Very Interesting Damascus Topic Thread.

[Bill Murphy]

PGCA really can't get involved in telling members what wall thickness of composite barrel is safe to shoot with what load. I recommend, have recommended, that we measure wall thicknesses of original Parkers with composite barrels so that our members may compare guns they are interested in buying with known original guns. Members would have to own or borrow their own bore micrometers and wall thickness gauges to make such comparisons. Let's face it, most gunsmiths don't own bore micrometers or wall thickness gauges. Most gunsmiths are not really gunsmiths. Most gunsmiths don't own guns worth more than $400. It is our job to own the measuring tools needed to keep us from making purchasing errors or damaging our guns. If we are buying guns worth thousands of dollars, we should not rely on a gunsmith who doesn't know what he is looking at.

[Parker Bachelder (Brad's Profile)]

Bill, I concure with your position. Wall thickness guages only work with extensive modification and fixturing. Most people do not understand the variables involved. As for composite barrels, it is my belief that hammer forging increases the strenght of the steel. I.E. hammer forged tool steel. Over the years I have witnessed thousands of barrel failures. The bottom line is that fluid steel, or Damascus, failures occur only in obstructed bores. I have no problem with reloading, however I can trace most barrel failures to a cocked wad, no or insuffecient powder, or other obstruction. Almost never the thickness of the steel. I believe in over kill with a controlled explosion that close to your body. Most composite barrels exhibit wall thickness far greater than their fluid steel counterparts. I believe that Sherman Bell proved that misnomer. The only loss of flesh or digits that I have witnessed is with fluid steel, due to stupid loading problems. I have testified in many cases surrounding breach and barrel failures, it is allways the ammo. Logic would dictate that pressure will escape to the point of least resistance, so a clear bore will allow the charge to escape. Buldges and gooseeggs are due to minor obstructions that cleared. I believe that any bore of an antique shotgun should be inspected prior to use, fluid or composite. Rely on the opinion of someone that is specifically trained in the field. In closing, I would agree that ther are many barrels out there that are unsafe to fire, but don't pre judge the Damascus tubes, they are some of the finest ever built. In guns with Damascus barrels, the barrels were the single most expensive component in
the total gun.

Just my opinion,

Brad

[Richard Flanders]

Well said Brad.

[Dean Romig]

Actually Ray, the sixth FAQ from the top addresses barrel wall thickness and to the best of my knowledge such recommendations as stated in that FAQ apply to both fluid steel as well as composite steel barrels in 12 gauge guns.

Both Bill and Brad give good advice on the subject and I would urge anyone with an interest of the safety of Damascus barreled guns to read each installment of Sherman Bell's "Finding Out For Myself" series in the Double Gun and Single Shot Journal. No, it is not an experiment endorsed by the scientific community and is not as 'controlled' as laboratory procedures would dictate.... but it's good enough for me!

I shoot Damascus barreled guns (after I have thoroughly inspected and measured them) with every confidence.

[Ray Masciarella]

Bill, I understand why PGCA should avoid giving advice but I wonder if it could compile info from known reliable sources. The check list I suggest would sure help a person like me who is learning what many of you have known for years and might take for granted others might also know the same thing. I agree about gunsmiths. I heard the local gun shop hired a new gunsmith so I stopped by to meet him. He was 21 yrs old and stuggling to install a rifle scope. After giving him some tips, I left shaking my head. I sure he had never seen a damascus barrel. I have taken one set of barrels to three local gunsmiths to measure the bores. Each has given me significantly different measurements. I don't have the tools or anyone to show me how to use them. What's a fella to do!?!

Dean, I saw that FAQ but thought it was for fluid steel barrels. Not sure why I thought that since it doesn't say it's limited to them. I guess I assumed, incorrectly apparently, the specs for composite barrels were different.

So does the a fella like me do to figure this all out? There must be some authority to go to for a step by step process in figuring it out? I could use the pray and shoot method but that doesn't insure it won't fail the next time. I don't know a gunsmith anywhere who will actually certify the soundness of a composite barrel (and I have asked some well known gunsmiths to do so but they won't).

Another observation about The Open Range. For 50 years (maybe longer) we have read ammo boxes that say not to use in composite barrels. The misunderstanding is that it is the ammo that is the problem not the barrels. It is amazing how many experience shooters don't undersatnd this. They all say such barrels are unsafe. I tell them, if that were the case, every one who fired a Parker 100 years ago would have killed themselves. Most experienced shooters don't really even know the differnece between damascus and twist. Everything is "damascus" to them.

On the pretty cool page, met a fella at the range this weekend who was standing around showing folks a GH 16 ga with damascus barrels. He was in his 70's I'm guessing. Said it was his Grand-dad's. Doesn't ever remember his grand-dad using it when he hunted with him as a boy. Probably not shot in 75 yrs! Based on serial number I'm guessing it was built about 1900. Was in good shape. Nice to know they're are some untouched originals out there.

[Austin W Hogan]

When someone prepares an article on Parker barrel testing, Parker Pages will certainly carry it. There is an informal report on metallurgical analysis of some barrals but it hasn't really been submitted for publication.
Two accomplished tool designers, Larry Frey and Dave Suponski are currently working with some twist and damascus barrel segments, trying to learn the cutting methods used to shape these barrels. This is an important first step in designing a non destructive test method as well as learning how early Parker barrels were made and finished.
Would you send a set of Dam 6 barrels for proof? Probabably not. There are two non destructive tests that need to be established; first a test that will determine if thin spots or seams less than 1/8 inch in diameter or width are present; second a test for ductility that will determine if the barrel metal has been embrittled by age, corrosion or heat cycling.
The first could probably be achieved by an industrial X ray, using similar techniques to testing steam pipe welds. The second might be done by measuring stretching and return to original dimensions as is done on gas cylinders. The question here is one of sufficient tests purchased to off set the original development costs.
Assuming these tests were designed; would you send a collector gun for analysis if you knew that some apparently high condition guns were found to be thin or brittle?

Best, Austin

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Austin W Hogan

Assuming these tests were designed; would you send a collector gun for analysis if you knew that some apparently high condition guns were found to be thin or brittle? Best, Austin

Ans: No I wouldn't.

Austin, do we know of any barrels, Damascus or otherwise, that have been proven to have failed due to the metal having become "brittle"?

Do we know that this becoming "brittle" is a normal condition of aged gunbarrel metal?

[Austin W Hogan]

Dean; I think it is pretty apparent; when ductile barrels let go, due to overloads or obstructions, the barrel bulges and /or splits. When non ductile barrels let go they shatter and pieces become detached. These pieces are the things that generally cause injury.
There are a couple of stores near me that have blown composite barrel guns hanging over the register or rack. I had access to many club's blown gun exhibits during the 15 years I was a hunter training instructor; as I remember, all had metal missing.
One of our members has a lifter that let go at a thin spot; it was repaired and still is a beautiful gun, although it probably will never be shot again. Barrels that fail due to embrittlement cannot be restored.
And so we arrive at a quandary; a positive thickness and ductility test is certainly a positive factor in assessing a gun; does a negative test produce a beautiful wall hanger?

Best, Austin

[Old and Reliable]

In code welding, hydrogen embrittlement in the HAZ of the weldment can cause failure- in fabrication and structual grade steel- so preheat, post heat and use of low-hydrogen filler rods (AWS code 7018 for example) can prevent this form of weld failure-

As Damascus and twist barrels were "welded" so to speak- ie: heat and hammer blows of the twists of iron and steel over a mandrel, would trace hydrogen also play a part in latent embrittlement in these barrels?

Ductility would usually result from Mn and Si added to the steel during the BOF (or later, electric melt) furnace- but the iron strips, a different story perhaps-

I was just out shooting barn pigeons today with two of the 12 gauge Parkers- the GHE with Vulcan Steel barrels, and the PH with parker twist barrels- shot RST 2 & 3/4 dram 1 & 1/8th oz. No. 8 and Win 2 &3/4 dram lite 1 oz no. 9 shells- never have had one problem with that PH made in 1902 using those lower pressure loads, and the birds seem to crumple up in the air at my comfortable pass shooting range- no need for the more expensive HV loads at all- no recoil, easier on the wallet too-

[Ray Masciarella]

I forgot to ask. Is there any gunsmith you can send your barrels to who will certify them safe to shoot?