Quote:
Originally Posted by John Dallas
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?
|
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.