Very Interesting Damascus Topic Thread.
 

Well worth reading through.
Thought provoking to say the least. :corn:

http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/in...p?topic=3171.0

Interesting.

After reading some of that it got me thinking about an article I read not long ago that announced that Purdy was going to make a Damascus shotgun again. The article even had it pictured and what I remember most was that the locks were Damascus too. I say "too" because I assume the barrels are Damascus but I am not sure? I am usually good at searching stuff out on the web but I can't find that announcement anywhere.

I was thinking an announcement like that would really confuse the issue about shooting Damascus for them.

Does anyone else remember this and know where that article might be found?

Or was this a vivid dream!

I believe I read it in SS

Whew!, I dont believe I have read posts from as many unknowledgeable people as the Open Range Forum. I guess none have heard of or read DGJ and know nothing about pressures and black vs Smokeless. They could be a good source of nice Damascus doubles
being referred to us.

Yes, as long as they have not hacked the barrels off to make a "Coach" gun.

Boldly asserted positions but not plausibly maintained. Tho I don't blame them for staying away from damascus since they really don't know enough about it. That's the safe course. PGCA should post a detailed check list of what to look for before shooting a damascus gun. Would be an aid to many, including me!

Robin has posted about as much information on the safety of Damascus barrels and how to determine if barrels are safe to shoot in several of the topics in the FAQ tab on the PGCA Home Page.

Ray, the check list is about the same as a person should use before buying or shooting a fluid steel gun. Notice how those guys on the open range site think a Model 97 Winchester is to be avoided? That is one scary bunch over there. I get the idea they are CAS guys, but then they profess to avoid CAS shooters because they shoot unsafe guns. Who are those guys?

I don't know a lot about this stuff. I looked on the FAQ page before my first post. It says damascus can be safe but go see it gunsmith. Easier said then done. I have found that I know more about them then they do around here and that's scary! Fla not a good place for this hobby. I think the gunsmiths around here are members of the open range! The best info I have ever rec'd on Parkers in general, and barrels in particular is this site and forum. A detailed check compiled by the collective knowledge of you all would be extremely helpful for the uninformed (me :D)

For example, the FAQ page doesn't mention barrel thickness

PGCA really can't get involved in telling members what wall thickness of composite barrel is safe to shoot with what load. I recommend, have recommended, that we measure wall thicknesses of original Parkers with composite barrels so that our members may compare guns they are interested in buying with known original guns. Members would have to own or borrow their own bore micrometers and wall thickness gauges to make such comparisons. Let's face it, most gunsmiths don't own bore micrometers or wall thickness gauges. Most gunsmiths are not really gunsmiths. Most gunsmiths don't own guns worth more than $400. It is our job to own the measuring tools needed to keep us from making purchasing errors or damaging our guns. If we are buying guns worth thousands of dollars, we should not rely on a gunsmith who doesn't know what he is looking at.

Bill, I concure with your position. Wall thickness guages only work with extensive modification and fixturing. Most people do not understand the variables involved. As for composite barrels, it is my belief that hammer forging increases the strenght of the steel. I.E. hammer forged tool steel. Over the years I have witnessed thousands of barrel failures. The bottom line is that fluid steel, or Damascus, failures occur only in obstructed bores. I have no problem with reloading, however I can trace most barrel failures to a cocked wad, no or insuffecient powder, or other obstruction. Almost never the thickness of the steel. I believe in over kill with a controlled explosion that close to your body. Most composite barrels exhibit wall thickness far greater than their fluid steel counterparts. I believe that Sherman Bell proved that misnomer. The only loss of flesh or digits that I have witnessed is with fluid steel, due to stupid loading problems. I have testified in many cases surrounding breach and barrel failures, it is allways the ammo. Logic would dictate that pressure will escape to the point of least resistance, so a clear bore will allow the charge to escape. Buldges and gooseeggs are due to minor obstructions that cleared. I believe that any bore of an antique shotgun should be inspected prior to use, fluid or composite. Rely on the opinion of someone that is specifically trained in the field. In closing, I would agree that ther are many barrels out there that are unsafe to fire, but don't pre judge the Damascus tubes, they are some of the finest ever built. In guns with Damascus barrels, the barrels were the single most expensive component in
the total gun.

Just my opinion,

Brad

Well said Brad.

Actually Ray, the sixth FAQ from the top addresses barrel wall thickness and to the best of my knowledge such recommendations as stated in that FAQ apply to both fluid steel as well as composite steel barrels in 12 gauge guns.

Both Bill and Brad give good advice on the subject and I would urge anyone with an interest of the safety of Damascus barreled guns to read each installment of Sherman Bell's "Finding Out For Myself" series in the Double Gun and Single Shot Journal. No, it is not an experiment endorsed by the scientific community and is not as 'controlled' as laboratory procedures would dictate.... but it's good enough for me!

I shoot Damascus barreled guns (after I have thoroughly inspected and measured them) with every confidence.

Bill, I understand why PGCA should avoid giving advice but I wonder if it could compile info from known reliable sources. The check list I suggest would sure help a person like me who is learning what many of you have known for years and might take for granted others might also know the same thing. I agree about gunsmiths. I heard the local gun shop hired a new gunsmith so I stopped by to meet him. He was 21 yrs old and stuggling to install a rifle scope. After giving him some tips, I left shaking my head. I sure he had never seen a damascus barrel. I have taken one set of barrels to three local gunsmiths to measure the bores. Each has given me significantly different measurements. I don't have the tools or anyone to show me how to use them. What's a fella to do!?!

Dean, I saw that FAQ but thought it was for fluid steel barrels. Not sure why I thought that since it doesn't say it's limited to them. I guess I assumed, incorrectly apparently, the specs for composite barrels were different.

So does the a fella like me do to figure this all out? There must be some authority to go to for a step by step process in figuring it out? I could use the pray and shoot method but that doesn't insure it won't fail the next time. I don't know a gunsmith anywhere who will actually certify the soundness of a composite barrel (and I have asked some well known gunsmiths to do so but they won't).

Another observation about The Open Range. For 50 years (maybe longer) we have read ammo boxes that say not to use in composite barrels. The misunderstanding is that it is the ammo that is the problem not the barrels. It is amazing how many experience shooters don't undersatnd this. They all say such barrels are unsafe. I tell them, if that were the case, every one who fired a Parker 100 years ago would have killed themselves. Most experienced shooters don't really even know the differnece between damascus and twist. Everything is "damascus" to them.

On the pretty cool page, met a fella at the range this weekend who was standing around showing folks a GH 16 ga with damascus barrels. He was in his 70's I'm guessing. Said it was his Grand-dad's. Doesn't ever remember his grand-dad using it when he hunted with him as a boy. Probably not shot in 75 yrs! Based on serial number I'm guessing it was built about 1900. Was in good shape. Nice to know they're are some untouched originals out there.

I forgot to ask. Is there any gunsmith you can send your barrels to who will certify them safe to shoot?

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.

Barrels
 

When someone prepares an article on Parker barrel testing, Parker Pages will certainly carry it. There is an informal report on metallurgical analysis of some barrals but it hasn't really been submitted for publication.
Two accomplished tool designers, Larry Frey and Dave Suponski are currently working with some twist and damascus barrel segments, trying to learn the cutting methods used to shape these barrels. This is an important first step in designing a non destructive test method as well as learning how early Parker barrels were made and finished.
Would you send a set of Dam 6 barrels for proof? Probabably not. There are two non destructive tests that need to be established; first a test that will determine if thin spots or seams less than 1/8 inch in diameter or width are present; second a test for ductility that will determine if the barrel metal has been embrittled by age, corrosion or heat cycling.
The first could probably be achieved by an industrial X ray, using similar techniques to testing steam pipe welds. The second might be done by measuring stretching and return to original dimensions as is done on gas cylinders. The question here is one of sufficient tests purchased to off set the original development costs.
Assuming these tests were designed; would you send a collector gun for analysis if you knew that some apparently high condition guns were found to be thin or brittle?

Best, Austin

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

Ans: No I wouldn't.

Austin, do we know of any barrels, Damascus or otherwise, that have been proven to have failed due to the metal having become "brittle"?

Do we know that this becoming "brittle" is a normal condition of aged gunbarrel metal?

Barrels
 

Dean; I think it is pretty apparent; when ductile barrels let go, due to overloads or obstructions, the barrel bulges and /or splits. When non ductile barrels let go they shatter and pieces become detached. These pieces are the things that generally cause injury.
There are a couple of stores near me that have blown composite barrel guns hanging over the register or rack. I had access to many club's blown gun exhibits during the 15 years I was a hunter training instructor; as I remember, all had metal missing.
One of our members has a lifter that let go at a thin spot; it was repaired and still is a beautiful gun, although it probably will never be shot again. Barrels that fail due to embrittlement cannot be restored.
And so we arrive at a quandary; a positive thickness and ductility test is certainly a positive factor in assessing a gun; does a negative test produce a beautiful wall hanger?

Best, Austin

Embrittlement in gun barrel steels-
 

In code welding, hydrogen embrittlement in the HAZ of the weldment can cause failure- in fabrication and structual grade steel- so preheat, post heat and use of low-hydrogen filler rods (AWS code 7018 for example) can prevent this form of weld failure-

As Damascus and twist barrels were "welded" so to speak- ie: heat and hammer blows of the twists of iron and steel over a mandrel, would trace hydrogen also play a part in latent embrittlement in these barrels?

Ductility would usually result from Mn and Si added to the steel during the BOF (or later, electric melt) furnace- but the iron strips, a different story perhaps-

I was just out shooting barn pigeons today with two of the 12 gauge Parkers- the GHE with Vulcan Steel barrels, and the PH with parker twist barrels- shot RST 2 & 3/4 dram 1 & 1/8th oz. No. 8 and Win 2 &3/4 dram lite 1 oz no. 9 shells- never have had one problem with that PH made in 1902 using those lower pressure loads, and the birds seem to crumple up in the air at my comfortable pass shooting range- no need for the more expensive HV loads at all- no recoil, easier on the wallet too-

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!

Barrel Measurements
 

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

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.

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, there were four articles concerning composite barrel testing in DGJ that I am aware of. I don't know if any other related articles by Sherman Bell have been published in other printed material.

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.

Ray- Magnaflux testing
 

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-:bigbye:

[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?

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.

Dean:

If my math is correct, a 1/8" dia. rod of 60,000 psi tensile strength steel will support 736 pounds before it begins to undergo plastic failure (ie: permanent stretching). The bar will strech before this point (elastic, not plastic), but will return to the original length upon removal of the load.
Ultimate tensile strength is the load that results in the piece actually breaking.

Barrel Wall Thickness
 

Back to the original topic' if someone can find a good wall thickness gauge we can probably measure 20 or more barrels at the HQ tent at Pin Tail

Best, Austin

John's math is of Einstein caliber-
 

That is why the welding rod is rated at about 10% higher that the UTS of the base metal(s) being joined by the welding process- SMAW- MIG (Metallic Inert gas) wire welding- most of the .030- .050 range filler wires used (with copper flash coating for greater current conductivity) at at a 70,000 UTS range- I don't know John Mazza from Adam's offside ox, but I'll bet he is a student of Hooke's Law--

Austin- I suggest you contact PGCA lad Jon Bosford in Ann Arbor, MI- he was at both Da Yooper shoot and the recent Lapeer side-by-event- if he is coming out to Pin the Tail on Da Point in Sept- he'd be your "go to guy" on barrel wall thickness gauging-:bigbye:

Francis:

The engineering education occasionally pays off...

(It also makes me over-analyze everything !)

Anything man-made than can fail- needs "over-analysis"
 

Hooke's Law, Occam's Razor, the Pythagorean Theory, Newton's Laws of Gravity- all bow down at the Altar of Murphy- when it can go wrong, it will- Three disciplines intrigue me to no end (I barely got out of HS and into the USMC- many years ago now) they are: Classical Music, Architecture and Metallurgy- all involved with higher strata of Math- I have nothing but respect for the engineers who design and then oversee the build- as we used to say in the Fab Shop[- "If they can draw it on paper, we can build it in metal to print- time after time"__

Francis:

Likewise, I have encountered some fine craftsmen with amazing insight & skills. In fact, I have the honor/pleasure of working with such a person on a major project in a few weeks. It's times like this that I really enjoy coming to work !

Damascus Mythology
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfg2hmx7_220dpc9nsck

Damascus Quality
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfg2hmx7_22ddqshmdq

The Double Gun & Single Shot Journal "Finding Out For Myself" by Sherman Bell Vol 17: Issue 3 (Autumn 2006) p. 12, Vol 17: Issue 4 (Winter 2006) p. 28, and Vol 20: Issue 3 (Autumn 2009) p. 108

Do shotgun barrels become "brittle" over time?
http://doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...599#Post190599

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 have not used their service, and would be most interested in hearing from someone who has.