Posted by SGT on February 7, 2008, 9:50 pm, in reply to "Re: Steel Barrels"
I am stupid and therefore have no idea what "rhr smoothness" may/may not mean; but regarding the factory finish given to Smith gun barrels, please consider the following: Field Grade Smith guns were inexpensive relative to the highest grades for many more reasons than the obvious engraving and wood quality seen on the higher grades; and one of the primary cost differences was not just reflected in the cost of the barrel steel itself, but the time lavished on those barrels in the finishing process. With low-grade Smith guns one will often see cosmetic blemishes in barrel stamps/markings, machine marks thru the blued finish, and a variety of other imperfections inside and out upon close inspection (although the earlier low-grade guns will be much better finished than later low-grade guns). As FYI company policy dictated that the least skilled workers were assigned to the lowest grade Smith guns (Field and Ideal); while only the most skilled at their respective craft worked on the highest grade Smiths (and these guys were also paid more, another cost factor). As to the barrels, the highest grade Smith guns will not have a single blemish; they were hand polished for hours, inside and out, so that not a single tool mark remained. They were then carefully regulated and patterned to the customers requirements, they received various amounts of hand engraving, barrel flats were jeweled, and many hours of labor were required to achieve the rich, dark black barrel finish characteristic of highest grade Smith barrels. My research has revealed that a set of barrels were the most expensive component of the entire gun. This fact is even reflected in the cost of a second set of barrels; a second set retailed at 1/2 the retail price of the gun itself (i.e. the retail cost of a second set of barrels for a Deluxe Grade retailing at $1,000 was an additional $500). In Brophy's book, he recites a story of a factory tour where the original writer commented that a set of Whitworth barrels cost 50 times more than a set of field grade barrels. Since we don't know the cost of a set of field grade barrels, we still can't determine the cost factor for a raw set of Whitworth tubes; but they were obviously expensive, and many times more expensive to finish to Hunter standards. As to advertising types of barrel steels, this practice began when the only shotgun barrel tubes available were Damascus and Twist. These "twist" tubes were highly labor intensive under any circumstance; and the more the twists, the tighter the bands, and the more iron/steel ribbans used in their production, the most costly these tubes became. So obviously the most expensive Damascus tubes were used only on the highest quality guns. When fluid steel barrels first became available, quality of that material varied significantly in the beginning also, with tubes made under the patented and protected Whitworth Compressed Steel process being the highest rated; and thus reserved only for the best guns (again, as in most expensive). After WWI, and the significant advancements resulting in metallurgy, I would speculate that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between most barrel steels, quality wise; but the practice of reserving steel types and barrel steel monikers continued thru the end of production for all our best domestic double gun makers. This was probably due to some "feel good" quality assurance factor such advertising gave the purchaser. But regardless how barrel tube quality may have changed, and even if all the barrel tubes used on later Smith guns was the same stuff with just a different stamp (something alledged, but not yet proven to my knowledge), the fact remains that most of the final cost to produce a set of barrels was in the finishing process. This cost was always significant on a high grade set of Smith barrels, and don't ever let anyone try to convince you otherwise.