Regarding KDGJ's comment:

It does seem odd for RST to lay out a disclaimer that, per this thread, has no sccientific merit. ...and Bruce makes a good point. What IS a modern shotgun ? There is no "date" or design, or specific barrel alloy defining that term, so wouldn't it be legally useless ?

But then again, we need coffe cups with warnings that read "Contents are hot!"

I don't speak for RST but I have an idea it has something to do with their insurer.

I know, and you are 100 % correct.

It just bothers me that we need to waste SO MUST TIME playing "Cover Your *ss" in this country...

What is a modern shotgun. I learned at the last NRA show from Remington that a modern shotgun has a black plastic stock and
matt finished metal. It may be semi auto or pump but holds at least five shots. The forend should have a pistol grip extending downwardly.

Similarly a modern hunting rifle is an AR or AK clone with at least a 15 round magazine.

Everything else is your grandfathers gun.

I guess I don't have any modern guns then...

Not a problem at all.

Similarly a hunter must wear camo in the upland game fields and apply face paint so the game will not see him. And your pick up truck flashlight and knife must also be camo. Anything less and you are not a real hunter.

You must also think Ted Nugent is a great musician and a spokesman for all sportsmen

Sherman Bell's articles Finding Out for Myself and The Forgotten 10's were some the best articles ever published in the DGJ in my opinion. They sure cost me some money chasing Damascus Parkers and 10 bore Elsies. Small gun auctions around my neck of the woods still hammer down dangerous Damascus guns for a song.

I wish they would make a book out of those articles. That was before I was a regular subscriber, but I have a few of the issues.

I'd be willing to bet this BB has more than one lawyer on it....and if we are going to lament the fallout of product liability claims then we have to include the lawyers in that mix.

As for Ted Nugent.....well, he's a bit much for my taste but I give him credit for standing apart from the usual views of his trade. Your average musician would never touch a gun or hunt anything - and would be glad if you never did either. Moreover, Ted also stayed away from drugs and alcohol his entire career....so Miles Davis he might not be but then that's not all bad.

Like Brad B. said the poor quality of some low grade European doubles led to many failures, but shooters that were used to stuffing as much black powder as would fit into their shotgun hulls probably caused quite a few as well. I wonder how well "drams equivalent" was understood in the early years.

I have to believe the era when both bulk and dense nitro powders were available led to some barrel blowups when a bulk powder dipper was used with a dense nitro powder. The two kinds of powder were available at the same time and in an era of less efficient communication and higher illiteracy.

What Pete stated and that at the time of the early "dense" or second generation smokeless powders a simple powder scale was very expensive and not easily available to the common shooter/reloader.

Mike, I think you should go back and re-read Mr. Bell's articles on blowing up the damascus And steel Parkers. No placing a 20 gauge shell in a 12 gauge chamber was used or done. It was only continuously higher pressures from specially loaded ballistic lab shells. Both damascus and steel barrels finally blew at pressures in excess of 30,000psi, with no barrel obstructions needed.

Sherman Bell's tests were interesting, and informative, but as science goes they represent far too small of a sample group to be of real substance.

As far as a scientifically valid sample goes, you are correct. As far as empirical evidence goes, not so much. Bell and Armbrust tested a small range of guns/barrels they had on hand. Their results fairly well validated those of the Birmingham Proof House. The results also underwrite practical evidence in the real world. A famous British barrelmaker I know has a drawer full of ruined Damascus, Twist and fluid steel barrels. All of the composite barrels failed via bulges and minor splits. The fluid steel barrels simply blew open violently.

Is this scientific proof of anything? Certainly not. But for my part, I'd rather be behind a composite barrel when it fails rather than a fluid steel one... slip-and-fall lawyers aside that is.

hows this for science..there are a few thousand of us parker owners and we as in most of us guys shoot our damascus guns reguraly with no problems..my self i shoot a lot of damascus and differant types of composite steel like stub twist-plain steel-laminated steel -wire twist- and the list goes on..some of these old barrels are pitted and i have shot some heavy loads thru them in smokeless powder with 3 oz of shot..so i say mr bell and mr arbrust and all of us shooters of all these old guns have proven a scientic fact that these old barrels still shoot ok.. charlie

Right Charlie

Bill I think you should read page 26 of Vol 18, Issue 1. Here's a pic of that page so you get the gist of it :whistle:

Mike, I stand corrected on the use of the 20 gauge shell but that was not the point of Bell's testing, I am not sure why he bothered. That particular test was not required. Anyone who has been around guns and fired them knows what will happen when you plug a bore and fire off a charge. Without going back to check my back issues, did't the 20 gauge shell thing happen after he "prooved" the Parker steel and damascus barrels and went on in a later article to test a bunch of "wall hanger" Smiths, Remingtons, etc to show that they all easily handled blue pill proof loads?

Sometimes what doesn't happen is surprising.





but then again when it does happen, disaster.

Thanks Pete!

I knew I had seen those videos. Of course I am not going to try that with a prized Parker.

I believe that most barrel blow ups were either caused by an obstruction such as mud, or a spider nest (from leaving that ol' gun in the corner of the barn just in case...). Barrel failures from obstructions usually occur down the barrel where the obstruction is or more correctly "was".

Chamber failures at or just past the chamber were most likely caused by those long ago without proper scales of knowledge of the differences, using the same volume of second generation smokeless powder as one would have previously done with black powder or first generation smokeless "wood" powder.

Thanks again Pete!
Mark

How is it for science? Well, it is not science at all. It is anecdotal evidence. There's no scientific proof of anything therein, other than perhaps that on those days with those guns with those loads in those weather conditions with those shooters nothing bad happened.

During the Viet Nam War, thousands of GI's had unprotected sex with thousands of Vietnamese women, and thousands of GI's never caught any disease. Is that scientific fact that you can't catch a disease from having unprotected sex?

Bell's tests are evidence, for sure, but not proof.

Bill I think the point Bell was making was even after proof loads, stuffing wads, dirt and rags down the barrel, the only way he could get a burst like that was to lodge the 20 ga shell down bore. I think that was the point of his testing. This test was done at the end of his series "Finding Out For Myself"