Well have to meat up , ask around the show for Rodney..theyll point u to me. Looking forward to it
First show since my gunsmith buddy passed in 2011
Steel shot in a Damascus cartridge gun
- Thread starter Rebelson
- Start date
- Status
First show since my gunsmith buddy passed in 2011
Your proofing after proofing...mannnnn i own. A dozen damascus guns...worth thousands each...from top makers in london and Germany and belgium..i shoot them all the time with loads appropriate... Not steamroller load after steamroller load...every huge pressured load takes its tole on those old barrels and action...if your bores are dent free...pitting at a minimal and externally no pitts or rust..9 chances out of 10 with appropriate field loads it will work fine...ive been shooting Damascus guns since im 18...im still here..however no steel shot through mine... And sure..a lead proof load can stress a barrel to the point of all it takes next shot is a field load....you obviously just want to blow it up...so go do it...be done with it...nobody on here blows up guns and pushes limits...sonoran gun institute instructor wont advise you to do that either...rather than do proper techniques...time tested gunsmithing practices...experimentation is 1 thing man...this is just beating a dead horse..you can buy 4 more guns to destroy...id rather buy bismuth with the money , load ammo appropriately and go get some ducks with your sxs...
Its the pressure your exposing it to....it was designed to shoot loads around 6500psi.. And work normally for a long time...just to see how much a gun can take... Im sure many agree its your gun... Do what you want...
Part of the proofing process is inspecting before and after the overpressure loads are fired. Since you cannot magnetic particle inspect (magnaflux) Damascus for cracks because it is built with cracks on purpose you need some other way to check for damage. Bare minimum before and after bore micrometer measurements of the chamber should be taken. Before and after clearances in the lockup mechanism and hinge should be measured also.
If you are going to do all that then just proof it for nitro. The tools needed for the measurements will be expensive but if you plan to go to gunsmith school they will likely have what you need there.
http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/proofmethods.html
If you are going to do all that then just proof it for nitro. The tools needed for the measurements will be expensive but if you plan to go to gunsmith school they will likely have what you need there.
http://www.dave-cushman.net/shot/proofmethods.html
sonoran desert institute is online and online gunsmith courses are not up to par in my opinion, that's why I've opted for the only brick and mortar gunsmithing institution this side of the pond, PGS for the master gunsmith program. The only one beating a dead horse is you with the same anecdotal evidence of "I've done it for years" then contradiction after contradiction trying to run down an experiment you wouldn't do, we get it man. Let the people with engineering degrees and gunsmiths give me advice on how to prove or disprove a concept instead of beating around the same for 4 walls of the box. You think the gun will blow... that's your opinion, you've stated it many... many times. Some people here are trying to see if this concept can be proved and are positively contributing to the proof of concept with new, creative and innovative wad designs and techniques to R&D (for this proof of concept only). You've done it since you were 18... and your 45? Many on here commenting have twice or three times your expirence and are spit balling ideas. do you have anything useful to add other than repeating over and over what I'm trying to disprove albeit under certain circumstances. That's the whole point of a proof of concept, to challenge the norms that you preach but have never dared challenged. Unless you have something new to add kindly leave giving advice on this project to the professionals. I'm not trying to blow up the gun or to piss you off but youve said the same thing 16 times with only minor differences in details and flat out refuse to answer counter agruements with anything but "ive shot them for years, ive spend thousands" and you expect me to take it as gospel? I'm testing decades old fudd lore pasted down from uncle Bill that I think can logically be disproved if i can find a way to do it without damage. That being said if anyone stumbles on to this post in the future I advice you DO NOT attempt this, it's a proof of concept DONE FROM A VICE, not next to your face. If gunsmiths and firearms engineers didn't challenge the lore we'd still believe Damascus is strong than fuild steel like they said in the transitional period. Any gunsmith preaching what they refuse to back up with personal experience is a gun plumber that finds it easier to parrot old rhetoric than actually make a difference in the industry everyone here loves, they usually die out after a short lived career owning a mom and pop shop no one will remember in 5 years instead of being innovative and pushing the limits of what's possible (with firearms personally owned of course). Good day sir
Last edited:
Thank you. I'll look into that, I don't mind spending money on equipment I know for a fact I'll use extensively for a lifetime
Seems you only like who supports your idea... Your sir are only seeing a ( vision ) a what if its Possible...safe in your gun with steel dont mean someone elses gun is...also further to that... Im sure ammunition companies have metalurgists and engineers... Working to develop loads for hunting with steel as it
Presents issues... Your sir are 1 sided... Im stressing safety..and ill put my knowledge against anyones on Damascus shotguns and inspection. The only people who do they " will it blow " videos are doing it for views...nothing more... So your gonna proof a shotgun? Ok...its been done for many yrs... Gd on you... Inspecting barrels with xrays and magnafluxing
Is $$$$$ you go right ahead... Out of 75 replys you got on here.. Maybe 5 said theyd try and 70 said could be iffy....you were nice as pie to the 5 and jumped on the 70 others...thats not hearing both sides as u keep
( ill push the limits ) ummmmmm ok...so u made. That point several times.... U keep buying guns to destroy...ill buy bismuth...enjoy the gun as it was intended and enjoy hunting . why dont you go read the article sheman bell did on Damascus guns and his extensive tests....although he didnt use steel...some guns he pressure tested he just gave up trying and
Gave his conclusions....
Your test is on 1 gun....guns vary....thats not anything
Helping advance ammunitions design...its then proving theres to much liability ( 2 guns out of 20 survived it ) doesnt make your experiment prove any thing except your personal gun is safe...
Get pissy all you want....matters not to anyone
Go. on youtube type in ( gun proofing 1951 )
Black and white video...the barrels aren't even on the gun when proofed in a few tests ...... And its the birmingham proof house...the most well known and famous and in business still i do believe...watch what ( old world proofing was ) and you'll see what was done... You want supportive ideas...watch a skilled craftsman proof guns on that video....
Fired on a rolling carriage not like from a vice...if your talking proper proofing
Black and white video...the barrels aren't even on the gun when proofed in a few tests ...... And its the birmingham proof house...the most well known and famous and in business still i do believe...watch what ( old world proofing was ) and you'll see what was done... You want supportive ideas...watch a skilled craftsman proof guns on that video....
Fired on a rolling carriage not like from a vice...if your talking proper proofing
Last edited:
Yes Doug, BP and plastic was mentioned early on for sure!
I just measured several empty 20 gauge hulls, paper, plastic for lead and plastic for steel.
The steel shot hulls , although obviously the same outside diameter as the lead shot ones, are about .010 thinner. I believe this is to to accommodate the thicker steel shot compatible wads.
As far as scoring goes, I remember reading an article by Mr. Lee stating how he ruined a barrel in quick order using standard wads with steel .
Cat
I think you misunderstood what I wrote about shotcup thickness. It is the plastic over powder / shotcup which is thicker. The earlier ones were the same thickness as for lead and the steel shot pressed through them and scored the barrels. Also, modern forcing cones and chokes are longer or more gradual
cheers mooncoon
your clogging the replys with nearly the same response every time and wont catch the hint that i dont buy what your selling... With the exception of about 3 commentators this has been a polite discourse. Ive heard what youve repeated 16 times, that doesn't make you correct or add any substance to your argument. I'm asking the forum for advice, not a warning label. If asking for useful ideas instead of a broken record is one sided and pissy, then tell yourself that your right and you won the debate, and leave it to the pros pointing me in the right direction. I'm not jumping down your throat, I'm being honest. Trust me...It would be way more fun to start going off, but I'm attempting to keep this polite. This post has progressed from a debate to a proof of concept and as such I'm now asking for useful ideas. If you don't have any dont let the door hit you
I think we are on the same page , I was just musing about the barrel scoring thing, Doug, which is why I checked the hulls.
I know that steel wad petals are a lot thicker ans the base wads are pretty much solid instead of having cushioned cages.
And yes you are very correct on the forcing cone thing, we found modern forcing cones are much different and my buddy and I have reamers to relieve the older forcing cones when we open up chokes as well.
I know Guntech has continually mentioned about the forcing cones when omeone posts in about shooting steel threw older guns
Cat
Last edited:
All things fail .. eventually, all metals have elastic properties, barrels bulge a bit on firing then return to their original dimensions, they heat up, expand a bit then cool and return to their original dimensions. Over time they begin to (work) harden and will start to lose their elastic properties. When they can no longer "bulge" a bit - the probability of failure increases. Kinda like bending a paper clip or a spoon back and forth a dozen times or so - it will harden and break.
In a pressure application like a barrel, we are looking at tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of cycles - far less if the pressures are in excess of the original design. "re proofing" is a foolish concept as it is only speeding along the imminent failure.
Furthermore, damascus is comprised of 2 or more metals with different properties ... I think anyone can do the math here and see the problems.
If you are truly interested take a look on google for something called "thread stretch" - sometimes called bolt stretch, follow that up with some light reading on the concept of torque bolts and why they are rated for specific amounts of force.
Incidentally, this is also how fouling gets in the threads of a muzzle loader.
We did.....
Diving down the reproofing rabbit hole and it's seems everyone's split 50/50 on wether or not it should be done. I'm going to look into other methods of proving safe and continue the experiment with 75gn sqaure loads going forward. I've looked into patching 20ga steel wads, aswell as machining high temp plastic round bar on the lathe. I'm leaving for a bear and moose hunt today but will be looking into the feasibility while gone before ordering different materials to machine down to try
You wanna be a child...go do your experiment...
Debate has 2 sides bud...not opposed and against...
Get with the program
Last edited:
And maybe indont buy your debate.... Like several on here. Do a poll ( who likes pushing limits with gun safety ) seen what the poll would tell. U.... Enjoy your hunt...take your 16 with you get a few grouse fir dinner.
I think we are on the same page , I was just musing about the barrel scoring thing, Doug, which is why I checked the hulls.
I know that steel wad petals are a lot thicker ans the base wads are pretty much solid instead of having cushioned cages.
And yes you are very correct on the forcing cone thing, we found modern forcing cones are much different and my buddy and I have reamers to relieve the older forcing cones when we open up chokes as well.
I know Guntech has continually mentioned about the forcing cones when omeone posts in about shooting steel threw older guns
Cat
Jeez cat...guess i dont know anything about shotguns or damascus barrels...guess i better sell all my. Damascus guns. ��.its great seeing friends on here comment.i guess being schooled by a gunsmith of iver 50 yrs exp on dbl barrels exclusively whom still rebuilds and restores guns makes no diff...he opposed ever. Disagreement comment its free speech orrrr wait...maybe we arent allowed anymore
The thing about proofing is when it is originally done, there is a starting point, gun has not been fired before and a proper test can be designed around the strengths and properties of the materials.
A 100 year old gun, we have no starting point, we don't know what it has been subjected to so a proper test cannot be designed.
When a gun is originally proofed, we (generally) can say it's good for X number of cycles, if you reproof it 100 years later you can't say that anymore, the best you can do is assume it's still within it's advertised service life (X cycles) but you still don't know when X + 1 is going to be......
Not saying it should or should not be done, I'm saying unless you know the service history, a second proofing is relatively pointless.
Did you not read the part where I said this has progressed from a debate to a proof of concept where im asking for ideas on how to do it, not why i shouldn't. the conversation changed over the course of 12 pages. Dont be sore because I won't take your word for it pal, get with the program and comprehend what's being said and where this is going. Don't pitch a fit like a 2 year old
But im not throwing a fit
Proof the gun...prove yours is safe
1 gun out of 1000 proofed...
Ok...so your proof is only showing
Your personal gun...does not blanket
Damascus guns in general
To many quality of barrels..
Action strengths...etc...
Your gonna just have " proof yours is safe or not safe"
Did you see anyone say a word to one of my comments? Or that i was talking foolish...bro you have gunsmiths and engineers on here telling you your test will not yield anything by testing 150yr old metal without the proper equip to detect flaws...inclusions
Cracks in the metal... And your like " yeah well im doing it anyways??? So why bother asking...if guys on here offer advise or insite and you wipe your behind with it because you are gonna do it anyways?...
Proof the gun...prove yours is safe
1 gun out of 1000 proofed...
Ok...so your proof is only showing
Your personal gun...does not blanket
Damascus guns in general
To many quality of barrels..
Action strengths...etc...
Your gonna just have " proof yours is safe or not safe"
Did you see anyone say a word to one of my comments? Or that i was talking foolish...bro you have gunsmiths and engineers on here telling you your test will not yield anything by testing 150yr old metal without the proper equip to detect flaws...inclusions
Cracks in the metal... And your like " yeah well im doing it anyways??? So why bother asking...if guys on here offer advise or insite and you wipe your behind with it because you are gonna do it anyways?...
- Status
