Shooting Sportsman Article
 

Is it just me or does this guy seem to be peddling old wives tales about vintage guns and Damascus barrels? Is he even aware of Sherman Bell, RST shells, the entire vintage shotgun community? I’m sure Tom Roster is a nice guy but everything I’ve read by him seems to be ill-informed nonsense. How does he have a regular piece in Shooting Sportsman?

https://shootingsportsman.com/pressure-vs-recoil/

Everyone’s got a right to their “opinion” and based on this fellows opinion I’d not be overly enthused if he knocked on my door .

No excuse however for repeating demonstrable erroneous statements
Parker Brothers 1893 Catalogue
“Our guns are bored on the latest improved system for shooting Nitros, or Smokeless Powder, and all our guns are tested with some one of the most approved makes, and a tag accompanies each gun, giving the results of such a (pattern) test.”

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/vie...p?f=2&t=505616

Do our modern propellants behave the same as smokeless powder from the late 19th century? Roster pays little attention to Sherman Bells work but is a believer in having individual guns proofed before shooting.

I honestly don't believe we need to have these composite-barreled Parkers 'proofed' per se.

Common sense wins out in most cases and when it fails.... it just proves Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I think is was something like "The stupid shall perish." or somethin' like that....





.

Then how do you explain Washington DC?

which powder when -

there were and are different powders - many have a pressure curve quite similar to black powder. that is the key point. the gun doesn't know or care if the same PSI at the same distance from the breach is created by black powder, smokeless powder or for that matter compressed air

I don't even try.... :biglaugh:





.

Ed: a pressure-distance curve for some new-fangled smokeless powders; 1 1/8 oz @ 1200 fps. Please note that Unique is the old Infallible Dense Smokeless slightly modified. The curves meet at about 2 1/2"

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../412289224.jpg

Pressure-time curve. The Green Dot and Unique curves are the same.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../410474897.jpg

From “Smokeless Shotgun Powders: Their Development, Composition and Ballistic Characteristics” by Wallace H Coxe; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 1927, promoting DuPont Oval, p.20.
Charge was 3 Dr. Eq. and 1 1/4 oz.
Ballistite maximum pressure at 1” was 4.9 Long Tons = 10,976 psi
Schultze at 1 3/4” was 4.5 Long Tons = 10,080 psi
DuPont Bulk at 1 2/3” was 4.1 Long Tons = 9,184 psi
FFFg at 1 1/2” was 3.8 Long Tons = 8,512 psi
DuPont Oval at 2” was 3.5 Long Tons = 7,840 psi
+ 10-14% to reproduced modern transducer numbers so Ballistite was probably > 12,500 psi

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../410772139.jpg

Dense Ballistite was slightly slower than Red Dot and e3; the old Bulk Smokeless more so with a lower peak pressure; "progressive burning" Oval much more so.

Thank you Drew. Roster does not like damascus guns unless they’ve been to the proof house. Personally, I believe Sherman Bell made his point and we here have discussed over the years that if the gun/barrels are sound the greatest danger to the gun is recoil effects on the stock. I’ll continue to shoot my damascus guns regardless of Tom Rosters opinion

Personally I’m fine with articles like these planting seeds of doubt or reinforce old beliefs about Damascus barrels. It makes them much more affordable.

But, it makes unscrupulous people blue over them!!

Perhaps that is the case. Certainly there are dam barrels that have been blued for one reason or another. I’m always a bit excited when I see a dam barreled gun in a local gun shop. It usually doesn’t take long to get to the “damascus barrels are dangerous” speech from who ever is behind the counter.

Given Mr. Roster status and position in the industry, perhaps his position in the context and space limitations of a "periodical" article is the only one he can take. And we all agree that having someone in the know inspect a set of composite barrels is always wise before using them.

When it comes to sporting media like Shooting Sportsman, one must keep these things in mind:

1) The Shooting Sportsman audience is MUCH larger than the Damascus gun market.
2) The advertisers in SS make guns with fluid steel barrels.
3) These advertisers PAY for space in SS.
4) Mr. Roster wants to keep his job.
5) A cautionary story about Damascus barrels helps sell more of those fluid steel barreled guns.
6) Mr. Roster's publisher is happy.

Thus ends our lesson in sporting media economics.

Bingo- We have a winner!!

It's all about the physics involving pressure. It doesn't matter if it's Damascus barrels, fluid steel barrels or a piece of PVC pipe. When you boil it down shotgun barrels are nothing more than a piece of pipe, either they will be able to safely hold a given pressure or they will yield & fail if they have been exposed to pressures over their yield strength. It only makes sense to keep the pressures as low as possible no matter what kind of material the barrels are made from. It all comes down to any given set of barrels, their individual condition and what they can handle for pressure. IMO a good rule of thumb is to inspect each barrel closely for condition with the emphasis on safety and then keep the pressures the lowest you can to get the job done safely & effectively.

Tom Roster is for the most part is correct about not confusing pressure with recoil. Recoil is affected by a different set of physics and the two shouldn't be confused with each other.

If my Damascus barrels blow up and kill me on a covey rise, then I died well.

I'm either living proof of the hoax or the luckiest man alive

Shooting Sportsman is the "Magazine of Wingshooting and Fine Guns." I would have hoped for a better approach to the article. This is the second time in about a year Mr. Roster has confused the issue on Damascus barrels.

Ken

Some older gun guys who have been at it for their whole lives still cling to old ways, methods, opinions, and wives’ tales...





.

:corn: :rolleyes: :cool:

Ohhh... :knowbetter:





.

The early shooting sportsman issues are classic. I wish they would go back to those days.

Agreed, and that is one of the reasons I dropped my subscription to it.

SRH

same here - poorer content and i really did not like the new short attention span format

i had subscribed since the 1990's (speaking of old guys :rotf: )

Where would you get a gun SAAMI proofed? Since the US has no Proof House that statement seems profoundly stupid.

Sherman Bell is the obvious answer but the Damascus guns all passed so there is that. Not to mention any number of us are living breathing proof tests anyway

You still read stuff like "the debate rages on" which is ridiculous

I actually modeled my book after the early shooting sportsman with sections for upland birds, waterfowl and other.

All that said, I am still a subscriber and still a fan

Options for proof testing

H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. in Maryland and Cortland, New York
www.hpwhite.com

Entropy Engineering Corporation
http://www.entropyec.com/

Dayton T. Brown
https://www.dtb.com/testing-overview

I don't know the current fees for testing

A better article on shooting damascus guns https://sportingclassicsdaily.com/da...safe-to-shoot/.

Ken

I no longer take Shooting Sportsman . I have no need to read or look at pretty picture infomercials about commercial put and take hunting lodges, the latest clothes or guns that are not as well made as a Parker .

I am heading off next week to close the quail season.

I do most of my guns/hunting/dog reading right here.