Barrel wall thickness

[Dean Romig]

So we should no longer advise folks to shoot their Damascus guns only with appropriate loads?

[Bruce Day]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

So we should no longer advise folks to shoot their Damascus guns only with appropriate loads?

Tell them the appropriate loads and pressures that their gun was designed for .
Isn't that something you'd like to know if you were new to Parkers?

[AmarilloMike]

I contend that a 1925 6-1/2 pound 12 bore Birmingham boxlock was designed to shoot, day in and day out, 1-1/16 oz at about 1,150fps and sub 9,000psi. It was proofed at about 15,000 psi if memory serves. It was stamped by the proof house at 1-1/8oz.

My little Chrysler Crossfire is capable of putting out 215hp and maintaining a top speed of 150mph. But it was designed for , day in and day out, cruising at 80mph and quick but not constant full throttle acceleration.

In the period guns I am interested in the British service load was always less than the maximum load. So a 16 was stamped by the proof house "1oz" but its service load was 7/8oz. A 20 was stamped "7/8oz" but its service load was 3/4oz. The 12 was stamped 1-1/8oz but its service load was 1-1/16 oz. This information is in a table in one of Burrard's three volumes.

[Drew Hause]

Even the lowly Damascus Crescent sold by Sears in 1900 was "Bored For Nitro Powder"



re: appropriate loads for which the gun was designed in the inferior Smith guns
http://www.lcsmith.org/faq/loads.html

Bruce has posted an image of the Parker recommended loads several times

[David Hamilton]

Dean, We could go back to the old panic about damasks barrels and advise all to sell all those guns as they are unsafe. We will buy and buy, in the by and by. David

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by David Hamilton

Dean, We could go back to the old panic about damasks barrels and advise all to sell all those guns as they are unsafe. We will buy and buy, in the by and by. David

I'll presume you're being facetious.

Yes, every owner of a Damascus barreled gun, Parker's in this discussion, should be informed of the loads their guns were proofed with, but I don't think we should ever presume to tell them to shoot anything but appropriate loads in their guns because WE have no idea of the condition of the stocks or the barrels of their guns. I would prefer they err on the side of caution rather than throw caution to the wind and shoot "off the shelf" ammo that will fit in their chambers.
I really see no point in discussing this issue further so I'll bow out.

[OH Osthaus]

may we also add that the proof was done in original condition and many if not most damascus and even early steel barrels have been "cleaned up"

so what they were proofed for and what they are now safe with are likely two different things. one of my letters states it went back to have barrel work including opening the chokes and back again years later to be "cleaned out", comparing the condition of the outside to the shiny insides when I found it I have no doubt it was done a third time.

all this left a minimum of 30 thousands in the front half. comfortable by most folks standards.

people new to damascus have concerns, they should be taken seriously, then educated

[David Hamilton]

Dean, I do apologize for my facetious remark. No offense was meant. I was only trying to say the same thing you said: This post is exhausted. Sorry, David

[Dean Romig]

Hey David - No apology is necessary.

I completely understood your comment and find no fault with it at all.

I hope I didn't come across as a grouch. If I did I apologize for that.

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Gentlemen and others,

I am reviving this thread about Minimum Barrel Wall Thickness because that question was asked elsewhere. If you are wondering about minimum barrel wall thickness please read this entire thread for a quick but solid education on the subject!

Mark