Remington 1889 SxS Hammer - Barrels

[Bill B.]

I have located a Remington Model 1889 SxS locally that I have decided to try and strike a deal on. The Blue Book list decarbonized, twist or damascus barrels. Apparently this double has the decarbonized steel barrels as it obvious it doesn't have the other 2 types. When Remington went to the model of 1894 the blue book shows the steel changed to "Remington, Ordnance, and Damascus steel".

Question is on the "decarbonized steel" barrels seeing that the gun is in sound shape handle light 12 ga. smokeless loads. I know this is a generic question as the gun needing to be checked by a gunsmith and it will be. I just need to know both the strengh's and weakness of the decarbonized steel from someone familar with it.With the rabbit ear hammers this old double barrel screams take me to a Cowboy Shoot! Thanks for any information!

 

[Fred Fuller]

I guess I'm just weird, but I'd not use modern smokeless powder in a gun that old no matter what. I might even be leery of using black powder in it, but then I seem to have an inordinate attachment to my face and fingers staying just the way they are.

The world fairly bristles with modern coach gun reproductions, even with hammers, made of modern steels and proofed for modern loads. I'd even pay $800-900 for a CZ Coach Gun ( http://www.cz-usa.com/product_detail.php?id=77 ) before I'd risk shooting a retiree like that old Remington with smokeless powder. Of course, YMMV.

lpl (old pilots, bold pilots...)

 

[Bill B.]

Well I had made my mind up to try and get it but by that time it was gone! It was an extremely well made double and lock up was like that on a bank vault. It had some cosmetic issues that took it from collector status but it would have been nice to have owned! I haven't ever shot that old a shotgun with smokeless but did use a 1898 Winchester 97 for a spell for Cowboy Action.

 

[rcmodel]

That 1889 Remington would have had Damascus barrels, and I am with Lee Lapen on not shooting them with modern smokeless ammo.

Just not worth the risk.

When they do let go, they let go right where your left hand is holding it, and almost always take some fingers off.

The Winchester 97's had fluid steel barrels.

rc

 

[Bill B.]

That 1889 Remington would have had Damascus barrels

RC

The one I was looking at had decarbonized steel barrels. The Remington double from that time frame was available with 3 different types of steel barrels damascus being one of them. I agree wholeheartly that smokeless should never be used in twist or damascus barrel shotguns.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Bill B.,

Ammunition from that era was rife with corrosives- mercuric primers, black powder, all manner of things. Unless the barrels are marked NITRO PROOFED and the bores and chambers are bright and shiny as well, far as I'm concerned it's a no go for smokeless powder no matter what else that gun has to offer. There are enough guns available with modern barrels not to have to worry with shooting what should be a wallhanger.

JMHO, YMMV,

lpl

 

[dfariswheel]

People with these old guns fail to understand that its not just a matter of the power of modern ammo, its the pressure curve, which is very different from black powder.

The hard fact is, these guns were not built to handle the pressure of powders that hadn't been invented yet, and modern smokeless powder is just too much for them.
You can shoot guns in condition that expert gunsmiths who specialize in black powder guns will certify as safe with black powder loads, OR guns in which the barrels are sleeved with modern steel barrels.

Life is too short and you only get so many fingers and eyes.
Otherwise, as an old gunsmith once told me: "Kid, we're all heading to Hell in a hand cart, why would you want to grease the wheels".