Yeah… when you put it like that, maybe not. I do love the concept of shooting 22s out of it though. Is that something that is commonly available?
Thats a bloody shame. Like i said, nice project.
Sooo, some people might consider repeated comments about ones age ( you do this often) trolling or at least harrassment. You seem to be the only person here making those comments. Do u have a problem with me?
Nah, I love you man, like a grandpa I’ve never had, with guns!
I am surly wrong but I thought they started with some smooth bore barrels first and then wire wrapped them just to obtain the look. But on the other hand they also made some Damascus barrels this way just using bigger bits of steel coiled up.
A good wall hanger I with that is where I could put mine it fit nearly all the criteria if not all.
Here’s a bit of info on how those barrels are made http://www.hallowellco.com/damascus_twist_barrels.htm
Cheers
I wouldn’t go that far mate 
Maybe a 410 insert?
I absolutely disagree with the comments that Damascus barrels are unsafe to use. I have been shooting my guns for nearly 50 years with BP loads, and also nitro loads designed for these old guns that are loaded to suit the proof of these gun. They will not take modern 2 3/4 shells, not at all, but 2 1/2 shells in guns that have been inspected by a reputable gunsmith are being fired in Damascus guns by dozens of shooters all over Australia. For the gun Nomis has, I would ring the barrels, and if they rung true I would have no hesitation in firing a nitro Lyalvale or one of my BP loads. The original proof load as a matter of interest was 114.2g of 2F powder with 1 5/8 oz of shot.and the standard load cosidered to be 30g of powder to 1 1/8 oz of shot.
1 Like
I shoot one myself,been gunsmith inspected and I run 70gn 2f an 1.25oz of shot and it’s most likely 150+ years old the best anyone can tell me…
Logic seems to get a smith to have a look at it and go from there.
No expert here.
From memory there are a few ways to check steel for cracks and faults. The ring trick is an old one. In the days when i was working as a mechanic they used to use an electro magnet and steel powder. And you can xray. Visual too obviously. I wonder how tight the action is?
Could also do a basic proof load.
Yes, I agree that in a gun that’s been properly inspected, by a competent shotgun Smith, bore scoped and preferably x-rayed and reproof tested too it can be safe to shoot. But grabbing a $10 old banger and thinking she’ll be right is not a good way to keep your face where it belongs.
The advice that we give out here could be read by anyone and needs to be safety minded.
1 Like
Comonsense has prevailed.
@no1mk3 so that proof load you are talking about is just that. An over the top pressure test that is done once or twice to test the interigretiary of the barrels?
Here is spme basic info on proof testing. Scroll down the page to firearms.
G’day sungazer,
The barrel is measured at 9" from the breech, then the proof load is fired and the measurement taken again. Any significant variation in size, typically up to 10thou will see the barrel rejected. Some poor barrels may burst upon proofing but in the main a non-elastic size variation is the cause of failure. Nomis’s gun is actually a 13g(2nd sizing) bore, measured during test and stamped 13/1 on the flats and would heve been proven with the load I mentioned as the Governors of the Birmingham Proof House approved test load for that time. A worthwhile read for anyone who likes old guns is William Greeners “Book of Gunnery 1858” which explains all of the different ways of making what were called Figured Steel barrels and we simply lump all together as Damascus, and for those interested in the viability of shooting Damascus barrels read “Damascus Mythology & Reality” by Randy McClune, “Birmingham Proof Trial of 1891 Report” by John Brindle as published in “The Doublegun Journal” Vol5, Issue 1, 1994 in his series “Some Modern Fallacies Pt3”. If anyone wishes to put their mind at rest about the old wives tale about laminated steel/iron barrels corroding among the laminations under the surface I would recommend the report “Tensile Testing & Birmingham Trial”, which microscopically inspected and destructively tested a large sampling of barrels including 3 and 4 leaf wound, 2 twist machine as well as hand hammered, fluid steel, both Siemans-Martin and Whitworth Process, a Darby Process Carburised Fluid barrel and many other types of “Damascus” barrel. Apart from one discovered to have a slag inclusion from original forging, not one of dozens of 110 to 140 year old twist steel barrels showed any signs of internal corrosion whatsoever, and most stood over 40000psi testing, which when you use the Bursting Pressure formula gives a “proof” of over 11000psi, the same as when they were made, so time did not in any way detract from the integrity and strength of these guns. Still, NEVER shoot 2 3/4 modern Nitro in them, even though many modern cartridges are loaded to the same 8000psi service pressure, they are too long for the early chambers and about half of shotshell sold today exceed 10000psi, and a diet of proof load shells will ruin your day. Study, be informed, enjoy our sport in safety and always err on the side of caution, Cheers.
3 Likes
Had to do an edit, originally said 10% variation in size, but it is .010" change would see rejection. For more trivia, within the 12 bore nomenclature, guns were accepted at 4 different sizes, .729 marked 12 on the flat, .740, marked 12/1, .720 marked 13/1 and .710 marked 13. The gun was always chambered as 12g even with a 13g bore! Today it is almost the same, and the nominal .729 12 bore is allowed up to .020" variation from .719 to .740. Explains why some guns just naturally shot tighter patterns in cylinder barrels, Cheers.
3 Likes
