Very Interesting Damascus Topic Thread.

[Dean Romig]

I don't think you'll find anyone who is willing to "certify" composite barrels being safe to shoot but I'm sure there are experienced people who will examine and measure and completely inspect your barrels and render an opinion of their safety within specific pressure loadings.

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Ray,

You could send your gun to England to have it proofed to a cetain pressure. I have a 10 ga Damascus Parker proofed at 3.5 tons or about 7800 PSI. I bought it already proofed for that is nothing I would pay for. I also have and shoot 4 LC Smiths, 3 other Parkers, 1 LeFever, and a Baker with un-proofed Damascus or twist barrels. My reloads are limited to 6000 PSI and other than checking to see daylight through the barrels before each shot I never worry about a problem with pressure. I also check for daylight in my modern doubles.

My advice to you is that one must read the information available on shooting Damascus and twist barrels and determine for themself if they will feel safe shooting them. Then, one needs to have the knowledge to inspect their barrels. That knowledge is gained not overnight or by reading a list of factors. The PGCA cannot post an unquestionable list from which one can self inspect their barrels. What if a reader followed the list and afterward blew their barrels? Would that person want to sue the PGCA? Chances are some scammer would intentionally due just that!

If you do not feel comfortable inspecting your barrels send them to a reputable gunsmith who will inspect but NOT guarentee them against factors that they cannot control. Did you read Brad Bachelder's post? As he stated he is both a gunsmith and an expert firearms witness. He also stated that barrels normally blow from obstructions.

Barrels will also blow if one makes a mistake reloading. Load 70 grains of smokeless instead of the called for blackpowder and the barrels will blow. A friend did this but the barrels did not blow on the first shot. They blew on the second or third shot. The pressure was estimated at 25000 psi (if I recall correctly). That was pretty good for a Damascus barrel. There is a photo of his blown barrel in Murdelak's SHOOTING FLYING. Oh, that good friend shot two Damascus guns with me this past Sunday.

Another no no is to shoot modern ammo in Damascus barrels. Why? Modern 12 gauge ammo is optimized to cycle autoloaders. The pressure needed to cycle a dirty autoloader is close to the SAMMI max pressure of 12,500 PSI. If one shoots modern 12,000+ PSI (12 gauge) ammo in Damascus or twist barrels those barrels will probably be okay unless they have some hidden flaw. What is very safe at 6,000 to 8,000 PSI might not hold the pressure of 12,000 PSI. That is why most careful shooters of Damascus barrels keep their loads under 8,000 PSI. My loads are with 7/8 oz of shot at 6,000 PSI with which if I do my part they will break any target on a Sporting Clays or Skeet course. If I shot Trap for money I'd use a modern gun and AA Super Sports! Another consideration is that after a few hundred magnum loads (I include AA Super Sports and the like as magnums for this analogy - The original Win Super X 3" Magnum had but 1 & 3/8 oz of shot!) the action will probably loosen. Those actions and their steel were not designed for as much pressure (over the long term) as were the Damascus barrels!

So if you want to shoot a set of Damascus barrels send them for an inspection. After a reputable smith pronounces them to be in good condition it is your decision if to proceed. If not having a guarentee against your responsibility for checking the barrels each and every shot, and for not making a mistake in reloading, please do not shoot Damascus.

I do hope this helps.
Mark

[Ray Masciarella]

I used the term "certify" inartfully if it was taken to mean "guarantee". Of course no gunsmith could guarantee anything. It would be unreasonable for anyone to even rely on such a guarantee-firearms are inherently dangerous if not used properly. However, a gunsmith could perform an proper inspection and advise someone that the barrels appear to be safe to shoot with appropriate ammo. Any guarantee could be disclaimed. But I can't find anyone willing do to even that, and I have asked well known folks you all know to do so. That is the problem for a fella like me who lacks the skill, knowledge and tools to figure it out own my own.
I think PGAC could, without risk of liabilty, publish a check list with disclaimers. It all ready publishes info on wall thickness without apparent worry.
I'm gonna publish my own check list and maybe you fellas can tell me if I'm the right track: 1) wall thickness; 2) dents and bulges; 3)pits and 4) other damage. What have I missed?
I understand #1.
I had a dent removed by a qualified gunsmith but how do I know there still isn't a problem? Magnaflux?
I have pits. How are they evaluated? Can they be measured with reasonable accuracy? Do they create a weakness in some cases, and if so, how do I figure out if there is a dangerous weakness? Would magnafluxing tell me anything about them?
I have read about everything I can find on the subject but have been unable to locate an article that lays out in detail the process of evaluation. Is there something out there someone can point out to me?
You all have been a great help to me and I have learned a lot just reading the forum. Thanks!

[Austin W Hogan]

In response to the original question and that just posted by Ray; I am posting my opinion, which is for all practical purposes, Parker Pages opinion, but not that of PGCA or the directors.

About 15 years ago there was a question; and several opinions; relative to the weight numbers stamped on Parker barrel flats. We obtained actual weight of about 40 barrels, and plotted the actual weight vs the stamped weight. The plot indicated that the actual weight lay along a line about 10 - 15% less than the stamped weight, and concluded that the stamped numbers were the unfinished weight of the barrels.

About 10 years ago, we measured the choke profiles of about 20 fluid steel 12 ga Parker barrel sets and made up a table showing mean choke tapers.

About 5 years ago, we compiled the stock dimensions of about 60 Parkers and presented a frequency distribution of drop and pull. We completed that study recently with a similar analysis of pitch.

During the last year we remeasured the bore diameters and muzzle diameters of about 60 Parker 12 ga guns. Dave Suponski, Dean Romig and Larry Frey measured the bores of unfinished barrels and defined the type of tooling used to form those bores. Charlie Price had noted that there was a change in bore and choke that occurred around s/n 70000. We plotted bore diameter and full choke muzzle diameter of those 60 guns against s/n. We found that typical bore diameter decreased from .750 - .760 to .730 - .735 and that full choke increased from .032 to .040 around s/n 70000. We concluded that a single contoured reamer was used to form bore and choke after 70000.

We will publish a similar analysis of barrel wall thickness when we recieve 50 to 100 profiles (ie thichness vs distance from muzzle) to analyze. We hope each contributor will give a rough indication of the number of shots fired through those barrels in recent years, and note if the barrels have dents or bulges.

Best, Austin

[Bill Murphy]

Thanks for the offer to put that survey together, Austin. I'm sure it will be of interest. Frame size and marked barrel weight will be an interesting comparison when added to the mix of bore diameter and wall thickness. But. to get to my point. The safety or suitability for shooting of composite barrels is something that has not been studied and then published in our lifetimes except by Sherman Bell. We have studied this suitablility by shooting composite barrel guns without damage. We have watched others do the same. We have attended thousands of gun shows without seeing damaged composite barrels of quality that could be attributed to a general weakness of the commodity. In general, it is experience that has told us that composite barrels are generally safe, not any definitive testing in a laboratory. It is the same method used by Springfield rifle expert Michael Petrov to determine that pre serial number 800,000 1903 Springfields, generally thought to be unsafe to fire, are generally safe to fire with conservative loads. He didn't proof test or blow up a bunch of early Springfields, he just shot dozens of them for a half a century, and watched other people do the same, without damage to any of those rifles. I haven't been shooting compostite barrelled Parkers with smokeless powder for a half a century, but I have watched others doing it for that long, without damage or injury. This is the only "research" we are ever going to see, published or otherwise. After owning and collecting composite barrel Parkers and Lefevers for over fifty years, I have finally started shooting them with smokeless powder, on Sherman Bell's research. However, I do own and use bore micrometers and wall thickness gauges and recommend that others who wish to shoot these guns also procure these tools and use them.

[Ray Masciarella]

Does anybody know how many articles Shermen Bell published and where I could get copies? Where they all in the Double Gun Journal? If so, does anyone know which issues? Maybe I could find copies of them some place. I Goggled it. I think one issue was Winter 1999 but I get the sense there were more.

[Bill Murphy]

Ray, it is hard to tell by the titles of Bell's articles which ones are the tests of composite barrels. Someone will be along soon to give you the references. Yes, they are all in the Double Gun and Single Shot Journal. I edited my last post to indicate that I have, in fact, been shooting composite barrelled guns for a half a century, but with smokeless powder about two years. I am, as I said, a convert to Sherman Bell's research. Mr. Jerry Smith, who is pictured in The Parker Story, and referred to by his "real name", Mister Damascus, in the caption, has shot Damascus Parkers and other composite guns since an BH Grade Damascus Parker was worth about $100. Jerry and I lived within sight of each other's houses in Damascus, Maryland, for more than thirty years and knew each other even before this through Parker collecting. However, although he always teased the rest of us about shooting those dangerous fluid steel guns, I stuck to my guns and shot only black powder in my Damascus guns while he shot everything up to pigeon loads in his. In our pigeon club, Damascus guns are shot on a regular basis and I have never seen a black powder shell used. I don't think any of our members have shot at a pigeon with a shell that contains less than 1 1/4 ounces of shot. No one has ever blown up a composite barrel at one of our shoots.

My background is in code pipe welding (API- ASTM) and also pressure vessel and boiler code work- Magnaflux can be useful, BUT I would NOT trust that test alone on Damascus barrels- any rust spot, void, or raised dent, whether reset by hydraulic dent removal method or other, has stretched both the tensile and elastic limits of the metals involved- Iron will always have a way lower tensile than mild structural or even nickel alloyed steel- most structual steels used today (exception being the Cor-Ten series) have a mean tensile range of aprox 53,000 psi- that's why coded SMAW welding rods start at 60- ie: 6011- 60,000 psi tensile as stress relieved- etc-

I'd bet my pet PH 12 with Parker Twist barrels no gunsmith would ever guarantee barrels, whether Damascus or Nitro proof Steel- not in this highly litigious era- look at how all the lawyers have affected trigger pulls on factory rifles (ie: Rem 700 series) and all the disclaimers you'll find in the box with the instructions that accompany such a weapon today-

Sherman Bell was a genius, also had guts and integrity- start with LP short loads (like RST or New Era)-- and rely on the research done by the other gents on the PGCA that have been shooting Damascus doubles for years-

[Dean Romig]

[QUOTE=Francis Morin;21975]most structual steels used today (exception being the Cor-Ten series) have a mean tensile range of aprox 53,000 psi- that's why coded SMAW welding rods start at 60- ie: 6011- 60,000 psi tensile as stress relieved- etc-QUOTE]

Tensile, meaning 'stretched or drawn out' would seem to indicate by definition and by your quoted "range of approximately 53,000 psi or 60,000 psi" a rod of a particular standard diameter.... can you tell us what that would be?

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Francis Morin

The basic filler rod, regardless of the diameter, in SMAW electrodes (with the exception of the 300 and 400 Stainless grade electrodes) have the same metalurgical analysis- 1/8", 5/32", etc in the 6011 series- what would make a 1/8" dia (the bare end that is placed in the stinger) 6011 AWS rod differ from a 1/8 6013 rod is the chemical composition of the flux- both rods, if properly applied, will give a mean tensile of 60,000 psi minimum as stress relieved-

Yeah, I got all that and think I understand it, but....


:

If, on the other hand, you mean tensile/ a correspondent to ductility in some ferrous metals, in a steel rod- such as re-bar or other structual reinforcement applications, the reading may differ- but the fabrication grade steels ( angle, channel, I-Beam etc.) used in coded construction applications today will average 53,000 psi tensile before rupture- think of the tensile test as a giant taffy pull with calibrations to read in PSI-

....so, a 1/8" piece of 6011 rod will support twenty-five tons before stretching?? I don't believe it.... Am I missing something? I'll be ther first to admit that I have no background in metals whatsoever so I'm quite willing to learn.... but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck so tell it to me in a way that I can believe.