There has been original research measuring the tensile strength of a variety of pattern welded tubes, several contributed by PGCA members
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...hfDxmrNAU/edit

There were possibly 40 pattern welded tubes donated to 'Zircon' without apparent follow through.

There ARE failure analyses, including Ron Graham's report of Sherman Bells ruptured GH Damascus barrels and VH Vulcan Steel barrels, and the PCGA has a copyrighted and unpublished formal metallurgical failure analysis of those barrels.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...K7G9IBs4g/edit

And no "orange lace" from mythical internal corrosion in these freshly cut tubes ready for tensile testing and composition analysis

https://photos.smugmug.com/Barrel-Ev...gth%204-XL.jpg

And this from Mike George, Technical Editor, “ShootingUK”
http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/answers/...us-steel-13767
“In the USA there is one chap who is active on websites who believes that all Damascus steel barrels are so dangerous they should be destroyed.”
http://www.randywakeman.com/WhyYouSh...cusBarrels.htm
“But then you are likely to get piffle like this from a nation that does not have gun barrel proof legislation.”
(Piffle: “pseudo-scientific trivial nonsense, baloney”)

The Birmingham Proof House routinely proves pattern welded barrels. I have no information on the failure rate.

Thanks Drew. I knew you’d come on and set me (all of us) straight.
Always good to hear from your expertise.





.

I have nothing against a person that doesn’t care to fire guns with Damascus or twist barrels that’s their prerogative , however on the other hand if I’m shooting them and someone doesn’t like it the best thing they can do is not stay around . I was shown an article from
The American Rifleman once that was written back in the late forties or early to mid fifties . If my memory serves P.O. Ackley wrote it . He took four Parker’s all with good bores , tight etc . Two were fluid steel and two were damascus . He started loading below factory standards trying same loads in all four working his way up to factory smokeless pressures . Then he started exceeding pressure velocity etc . He burst the two fluid steel barrels and went on with the two damascus guns until he thought he’d sprung the actions enough to make lock up not safe I think the article said . Anyway those guns I’m sure had far better bore condition barrels than a good many now .

Thinking more about Mike's question, IMHO the Birmingham Proof House's frequent proving of pattern welded barrels does constitute an ongoing "experiment'; though without controlling for uniformity of wall thickness.

Great Britain joined the Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives standards in 1980 but the new Rules of Proof were not introduced until 1984. Lead Crushers were used until 1989.

The CIP transducer “Maximal Statistical Individual Pressure” is 850 BAR = 12,328 PSI for a “Maximal Average (Service) Pressure” of 740 BAR = 10,733 PSI, and “Mean Proof Pressure” of 960 BAR = 13,924 PSI.
900 BAR is for a “Maximal Average (Service) Pressure” of 780 BAR = 11,313 PSI and Proof pressure of 1020 BAR = 14,794 PSI.
High Performance (Magnum) MSIP is 1200 BAR = 17,405 PSI for a Service Pressure of 1050 BAR = 15,229 PSI, and Mean Proof Pressure of 1320 BAR = 19,145 PSI.

Damascus barrels reproved in 1992 at 1200 BAR (WHAT were they thinking?!? :shock: )

https://photos.smugmug.com/Proof-Mar...%26R%209-S.jpg

2006 British Rules of Proof changed the process slightly
https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/rules-proofing
Part IV, “The Proof Load”, Number 27, Part A
Calls for a load of 30% over mean service pressure at a point 17mm or 25mm (about 1”), and at a point 162mm (6.38”) from the breech face a load of 30% over mean service pressure (at that point as determined by the Proof House).
The powder used in proof loads is not specified.

AFAIK the Proof House has declined to reveal the powder used, or if this is one proof load shot or two proof load shots.

I suspect if those Damascus barrels were faulty they would certainly have known it at 1,200 BAR.
This just reinforces my belief in the inherent strength of pattern-welded barrels.
Thanks Drew!





.

For 20+ years I read the articles in Double Gun Mag written by Sherman Bell wherein he described over loading damascus barrels, trying to get them to blow up. He was very detailed in his studies. He over loaded damascus shotgun barrels of many makers and they did not blow up. He even honed some L.C. Smith barrels to paper thin and even then they would not let go. Therefore I shoot damascus/twist shotguns confidently. I also think they look neat.

I agree 100% Steve.





.

Craig: I have the American Rifleman Author and Subject Index 1951-1960 and it does not list an article by Ackley regarding Damascus barrels.
A Google search for 'P.O. Ackley on Damascus Barrels' found nothing.
There is a long opinion piece by E.H. Harrison in the January 1956 "Dope Bag" which repeats the (now disproven) idea of hidden internal corrosion, flaws and inclusions making Damascus barrels intrinsically unsafe.

I shoot a Parker GH with damascus barrels. Also an LC Smith O grade. I shoot them like a shoot any shotgun. Things have been working fine so far.

I'm an old man. I have been warned all of my life to avoid damascus or twist barrels to the point that I never saw anyone shooting one. No one would go near any of those old tubes. Then I read Sherman Bell's DGJ writings and I began to change my mind. I bought a Parker GH (a decade ago). Nice engraving, but not too much of it, wonderful wood. I shot it with RST first and then switched to standard target loads. Today I own a damascus LC Smith, a Parker and a W.C. Scott is supposed to be in the mail. Truthfully I prefer damascus. I like the way it looks and old guns sing to me. Moreover I have never heard of a single damascus or twist barrel letting go. I know that some did years ago, but today? If it is happening, I have not heard about it.