shooting Hopkins & Allen shotgun

[Hdonly]

I got this shotgun from my grandmother in 1983. She said it had been in the family for many years. She thought it was around a 100 years old when she gave it to me. Does anyone know much about these and would it be safe to shoot maybe with brass shells and black powder?

[mapsjanhere]

Going by the striping pattern on the barrel it's a welded Damascus steel barrel, and the general opinion is "don't". You could probably come up with some low pressure round that's probably safe to shoot, but there's just no guarantee.

[T. O'Heir]

Don't see a picture with striping pattern on the barrel, but (and despite what you'll see on assorted forums to the contrary. Mostly "I've done it."), if it's Damascus, it's not safe to shoot with any ammo.
Has to do with the BP salts from the original loads having gotten into the wee tiny cracks and fissures in the joints causing rusting.

[Hdonly]

This picture shows the pattern on the barrels better.

[Bill DeShivs]

The barrels are damascus steel.
Don't shoot it-even with black powder loads.
It's a wall-hanger.

[Hdonly]

Sure would hate to blow it up. It's been in the family too long and it might hurt. Guess I will just leave it on the wall where it's at now. Thanks for all the input.

[noelf2]

I know some folks that have gotten chamber adapters and use them in damascus barrel shotguns. If that's a 12 gauge, you could step it down to 20 or even 410 blackpowder loads.

[Hdonly]

I was looking at some of those barrel inserts last night. There is a guy that makes them for some pistol and rifle cartridges also. Was kinda thinking about maybe .38 special and 20 gauge. It would be nice to be able to shoot it. The .38 has about a 10" barrel. The shotgun inserts are shorter. I think I will do some more searching along those lines.

[noelf2]

Short lane has 8" rifled adapters with o rings to stabilize and stop fouling from getting back to the breech, and short lane always has free shipping, and sales going on. Solid stainless steel too. Some others are aluminum with a steel barrel liner, and some are just aluminum. Check them out. Especially the PATHFINDER series. Put PATHFINDER in the discount field and get an additional 15% off (at least that used to work...www.gunadapters.com

[FITASC]

There are a lot of folks who shoot old BP guns safely. It needs to be checked by a smith who knows old guns.
A lot will depend on how well it was maintained

[James K]

Well, it is true that a lot of people shoot old guns and not all of them blow up.

The trouble is that neither FITASC nor any gunsmith can determine if or when an old "Damascus" gun might let go. I have been told that all English guns were proof tested and that therefore can never blow up. Never! Sure.

Others claim that if Damascus barrel guns were maintained properly, they never blow up. Never! Sure.

And the same litany for different types of barrels (plain "twist" will blow up; "London Twist" can handle any overload). Sure.

No matter what anyone, or any expert, with or without a British accent, says, those old barrels can and do blow. Even when a barrel that has been re-proved, it only means that the barrel didn't blow with that load at that time. The next shot may do the job.

The best advice I can give on "Damascus" barrel shotguns is to NOT fire them at all. Any of them. Ever. With any load, even light black powder loads.

Jim

[Slamfire]

The best advice I can give on "Damascus" barrel shotguns is to NOT fire them at all. Any of them. Ever. With any load, even light black powder loads.

Recently I was re reading my American Rifleman magazines from the 1950's and a very good long explanation was given, exactly down the lines of what what James K has said. Not to fire them at all.

These barrels were made of twisted wire wrapped around a mandrel. The wire was mild steel and iron. Structural integrity depends on the material and the welds and the first was not very good and the second is unlikely to be very good either. I really doubt there is a nitro proof on those barrels as most were blackpowder.

People who feel invincible will do whatever they want. But I for one consider my hands, my eyes, and my health worth more than some old shotgun.

[noelf2]

When they blow, they blow at the breech end unless there's some sort of obstruction in the bore. The thinking is that if you reinforce the breech with inserts, or line the bores, they can be used safely with mild BP loads.

[FITASC]

Get them sleeved or use sub gauge tubes and shoot modern ammo in them and have fun

[James K]

An insert makes the story different, because the pressure is contained by the insert, not by the original barrel. Some folks have had custom made liners (usually of a smaller gauge) permanently inserted in old guns, thus preserving the outer shell (with its colorful Damascus appearance) but not depending on it for strength. But that is something that is done by a very few specialists and can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars (and is not always possible in any case). It is not cost effective for 99 percent of the older guns.

For most folks, the most reasonable answer is consign the old gun to an honorable retirement and buy a modern gun for day-to-day use.

Hi, Slamfire,

Actually some of those barrels did originally pass nitro proof. The problem is that the barrel, no matter how good it looks or what proof tests it might have once passed, is a mass of welds held together by hope and good wishes. As each shell was fired, the corrosive compound from the primer plus the erosion of the burning powder ate its way into the interior of the metal spreading through all the tiny channels inside the barrel metal. That is why no one (and I mean no one) can look at a Damascus type barrel and decree that it is solid and safe. There might be magnetic tests or x-rays that can detect excessive weakness but there is a point at which the only "proof" that a barrel will fire a certain load is to fire that load and see if the barrel blows; and then nothing has been proven about the next load.

Some folks tout "re-proving" as the solution. But if you submit a nice old gun to be re-proved, and it blows, you are left with a mass of junk - safe, but junk. I would rather retire an old gun to the wall than be left with scrap iron.

Jim

[Hdonly]

There are a lot of adapters to choose from. For some cheap shooting fun, I am thinking a pair of 9mm adapters for $60. Or maybe one 9mm and one .45 acp. Or one 9mm and one .410/.45 LC. Three different rounds. Wow. decisions, decisions. Only problem is, the only ones that are rifled are the extended 8" rifled adapters at $99 apiece. Or they have a mid length .38 special 5" rifled adapter at $64.99. Oh I forgot to mention the 209 black powder adapters. at $30.

[FITASC]

I would opt for shotgun tubes as their pressures are lower and no need for rifling to make metallic work.
Sleeving can be done to keep the same gauge, but it is expensive.
The cost can never be justified with old guns like these, just the enjoyment from shooting a family heirloom. That's your decision to make
Enjoy it no matter what you decide!

[Hdonly]

noelf2, I got two of Short Lane's adapters. Got one for .38 special and one for .45 acp. They came in yesterday evening. I plan on getting out today and try them out. They are well built, good machine work. Got the Bug Out series at 5" long. The long ones were more than I wanted to spend. For fun shooting, I couldn't justify the extra expense of the long ones at only 3" longer. They fit extremely well and are fairly easy to remove. Can't wait for the sun to come up this morning and try them out. If they appear accurate enough, I will be adding some type of front and rear sight. Since this shotgun is really not a collector, I don't mind the little bit of drilling needed to mount some sights. Will be great to be able to use this fine old family gun. My daughter is an avid shooter, so she gets it after I am gone. Keeping it in the family for another 100+ years. Thanks all for the good information.

[noelf2]

Personally I wouldn't add sights to a keepsake. These adapters are not going to give you the accuracy that a fixed barrel would anyway. Out of a shotgun, with bead sight only, you should be able to hit rabbit sized targets at 25 yards. Will take some practice. I got adapters for a bug out setup I wanted to build. In it is the 8" Pathfinder 45lc adapter, but stuffed in the stock and fore-grip are several more adapters, ammo, fishing gear, fire starter, etc... Still, even with the red/green dot sight, 30 yards is about all it's good for with rifled adapters.

[Hdonly]

Good point on sight mounting on it. I didn't expect a tack driver anyway. My shooting plans this morning have been changed by Mother Nature and her rain. Maybe later this afternoon. I will do some shooting before worrying about sights. I have a milling machine. I could easily make a red dot mount that would clamp on and not have to do any drilling. Of course a red dot sight on a 100 year old shotgun would look quite out of place. It's only going to be a fun gun anyway.

[Slamfire]

Some folks tout "re-proving" as the solution. But if you submit a nice old gun to be re-proved, and it blows, you are left with a mass of junk - safe, but junk. I would rather retire an old gun to the wall than be left with scrap iron.

A proof test is simply a test with an over pressure round. Generally the load is about 20 to 30% over pressure. The more over pressure rounds a weak barrel made of substandard materials is exposed to, the sooner it will blow with standard rounds.

People have screwball ideas about proof tests. I have an Dope Bag article from the 1950's that I recently re read. The author told the American Rifleman of a "proof test" he had conducted on a Japanese rifle. He had filled a case with bullseye pistol powder, fired it, and the rifle was intact! He wrote the American Rifleman asking their opinion about his clever proof test. They told him the rifle was probably unsafe to shoot further.

American's have this screwy belief that Proof Testing is supposed to be a destructive test. I think they get this idea from Hatcher's Notebook, where he describes Springfield Armory behaviors during the period of the single heat treat receivers. SA did not have pyrometers in the forge shop or heat treating ovens. SA also did not have an incoming material inspection. Receivers made of defective materials and inconsistent heat treatments passed proof tests but blew in service. Instead of Springfield Armory figuring out why they were making defective rifles, they simply decided to increase the proof pressures of their proof test. Which blew up more rifles, but did not fix the problems of a chaotic and uncontrolled production line. I believe that people read this and somehow get the idea that proof testing is supposed to blow the gun up, which is of course, nuts. No manufacturer would set up a factory, pay all the workers, and expect to make money if they blew up all the product at the end of the production line.

The Germans have a severe Proof Test program. You have to have the gun tested each and every sale. That includes sales between individuals. They inspect things, gauge, test the features to see if everything works. Prior to 1968, if the gun failed any part of the Proof test, such if the safety was dysfunctional, the whole firearm was destroyed. The whole purpose of this is to send old and dangerous guns to the scrap yard. The law was later changed so that only the offending part was ruined, but still, the gun had not passed proof and therefore could not be sold. I will bet when it comes to twist barrels, the proof inspector examines the barrel for pin holes with a magnifying glass, and if he finds them, the barrel is crushed right then and there.

[mapsjanhere]

No idea where you got that story about Germany from, but Germans don't reproof guns on sale. There is an "Instandsetzungsbeschuss" when a major part is replaced, but sales in Germany don't trigger that.

[James K]

H, Slamfire,

I am not sure of your point. Any time you submit a firearm for proof you take the chance that it will fail and become junk. That is the whole idea of proof testing. Of course the proof standards are set so that only guns with a defect will fail, but the whole idea is to weed out those guns. Whether the barrel would fail with standard rounds is beside the point, but very probably most of the guns that fail proof would have been be fine with standard level loads, perhaps for many years.

Jim

[Slamfire]

Of course the proof standards are set so that only guns with a defect will fail, but the whole idea is to weed out those guns.

Proof testing is a historical procedure, goes back centuries. It was an assurance of the quality of the piece in a time period when production processes depending on the human hearing, taste, touch, sight and smell. Quality was much more variable than now. The fact that guns passed proof tests only to fail later shows a limitation in non destructive testing. I don't know how any non destructive test, or series of non destructive tests, can assure that all defectives in all products can be revealed. Instead, non destructive tests are set up under the assumption that most defects are revealed.

I would love to see an analysis of structural defects that would be revealed in a 30% proof test, versus those that would pass. Because proof testing is an historical artifact, I doubt that analysis has ever been made. I also doubt any analysis has ever been conducted into proof test levels. Why is 30% better than 20%, or even 50% over pressure? Of course any proof test that exceeds yield would be a destructive test, but stressing an item just to the ultimate stress level, but not over, does that prove that it is structurally sound for thousands of load cycles?

I am certain that the fatigue lifetime of twist barrels is quite finite, and what I do know about fatigue lifetime is that over stresses reduce the operational life of a steel part. Proof testing old and weak barrels only proves if they passed or failed the proof test. Not failing in proof is not an assurance that it won't fail later, with standard loads. Something I am going to claim, is failure of a weak and structurally defective steel part is more likely after a proof test, because the endurance life of the part was reduced by exposure to an over pressure load.

[Hdonly]

Finally spent some time shooting my Hopkins & Allen .38/.45 today. At 25 yards it was pretty easy to keep the shots on a paper plate with just the front bead sight. I believe with some kind of sight on it, I could do a lot better than that. Even so, it was a lot of fun just shooting it. The .38 shot a lot closer to point of aim than the .45 acp did. Had to aim off the plate with .45 to hit it. I have some steel targets bigger than the plates. I kept them ringing. No doubt that I could put some meat on the table if needed.