Parker Barrels types and quality
 

Folks .I'm trying to figure out the different barrel make ups of Parker’s , my new to me GH says Damascus the web site lists GH’s with Parker special steel ?

Am I missing something here, and is there really much difference in the different types of barrels that were put on different models and grades, was one type of barrel better or tougher than others.

Bottom line is I’m trying to see if hevishot classic doubles is safe to use in my GH with Damascus barrels, I have emailed the factory to see if they will tell me the chamber pressure of the 1-1/8 oz load, both sets of barrels are in great shape and ring like church bells.

Thanks Fred

IMHO whether the barrel ring has little or nothing to do with the advisability to shoot given shell. I would suggest that you have the barrel wall thicknesses checked out by someone knowledgeable

This should help Fred
https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/vie...p?f=5&t=366087

Detailed information (mostly courtesy of Dave Suponski) regarding the named Parker steels is here; scroll down about 2/3
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...EK8OtPYVA/edit

Please let us know if you get an answer from Hevi Shot folks. There is no pressure information here, and I have not seen any published
https://www.hevishot.com/catalog/classic-doubles/

Ewh Whee Dr. Drew. Clicked on link you listed and went down a rabbit hole with the back and forth exchange between you and Bob the Chemical Engineer. Not trying to bring up painful topic but that was crazy. My brain started to hurt with some of the baffling and techno jargon material presented and not certain if anything definitive presented itself. It almost sounded like you were in violent agreement that old guns can be safe to shoot with modern load pressures if you take reasonable care and not overload them, probably more for the furniture than barrels.

The only reason I delved into is that there is an LC Smith hammer gun I am looking at. Seems priced right and I think it has fluid steel barrels. They said it was a Model 235 but I don't know what that means in Elsie jargon and can't find a reference to it in LC Smith site.

The Parker GH was first introduced with Damascus barrels, most often of the “three iron crolle” grade but some were fitted with four iron crolle Damascus. Parker Special Steel was the fluid pressed steel fitted to grade 2 hammerless guns some twenty or so years later and Damascus barrels were quickly phased out.

There is nothing inherently unsafe about Damascus barrels but it is always wise to have them measured for wall thickness for the full length of each tube and in several locations around the circumference as well as the chamber length and wall thickness at the point where the chamber meets the forcing cone.






.

My sense is that the gun manufacturers, once it was figured out that fluid steel barrels were cheaper to manufacture, went on a concerted whispering campaign to cast doubt on damascus, where none had existed before. Is there any evidence of collusion among the manufacturers that would support my cynical conjecture?

As Dean and others have said wall thickness is key, I think those classic doubles have quite a wallop. I have a few boxes but have never shot them in damascus.

That is an interesting point. I know there was a transition period when damascus and twist steel were being phased out, mostly because of cost; which would back your point. I know there was some debate about the new fangled fluid steel at the turn of the century as gun buying public was adopting it as latest and greatest to handle nitro smokeless powder loads.

Mention nitro anything in that day and age everyone knew that was modern dynamite. Doubt you would find any direct evidence of one of them telling public that they were producing unsafe guns before but trust us now with this fluid steel. Probably did it with saying get latest and greatest guns with fluid steel that are lighter and can handle new smokeless non corrosive powder with barrels that are Nitro proof etc. etc.

They might have hired a few sport and gun writers to do a subtle marketing hit piece to manage the strategic narrative. As long as there has been a free press there has also been strategic narrative use to manipulate the public perception of things. I think Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were some of the of the best at it.

Still there is a pervasive stigma with Damascus and twist steel. It would be interesting where it the rumor,myth or stigma started. Maybe its like the whisper game. Hey get the nitro proof barrels that are lighter. It starts one way then it becomes get fluid steel because damascus is unsafe. It starts just like the wave at a football stadium.

Todd: Stevens made a Model 235 Hammer Double, not Hunter Arms

re: collusion

Jack O'Connor, Outdoor Life, 1942
A good many people resent being told that their much loved old guns were no longer safe. Just for the fun of it, Lou Smith (President of Ithaca Gun Co.) proofed (using 17,500 psi Proof Loads in 1942) a dozen or so damascus and twist beauties which were lying around the plant. Here's the dope: Most of the old timers busted loose with the first proof shell. The rest did with the second. Guns tried were cheap, medium priced and expensive: but all of them went. So if anyone wants to go ahead using modern smokeless stuff in a gun built for black powder, he can; but he can include me out.
Reviewing the findings Lou writes: "These birds who persist in using smokeless powder in twist and damascus barrels remind me of the guy who made a living by sticking his head in the lion's mouth at the circus. He got away with it for a long time; then one day he didn't!"

1897 "Bored for Black and Nitro Powder"

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../409322131.jpg

1899 "Guaranteed Not To Shoot Loose With Nitro Powder" (doesn't say anything about not blowing up ;) )

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../413505809.jpg

Seems odd that this 1909 Twist barrel Ithaca is clearly stamped "NITRO POWDER PROVED" :rolleyes:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../411848393.jpg

Definitely not a Stevens and you can still see LC. Smith worn heavily but engraved on receiver. But gun shop prominently displayed it as a Model 235. Not a big shop and they mostly have typical new O/Us, rifles, and their other sxs's are Stoeger coach guns.

Wow that is amazing Dr. Drew you finding that article. Talking about manipulating a strategic narrative. Free press and free enterprise all in one. Makes you think about some Jack O Connor with some of his influence peddling taken as gospel. I think it was him that put out the debate about 270 and 30-06 which is best caliber. Almost like shock jock talk or reporters interviewing reporters. Do you think OConnor and Lou told a bold face lie? BTW it is 1942 who would even challenge it. It was written in Outdoor Life it has to be true.