Proofing a percussion Damascus shotgun

[mnmuzzleloader]

I am interested in getting an original percussion double barrel shotgun with Damascus barrels. What are some suggestions for proof firing the gun. I see the method in Dixie gun works using a double load and a tire with a string. What would you suggest. The guns I’m looking at appear to have very good un pitted barrels.

 

[Flintandsteel]

I don't know the age or condition of what you're proofing, but there's no reason I can think of to try to blow it up.
If buying from someone you know, shoot what they say they've been using.
If not, maybe have a good smith look it over, or have it manga-fluxed.
Shooting a normal load in a barrel in good shape should cause no problems, but a double load, just might make it happen.

 

[fleener]

I have several original shotguns and rifles. Years ago I did proof one or two, but now I would not.

I only shoot ones now that appear to be in good shape. I also use reasonable loads.

So you proof it with a double load. It does not blow up, but what if you weaken or cracked it with that proofing load, only to have it fail in the next shot from your shoulder? Or the 5th shot after proofing?

I inspect the barrels inside and out. I also take the barrels off of the action and suspend it from the lug by a finger. I take a finger nail and whack the barrel to see if is rings like a bell, or if it twangs. Twang means something is loose, like a rib and I might have a problem. Even rust under the rib.

I just bought an original English SxS on auction today. I will not proof test it.

Fleener

 

[Blogman]

a tire with a string

Wat!?!?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Dixie Gun Works has published in the past a "method" for "proofing" an old gun by overloading it, then using an old tire to act as a method to hold it so that it may be fired with the use of a string on the trigger(while the spectators seek shelter), and the tire acts as a cradle for the gun in recoil IF you don't blow it up.

The first problem, that's a very crude test....proper proofing is done at a proofing house. The closest proofing house to the Continental United States, I believe is in Birmingham in the UK. You won't find any micro fractures if they happen, and it proves very little, doing it at home. Having the barrel magnafluxed is a better idea (imho).

The second problem is, who determines the gun's "double load", Turner Kirkland the late owner of DGW ?

A double load could be anywhere from 160 grains of 2Fg and 3 ounces of shot, to 220 grains of 2fg and 3 ounces of shot, perhaps more. So the barrels survive, but what about the recoil effect on the locks, tang, and especially the antique wood in the stock?

The best thing is to have a gunsmith look them over....

LD

 

[Blogman]

Ah, gotcha. That's how we do it hillbilly style.

 

[Zonie]

I'll just mention that when we Proof Tested something at the jet engine company I worked at, the fact that the part didn't fail wasn't enough to say it passed the test.

The part after the test was done was examined to see if it had changed size in any way and if it had suddenly developed faults, deep in its material.
This needed as a minimum test an examination using a dye-penetrant inspection to see if any cracks had developed. This is sometimes called "Zloglo" inspection. More often a magnetic particle inspection if the part was made out of steel to see if any flaws were created under the surface of the metal.

In some cases, X-ray inspection was also made to see if some sort of failure was in the part.

The bottom line is, if you "proof test" the part, you need to do more than just sit back and say, "Well, it didn't blow up so it must be good".

There is a good chance that your proof test actually damaged a good barrel and created something that is dangerous to shoot.

 

[THBailey]

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

First, I agree popping off a couple of hot loads is a long way from "proofing". And can actually add to cumulative trauma, doing more harm than good.

Also, I agree if you know the history of the guns use and it came from a trusted source, it is probably all good.

But before creating an instant flash of 10,000 or 15,000 psi, in a complete stranger I am holding in my only two hands, and possibly holding only a few inches from my face, that is a 100+ year old gun constructed of antique metallurgy, I tend to err to the cautious.

We play with old guns quite a bit. If we decide we actually want to shoot one, we test fire a load or two. We load just a little more stout than what we will be using, and fire using a long cord from a position of safety. Don't use a tire though. We have a very large and heavy old vise with wood on the jaws to clamp on the barrel.

As far as risking damage to an old gun, you already made the decision to accept that risk when you decided the gun would be a shooter. All we are talking about now is if the risk downside might be experienced up close and personal, or from a distance.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

OH I don't know about that..,

So far majority the opinion was not to heavily overload the gun as some sort of test.

Not the same as adding half a dram of powder and a quarter ounce of shot over what one expects to use, and trying that.
BIG difference between 160 grains or more of 2Fg and three ounces of shot, compared to what you're suggesting, which would be like 95 grains of 2Fg and an ounce and a half of shot, eh?

LD

 

[poker]

If you should do that trick with the tires, consider running an ad and selling tickets.

 

[mnmuzzleloader]

Thanks for everybody’s opinion. I was never to serious about using the tire method but if the gun looks like it’s in good shape I’m going to shoot it with a normal load and not worry about it.

 

[springfield art]

I don't know the age or condition of what you're proofing, but there's no reason I can think of to try to blow it up.
If buying from someone you know, shoot what they say they've been using.
If not, maybe have a good smith look it over, or have it manga-fluxed.
Shooting a normal load in a barrel in good shape should cause no problems, but a double load, just might make it happen.

I always kind of thought that way, too.

 

[springfield art]

Dixie Gun Works has published in the past a "method" for "proofing" an old gun by overloading it, then using an old tire to act as a method to hold it so that it may be fired with the use of a string on the trigger(while the spectators seek shelter), and the tire acts as a cradle for the gun in recoil IF you don't blow it up.

The first problem, that's a very crude test....proper proofing is done at a proofing house. The closest proofing house to the Continental United States, I believe is in Birmingham in the UK. You won't find any micro fractures if they happen, and it proves very little, doing it at home. Having the barrel magnafluxed is a better idea (imho).

The second problem is, who determines the gun's "double load", Turner Kirkland the late owner of DGW ?

A double load could be anywhere from 160 grains of 2Fg and 3 ounces of shot, to 220 grains of 2fg and 3 ounces of shot, perhaps more. So the barrels survive, but what about the recoil effect on the locks, tang, and especially the antique wood in the stock?

The best thing is to have a gunsmith look them over....

LD

Good advice. I love the Dixie catalog, but some of the entries seem a bit dated. Although, I don't know what a proofing house does that differs so much. It's hard to believe they're actually loading, shooting, and CLEANING each and every barrel mfg. by Uberti, Pietta, etc.
It would be of great interest if some entity has produced a u-tube video documentary showing what actually constitutes a modern proof house. The repro barrels mfg. today are so extraordinarily thick, "lawyer barrels", I doubt they have financially viable means to test fire each and every one. Would like to read some comments from other folks that may have knowledge of this. Maybe the NSSA guys, who have kept alive so much science from the 19th century, could comment?


,

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I doubt they have financially viable means to test fire each and every one.

As I mentioned, it's up to the proofing house. So Yes in England and Germany and Italy, if it has a proofing mark, it was tested...but that could change an hour from now. It's also possible due to the vast difference between the English and Italian proofing tests, that one could pass the Italian test, get a stamp, and be sold by Pedersoli..., while it would fail the much higher, English test.

One of our members on this forum, living in Germany, noted that at the German house they begin with the touch hole on the flintlock barrels. If the hole is too large, FAIL. And in Germany "too large a touch hole" is the same as apparently what a lot of us use on our guns and rifles here in America.

In Spain, in the past they would "batch proof" barrels from a manufacturer, while a person who paid for proofing would could have a lone barrel proofed. Although the Spanish house picked one or two or three barrels out of every ten (for example), and those passed proofing, all ten would be marked the same. CVA found out the hard way with one of their models that this was not a good idea. They had to recall that model and switch to a different proofing house because of the number of barrel failures and injured people.

We in America, because of the second half of the 20th century, tend to "protect against stupidity". (imho) So there are those that think the proofing does the same, when in fact all it does is ensure that a person who isn't stupid, or careless, or inattentive, likely won't blow a barrel with a proper load...but proofing only applies to the barrel when it leaves the proofing house, as what happens as far as upkeep after the barrel is in the hands of a shooter, might render even the proofed barrel unsafe for a proper load.

LD

 

[Britsmoothy]

Pretty much proof testing in Europe follows CIP standards.
How I understand it measurements are taken before and after. Possibly gauges.
Any yielding is a fail.
Possibly the German vent size issue is that to much venting will negate a true test to the barrel.
I have seen film footage of a row of barrels being fired via a fuse of black powder run over the breeches.

I do believe that the now heavy breach end of Pedersoli double barrelled shotguns earns them a proof stamp without any test but I have no proof of this.
Interestingly most reproduction shotguns seem to be restricted to light loads, this has often made me suspect the barrels are not physically proofed but are entitled to a stamp of proof if certain other criteria is met.