Depending on the nature of the reason you're calling it ruined, you can V it out and TIG it back up.

Naive, Ed. A scrupulous person would save it.

The answer to that question should be obvious to an old time gun dealer like you Ed. All the past bad press that damascus and twist barrels got, meant those who drank that cool-aid had them re barreled, either at Parker, or, later on, by most good gunsmiths. Certainly if you're implying all those barrels came from guns whose frames were ruined by re-heat treatment, you are struggling to make your case.

Why would one simply assume that a hairline crack(s) in a frame was the result of the case coloring process? Perhaps it was case colored in an effort to conceal an existing fracture. Perhaps it cracked due to some form of abuse or preexisting defect in the steel. Without a lot more evidence to prove a causal connection, it would seem reckless to leap to that conclusion....much like concluding that a burst damascus barrel was the result of an inherent inferiority in damascus, without exploring whether it was actually caused by a barrel obstruction, overloaded shell, deep dent, etc.

edgar: over the years, my customers and myself have obtained parker barrel sets from a variety of different sources. those barrel sets include those made of twist, damascus and fluid steel. logic says some of those barrel sets came from guns with ruined receivers...

as for rebarrelling parkers, the common practice was/is to cut off the old barrels and then sleeve the existing breeches with new fluid steel tubes; and then relay the original ribs.

as for tig welding, two reasons it was not done? tig welding is a relatively new process? and why put money into welding a damaged receiver when it will likely crack again in a different place?

maybe we should just follow mike's lead and pretend there is no problem with rehardening old shotgun receivers and therefore, myself and others are just making it all up? but then, didn't king just tell us the following:

"I asked one of North America's best gunsmiths about cc a minty Sterlingworth. He said don't do it because of the risk. I act on advice when I'm paying an expert to do my thinking for me. "

so justin, us anti re case hardening quys are just makin it all up? have you ever re case hardened a shotgun receiver? if so, have you ever had one go bad? have you ever seen one that went bad?

edgarspencer: it was a 1926 Fox Sterlingworth of benchmark condition by which all all others could be measured. John Mann got it for me. All original, flawless.

During a capsize a week before Christmas 200 metres from shore an hour before daylight in a driving snowstorm, it went six fathoms to the bottom in the North Atlantic.

Nick Makinson restored it to all its glory after immersion in its plastic case for six months. He advised against colouring because risk outweighed benefits.

Anyone who has seen his work would take his word for it.

Ed,
Others on this site might accuse you of "just makin it up", but I did not. I simply suggested that you (and others) might be leaping to unwarranted conclusions without considering all the potential variables. And yes, I have case color hardened several vintage frames without any problems with warpage or cracking, which is not to suggest that it could never happen. Every restorative procedure has its inherent risks, and color case hardening is no exception. I would say though, that if one is going to undertake case color restoration, it should be done right; and that means bone charcoal case color hardening. A vintage gun is far better off left rusty and pitted than ruined by the lazy profiteers' torch. But that's just my opinion, of course.

You guys must not read DoubleGunShop much. If you keep talking to Ed this thread will just go on and one and on and on and on and on and on.......

hunter: you may be happy to know that i am about at the end of the line with this one.

justin: lets you and i and mike all agree:

"best not to reharden. best not to recolor."

Just what kind of nonsense are you referring to? David