Damascus barrels

A friend had bought a 1889 Remington Damascus barreled gun that needed a part or two to fire. While I was at it I removed a couple of dents in the one barrel. I used a hyd. dent remover, then did a bit of sanding on the outside. The dent came back. Up on further examination it was found the barrel could be push in with my thumb. That was how thin someone before him had honed it. I fit another set of barrels that were safe. But I've always thought what could have happened, and how that dangerous Damascus would have been blamed and not how thin the barrels were.
 
Thank you. How fast does the corrosion begin and how much is the barrel weakened ? I'm assuming this also takes place when BP is fired in modern MLers. I started shooting MLers in the early 70s, and all my barrels still look just fine. Even sometimes waiting till the following day to clean them. So, we still have some of us claiming that shooting BP will weaken barrels. And it will get in between some Damascus steels, but not others ?
 
The one thing I'd like someone to explain is " why the British Proof House " still to this day re-proofs Damascus shotguns that are honed bigger than their standards if they're to be resold ? If the sulfuric acid is getting between the layers of laminate Damascus and we now have corrosion acting from the inside out, weakening the barrels; how can they say they're safe to shoot if they pass proof ??? Or there are cracks allowing corrision to start, and we can't see it ??? Or there are unsafe voids in the barrels making them unsafe to shoot ??? And they also re-proof rifle and pistol Damascus barrels, which operate at a much higher pressure. No one has answered that question.
 
Here are the differences between laminate, twist, or pattern Damascus steels.

Twist, the easiest and there for cheapest to make, is layers of iron and low carbon steel forge welded together, stretched out and then forge welded around a mandrel.

Laminate, actual all Damascus steels are laminated layers of iron and steel, but the one called laminate steel has higher percentage of steel and a better steel. To quote:
The Science of Gunnery, as Applied to the Use and Construction of Fire-Arms, 1841, may be W.W. Greener’s description of his claim for inventing Laminated Steel
I have had as high as three-fourths of steel to one of iron, and where proper attention is paid to clipping of the steel to pieces, corresponding with the (horse-nail) stubs, and properly mixing the whole (into a ‘bloom’ of molten metal), welding (in an air furnace) and forging by the heavy hammer, reducing by a tilt ditto, and rolling down to the…rod, a most excellent, tenacious, and dense body of iron is obtained; while, by cutting into lengths of 6 inches, bundling a number together, and re-welding them into a bar, you gain an increased density and tenacity…rendering it…considerably more powerfully strong than any explosive fluid ever yet compounded could burst…" - hmm - no layers.
The laminate barrels were considered the strongest of any Damascus. The process was stopped there for a random looking pattern, or it was rolled into rods and then the rods laid side by side and welded into a flat bar that was wrapped around a mandrel and forge welded to together. This laminate had a pattern, so to speak.

Pattern Damascus is just that. A square piece of smaller pieces of iron and steel stacked next to and on top of each other in a certain manner would produce different patterns. Sometimes layers of steel and iron were welded and then twisted to form long, small rods. Two, three, four, five or six could be then laid side by side and forge welded to form different patterns.

Most the Damascus being made was done with heavy [ several tons of weight ] trip hammers run by water wheels. The men running such equipment had years of experience watching colors for proper welds. One void would ruin an entire piece of Damascus that took hours to produce. The one type of laminate didn't have layers per say, but a molten pool of iron that was hammered out.

For one to say, without actual experience or knowledge, that Damascus steel has " cracks " or " voids " is inaccurate.
 
I believe that book to be by William Greener, founder of the company.
His son, W.W. (William Wellington) Greener wrote 'The Gun and its Development' in 1881 with revisions up through 1910. Looks like it repeated a lot of material from the elder Greener plus coverage of breechloaders.

W.W. wrote that the fine London Twist was the strongest, but the Belgian makers did fancier patterns. Peiper had barrels with their name spelled out in the pattern.

Greener will still sell you a shotgun with Damascus barrels, old stock from ca 1903. They include a set of steel barrels in case the pattern makes you nervous or you want to shoot short magnums.
 
No, it's not inaccurate.
The patterns you see in laminated steel are exactly where the steel is not homogenous. Break a piece of your "damascus" and see if it does not separate in the laminations.
Because you make pattern welded steel for knife blades does not make you an expert, nor does it make your dangerous statements legitimate.

Pattern welded steel is not as strong as a homogenous steel. If it were, there would be no pattern.

It is better to not shoot old laminated steel barrels. They could blow up- this is not a guess, it actually does happen. Is this a blanket statement? You're darn right it is, because it's better to be safe than sorry.
 
Scorch, I'd be very interested in technical data explaining the actual by-product of firing BP, the strength of that by-product, and just how much it erodes and WEAKENS the barrels.
Click to expand...
The sulphuric acid comes from the composition of black powder (sulphur, saltpeter (potassium nitrate), and charcoal). Charcoal is a hydrocarbon (CH2-CH2- chains). When burned in the presence of oxygen (KNO3 releases O2 under heat and pressure), it combines to form CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H20 (water), along with a mixture of other compounds (nitrates, sulphates, etc). The water (H2O) is scavenged by the sulphur, forming sulphuric acid (H2SO4) at high temperature. Not sure how much, but it is one of the reasons black powder fouling is corrosive. How much it erodes the barrels depends on time and temperature. Barrels fired until they are hot would be etched/eroded more than barrels that get fired little. Barrels that sit without cleaning get eroded more than barrels that get cleaned right away. As for how much it weakens barrels, I don't have a quantified answer for that. Get a bore scope and look at old BP barrels and see how much erosion, frosting or pitting is present, and remember that those barrels had a mirror finish on them when first made. Measure them and see how much metal has been eroded.
You're saying it erodes BETWEEN the layers of laminate steel, but not BETWEEN the layers of pattern Damascus steel ?
Click to expand...
No, it erodes the softer steel between the layers of hard steel. All Damascus barrels are a combination of iron and steel hammer forged together.
 
Charcoal is a hydrocarbon (CH2-CH2- chains).
Click to expand...

Say what?
Chemistry class assumes charcoal is carbon so as to simplify the equations.
It really isn't but still about 70% fixed carbon, balance partly decomposed cellulose and lignin which do affect performance.
So there can't be a lot of sulfuric (more likely sulfurous) acid.
And there is a lot of potassium carbonate, an alkali which will neutralize acids.
Leaving salts, which are somewhat corrosive but not in the class of the potassium chloride from chlorate primers.
 
All I know is I'm still shooting the same Bill Large rifle and pistol barrels today 40 to 50 years after I built the guns and they're still as accurate as the day they were built. Rifling still sharp. If metal were removed then they would have lost their accuracy. At least you're admitting you don't know how much the barrels were weakened.

Bill, no the patterns you see are the two different types of steel - low carbon and a higher carbon steel. The same as when I use 5160 and 01 for my Damascus knives. Two different steels. I'm not saying Damascus barrels are as strong as homogenous steel. But they have been tested with proof loads, and more than proof loads, and have been found safe. Some of you guys go on and on about how Damascus barrels aren't safe to shoot, but everyone of you ignore me when I ask why the Brits still, and always have, proofed Damascus barrels, and if they pass proof they're deemed safe to shot. Someone please answer that.
 
Last edited:
Have Granddad'Remiington1894 SxS. About 2011/ 2012 did research on the known information.

Obtained a copy of the Remington Salesman handbook, where is stated that the Damascus barrels of the 1894 & 1900 models, were "Proofed" by Remington with the CURRENT nitro-powder proof-loads at that time. The main problem was chambers were for the 2-1/2"chambers, as informed by the source, compounded by poor maintenance.

Last year I was at a recognized Master Gunsmith of the Westside of the state, he had a number of the Remingtons on rack and he inspects and cleared those as ready for use. Some the chambers were lengthen other using 2-1/2 shell. [he specified a particular shell manufacture to use.
Once the COVID dies off, I am having the SxS examined and possibly cleared for use.
My Dad last used the the 1894 in the early 70's using Remington GL high brass paper shells.
In the Mid-80's, i bought the "Spot-Chek" kit for examing the barrel outside surface, clean and degreased with acetone , let dry and placed the barrels in a 200 degree kitchen oven, set for fifteen minutes, took outside and sprayed the penetrate let dry / cooled and wipe-off the surface ,, then applied the developer. No red spot show-up.

This was done for when cleaning the fore-arm was removed and the Damascus pattern faded away??

Last year I purchased a$24 mini-camera with 36-inch lens lead and slowly examined the bore, nice an shiny.

Once the smith examines and cleans/lubricate the boxlock action, then I will decide to use it. My $0.02 worth.
 
There are shotgunning enthusiasts who collect and fire superior quality double barrel shotguns from the last century, picking up rich man’s toys from the past century at bargain basement prices.

These fellas know intimate details about their fine old firearms.
They shoot very low pressure shells.
They enjoy their hobby and you can find lots of scholarly works they publish online.

They put far more work in to it than I care to, and I like goofy stuff like this!

If you have to ask, it’s not safe for you.
 
but everyone of you ignore me when I ask why the Brits still, and always have, proofed Damascus barrels, and if they pass proof they're deemed safe to shot. Someone please answer that.
Click to expand...

Here's your answer, they're British! :rolleyes:
:D

As I see it, what we are discussing here (or arguing over?) is that statements made are taken to extremes, including when the statement was not meant to be.

We're making statements with verifiable proof, on both sides, and they are being taken as if they apply 100% to ALL guns.

They don't.

The only one that does apply is that when there are unknowns, there is an element of risk.

Some Damascus guns have failed. Fact.
Some Damascus guns have been tested and did not fail. Fact.

ALL Damascus guns will fail. NOT FACT.
ALL Damascus guns will not fail. NOT FACT.

Proof testing is a fine thing. It proves that gun survived X amount of overpressure above standards operating pressure. ONCE.

I once "proof tested" a Mustang by "burying the speedometer". Does that mean every Ford will do that? No. THAT one did. Machts Nichts.

Damascus is a general term, in the sense that it refers to the style of manufacture of the barrels, and does not specify the precise materials used or the quality of manufacture.

And, it tells us nothing about what the barrels have endured in the (general) hundred years plus, since leaving the factory. All we have is what we can see, and whatever "story" came with the gun, if any.
 
50 years ago there wasn't very many people even making pattern welded steel, and you did? I know just a little bit about it.

Regardless, we are discussing old damascus guns and the damage time has done, not new custom made ones.
 
In the 90s I went to the ABS school, first for forging knives, then a class for making Damascus. Came home and built a forge. Also bought a power hammer, a 35 pounder to be exact. A year or two latter I went to Ron Claybournes place in Tenn. for a hammer in. There I bought one of his 25 ton knife making presses. Returned when it was done and spent a week with him learning all about " my new press". I made up some dies for different patterns and also learned about using high carbon powdered steel in tubes for just pressing Damascus out with one or two heats. There are a good number of guys who have learned how to make Damascus steel.

I'm sorry if I came off sounding like ALL Damascus guns are safe to shoot. But at the same time some of you are claiming Damascus barrels had voids and rusting from the inside out, cracks on the surface that allowed sulfuric acid to get in them, and so on is all incorrect. I belong to the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Assoc. and in 50 years have never seen a statement about sulfuric acid forming from BP residue and weakening the barrels. Never once.

Glad to see someone gave a intelligent answer to my question about the British proofing Damascus guns. You explained it all. And Sherman Bell proof tested 20 DAMASCUS BARRELED WALLHANGERS. Not well taken care of guns, but ones that were totally abused, and all came through with flying colors. I'm not sure what you want.
 
jrothWA, the Remington shotguns had 2 9/16" chambers to be exact. I have a 73, 82, 89, and six 1894 Remington shotguns. All have Damascus barrels except three of the 94s, which are F grade trap guns. I shoot 2 3/4" shells in all without a second thought. My reloads are 7/8 or 3/4oz out of respect for the 100+ year old wood. They all have a lot of DAH so those light loads are also for respect for my cheek and nose.
 
First you tell us damascus barrels are safe to shoot.
Now, you're telling us it's safe to shoot long shells in short chambers?
Wow.
 
Bill DeShivs said:
Now, you're telling us it's safe to shoot long shells in short chambers?
Wow.
Click to expand...

I did that a lot when I was a kid and didn't know any better. I wont do it now and once I accidently fired a 3 inch magnum out of my 1887 Winchester. I thought it blew up at first but other than the case head separating no damage was done.
 
Bill, you just need to get out a bit more. I'm kind a curious. How does one earn the title " Master Cutler " ? In the ABS they have " Journeyman " and " Master " class and there are certain qualifications to be a member of the Knifemakers Guild, but I had never heard the term " Master Culter " used before. Who issues that title ?

No, Damascus barrels are not as strong as new fluid steel barrels. Does that satisfy you guys ? But they are plenty strong enough to fire shotgun shells in. And yes, Sherman Bell shot 3 1/2" 10ga proof loads in old Parker Damascus barreled shotguns with 2 7/8" chambers with no ill effect. He also shot 2 3/4" shells in Damascus barreled guns with 2 1/2" chambers, with no ill effect. Pressures went up from 500psi to 1000psi. Sorry, nothing blew up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top