Having an IQ just above 70, I am not smart enough to understand the point/s you are attempting to make. First of all, I thought we had all agreed that no sane individual would ever suggest using a gun of any type in conjuction with alcohol, that everyone had said his piece on that topic in a couple of former threads, that maybe we could all "just get along" and give the PBR proof testing method a permanent resting place in the area of comic relief and approach proofing, in general (to include all shotgun barrels), with a more serious and insightful tone. But like I said, my IQ is quite low; therefore I remain in a state of perpetual bewilderment at nearly every aspect of life. However, and in an effort to estabish some small degree of personal intellectual credibility, allow me to preface my remarks by first stating that at 57 years old I have yet to be high on anything but laughter, have never been drunk, and have yet to waste the first dime on an alcoholic based drink purchase of any kind (although I do admit to being an incurable "coke-a-holic" as in Coca Cola!). I'm still married to the same woman I started out with in 1968; and overall, have lived a very dull and boring life, my major vice being old shotguns. Now in that regard, I have done a tremendous amount of personal experimentation to include some things that should have eliminated me from the gene pool; but my list of stupid tricks never included any deliberate attempts to destroy the object of my affections, and never will (and I've had no accidents in that regard either). Although I personally have shot thousands of rounds thru Damascus tubes with never a mishap, I don't presently advocate, nor have I ever advocated that anyone else ever follow my personal example. But the truth is that these old Damascus tubes, as has been demonstrated by Sherman Bell, are much stronger than the decades of propaganda printed on shell box labels that we have so often read and accepted as fact. And further, contrary to your statement that these barrels were "never designed for the pressure cure of nitro powder", the fact is that at least as early as 1893 makers did indeed began proofing ALL barrel tubes for nitro powders; and, as hand-loading in this era was so prevelant and the new powders so unpredictable as to rates of burn and pressures, they experienced myriad problems and accidents. Yet, and in spite of those issues, thousands of examples of guns from this period still survive and the widespread use of fluid steel barrels did not become reality until after 1905. I have often wondered, since we still see examples of Damascus guns up to 1920, if Damascus barrels might still be an option if WWI had not destroyed the supply; and thus the popularity of these beautiful tubes. A few years ago, I read where some maker somewhere had discovered a half-dozen sets of original Damascus barrels and announced they would be made into barrel sets and sold as new guns; orders for those guns were placed before the ink was dry on the ad. Although I, and many others, have destroyed large numbers of original Damascus barrels thru the process of mono-blocking (we believed the shell box warnings), certainly no one should ever destroy a perfectly good set of Damascus tubes these days given the knowledge we now have; and the truth is that we can now, not only preserve, but also enjoy the sporting heritage passed along to us in the form of vintage guns, even guns with Damascus tubes, provided we use these guns with correct low-pressure loads. Thanks to the ground-breaking efforts of others, this sort of information is no longer rocket-science; and from someone who was hand-loading and hunting with a 16-bore JABC and black powder shells 30 years ago, I personally don't like black powder and therefore choose to shoot my vintage Damascus guns with low-pressure smokeless loads. If someone would prefer black powder; fine, it's his choice, but that is no longer necessary given the variety of loading data, powders, and components we have today. It is my hope here that thru this thread we can enjoy a legitimate discussion of the merrits and advantages of barrel proofing so that we can understand and appreciate the process; not have a frivolous discssion that degerates into attempts at bar-room humor, or even worse, a podium for those who wish to pontificate on all the many reasons why Damascus barrels are so deadly should therefore never be fired under any circumstances. Do we not have any faith in the abilities and engineering skills of the great men who designed and fabricated these barrels? That last point was driven home to me by personal experience many years ago. My wife gave me a beautiful and light weight Fredrick T. Baker boxlock with a London address when I graduated from UGA (at that time students with low IQs were acceptable). It was the only shotgun I owned for 5 years, and during those years I had a lot of time and hunted every chance I got. I shot the gun thousands of times and finally, when personal finances eventually improved, I decided the gun needed a fresh look and sent it to Del Grego (the only restoration outfit I knew at the time) for a new stock finish, checkering, blue, etc. Imagine my surprise when I promptly received a return letter advising me the gun had Damascus barrels (had been beautifully blued over and hidden) to include all this literature showing drawings and photos of exploded barrels! This gun did not possess a British proof stamp, so rest assured I've never felt the same about that gun since; but if ever a set of Damascus barrels was "Proofed", that set certainly was. Many readers will say that I was just plain lucky; maybe I was, maybe I was just blessed (my old man always said the Good Lord had a soft spot for idiots!), but that experience has served to change my perspective on Damascus barrels with the information that has come to light in the past 10 years.