.024 (24 THOUSANDTHS) DAMASCUS

[J. A. EARLY]

I'm looking for opinions on the shooting with low pressure loads of Parker damascus barrels with no apparent flaws but only .024 thickness at their thinnest. Both barrels are the same and both apparently were polished inside.

Thanks.

[Dean Romig]

Jerry, have you meticulously measured the barrel walls yourself up and down the tubes and all around them and determined them to be .024" at their very thinnest points anywhere on them?

Incidentally, .025" is the standard minimum we hear of when discussing the 12 gauge but smaller gauges would likely need thicker barrel walls.

[Smoothebore]

Be careful. There is low pressure and there is low pressure. I shot one that was .020 at the thinnest. It was ten gauge, and I picked a load rated at 4800psi. Everything went fine, but I was not comfortable with it.

Dave

[J. A. EARLY]

Dean,

I have not measured them; the owner did,so they may be worse than reported. I do not want to make a costly and dangerous mistake in their purchase.

Thanks.

[C grade]

I had this discussion yesterday with David Trevalian. My personal standard has always been 25 but he tells me he has submitted dam barrels for London proof down to 20 and had them pass. I also thing all dam is not created equal and the history of the gun and any past abuse is important. JMHO
David

[Joe Wood]

Where the thin area is makes a huge difference in "go--no go". If it's near the muzzle then the thin wall is probably a non event. If it's close to the breech then you ought to reconsider shooting it. I have a 16 gauge Lefever DS with steel barrels and they measure about .024 12" ahead of the breech. I'm shooting RST's in it but must admit being a tad queasy. However, three gunsmiths of national renown separately told me not to worry about it........but I still do.

[Dean Romig]

My personal standard of safety is for the first third of barrel length from the breech must be of sufficient thickness as to be a non-issue but forward of that is, in my opinion and for my own purposes, less significant but I will not post the thickness of barrels I have owned and shot in the past.

[Smoothebore]

Jerry,
There are many philosophies on the subject. At best those barrels are borderline for safety. I shoot mostly Damascus, and my advice is be patient and keep looking. There are plenty of guns out there with good stout barrels.

Dave

[Wild Skies]

Where did this .025 MWT dimension come from? Has there been some recent documented definitive testing done to arrive at that number or is it someone's personal minimum?

The reason I ask is that I was informed via direct correspondance with Michael Lynch, the chief inspector of The Birmingham Proof House (who undoubtedly has more experience in this regard than any other person or entity that I'm aware of) that they inform their customers only if the MWT falls below .020---even though the gun may have passed proof below .020. So, it would seem that .020 is The Birmingham Proof House minimum for concern as long as load pressures are kept under for which the barrels were proved.

Now having said this, we all know there is more to it than just MWT, like condition of the bores, pitting, dents, dings, previous repairs, etc. that can affect the strength of the barrels.

[Dean Romig]

Greg, I have read the same "safe at .020"" too and don't doubt it taking into consideration the qualifiers you pointed out but I'm just not comfortable with giving this topic a "blanket coverage" because without examining such barrels personally I think it would be irresponsible to do so.