure excursion than smokeless powder(s) is a much over-stated claim, IMO. There were experiments with black powder loads over 100 years ago where pressures over 60,000 PSI were generated. Black powder pressures depend on the granule size, the brissiance of the primer/cap and what level of packing you have of the powder charge. Black powder pressures in BPCR rifles can run easily 30K PSI. There were experiments that produced pressures over 60K PSI way back when. So using too fine a black powder grain size can result in high pressures in guns... like using priming powder in a load.

Likewise, smokeless powder comes in a wide, wide array of burning rates. There are now some smokeless powders that come close to the pressure curves of black powder. Black powder isn’t as slow burning as many (most?) people think. It’s actually faster burning than many modern rifle powders. An example of a smokeless powder designed to keep

Remember, in shotgun loads, when you’re loading with smokeless, you’re typically using pistol-speed powders, which are at the much faster end of the burning rate spectrum. This is because you don’t want “high” pressure to follow the wad all the way down the barrel - on any shotgun. This is because once you get a few inches forward of the chamber, the nominal shotgun barrel wall tapers down to .040 to .035”, and on some “best” English guns, you can see barrel wall thicknesses (in alloy steels) down to .020 just behind the chokes. This is why you want a smokeless powder burning fast enough to be completely burnt when the load is back in the thick part of the barrel.

The single biggest difference between smokeless powders and black powder, IMO, is the ability of smokeless powders to be formulated and coated in such a way to keep pressures way up for a very long burning time as the pressure volume is rapidly expanding - ie, “magnum rifle” powders.

Your worries about the corrosion issues on damascus barrels are well-founded, and they’re true for most all shotgun barrels that have been used with black powder, or corrosive primers. I’ve looked down some fluid steel barrels on LC Smiths, Foxes and Parkers which were in really sorry shape from a failure to attend to the cleaning of the barrel using nothing but smokeless powders. Once the pits are deeper than, oh, 0.007 to 0.010, it’s all over. There’s little hope of honing those out and leaving enough barrel wall thickness to contain nominal pressures.

Likewise, I’ve seen the results of high-quality shotguns with very modern steels (like, oh, a Krieghoff K-80) failing due to faulty steel, faulty heat treating and lack of a stress riser on the receiver. I’ve seen pump shotguns barrels rupture due to a wad left in the barrel - it seems so inconsequential to look at that wee bit of flimsy plastic and think “Eh, it should just get out of the way.” Well, maybe not.

Modern steel is no proof against catastrophic barrel/receiver failure if someone didn’t do their homework when heat treating. There are guys shooting damascus barrels every day with sane smokeless loads, and there are guys blowing modern shotguns to heck and beyond with trap loads, which aren’t exactly high pressure. Proof SAAMi loads are up around 18K PSI, nominal modern shotgun loads are from 8800 to 11,300 PSI. “Low pressure” loads are in the range of 6500 to 8000 PSI, and there’s many loads out there for these pressures in loading manuals.

But for all the talk of blown-up damascus guns, I’ve yet to see one. I see guys shooting them from time to time, and they’re quite happy to do so - with complete knowledge of what they’re doing and using suitable smokeless cartridges with reduced pressures.

Now, from my extensive reading of the period of gun manufacturing history of 100 years ago, I can see the start of the “damascus will blow up in your face ALWAYS when you use nitro powders” campaign. It was started as marketing FUD by manufactures who wanted to convert the shooting public to “fluid steel” barrels because they were so much easier to produce. Really nice damascus barrels required four guys at a forge to hammer out. “Fluid steel” - feh. So much cheaper to produce, so much less labor. Greener spotted this early on, and I’m sure this is what resulted in much of his invective against the “damascus barrels are too weak for nitro loads!” propaganda of his day.

I’m this skeptical of the supposed “conventional wisdom” of failures in damascus barrels, because if rupturing damascus barrels were as common as everyone says, we’d see pictures all over the ‘net - the way we do with Glock ka-booms, or Krieghoff K-80 failures, etc. I don’t see the numbers of failures we’re supposed to see. I do see experienced shotgunners shooting high quality damascus barreled shotguns with lower pressure loads in smokeless powder. And I don’t see their guns blowing up. I see several companies making short and low pressure loads explicitly for older guns.

Firearms sometimes fail, regardless of the barrel technology. They fail most often due to operator stupidity. If you want to see some actual data on what it takes for to make shotgun barrels (both fluid steel and damascus) fail, check out the article series by Stephen Bell in _The Double Gun Journal_ from 2006 onwards. It’s highly interesting to see just how much pressure is required - and how the alloy steel barrels fail vs. how the damascus barrels fail.

BTW, for people who want a high(er) margin of safety in shooting damascus barrels, they can tube the barrel. Briley makes (and installs) fitted tubes. So you’d start with a 12ga and end up with a 20 or 28 ga chamber/barrel. You effectively have a barrel within a barrel, from the breeches (which are made from steel) to the muzzle/choke area.

There’s no blanket rule for fine old double guns, every one of them needs examination and prudent operation. But then that’s true of modern arms as well...

I share your disgust at the TV “gun” shows. They’re all morons. Every last damned one of them. As I tell people, “If there’s drama in a gunsmithing shop, take your gun elsewhere. There should be no drama in a gunsmith’s shop.”