Posted by SGT on December 31, 2006, 12:05 am, in reply to "Damascus Barrels"
Mr. Brophy most likely wished to avoid causing Marlin to be sued, so he played it safe and therefore recommended that Smith guns with Damascus barrels never be used; and I won't suggest you use them either (for the same reason), but I will say that these barrels are stronger than we have been lead to believe. Since Brophy's book was published, much research has been done on the relative strengths of Damascus barrels compared to fluid steels. If you want to know more about some of this research, a good place to begin is collecting past issues of the Double Gun Journal (for the past few years) and reading Sherman Bell's indepth research and actual Damascus barrel test results; but most knowlegeable collectors will advise you to first have your barrels checked by a competent VINTAGE gun gunsmith. If deemed sound after inspection, many shooters use these vintage doubles with low-pressure smokeless handloads (5000 psi or less), or with one of the modern factory loaded low-pressure loads (black and smokeless powders) designed for vintage guns. Hunter Arms never made shotgun barrels of any type; tubes were ordered in raw form and finished at the gunworks, and all Damascus barrels Hunter used were imported to our knowledge. Regarding Damascus barrel quality and strength, Hunter proofed all barrel tubes to a high standard with proof loads; unfortunately the information that detailed the strength of those loads has been lost to time. In Sherman Bell's last DGJ article it is interesting to note that he proofed a number of vintage domestic doubles of all makes (to include two Smith guns) with modern 18,000 PSI Remington proof loads and they all survived proof with no barrel damage (I don't recommend your trying that yourself). According to work done in the late 1800's by WW Greener, some Damascus tubes were stronger than others (and he was horribly biased towards anything English); but there wasn't a tremendous amount of differences in bursting strains with any of the types tested as I recall. The "low grade" Damascus steels used on lower quality best vintage American guns is all good stuff in my opinion. The differences in the cost of those barrel tubes has more to do with the labor required to make them than their respective relative strengths; higher quality tubes will typically have more ribands (bands wraped around the mandrel used for fabrication), they will be narrower bands than lower cost tubes, and will exhibit more complicated and finer "twisted" and sworled patterns; but even the lowest grade twist and Damascus barrels were labor intensive, typically taking three skilled laborers to produce one tube. Early Smith guns were never stamped with proof marks like their European counterparts, which had gov't proof houses and proof laws; in the US every maker proofed their guns to an industry standard but this process was not regulated by law and I have never seen any proof marks used by any domestic maker. That said, early catalogs will state "all guns proofed for smokeless powders". Later examples produced by domestic makers, after about 1915, will feature factory proof stamps such as "nitro proofed" on their barrel tubes or flats; others placed roll-stamps atop the barrels such as "smokeless powder steel" etc. The point to remember is that every maker made very sure his barrels were plenty strong for the period loads the guns were designed to shoot; afterall, the very worst thing a maker could ever receive is a reputation for selling guns with poor quality barrels, he would be out of business in short order! By the same token, the primary point to remember in 2007 is that these period loads were much weaker, from a PSI standpoint, than what is considered "light" today. For instance, cheap modern loads are made to pressures that will insure a semi-auto functions properly and some of those loads might push 14000 PSI, pressures much too high to risk in a vintage gun with Damascus tubes. Another thing to remember, 12-bore vintage guns were made with a variety of chamber borings to include 3" (and a few are so marked); but the three inch factory loaded shell of 1905 was designed to hold a maximum of 1 1/4oz shot, modern 3" shells are typically loaded to 1 7/8 oz; vintage guns were NEVER engineered for those severe loads. My suggestion, take my advice on a gunsmith evaluation, do your own research; then, after you have all the information you desire, make your own decision regarding shooting your guns as I am sure your own personal safety and that of family members and friends is more than a passing consideration.