|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,611
Posts546,971
Members14,427
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 682
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 682 |
1. In general, how is a barrel proofed?
2. Why do some doubleguns seem to have lots of proof marks?
3. Do I need to get my guns reproofed? In particular, My Iver Johnson Supertrap, from which I have shot 25 rounds from both barrels, my Iver Johnson Special Trap, from which I have shot several rounds, my WWII Stevens 620, which was recently overhauled and test fired by the gunsmith.
4. How do you know that the proof test round is not the straw that broke the camel's back and that the next round will be okay?
Thank you
Lou
Last edited by Bushmaster; 04/16/10 08:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
1. In general, how is a barrel proofed? Actually, the entire gun is proofed, not just the barrels. In the UK, it is submitted (gunmaker may be required) to the Proof House (London or Birmingham) for "viewing" (observation and measurement) by highly skilled technicians. It is returned if it does not pass exacting standards of condition. If it passes "view," it is fired (used to be once but now is twice, BOMK)with highly controlled ammo. After firing, it is again "viewed" for any changes in dimensions of conditiion. In the USA, manufacturers are on the hook for any failures, so proof is by company standard. There is no standardized proof in USA.
2. Why do some doubleguns seem to have lots of proof marks? In the UK, guns go out of proof for certain maintenance and repair work (repeated or prolonged bore honing, rechambering, rib relaying, etc.). Also, many guns were proofed only for BP originally. You might find an old, well used gun that had original BP proofs, later nitro proofs, later yet reproof for bore enlargement, and still later yet reproof for chamberlengthening.
3. Do I need to get my guns reproofed? In particular, My Iver Johnson Supertrap, from which I have shot 25 rounds from both barrels, my Iver Johnson Special Trap, from which I have shot several rounds, my WWII Stevens 620, which was recently overhauled and test fired by the gunsmith. The mentioned guns don't seem like candidates for reproof. As USA guns, who would you get to reproof them? You could send them to the UK, but that does not seem like a good plan to me unless, of course, you have reason to be concerned about them. Then, a good USA gunsmith will be your best approach.
4. How do you know that the proof test round is not the straw that broke the camel's back and that the next round will be okay? Overload testing is a well developed engineering practice. Proof firing is calculated to take the gun near, but not past, the highest pressure it can be expected to withstand. As long as there are no dimensional or condition changes, the gun is unlikely to fail in normal use. Stress loading of steel is cumulative only in terms of fatigue - it is vastly unlikely that you will ever fire any barrel enough times to experience a fatigue failure (mulit-million cycles).
Thank you. Hope this helps some. If it is unclear, post back.
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 19
Boxlock
|
|
Boxlock
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 19 |
There are more than enough guns out there nitro-proofed that are not in proof any longer via changing various tubes dimension. . Always check your dimension and do not assume it is in proof. Conversely I've seen many doubles out side of the UK not nitro proofed that meets all spec for proofing. They were not subjected to proof house test
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3 |
In the USA, manufacturers are on the hook for any failures, so proof is by company standard. There is no standardized proof in USA Respectfully, and with no offense intended, this is inaccurate. In the US Proof standards are set jointly by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Standards Institute (SAAMI) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Copies of the manufacturing standards, including proof, are available from SAAMI for a fee. If what you had intended was to write that proof is not legally required in the US, then that would have been correct. Proof testing in the US is voluntary. Here in the US we do not give our government the control over firearms common in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Kyrie, I agree with your statements and good points made. I agree that My statement is too broad. You are right that I meant to say that USA manufactureres are not required to follow SAAMI standards and there is no USA proof house. USA follows self-certification, which I support.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
The British proof laws concern the sale of firearms not the rights of the individual owner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,738 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,738 Likes: 97 |
Quite right Justin; it is not set by the Government but introduced by the gun trade to stop poor quality stuff getting out to the public and causing injury. It is run by the Guardians of the Proof House who are made up of Gunmakers and Gunsmiths. I take quite a few there, usually blkack powder proof guns for nitro proofing and look upon it as a safeguard for me. All American guns that are imported here to Britain have to be submitted via the proof house before they can legally be offered for sale but If I import one for my own use it does not. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 168
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 168 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,598 |
1. In general, how is a barrel proofed? Actually, the entire gun is proofed, not just the barrels. In the UK, it is submitted (gunmaker may be required) to the Proof House (London or Birmingham) for "viewing" (observation and measurement) by highly skilled technicians. It is returned if it does not pass exacting standards of condition. If it passes "view," it is fired (used to be once but now is twice, BOMK)with highly controlled ammo. After firing, it is again "viewed" for any changes in dimensions of conditiion. In the USA, manufacturers are on the hook for any failures, so proof is by company standard. There is no standardized proof in USA. At one time the barrels were proofed, at least in Belgium. Once they pass proof, then they were fitted to the action and the entire gun was proofed. The Belgians had a separate proof mark for the barrels. See marks #6 and #8 here, also #30 which indicates that a separate proofing of the barrels is now optional: http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_All_Proofmarks.htmlI have pictures of a bank of barrels being proofed, just can't locate them at the moment. I am not clear as to the current CIP practices, but believe Don is correct. It is an easy mistake to make given the long history.... Pete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
This proof of the bbls only was also once commonly done in England also. There were two sets of marks, one for prelimiary or provisional proof which was carried out at an early stage on the bbls only. There was then a mark for Definitive or Final proof which was for the assembled bbls & action. At a fairly early date a provision was made that an assembled gun could be submitted for a definitive proof which did not have the provisional one for the bbls. It was given a different mark than the regular definitive one & proofed with a heavier load than ordinarly, but not as heavy as the provisional one. My I Hollis muzzleloader is marked with this combined proof mark denoting it only received the one proof.
The provisional proof was I believe primarily set up for the purpose of catching bbls having faulty welds, prior to a lot of work being bestowed upon them only to have them fail proof later. The bore was unfinished & a plug installed in the breech for the proof, which was accomplished with a very heavy charge.
I suspect a lot of this dual proofing was phased out over time after bbl production became virtually universal of steel construction. While flaws in steel bbls are not unheard of, they are not doubt less common than were faulty welds in composite bbls.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
