Remington's policy on shooting Damascus barrels

[Chuck Bishop]

There has been much discussion in the past about the safety of shooting Damascus steel barrels with modern ammunition. I just received some notebooks with Parker/Remington correspondence and I found their opinion on shooting Damascus steel and there policy about doing repairs.

Tom Carter, on a previous thread, stated that he had Remington repair codes on his 20ga Damascus barrels. Go figure!

I'm still going to shoot mine

[George M. Purtill]

What a bunch of weenie lawyer driven bull. Just because the gun has damascus barrels they wont even fix a butt plate?

Great letter though Chuck, thank you.

[Daryl Corona]

You got it George- It's all about liability. I read somewhere that Chas. Parker was really worried about the liability thing and actually designed his guns and most of his products to exceed the extremes any user could subject them to. If anyone is worried I'll test their Damascus guns for them.... no charge of course.

[Steve Huffman]

This is kinda what has been said for a long time Shoot the proper load designed for the gun and make sure gun is safe in all ways no matter what it is ! COMMON SENSE !

[Tom Carter]

Hi Chuck, Here is the picture of the Remington codes. I would guess Remington had a policy change. Cheers, Tom

No picutre. I'll try again.

If I'm reading the codes correctly they are February 1936 and January 1937.

[Tom Carter]

Maybe this time. It's amazing how it works when you do it correctly. Tom

[Drew Hause]

Wonder if the guarantee on Remington 1894 barrels still applied? :rolleyes:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/17067005/397290252.jpg

[Bruce Day]

Since the normal 12ga in damascus and fluid steel was patterned with 1 1/8oz loads pushed at 1125 to 1200 fps muzzle velocity, in 1900 and still available today, I've always wondered what "modern" loads are.

Maybe a "modern" load in 12ga is 1 3/8 oz at 1400fps, like sold by the case by Cabelas in South Dakota for pheasant shooting? If so, I'll stick to old fashioned loads regardless of the gun.

[Dave Noreen]

From the very introduction in the October 1894 Remington Arms Co. catalogue, the Remington Hammerless Gun was said to be "guaranteed for nitro powders". However, from surviving hang tags, we know that up to at least 1899, they were still being targetted with a black powder load of 3 1/2 Drachms F.G. Powder pushing 1 1/4 ounce of #8 chilled shot. By a 1908 vintage hang tag a 12-gauge Remington Hammerless Gun was being targetted with a load of 24 grains of Infallible in a 2 5/8 inch UMC Nitro Club shell pushing 1 1/4 ounce of #8 chilled shot. On the back of the 1908 hang tag they give maximum recommended 12-gauge loads of 3 1/4 drams of the various bulk smokeless powders or 26 grains of Infallible or Ballistite dense smokeless powders. These are considerably lighter than the loads given on the back of the 1899 hang tag.

[Mark Ouellette]

Is Unique modern version of Infallible powder?

These are un-confirmed references, i.e. from Internet gun forums...

"Unique is one of the oldest powders available, having been, by some accounts, introduced as early as 1890 by Laflin and Rand as their "Infallible" powder, the name later having been changed either by DuPont, who bought L&R, or by Hercules, the company that resulted from DuPont's divestiture of that business."

"While I am certainly in agreement with being kind to 100 yr old wood it is in fact true that not all 100 yr old loads were the powder-puff loads of 1 1/8 oz @ 1100 fps mentioned. My 1913 catalog Lefever Arms Co catalog gives recommended loads in 12ga going up to 3½ drams or equivelent of black, bulk or dense smokeless powders with 1¼ oz shot. Thr old L&R Infallible powder in those days in paper cases with card & felt wadding was rated in 12ga at about 8 grains per 1 dram equivelent, so the 26 grain cited by drew under 1¼oz would be a 3¼-1¼ load. The above quoted Lefever catalog lists Invallible up to 28 grains (3½DE) under that same 1¼ oz shot. By 1913 Infallible would have been a Hercules powder rather than L&R.

In a series of articles appearing in the American Rifleman back in the 50's on propellant powders for Rifles, Shotguns & Handguns & repeated in the 60's in their handloades guide it was stated that Infallible & Unique were just two names for the same powder. Infallible had been listed for loads in shotshells with Unique appearing in loads for rifles or hndgun cartridges. At about the time of the original articles Infallible seems to have dropped from the scene & virtually identical loads began appearing in shotshell data using Unique. The oldest load data I have with pressure readings was published in a realoders handbook by the infamous George Leonard Herter with a copyright date of 1963. A 23 gr load of Unique under 1 1/8 oz shot in paper case with paper wads (card & fiber) shows 8,725 psi. A picture of his pressure gun shows a crusher set up, so presumely this was "Uncorrected" LUP's, common for the era. Now realizing the primers may have been hotter & other subtle changes over a half century may have given an increase in pressures, but anyway you slice it, even in 1913 28 grs of Infallible behind 1¼ oz shot was "NOT" a particularlly mild load. Also admittedly it was not the every day load of the average rabbit or bird hunter, but it was a listed load of at least one gunmaker for use in their guns & no caveat was given as to the type of bbl construction it should or should not be fired through."

But then maybe Infallible is now Bullseye...
http://russian-mosin-nagant-forum.com/information/partizan/index.html

"There were not yet too many handloaders, daring enough to use smokeless powders for the handgun cartridges. They called this punching waste of an "Infallible" as a "Bullseye powder", because the very mild loads of it were able to throw the bullets in the bullseye of a target. To the Finnish readers: "Bullseye" on suomeksi "napakymppi" tai ainakin osuma pistooli-koulutaulun mustaan disipliini-ammunnoissa.

In 1904 the popularity of a dust-Bullseye was increased so much that the punch-waste could no more meet the demand. Hercules re-named the "Infallible" powder as "Bullseye". The good old dust-Bullseye was soon never more available, because that punch-waste was re-gelatinized and rolled once again to sheets for punching of the new disc-Bullseye. Revolver cartridge handloaders were angry, because the needed charges of a new disc-kernelled powder were ca. 25% heavier than those of original "dust powder", which was easy to ignite and burned away entirely before the bullet of an usual revolver target-load was jumped from the cylinder to the barrel. A price reduction of disc-Bullseye was enough to calm the hard feelings down: Not many handloaders declined to the use of a sooty black powder or the mixtures like "KING's SEMI-SMOKELESS"."

Dave or Dr. Drew, "What say you?" :)

[Drew Hause]

Mark - I know nothing about reloading, but do know the ol' boys used some boomers :eek:

Jan. 2 1897
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_15/SL2815017.pdf
Charles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the “Cast Iron Metal”
Grimm used a 12-bore L.C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds, 3 3/4 drams Schultze, 1 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U.M.C. Trap shell.
Carver used a 12-bore Cashmore gun, 8 pounds weight, 4 drams of Carver powder, 1 1/4 No. 7 shot, in U.M.C. Trap shell.

More infro here https://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1F2sQuPm05IE4VWYYnCkvuXmYEzQoWd_SQgaAfU OZEFU

[Bruce Day]

Absolutely. When you start looking at these pre modern loads, some of them were real shoulder busters. I've heard many stories from grandchildren my age ( 65) how grandpa made his special hot loads that belched fire with heavy recoil and that were so much hotter than anything you could buy. Well, what you could buy were 1 1/4 oz 3 1/2 dram loads, and these were way heavier than those. Its no wonder that some guns shot loose, or barrels blew, or stocks cracked. I have a heavy fowler 12ga Bernard that the stock was cracked and the barrels were loose on face. No barrel bulges, no damascus cracks, barrels still fine. I have little doubt that cannon shells were run through those heavy barrels.

I'm kind of fascinated by the mechanics of the Lefever guns, which had their claim to three modes of screw adjustment compensation for wear from use and heavy loads. A Parker had none of them and there are not many loose Parkers, so you know people shot heavy loads and the guns were none the worse for it.

I think I'll order a couple more cases of 1 or 1 1/8 oz 3 dram modern loads for hunting. You know, something easy on the gun and my shoulder. For targets, I get modern shells even lighter than that.

[Pete Lester]

If liability was such a serious concern why didn't Parker Bros. of any other maker offer a trade in allowance of composite barrel guns? Seems to me they could have further driven the sale of new guns and created a market of factory refurbished/rebarreled with fluid steel guns at a lower price.

[Brad Bachelder]

In the "Great Debate over the safety of composite Barrels, A very important consideration needs a much greater focus. Composite Barrels were manufactured in many different configuations and degrees of quality. The top American manufacturers used the highest quality barrels available. The smaller manufacturers and importers used much lower quality tubes. Perhaps the poor quality tubes were not able to withstand the higher pressures of nitro powders.
The expense of high quality composite barrels, drove the industry to create much less expensive fluid steel barrels. Fluid steel and composite co-existed for a period of time, in fact composite became a luxury upgrade.
The unilateral condemnation of Damascus and composite barrels, I believe was primarily a marketing move to reduce costs in materials. Failures in poor quality barrels may have supported the manufacturers position.
Shootability depends on quality and condition. Every set should be individually evaluated.

Brad

[George M. Purtill]

Excellent point Brad. My impression from what I have seen is there was a lot of junk coming in from abroad. As in many areas, the good gets painted with the same brush as the bad.

[charlie cleveland]

after looking and reading remingtons adds it looks like remington did not want to fix or repair a gun with damascus barrels..but then they would sell you a gun with damascus barrels that they said would shoot and stand upo to modern smokeless loads with no harm... i would say these fellows doing the marketing stratys were a little forked tongue... in my opinion ive shot a lot of these old damascus twist stub twist laminated steel about all of the old belgium clunker guns with all known types of odd barrel markings of steel...ive never had a issue with one...the only gun ive not fired yet is a pretty nice old parker lifter gun with plain steel marked on the barrels and it will get tried out here shortly.... charlie

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

Some of Remington's barrels were very heavy as in this example, Gary

[Ben Rawls]

In some hearings before a Senate committee on tariffs about 1912, the head of Parker and LC Smith both testified that they were unable to make quality barrels at prices to make their guns competitive. They needed the source of Belgian (et.al) barrels to make good shotguns.
Some other documentation stated that even though they had tried to source their barrel steel from the US,they could not do it reliably enough for their quality control.
It might not have been true but they told the US Senate it was.

[Steve McCarty]

I'm just going to toss my 2 cents in here. 19th Century shooters considered damascus barrels as superior, often times, to fluid steel tubes. The transition from BP to smokeless happened gradually starting in the 1860s and was pretty much over by the teens or 20s. Still Damascus and twist barrels were prefered by many shooters of fine shotguns and they continued to shoot them and many folks still do.

Therefore, while I would not suggest shooting high powered shells in damascus barrels the RST and Polywad shells made for such guns are, if properly inspected, perfectly safe to shoot and they do the job they were intended to do.

Within the past few years researchers like Sherman Bell have studied the strength of damascus and twist barrels and have found them strong enough for standard pressure shells and I shoot my damascus Parker with confidence, but only with 8 or 9,000 psi shells, but it would probably do just fine with even more powerful loads. I just don't choose to shoot them.

[Dean Romig]

I have said this before and I'll say it again... Any barrels that would have blown from normal shooting have probably already done so by now. (Operative word - "normal")

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

Interesting stuff!

[Steve McCarty]

I was blown away by Drew's post wherein old shotshell loads was outlined. Those guys were shooting cannons. I guess they didn't buy into the, lighter loads of shot pattern better, philosophy.

I'm sure most of those old, heavy loads were being shot through damascus/twist tubes. So, why should we worry? As stated above, if a gun was going to let go, by now it would have.

For my entire life I have been told, or have heard over and over again that damascus shotguns were unsafe to shoot, and I still hear it all of the time. I've passed on some very nice damascus guns over the years that were pretty inexpensive because I thought them unsafe.

If damascus guns are indeed unsafe we'd be hearing of explosions and failures. We are not. Still, however; I shoot Polywad.

[Dave Noreen]

The "big difference" in "modern" progressive burning powder shells (I'll use the 12-gauge example) is that they pushed the 1 1/4 ounce payload at a higher velocity, with an equal or perhaps a bit lower pressure, than the older bulk or dense smokeless powder loads could. Or, the progressive burning powders could be used to push a heavier payload, ie the 1 3/8 ounce 12-gauge Super-X load in Western Cartridge Co.'s 3-inch Record shell, at a equal or even slightly higher velocity.

Western Cartridge Co. had led the way in introducing progressive burning smokeless powder to shotgun shells with the 1922 introduction of their Super-X loads in 2 3/4 inch 12- and 20-gauge Field shells.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Ansleyone/Western%20Cartridge%20Co/EarlySuper-X12-gaboxSuperExcellant.jpg

The next year they added a 16-gauge Super-X load in their 2 9/16 inch Field shell, and a bit later the 12-gauge 3-inch Super-X load put up in their Record shell.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Ansleyone/Western%20Cartridge%20Co/Super-X3-in12Record.jpg

By 1926, Western had added the .410-bore Super-X load and had breathed new life in the moribund 10-gauge by introducing the 2 7/8 inch Super-Ten load with 1 5/8 ounces of shot, a terrific increase over the previous maximum 10-gauge loads of 4 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder and 1 1/4 ounces of shot or 32 grains of dense smokeless powder, such as Ballistite or Infallible, and 1 1/4 ounces of shot!! By this time only Parker Bros. and Ithaca Gun Co. were offering 10-gauge guns in North America. About 1928, Western Cartridge Co. introduced their copper plated Lubaloy shot. The Lubaloy Super-X loads were all put up in their high brass Record shell.

The first smokeless powder for shotgun shells was probably Wood powder, introduced in 1876. Shotgunners being a hidebound lot were rather slow to embrace smokeless powder, but by the 1890s it was coming on strong. In 1890, Captain A.W. Money came to America from England, and established the American E.C. and Schultze Powder Company in Oakland Park, Bergen County, New Jersey, with offices on Broadway in New York City, to manufacture smokeless shotgun powders. In 1893, Union Metallic Cartridge Co. was already offering smokeless powder shotshells, and that year Winchester was providing them to selected shooters with Winchester offering them to the general public in 1894. The American ammunition companies held their smokeless powder loads offered in the 2 5/8 inch 12-gauge shells lower than those offered in the 2 3/4 inch and longer shells. Same thing holds for the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge shells and the 2 ½ inch 20-gauge shells. The very heaviest 2 5/8 inch shells I find offered were 3 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 26 grains of dense smokeless powders such as Ballistite or Infallible with 1 1/4 ounces of shot. In 2 3/4 inch and longer shells they offered 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powders or 28 grains of Ballistite or Infallible dense smokeless powders with the same 1 1/4 ounce of shot. These loads were very high pressure according to a DuPont Smokeless Shotgun Powders (1933) book I have. It shows the 3 1/2 drams of DuPont bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot as being 11,700 pounds; 3 1/2 drams of Schultze bulk smokeless powders pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 11,800 pounds and the 28-grains of Ballistite pushing the 1 1/4 ounces of shot being 12,600 pounds!!! There were plenty of lighter loads being offered, but American shotgunners being what they are, I'm sure many were opting for the heaviest loads available. The same situation held with the 16- and 20-gauge shells. The "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shells and the "standard" 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge shells carried slightly milder loads than the extra cost longer shells in 2 3/4, 2 7/8, and 3-inch lengths.

Many folks believe that the "modern" shotshells loaded with progressive burning smokeless powders, introduced in the early 1920s, Western Cartridge Company's Super-X loads leading the way, were higher pressure than the old bulk and dense smokeless powder loads. Reading period literature, this is not the case. With progressive burning smokeless powders they were able to move out equal shot loads at higher velocity or a heavier shot load at equal velocity, but at lower pressure than the old style bulk or dense smokeless powders.

[Paul Stafford]

It's my belief the barrels can handle "reasonable" pressure. As I shoot low pressure loads I'm more worried about my 100+ year old wood stocks.

[Craig Larter]

We are fortunate that most considered damascus dangerous to shoot for 70 years otherwise few good examples would exist today.

[Steve McCarty]

It's my belief the barrels can handle "reasonable" pressure. As I shoot low pressure loads I'm more worried about my 100+ year old wood stocks.

I just re-read some of Sherman Bell's work with damascus tubes in Double Gun. I'll dig it out so that I can quote from it. He says that it is just fine to shoot damascus guns and he should know. He has tested them extensively. He also writes that BP loads produce more pressure than most people think. I'm not going to go out on a limb and make any outlandish statements about the relative strength of damascus barrels. I quote from Double Gun later.

[Steve McCarty]

We are fortunate that most considered damascus dangerous to shoot for 70 years otherwise few good examples would exist today.

I agree. My Parker GH, one of only two Parkers that I own, is a fantastic shotgun. Fit, finish, wood, balance are wonderful. The more I shoot it the better I like it. It is heavy though, but that's okay.

[ed good]

maybe what we need here is a damascus barrel proofing service that would for a fee, proof damascus barrels with moderate smokeless loads, say one ounce of shot, developing 10,000 psi? trouble is, no one would do it due to the liability potential...

[Drew Hause]

H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. in Maryland will proof Twist or Damascus barrels for $420 per Shooting Sportsman March/April 08'
www.hpwhite.com 410-838-6550

I know of no one who has used that service.

[Bruce Day]

With respect to Ed's suggestion to "proof" at 10,000psi, be aware that Parker used about 10,000 psi as a service load ceiling for all types of 12ga barrels, so a "proof" of 10,000psi would be inconsequential. For 10,000 psi, just stick a Rem game load in that runs 1 1/4 at about 3 to 3 1/4 dre. TPS shows a proof load was about 13,500psi for early guns , then later at 15,000. TPS always contains answers to most Parker questions.

Drew, of course a person need not send the gun off to Maryland for testing , he can get all he needs right out here on the plains. Mitchell Cabelas carries these which they say a person needs for killing pheasant. Only 1 3/8oz at 1500fps, just what everybody needs, don't even have to lead the bird. Only $15 a box of 25, save your $420.:)