doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Proof House in USA??

There are comparable organizations already existing in the US. Underwriters Laboratory is one - I believe they provide some industry standards and testing on various products. ASTM is another - they set standards for a wide range of industries but I don't believe they actually test products. The underground storage tank industry had the Steel Tank Institute - not sure if it still around, but it set manufacturing standards for USTs and then offered insurance against tank failure for its members covering tanks built to those standards.

These organization do not have governmental regulatory authority, but in some instances the government mandates compliance with their standards. I think that is how it works in the UK - the proof house sets the proof standard and the government mandates that all guns sold be in proof.

In reference to Mr. Bell's tests a few years ago, the only barrels that 'blew' were reamed out excessively, leaving a miniscule barrel wall thickness, another that gave way under the strain of an overload of Unique(?) powder, and one where he purposely obstructed a bore. Aside from these cases where Sherman went out of his way to make the gun unsafe, the others held up quite well. A few of the guns came off-face a few thousandths or split stocks that were in poor condition to begin with. He stated in his articles that numerous measurements indicated no bulging or expansion in any of the barrels.

There are no real "guarantees" in life. However, at some gun clubs, you'll find that you're decidedly unwelcome if you show up with your Damascus whatever. I have correspondence from this very BB, quite a few years back, from a guy who went to the trouble to send his Damascus Elsie to England for proof, just so he could satisfy the powers that be at his club. Guess you could find another club, if you live in an area where they're not few and far between.

Proof is NOT an attempt to "blow a gun up". It is, rather, an attempt to determine whether a particular gun will safely handle a load that's significantly above the standard service pressure in that particular country. And proofhouses do a good bit more than the "tie it to a tire" test. They do a careful examination to see if there have been any changes--not just critical destruction--following the firing of a proof load. They're just a tad bit more competent than the shade tree gun tester who gives it a go with the gun lashed to a tire, while he hides behind a tree. (And by the way . . . where does said shade tree gun tester get his proof loads, anyhow? SAAMI proof loads develop something like 18-19,000 psi. Unless you have the capabilities of Bell/Armbrust, how would you know that the load you've fired is the equivalent of a proof load?)

Far as I know, all current American gun and ammo makers still proof their own guns and shells. If we were to adopt a CIP (Brit/European) like system, they could continue doing that if SAAMI were willing to verify their testing procedures. Matter of fact, SAAMI could easily act as the American proof house, in the case of guns substantially modified (like having chambers lengthened), if they were willing to take on that role. Or, we could continue to have gunsmiths punching chambers so that the owners of the modified guns can shoot whatever they want in guns designed for lower pressures.

If you read a bit of history, you'll find that everything was a whole lot easier back before WWII. Back then, because the conversion to 2 3/4" chambers and loads as pretty much standard was relatively recent, there were actually more short shells available from American ammo companies than there were 2 3/4". No need to punch chambers; all you had to do was buy the right shells, which were loaded to the appropriate pressures. Today, with only old or foreign guns having short chambers and with short shells not nearly as readily available, it's more of a problem.

So the need for a proof house is really only to protect antiques?

Just saw this thread, I�m surprised that no enterprising individual has set up a "voluntary" proof house in the USA, charge $30 or something and put a load through the weapon that is 30% higher than reccomended. If it passes send it back to the owner with a certificate stating the load that has been fired BUT no guarantee implicit (I know you lot have a lot of lawyers) ! At least this would provide some comfort to chaps who want to keep using their "old" stuff without having to send it to the UK, just a thought, best

That'd be $90. $30 for the proof, $30 for the insurance, and $30 for the lawyers!

Just to expand on a few points raised. Here in the U.K. proof is not quite mandatory. If I made a gun and didn't have it Proofed then that is my choice but it would be an offence if I sold, offered for sale or exported it. That's to protect the other fellow and fair enough. All guns imported here into the U.K for onward sale have to pass through one or other of the Proof Houses unless Proofed in a Country that has an accaptable proof system; those Countries are Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czeckoslovakia, France, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Yougoslavia. If I bought a gun from the U.S. and wanted it for my own use then I would not require to submit it to a Proof House until I wanted to sell it or, ironically, wanted to send it back from whence it came. As for the mention of the Winchester model 12 then that can be left unrestricted as a multi shot repeater but would need to be held on a Firearm Certificate same as a rifle. If restricted to just three shots then it is can be held on a Shotgun Certificate. If a gun is an interesting example such as one with an unusual patent action then it can legally be sold 'out of proof' if the Proof House issue a Certificate of Unprovability or Proof Exemption Certificate and the gun can then be sold provided that the certificate goes with it. This is so that unusual and interesting guns of some historical significance can be sold and collected.

I would not advocate the tyre test as that may just weaken it so that the next shot does burst it. The Proof Master has considerable experience of both eye and sensitive measuring apperatus to check everything is in order after the proof test has been conducted before he stamps it. The tyre test is akin to having someone with a work related first aid certificate being allowed to perform open heart surgery. We have had a Proof House here since 1637 so I guess they have learned a thing or two in that time and it has served us well so far. Lagopus.....

All joking aside, I will confess that I did use the tire test on one of my Remingtons but I measured the barrels with a micrometer at intervals before and after the tire proof test. She proofed OK. I hope that makes me at least a "scientific" redneck Yank to you Brits. I still shoot it, only with way lower pressure loads than I used with the tire proof. By the way, what do you Brits use in your proof houses to hold the gun instead of a tire?

Anything significantly modified, Ben, whether "antique" or not. Remember, the manufacturers already proof test their guns. And they've done so for a very long time. Unfortunately, what they didn't do--going back to the pre-WWII period--was mark all of their guns with chamber length. So, you pick up an LC Smith 16ga and measure the chambers. 2 3/4", so good to go with modern factory ammo, right? Well, someone who really KNOWS Elsies (and that, unfortunately, would not include the vast majority of gunsmiths) would tell you that that gun--if the SN dates it as pre-WWII--almost certainly came from the factory with 2 9/16" chambers, which means metal has been removed from the barrels right where it's most critical, and if you shoot factory ammo, you're now using higher pressure loads than those for which the gun was originally proofed. Maybe you think that's a good situation. I don't.

I have a modern Parker Reproduction 12ga, marked with the chamber length (2 3/4") as are most modern guns. If someone had lengthened those chambers to 3", then that would be another candidate for reproof. In that case, max service pressure is actually the same for both 2 3/4" and 3" 12's, but with metal removed in a critical area, it'd be really nice to have a more scientific opinion on whether the gun is still safe.

I know, I shouldn't revisit here, but I'm going to see if it works this time. Is there a reason why you couldn't be nice to yourself and get a trusted gunsmith to inspect a gun for you.

Do you need a requirement for an entire country. Isn't it foolish to assume that an old gun hasn't been bubba'd just because you can't find a proof mark on it. Or, do we need a tool to help fill in holes in a data base somewhere.