No wonder we were afraid of Damascus
 

While cleaning up the Man Cave this morning I happened to look closely at some vintage shotgun ammo that I have. Both the Winchester 12 Gauge and the Peters 20 Gauge boxes have warnings posted on the box not to use this ammo in Damascus or Twist Barrels. The Winchester warning even warned that the "reloading of the spent hulls is Prohibited! Good luck enforcing that one. :)

I really liked that brand of shells especially the peters....charlie

Related to this topic, I found it interesting that my 20 gauge 2.5" ultralites from the recent inventory of RST have the note not to use in damascus barrels

Charlie they are nice loads. Both are paper hulls. The 20 gauge loads have a small round sticker on the crimp with the shell length and shot size on it.

It is a bit ironic everyone reads #1 and thats usually what gets talked about but #3 is actually what causes the majority of failures in shotgun barrels.

That warning was originally about increasing gun sales but today it’s all about liability, even with RST low pressure stuff.





.

If i recall correctly the warning came about in the 1930's yet smokeless powder had been in use for many years. If so why the lag in the warning of 25 years?

Many of the shotgun manufacturers owned at least 1 brand of ammo and/or powder manufacturing plants.





.

Did the damascus warnings all begin at the same time? Can you say collusion?

As i wrote earlier, the timing is suspect. I do not recall dates but the advent of smokeless powder was in the early 1900's when the majority of guns were composite barrels and the warning did not come about until the late 30's. If it were as dangerous as later stated many guns would have failed in that time but we only see warnings to load by weight not volume as black was loaded.
Remember an article by Jack O'Conner calling them bombs ready to explode and saying you were playing Russian roulette using them. Ad's for rebarreling by makers who a few years before advertised their guns as smokeless proofed suddenly reversed course and said they were not fit to use.
It was depression times and new gun sales were down. Marketing at its best.Along with the collusion of the press and ammo companies

A desperate attempt to sell some new guns during the Great Depression. Nobody seemed to push it more than Lou Smith of Ithaca.

That is not the shell length it is the drams equivalent of the load of progressive burning smokeless powder in the shell. Same as would have been on the top wad of a roll crimp shell.

Attachment 105985

This insert is in a box of Western Super-X 10-gauge shells if immediately post WW-II era.

Attachment 105984

There have always been, and will always be, lawyers...





.

Mostly due to guys reloading shells with equal weight of nitro for black. That is a recipe for disaster even with modern guns. Not every shooter was reloading with smokeless when it first appeared so it did take a few years for the reloaders to catch up with the modern propellants.

I think Mike is right, although I also think the gun manufacturers loved an excuse for everyone to buy a new gun

I also love an excuse to buy a new gun....:)

I am the master of excuses to buy new guns

True, but I think fluid steel barrels would have suffered the same catastrophic failures when fired with such loads as did some Damascus barreled guns.





.

I remember a previous discussion on this forum in which someone posted ads and warnings that appeared in the press at the time warning about not using your black powder measure to load the new smokeless powder by volume. It was found to be the reason that barrels were failing because of the gross overload. Once people became aware of that the problem went away until 1937 or so when the warnings appeared.

A pretty exhaustive study of damascus barrels and pressures was featured in the Double Gun Journal some years back.
Many of the problems in the 20s and 30s were traced back to cheap twist or damascus barrels made in Belgium in guns that found their way into the USA.

The quality of Parker Bros. damascus barrels and their inherent strength was demonstrated in this article.

There are damascus barrels and then there are other damascus barrels. Caveat emptor.

Just reviewed the excellent series of special subjects toward the end of the
LC Smith Collectors site forums.

Comprehensive listing of powders, black vs nitro; use of Damascus guns and nitro shell loading of smokeless or semi-smokeless by weight rather than volume;
AND the size of some 3 1/4 inch 12 ga shells used by competitors in live pigeon shoots
like Gilbert.

The LC Smith LCSCA forums hold an amazing amount of valuable information.

Dr. Drew Hause at the Double Gun and the LCSCA site also shows the results of excess pressure, barrel obstructions, and heavy loads in both
Damascus, Bernard, twist steel AND fluid steel "modern" shotgun barrels: caveat pressures.

Makes one almost check bores after every brace of ducks, grouse, dove or clays.

Just as an aside, I was reading an article on the development of the Battleship and the use of 50 caliber guns. It seems that single and double base nitro powders were developed around 1887-1888 and spread to the worlds Navies very quickly courtesy of EI Dupont selling to everybody. This is also around the time that the Mahan book on Naval Warfare was written and changed Naval Warfare thought.

Sorry. Late to the party.

A.P. Curtis published a two part article in the July 1936 and the March 1938 American Rifleman entitled “Advantages of Short Shotgun Chambers” (courtesy of Larry Brown):
SAAMI, assembled in serious conference on March 26, 1937, passed the following resolution: “That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition.” The motion was made and seconded by representatives of two powder companies.
That same conference also passed a resolution requiring: “That all guns be marked so that the consumer will be able to tell the chamber length, as for example by marking 2 3/4 inch chamber etc.”

“These shells must not be used in guns with Damascus or Twist Steel barrels” warning appeared on shell boxes shortly thereafter.

More information here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...hIiY62Hx4/edit

The advent of smokeless powder occurred in 1895 but probably took a few years more to complete the transition among manufacturers of firearms. Parker still made Damascus until about 1915 by special request. My thoughts are that the Damascus barrels are strong but too expensive to produce along-side vulcanized steel. So the manufacturers wanted you to believe that you needed vulcanized steel because it was safer. Read: new marketing to sell new guns.

Hopefully our Editors will forgive me for pulling back the curtains on a future Parkers in Pulp article, but I thought this might add to the discussion.

July 24, 1898, San Antonio Sunday Light, “Mr. Chas. Chabot while gunning for doves Friday afternoon with Mr. A. C. Pancoast, had a narrow escape from severe injury or probably instant death. He was using Walsrode powder in shells supposed to contain 24 grains of chained lightning’ as the boys call it, in a sixteen gauge Parker gun. Mr. Chabot fired at a dove crossing the road when the shell in the right barrel exploded, tearing out a piece of Damascus steel nearest the breech about four inches long which disappeared in the circumambient air. The effects of the explosion knocked Mr. Chabot down and severely powder-burned his face; otherwise he escaped injury. Strange to say, that just about one year ago he met with a like accident, the left barrel of his gun being blown off. Messrs. Parker Bros. on being informed of the last year’s accident gladly replaced a new set of barrels for those exploded. There is hardly any doubt but what the shell which exploded the gun contained an overload, as Mr. George Chabot, his brother, is authority for the fact that he has used Walsrode smokeless powder for the past three years without an accident.” [Author’s Note: First for the curious, “circumambient” is defined as “surrounding.” Second, what else would you expect from something referred to as “chained lightning?”]

December 24, 1898, Denton Journal, Denton, Maryland, “Sheriff Rice’s fine Parker gun burst while he was shooting partridges on Wednesday last. The powder used was the smokeless kind and thought to be very strong. A large piece of the left barrel was blown off, and Mr. Rice was badly burned about the face.” [Author’s Note: Another blown barrel. These articles serve to illustrate that the transition to smokeless powder could be a hazardous one.]

December, 1898, Sporting Life, “Parker Bros., of Meriden, Conn., manufacturers of the popular high-grade Parker gun, have issued notice to the trade of an important addition to their line. The circular is as follows: ‘We can now supply you with a Plain Black Barrel, that we do not hesitate to recommend as a hard, tough and thoroughly reliable barrel and in consequence is suitable to shooting nitro powders. We unhesitatingly recommend them for trap and pigeon guns when a party desires a barrel similar to the Whitworth Fluid Pressed Steel. We have decided to name them Titanic Steel, by which name they will be known and stamped on the top rib. They will be made in the $100, $150 and $200 list, and will be kept up to the high standard that has characterized our guns of these grades.” [Author’s Note: Parker Brothers finally enters the fluid steel market in earnest.]

Sporting Life, Sept. 10, 1904 “Burst Gun Barrels”
https://digital.la84.org/digital/col...id/38180/rec/3
The number of burst gun-barrels which come to the attention of the shooting public is remarkably small, considering the thousands of guns in use throughout the country. The main reason for the comparatively small number of guns burst is the great use of factory-loaded shells, or the hand-loaded of reliable dealers. The day of loading one’s own shells is pretty well passed, therefore, the over-loaded or double-charged cartridge is very seldom found. Very often a burst barrel is blamed on the gunmaker or the shell-maker, but more often on the manufacturer of the powder. Cases are known where a party blowing out a gun-barrel, using an extra heavy charge of dense powder, blamed it on a bulk powder. A suit for damages was quickly withdrawn after an examination of the gun had been made.


William Welshausen vs. The Charles Parker Company
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, Decided June 14, 1910
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/b6...e0e4fa0830982c
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a gun of its own manufacture, with an express warranty by its agent that the same was sound, of best quality and fit to stand the strain of proper and ordinary use, and that the barrels thereof were of the best Damascus steel. It also alleges negligence on the part of the defendant in manufacturing the gun and putting it on the market, and in allowing it to go into the hands of customers without proper supervision and inspection during and after its manufacture and before it was sold; that the gun was weak, insufficient, badly constructed, and of poor quality of steel, and that because of such defect the left barrel burst when the plaintiff was using it in the ordinary manner and with due care, and injured him.
The plaintiff lost.

1936 testimony by W.A. King, Parker Gun Co. regarding a barrel burst, likely a 20g shell inserted before a 12g
https://books.google.com/books?id=jU...J&pg=PA802&lpg

Thanks, Drew and John, for those accounts. It makes me wonder what it would have been like if there was social media in the 1890s. :eek:

Wolffe & Co. in Walsrode, Prussia had a London agent, George Beutner, in 1892, then established The Walsrode Smokeless & Waterproof Gun Powder Co. in the U.S. in 1894.
Walsrode Gray 33 grain = 3 Dram; Green 30 gr. = 3 Dram.

A. Hillier and his Parker gun
https://books.google.com/books?id=lN...J&pg=PA228&lpg

I've never seen an ad for a black or smokeless powder "Chained Lightning"

Havilah Babcock “Fallen Lady”
Tomorrow I would give those New Englanders a lesson in the art of eye-wiping, but right now I would gloat over my beauty alone. I'd doll her up just a bit. Later I'd remove the old black paint from the barrels and have them reblued, of course, but right now I'd merely hit the high spots, like that paint smudge on the left barrel.
Daubing it with a little paint remover, I waited a moment, then brushed the paste off. The exposed metal didn't look quite right; it seemed to have a spiral pattern. I stopped dead still, a chilling suspicion at my throat. Removing the forearm, I went to work vigorously with an emery cloth. Again the telltale spirals leaped at me.
The sickening truth was irrefutable: the barrels of my precious gun were visibly, unmistakably, and irreparably Damascus, made in the old black-powder days by twisting strip steel around a mandrel, then heat-welding it. For unnumbered years Damascus barrels were highly regarded, but the coming of smokeless powder doomed them. In simple fact, nitro loads blew many of them apart, with resultant damage to the shooters.

“Fallen Lady” first appeared in Field and Stream in the late 1940s (the “Lady” then may have been a Lefever), was re-published in May 1962 (now a Parker), and is included in The Best of Babcock, published in 1974.

One of my favorite Babcock stories. Thanks for the reminder.

December 24, 1898, Denton Journal, Denton, Maryland, “Sheriff Rice’s fine Parker gun burst while he was shooting partridges on Wednesday last. The powder used was the smokeless kind and thought to be very strong. A large piece of the left barrel was blown off, and Mr. Rice was badly burned about the face.” [Author’s Note: Another blown barrel. These articles serve to illustrate that the transition to smokeless powder could be a hazardous one.]

If the good sheriff was hunting in Denton, MD the partridges had to be quail. I'm sure there were plenty of wild birds back then.

BTW- Parkers in Pulp is the first thing I read. Keep up the great job John.

First thing I read too Daryl. And as Daryl says, Keep up the great job John!!





.

There is plenty of evidence that smokeless powders should not be used in Damascus barreled guns. Why, then, do many Parker gun owners use RST smokeless loads in their vintage Parkers when they were intended to be shot only with black powder? It does not matter if the gun was built with Damascus or Vulkan steel. If the gun was designed for BP, I say, shoot BP. The results are actually quite good.

The problem early-on when smokeless first came into use was that folks were loading their shells with smokeless powder to black powder specs or recipes. In those days black powder was measured in drams and to use smokeless powder it must be measured in a 'dram equivalent' which was/is a measurement determined by the combustion and resultant pressures generated by each. If smokeless powder was measured simply in drams you would have pressures far too great for the durability of the guns of the day.





.

I understand that. The question still remains, why would you load an RST reduced load shell into a vintage shotgun that was proofed for BP with a reduced load RST? The RST is still 3X the chamber pressure as a BP load.

response #3 is the one.

These are valuable accounts of actual incidents that have taken place during the transition from black powder to smokeless powder.
One of the inherent potential dangers of reloading
at that time was measuring by volume rather than by weight. Many hunters were not fully aware of the pressure differences between black and nitro smokeless powders. They carried their black powder volume measuring techniques right into the smokeless
20th Century. Possibly adding to the potential confusion-for handloaders- were the various"bulk" powders which were created by powder manufacturers to allow measuring by volume, though they were modern smokeless or semi-smokeless in manufacture as powders for that era. Paul Mathews in
" The Paper Jacket" illustrates this potential confusion, as does the Ideal Handbook which
later became the Lyman Manual on reloading. The Ideal volume actually recommended the Hazard Powder Company of Connecticut during this period. Even today, the shotgun shell reloader must know exactly what he is about as to manuals, powder amount , shot loads and existing pressures.

Why? Because Parker said we could.

Parker Brothers 1893 Catalogue
“Our guns are bored on the latest improved system for shooting Nitros, or Smokeless Powder, and all our guns are tested with some one of the most approved makes, and a tag accompanies each gun, giving the results of such a (pattern) test.”

1902 Sears catalog
"ALL ARE BORED FOR NITRO OR BLACK POWDER"

https://photos.smugmug.com/US-Makers...resized-XL.png

"RST is still 3X the chamber pressure as a BP load." is incorrect
Please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...aAfUOZEFU/edit

Factory reported RST 12g pressures in 2016. Of course components could be different now
Ultra Lite 2 1/2” 3/4 oz. 4400 psi
Falcon Lite 2 1/2” 7/8 oz. 5400 psi
Maxi Lite 2 1/2” 1 oz. 5700 psi
Lite 2 1/2” 1 1/16 oz. Roll Crimp Paper 5900 psi
Lite 2 1/2" 1 1/16 oz. Plastic 6100 psi
Premium Grade Pheasant 2 3/4” 1 1/4 oz. 7800 psi


Please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...hIiY62Hx4/edit

I would not hesitate to shoot those loads in any Damascus barrel gun I own.

Near 40 years ago Ross Seyfried penned an article in Guns and Ammo. He was shooting his Damascus guns with Federal Paper Hulls, IMR 7625, and Lage UniWads. The pressures produced mimicked BP both in pressure and where the pressure peaked at a little over 5,000 PSI. I overcame my trepidation and started loading his recipe for my Damascus Parkers.
In 1993 John Brindle's conclusion that 8,000 PSI was safe in Damascus in articles published in Double Gun Journal.
in 1999 and 2000 Sherman Bell did a series in Double Gun Journal "Finding Out For Myself." He was offered a sacrificial lamb in the form of a GH on a #2 Frame with Damascus barrels made in 1900. The barrels finally let go at their weakest spot, at the breach where the extractor pin goes between both barrels. Standard SAMMI 12 gauge pressures run around 12,000 PSI. Proof loads are about 18,000 PSI. The sacrificial lamb gave ut the ghost at about 31,000 PSI.
Wondering what pressure Fluid Steel would let go, I offered Sherman Bell a VH 12 gauge on a #2 frame made in 1900 with Vulcan Steel barrels. He accepted and as before he kept loading heavier and heavier loads until the barrels opened up just like the Damascus barrels. The pressure? Exactly the same. About 31,000 PSI.
RST Shells are the best! When they are unavailable, I shoot any manufacturers that is lead shot and under 1200 FPS.

Harry has put this discussion in perspective.
The golden rules are : be extra attentive when handloading shotshells for any shotgun;
and each set of barrels and each shotgun may be and will be a law unto itself.