Double Gun journal

[OLD GEEZER]

Thanks Ken. That will help a lot. Thomas

[OLD GEEZER]

Thanks Jim what a great reference list. Thomas

[Drew Hause]

Ken's got 'em.
These are the Destructive Test articles

Vol 10, Issue 2, Summer 1999, Part 1, p. 9
Vol 10, Issue 4, Winter 1999, p. 21 - Destructive testing of Parker GH Damascus
Vol 16, Issue 2, Summer 2005 - Destructive testing of Parker VH Vulcan Steel

I don't have Ken's Autumn 2005 Finding Out for Myself IX Fluid Steel, Stronger Than Damascus? listed. Is that the Parker VH test?

Vol 17, Issue 3, Autumn 2006, p. 12 - Destructive testing 8 Damascus doubles
Vol 17, Issue 4, Winter 2006, p. 28 - Destructive testing 7 Damascus
Vol 18, Issue 1, Spring 2007 -
Destructive testing on a Damascus barrel with thinned walls; calculated by O.D. - I.D. and not measured.
Destructive testing using various obstructions, including a 20g shell.
Destructive testing using a shell loaded with 3 1/4 Drams by volume or 56 grains of Unique (similar to “Infallible”) with 1 1/4 oz. shot. The chamber burst with the first shot.

Vol 19, Issue 2, Summer 2008, p. 18 - Destructive testing 1 Damascus, 6 Twist
Vol 20, Issue 3, Autumn 2009, p. 108 - Destructive testing 1 Damascus, 5 Twist “Bottom-Of-The-Barrel Wall-Hangers”

[OLD GEEZER]

Thanks Drew .I bet a few others will be interested in this info that has been posted on this question. Thomas

[Jim McKee]

Drew,
Yes it was a Parker # 90917 # 2 frame V-Grade hammerless
Jim

I don't have Ken's Autumn 2005 Finding Out for Myself IX Fluid Steel, Stronger Than Damascus? listed. Is that the Parker VH test?

[Drew Hause]

Yes Jim.

This was posted on a public forum by Ron Graham in 2007 but is no longer on the internet.
http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com...p/t-55364.html
He later provided a detailed metallurgical failure analysis (copyrighted) to the PGCA BOD


I am doing a failure analysis of a pair of Parker barrels - one set damascus, and the other set homogenous. These barrels were in a study by Sherman Bell and Tom Armbrust, published in Double Gun Journal. They subjected each barrel to increasingly heavier loads and they both failed at about 30,000 psi. Modern ammo gets up perhaps 12,000 psi, at most. That said, most folks that shoot these old gals use shells loaded to the 7,500 psi range.

During the failure analysis I noticed that the fracture length for the Vulcan homogenous barrels was substantially longer than for the damascus barrels. A close examination of the fracture surface showed progressive, low cycle fatigue marks on the damascus barrel. The crack advanced slightly with each increasingly higher pressured load. On the Vulcan barrels, both sides failed by a brittle fracture mechanism. By this, I mean the barrels let go in one fell swoop. Even though both sets of barrels failed at 30,000 psi, the behavior of the damascus barrels was superior to the Vulcan barrels, owing to the fact that the Vulcan barrels failed in a brittle fracture mode. A ductile fracture trumps a brittle fracture every time.

One of the (myths) with damascus is that it will fail at the welds where the original rods were forge-welded together. When I looked at this particular set of damascus barrels using a metallographically prepared sample, and up to 1,000X optical magnification, I saw NO EVIDENCE of weld joint failure, slag in the weld joints, porosity in the weld joints, etc.

On the two old Parker barrels, there is a screw hole that comes up from the bottom and pins the extractors in place. Both barrels failed at that hole, because it takes a (segment) out of the side of the chamber and is the thinnest portion of the chambered area.

The damascus barrel let go by a mechanism known as low cycle fatigue. Each succeeding round had higher and higher pressure. After several rounds, a crack started at the extractor screw hole. Each successive round caused the crack to open up just a bit further, until finally the overpressure could not be contained and the (barrel) failed in a ductile fashion. Ductile failures in steel look like a taffy pull at about 1500 to 3000X magnification using scanning electron microscopy. There is a cup and cone appearance with a lot of micro-voids present. This appearance is a dead-set giveaway to a ductile fracture.

The "fluid steel" barrel failed by brittle rupture. The fracture surface is more or less smooth, but has some "rivulets" in it that point back towards the initiation point, which was the screw hole, again. The fracture surface was about 3X as long as for the damascus barrels. In other words, the same 30,000 psi final internal load created a lot more fracture surface in the homogenous barrel than in the damascus barrel. This indicates that, for an equivalent-length fracture, it took less energy to open up the homogeneous barrel than for the damascus barrel. The words in the Sherman Bell article were that the fluid steel, Vulcan, barrel failed much more abruptly and (violently) than the damascus barrel.

So the verbal description of the failures during firing and the visual observations of the fracture surfaces are in accord with each other. Both barrels ripped lengthwise for some distance and then the rupture terminated in a circumferential crack. In the case of the damascus barrels the crack spiraled around with the weld pattern, but it was not on a weld, rather it was on one of the in-between areas. After the damascus pattern is formed by wrapping rods together and forging them into a strip (known as "skelp") the skelp is wrapped around a mandrel, spiral paper-tube fashion, and is forge welded together. These spiral welds remained tight and the parent metal is what failed. This may seem pretty amazing, but in many, many instances the actual steel welded structure is stronger than parent metal.


At that time Graham had received about 30 pattern welded barrels and was planning metallurgical testing. I communicated with him in 2015 and he was still planning to publish an article in the DGJ which to my knowledge was not done. I also have no knowledge as to the fate of all those donated barrels