Accidents It can happen to you

[coloradoclyde]

Damascus barrel

Now it makes sense...an accident waiting to happen...

 

[cynthialee]

Damascus barrel

Now it makes sense...an accident waiting to happen...

agreed
after reading about numerous Damascus barrel failures you couldn't get me to shoot one that is old

 

[Feltwad]

Damascus barrel

Now it makes sense...an accident waiting to happen...

agreed
after reading about numerous Damascus barrel failures you couldn't get me to shoot one that is old

Gentlemen I totally disagree good Damascus barrels are safe ,it is when people do stupid things that makes them unsafe like heavy charging them , using plastic wads . Has I said previous guns that go through the proof house are safe ,I have shot Damascus barrel guns for the past 68 years from flintlocks to breech loaders in all bore sizes with out a mishap , give me an original with Damascus barrels before any repro.
Feltwad

 

[coloradoclyde]

Not trying to argue Feltwad....Damascus barrels are light, elegant and beautiful.....But as you implied, ....they don't hold up to mistakes...and time is often their biggest enemy.... :v

 

[George]

Has I said previous guns that go through the proof house are safe...

Ah, but here over the pond, we don't have proof houses to sooth our nerves. :grin:

Spence

 

[old gunsmith]

I don't disagree that a well made damascus firearm that has passed modern re-proof is a safe firearm, however, the manufacture of a Damascus barrel is a rather exacting process and only as sound as the maker of the barrel. A case in point: in the mid 60"s I aquired a John Krider militia musket made for the Philadelphia state guard. The musket appeared unfired with an absolutely new condition bore, so, of course, I shot it with a normal service load of 60g FFG and a Minnie ball. When I removed the barrel from the wood I noticed soot in the barrel channel and upon close examination, one could see where a small area of butt weld was leaking. There was no visual imperfection at that point. Certainly the strength of that barrel was called into question. Here in the states we have no definitive way to establish the strength of a twist barrel and given one or two hundred years of some degree of deterioration, I do think it wise to relegate Damascus barreled guns to non-firing status. P.S. Krider was both a manufacturer and an importer of quality arms and was very well respected in his day

 

[cynthialee]

A new Damascus barrel I wouldn't have an issue shooting, especially one that has been properly proofed in a proof house. But if it is old, and/or hasn't been verifiably proofed, then I don't think it is wise to shoot them.
I have read too many times about these guns having critical failures.
Damascus is beautiful, but beauty is not enough.

I certainly wouldn't own one.

 

[Erzulis boat]

Absolutely agree, and this is why.

The more "modern" we get, the less the "artist" comes in to play. We can now provide certified alloys to any specified condition to be manufactured in to parts. So many variables have been eliminated, and this goes back for hundreds of years.

Damascus in antiquity is almost 100 % dependent on skill. A tall order indeed.

Go to 1000 modern "Doctors" and you can maybe find 1 that is actually extremely good at his craft.

Modern loads, information, and age of the arm only lessen the degree we should rely on these barrels.

I totally understand legitimate proofing, and obviously the governments of the time understood this also. I will trust that they knew what they were doing.

It's 2017, so I ain't gonna shoot those barrels full charge. Nope.

 

[Erzulis boat]

A new Damascus barrel I wouldn't have an issue shooting, especially one that has been properly proofed in a proof house. But if it is old, and/or hasn't been verifiably proofed, then I don't think it is wise to shoot them.
I have read too many times about these guns having critical failures.
Damascus is beautiful, but beauty is not enough.

I certainly wouldn't own one.

I agree.

 

[Feltwad]

A new Damascus barrel I wouldn't have an issue shooting, especially one that has been properly proofed in a proof house. But if it is old, and/or hasn't been verifiably proofed, then I don't think it is wise to shoot them.
I have read too many times about these guns having critical failures.
Damascus is beautiful, but beauty is not enough.

I certainly wouldn't own one.

I agree.

Has I said original Damascus barrels are safe it is how we use them ,if it is a inferior barrel then the proof house will find its fault .
At that period of the muzzle loader and breech loader English barrel makers and gun makers are and even today the best in the world not like the repro you see on the market today .
Feltwad

 

[old gunsmith]

I think we are talking apples and oranges comparisons here. There is a very real cultural difference in gun ownership between we in the states and you folks in Britain. I think it fair to say that we are primarily a rifle culture while you are a shotgun culture. We in the states tend to value strength and utility over embellishment. That contrast becomes quite obvious when you hold a Durs Egg fowler or a Wodgedon dueler, or for that matter a contemporary Purdy. The simple fact is that the English gun houses raised the standard of gun building to a level that has never been rivaled anywhere. Beginning with our frontier expansion we had and still have an almost insatiable demand for firearms and our needs tended to be for rugged and inexpensive guns suited to hard service. Most of our domestic manufacture were rifles and handguns so it became more expedient to import shotguns from various continental sources and English guns were relatively too expensive. Hence we see the majority of surviving doubles here to be Belgian with varying degrees workmanship and proof. Certainly we have knowledgeable hobbyists here who understand and shoot flint and percussion doubles, but those folks are a minuscule proportion of the muzzleloading fraternity who shoot rifles. So we do find ourselves in a circumstance where most of us do not have a great deal of understanding of the management of Damascus doubles coupled with no resource for definitive re-proof. Given that, I think it prudent that our prohibition against shooting Damascus should stand. And that's why your experience and knowledge is so valuable to most of us, and I hope you will continue to share it with us. OG

 

[azmntman]

and I hope you will continue to share it with us. OG

:metoo:

I would shoot light loads outta an original Damascus IN GOOD SHAPE myself. If I win powerball and can afford an original pre rev war rifle in good shape you will likely find me in the woods with it sneaking around on deer the next fall (I have NO safe queens)

 

[fleener]

I have a few of the old English girls and I will continue to shoot them. The barrels are inspected for defects prior to ever using them.

Fleener

 

[Heelerau]

Feltwad I have been cogitating over your mates fowler, I wonder if he used the small end of the ramrod instead of the flared end, likely distracted at the time. It is the only way I can think of as the correct end of the ram rod is near to bore size, or quite large and I cannot see how the wad could have there fore turned sideways on the way down to the shot charge. As to dieseling, I use windex to wipe my .451 bore after the charge and over powder wads have been seated so I don't wet that pain in the a'''s patent breech. The chap mentioned was using a volatile type solvent. I then wipe out with a dry patch. Hopefully it is a volatile type solvent that is the trouble and not just the passage of air being displaced via the cone. I suspect the former as I have not heard of a gun going off when being loaded with projectile. It is disturbing all the same.

 

[Heelerau]

Fleener, I too have some pieces with damascus barrels and as you do I have checked them and have no issues with using them . One old Hollis 12 bore was used for years by the previous owner with black ranger smokeless , it is only proofed for black and since I have had the gun, I only use black powder cartridges in her. Point is, it must have been well made to stand the use of modern ammo to no ill effect. I might add I would never use smokeless ammo in a fire arm only proofed for black powder.

 

[Flintfan69]

Has I said original Damascus barrels are safe it is how we use them ,if it is a inferior barrel then the proof house will find its fault .
At that period of the muzzle loader and breech loader English barrel makers and gun makers are and even today the best in the world not like the repro you see on the market today .
Feltwad

You are 100% correct, this has nothing to do with whether or not this was a damascus barrel. Modern shotgun barrels look exactly the same when burst due to an obstruction (i.e. wad fails to leave the barrel).

The dangerous damascus myths will always persist, but by believing that was the cause of this failure, many here are missing the point of the warning.

There are two reasons that I could see a wad being lodged in the barrel at that point. As someone else pointed out perhaps the small end of the rod was used mistakenly, and bypassed the wad.

Or, if the loading tip on the ramrod is very close to bore size, it may have caused a vacuum and pulled the overshot wad back up the barrel when the rod was extracted. If the tip has extensive soft/sticky fouling on it, it could make the phenomenon worse. This could also happen with an overshot wad that is excessively tight, to the point where the edges of the wad fold back over the loading tip a bit when rammed down.

When loading an overshot wad, I always very gently tap it with the loading rod a couple times with light finger pressure to make sure it is seated and not stuck to the rod tip.

 

[Feltwad]

Feltwad I have been cogitating over your mates fowler, I wonder if he used the small end of the ramrod instead of the flared end, likely distracted at the time. It is the only way I can think of as the correct end of the ram rod is near to bore size, or quite large and I cannot see how the wad could have there fore turned sideways on the way down to the shot charge. As to dieseling, I use windex to wipe my .451 bore after the charge and over powder wads have been seated so I don't wet that pain in the a'''s patent breech. The chap mentioned was using a volatile type solvent. I then wipe out with a dry patch. Hopefully it is a volatile type solvent that is the trouble and not just the passage of air being displaced via the cone. I suspect the former as I have not heard of a gun going off when being loaded with projectile. It is disturbing all the same.

The chap in question I can assure was using a home made ramrod which he had used for many years with the gun , The over shot wads for which he had run out off and got some from another shooter were too thin they were less than a 1/16 .
Feltwad

 

[William O.]

Why does that musket have a seam running down the barrel?.....and it looks mighty thin...

My question as well. Also, why is the bore so clean, without any powder fouling?

 

[Flintfan69]

Why does that musket have a seam running down the barrel?.....and it looks mighty thin...

My question as well. Also, why is the bore so clean, without any powder fouling?

It's not actually a seam, it's a raised sighting flat that runs the length of the barrel. Not that uncommon for sporting guns of that vintage.

As to whether or not that barrel is too thin, one of the first things that needs to be done is have an accurate wall thickness measurement taken. .025 to .030 wall thickness is plenty in that region of the barrel. However, if the burst was caused by an obstruction, which it was by looks of the failure, a modern "nitro" barrel probably wouldn't have held up either.

 

[William O.]

Why does that musket have a seam running down the barrel?.....and it looks mighty thin...

My question as well. Also, why is the bore so clean, without any powder fouling?

It's not actually a seam, it's a raised sighting flat that runs the length of the barrel. Not that uncommon for sporting guns of that vintage.

As to whether or not that barrel is too thin, one of the first things that needs to be done is have an accurate wall thickness measurement taken. .025 to .030 wall thickness is plenty in that region of the barrel. However, if the burst was caused by an obstruction, which it was by looks of the failure, a modern "nitro" barrel probably wouldn't have held up either.

Please forgive my ignorance but this sighting flat; how is that attached to the barrel? Or is the barrel itself flattened on the top? Could the sighting flat and how it is attached/part of the barrel be the cause of a weak spot?