Dangerous Damascus Revisited
Some years ago I read a book by the famous science writer, Carl Sagan, titled The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. In it the reader is cautioned against inter alia pseudoscience, superstition, and a lack of scepticism. Above all, it states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I involuntarily thought of this when I read “There’s Double Danger in Damascus” on p52 in the September/ October 2020 edition of Magnum.
I shall start off by first listing the scientific work (as far as I know the only such research) that has been done on the subject of Damascus/twist steel and steel barrels for shotguns, then say something on the subject of provisional and definitive proof over the last 150 years or so, and then question some of the statements mentioned in the article.
In (by GT Teasdale-Buckell, then editor of ), mention is made of a remarkable experiment conducted by the Birmingham Proof House, employing a select committee gleaned from the trade in Britain. They tested all barrels available/manufactured by the trade in order to scientifically opine on the matter of the merits of steel versus Damascus/ twist steel. British makers supplied 117 barrels, and more were sourced from foreign (mostly Belgian) suppliers. These samples were tested to destruction with more than one sample per type being tested to avoid the ‘sample of one’ delusion. The results, in order of merit of the top five from a total of 32 were: English machine-forged laminated steel, in three rods. English fluid compressed steel, Whitworth process. English machine-forged best Damascus, in two rods. English steel, Siemens-Martin process. English hand-forged best Damascus, in four rods.
