Damascus (Twist) Barrels- Who shoots them?

[robinghewitt]

This is a bit like wading through treacle. Let me try one last time to lead you through my logical progression...

In my chemistry book, wrought iron is defined as, "practically pure iron interspersed with 2 to 3 per cent. of of slag, and so worked as to have a fibrous structure". It is the burning out of the impurities that raises the melting point and causes the bloom to form. The key word here is fibrous.

The blacksmith at Rodmell forge told me that period damascus iron barrels came unwound when worked. It is not credible to suppose he knew more about the stuff than the people who were making it.

The mere existence of this barrel by H&S, Hollis and Sheath?, shows that someone thought that slicing it across the grain by cutting rifling was a bad idea.

I am merely suggesting that folk look at their period damascus rifled pieces, possibly at the breech end with an open mind should the opportunity present itself. Maybe dab on a little something to reveal the metal grain. Might you actually look at that pistol barrel end on or have you already deemed it a completely pointless excercise?

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Very well put Felix.

Working on a roof before snow so no time right now.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Robin,
Didn't see your post.
V busy, but must say re. your barrel;
One swallow doesn't make a summer. Most Were Not made that way. Period.

Also, No, your old pal did not know more about Damascus than the people who made it. And this for two reasons off the top of my head;
1, Not all Damascus is the same. He obviously lumped all damascus together by using this blanket statement.
(Read even Greener to get a grasp of this)
2, The men who made this 'damascus ' could weld it successfully. Your old mate could not.

Looking at the breech or anywhere of a twist /damscus barrel is in most cases futile, as nearly everyone knows how they were made.
I too have had a good few All Damascus rifle barrels. No tubes, No liners and No trouble. (Alex Henry double, was maybe the best)
I have roof to fix and snow forecast for tomorrow. Best be on.

Best wishes,
R.

 

[Felix the Cat]

This is a bit like wading through treacle. Let me try one last time to lead you through my logical progression...

In my chemistry book, wrought iron is defined as, "practically pure iron interspersed with 2 to 3 per cent. of of slag, and so worked as to have a fibrous structure". It is the burning out of the impurities that raises the melting point and causes the bloom to form. The key word here is fibrous.

The blacksmith at Rodmell forge told me that period damascus iron barrels came unwound when worked. It is not credible to suppose he knew more about the stuff than the people who were making it.

The mere existence of this barrel by H&S, Hollis and Sheath?, shows that someone thought that slicing it across the grain by cutting rifling was a bad idea.

I am merely suggesting that folk look at their period damascus rifled pieces, possibly at the breech end with an open mind should the opportunity present itself. Maybe dab on a little something to reveal the metal grain. Might you actually look at that pistol barrel end on or have you already deemed it a completely pointless excercise?

Robin, I think you are the one who is producing the treacle in that your progression, whilst subjectively persuasive, lacks objective rigour..

Your chemistry book is not wrong, however it is a bit out of date, and perhaps a study of a work in archeo-metallurgy would be more relevant. Wrought iron is certainly fibrous, contains slag and has a low carbon content. It is anything but pure however and is both chemically and structurally much more variable than modern metals. It it the burning out of the carbon from the metal that causes the melting point to rise.. but don't get me started on iron/carbon phase diagrams.

All metal has a grain structure which is affected by both working and heat treatment. All barrels, apart perhaps from wirewound naval guns are forged at some point in their manufacture. This will align the grain and internal structure of the metal in roughly the same way. Laminate forgings will have a different macro structure to homogeneous barrels, but I would be surprised if this made much difference to the surface. The processes of drilling, reaming, rifling and honing will have the effect of consolidating the surface of the metal regardless of its internal structure. If you then etch the inside of the barrel it will corrode differentially, as you do on the outside to reveal the laminations. Internally I think you call this "pitting" in most cases?

As I noted earlier, fire working a laminate structure, particularly an old laminate structure, is going to be difficult, but not impossible, as this is how the barrel was made in the first place. I can humbly suggest that your blacksmith did not bring the laminate up to a high enough heat to ensure that the whole mass was above welding temperature.. but I was not there, so I am just speculating. What I will say is that you cannot make a statement that you cannot weld a welded structure.. that simply does not stand to reason..

As far as your point about your barrel is concerned you are again guilty of reversing logic.. firstly without doing a proper (probably destructive) analysis of the internal structure of the barrel, you have no idea how it was built. Secondly you have no idea what was going through the mind of the barrel maker when he made the barrel. There are almost an infinite number of variations in gun designs, many purely whimsical. I remember seeing a heart shaped rifle barrel in Windsor castle.. what on earth was the logic there? You simply cannot take an isolated example as the basis for making a generalised statement of principle.

Please do not accuse me of condemning speculation.. enquiry is at the very root of knowledge, but it must be realistic and stand scrutiny. Peer review is the basis of the scientific principle. Speculate all you like, but you must stick to what are realistic assumptions and provable results. Dabbing acid on metal proves nothing unless you understand what you are looking at and can demonstrate what it means.

 

[Newtire]

Here's the results of a dove hunt a few years ago with one of my N. R. Davis twist barreled guns.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Very nice photo, Newtire.
Below are barrels and locks of my Thomas Boss, Number 149, made in 1837;

 

[robinghewitt]

Robin, I think you are the one who is producing the treacle in that your progression, whilst subjectively persuasive, lacks objective rigour...

Treacle is mined. What a lot of typing, sadly I have run out of time and must now return to the mundane. Thanks for letting me play, it was fun.

Hugs

Robin

 

[Felix the Cat]

Treacle is mined. What a lot of typing, sadly I have run out of time and must now return to the mundane. Thanks for letting me play, it was fun.

Hugs

Robin

Nope.. wrong again!

Treacle is what is left after all the good stuff has been extracted..

 

[robinghewitt]

Nope.. wrong again!

Treacle is what is left after all the good stuff has been extracted..

So knowing I have to be wrong prevents you from looking up, "Treacle mining"

 

[Newtire]

Damascus are more dangerous with more bursts due to a obstruction than black powder. The worst offender is snow, and soil in the muzzle this is followed with a close second to using thin card wads which often are bypassed by the ramrod and left on the barrel wall which when fired becomes a obstruction. To explain my meaning enclosed is a image of a burst Damascus barrel caused by using too thin card wads .
Feltwad

Burst Barrel

Is that a seam in that tube where it's split apart? Was thinking that maybe someone just slapped a piece of tubing on a stock & sold it as a gun?

 

[Newtire]

Very nice photo, Newtire.
Below are barrels and locks of my Thomas Boss, Number 149, made in 1837;View attachment 882

Very nice twist pattern on that beauty!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Very pleased you like it, Newtire!

Here is another set of barrels, (Pritchard, (Southampton if I remember right) Have used it a lot for game birds and clays;

Felix,

I must thank you for taking the time to write such thoroughly detailed, and logical logical replies in this thread.
Very good work if I may say so.

Richard.

 

[robinghewitt]

Here is another set of barrels, (Pritchard, (Southampton if I remember right) Have used it a lot for game birds and clays;

Is that a live pigeon gun? I don't see a ramrod channel

 

[Feltwad]

Newtire
No just the sighting plane built has part of the barrel not soldered on showing the art of the barrel maker
Feltwad

 

[Herman Karl]

Robin, I think you are the one who is producing the treacle in that your progression, whilst subjectively persuasive, lacks objective rigour..

Your chemistry book is not wrong, however it is a bit out of date, and perhaps a study of a work in archeo-metallurgy would be more relevant. Wrought iron is certainly fibrous, contains slag and has a low carbon content. It is anything but pure however and is both chemically and structurally much more variable than modern metals. It it the burning out of the carbon from the metal that causes the melting point to rise.. but don't get me started on iron/carbon phase diagrams.

All metal has a grain structure which is affected by both working and heat treatment. All barrels, apart perhaps from wirewound naval guns are forged at some point in their manufacture. This will align the grain and internal structure of the metal in roughly the same way. Laminate forgings will have a different macro structure to homogeneous barrels, but I would be surprised if this made much difference to the surface. The processes of drilling, reaming, rifling and honing will have the effect of consolidating the surface of the metal regardless of its internal structure. If you then etch the inside of the barrel it will corrode differentially, as you do on the outside to reveal the laminations. Internally I think you call this "pitting" in most cases?

As I noted earlier, fire working a laminate structure, particularly an old laminate structure, is going to be difficult, but not impossible, as this is how the barrel was made in the first place. I can humbly suggest that your blacksmith did not bring the laminate up to a high enough heat to ensure that the whole mass was above welding temperature.. but I was not there, so I am just speculating. What I will say is that you cannot make a statement that you cannot weld a welded structure.. that simply does not stand to reason..

As far as your point about your barrel is concerned you are again guilty of reversing logic.. firstly without doing a proper (probably destructive) analysis of the internal structure of the barrel, you have no idea how it was built. Secondly you have no idea what was going through the mind of the barrel maker when he made the barrel. There are almost an infinite number of variations in gun designs, many purely whimsical. I remember seeing a heart shaped rifle barrel in Windsor castle.. what on earth was the logic there? You simply cannot take an isolated example as the basis for making a generalised statement of principle.

Please do not accuse me of condemning speculation.. enquiry is at the very root of knowledge, but it must be realistic and stand scrutiny. Peer review is the basis of the scientific principle. Speculate all you like, but you must stick to what are realistic assumptions and provable results. Dabbing acid on metal proves nothing unless you understand what you are looking at and can demonstrate what it means.

Well stated and informative. I have several 19thcentury English side-by-side muzzle loading and hammer cartridge guns with damascus barrels all in excellent condition. My Westley Richards flintlock was made circa 1826-1830 and my Joseph Manton was made in 1814 as a flintlock and converted to percussion. James Purdey said of Manton that except for Joe Manton the rest of us would still be village blacksmiths. Charles Lancaster, considered by many the finest English barrel maker, struck the barrels.


I grew up believing the myth that damascus barrels were weak and dangerous promulgated by the gun authorities of the 1950s and 1960s. I learned otherwise reading the articles by Sherman Bell, “Finding Out for Myself,” in the Double Gun Journal. I published what I learned in a short essay: https://www.scribd.com/document/333570380/Damascus-Barrel-Myth


The guns are a pleasure to shoot with black powder charges – no loads that jar the fillings out of my teeth. Attached is a photo of the Westley Richards.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Herman,

That is a lovely gun! Very clean and nicely put together.
I would have guessed earlier by the lock styling. Congratulations! Lovely stub twist as well!
You are right about Charles Lancaster.
After old Will'm Fullard retired, Charles Lancaster was the best barrel borer in London.
I was going to post a picture of a double with similar locks, but the setting for pictures has reverted to the old URL way it seems!

Best,
Richard.

 

[Herman Karl]

Richard,
Guns like it are treasures and will never be made again. I see myself as a steward of it and the others in my collection. It was my favorite upland gun until I got a Thomas Boss hammer gun made in 1866 for the Lord Chancellor of England.

Cheers,
Herman

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Herman,

You are quite right regarding these treasures. No-one can now make stub twist barrels like they could back then.
Here are photos of the old one I have, C 1815.

I am pleased you found a Boss as well. It may be a bit new for this sight I suppose. I have a John Blissett the same. (Henry Jones under-lever, so can't post here)
I also have a Boss, 1837, and will take better pictures sometime to post.
I Would like to see the one you have!

Best,
Richard.

 

[Feltwad]

We hold them in trust we must account for them to those that come after
Feltwad

 

[Herman Karl]

View attachment 1758
View attachment 1759 Herman,

You are quite right regarding these treasures. No-one can now make stub twist barrels like they could back then.
Here are photos of the old one I have, C 1815.

I am pleased you found a Boss as well. It may be a bit new for this sight I suppose. I have a John Blissett the same. (Henry Jones under-lever, so can't post here)
I also have a Boss, 1837, and will take better pictures sometime to post.
I Would like to see the one you have!

Best,
Richard.

There's just something about a Boss -- it's intangible, but it just handles differently. My Boss is cased. Is there a personal messaging function? If so, I'll send photos. I also have a Purdey made in 1863 cased.