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

Miller, I don't want to proof them for such. But anyone who wants to shoot 3" shells in those guns certainly should do so. Personally, I'd rather educate everyone off this BB, but that obviously is not going to happen. Thus the problem remains . . . someone without the collective knowledge assembled here picks up a 3" Parker 20ga, and what's he going to think? That it must be good to go with 3" shells, of course! But then those guns haven't been materially altered, which IMO is the real problem. And establishing the original chamber length etc isn't necessarily any easier with a Brit or European gun than it is with an American gun. Prior to the mid-20's, chamber length was not marked on either British or Belgian guns as a matter of course. In both cases--British/European and American--on those early guns, we'd have to resort to whatever factory records are available to determine the original configuration of the gun.

The previous issue with the destruction tests conducted by Bell and Hamlin also should be addressed. At least in the case of the guns Bell used, there were visible changes in those guns--so reported in his articles--before they blew up. Which means they would have failed proof before that final, hottest load that caused a catastrophic failure. Rather, they would have failed proof as soon as visible changes took place. And likely earlier than the visible changes reported by Bell, had they been subjected to the more vigorous "view" standards of a proofhouse.

Larry,

Bell's #2 frame Parkers would have been safe until failure at appoximately 30,000 PSI for fluid and Dasmascus steel barrels.

Isn't that why one would want a gun proofed, for safety?

Also, when failure occured the fluid steel burst with much schrapnel. The Damascus steel split open withour much schrapnel. Maybe we should outlaw fluid steel barrels and go back to the safer Damascus?

This is all good debate but how many chamber failures has each poster either witnessed, or were brought into your shop if you were a gunsmith. I think the number that people would swear to in court will be pretty low.

Mark

Why not have all guns over 20 years old be turned in and new made? Make it illegal to work on guns for any reason. Then everyone will be safe from gun failure.

That would be my fear of the US Government bureaucratic system regulating our sport. The BATF regulates the National Firearms Act and usually does a good job. Occasionally there are the well meaning or perhaps self serving AFT bureaucrats and agents who interrupt the NFA and AFT regulations to meet their ideals. We hear those stories and sometimes so does a US Congressional committee. Need I say more?

As Buzz properly stated, a breach failure could kill or maim severely. A commercial proof house to proof guns to either what they were designed to shoot, or at the owner�s choice, to modern proof pressure would be a good option for some people and guns.

A Government mandated proof program would do nothing more than fail and destroy many of our old guns or perhaps any guns with a lengthened forcing cone! I would not trade our US Government for that of our British friends, but I think the Brit�s bureaucrats must understand not to mess with something that works. If the British Government were smart they would start a program to efficiently, and a reasonable cost accept guns from the USA for proof and return to the US. Think about it? The Brits don�t mess with a good thing like proofing guns but because of either their importation or postal regulations, severely restrict US gun owners from doing so. Or are the restrictions those of our own US Government that choke off the export/import process? If the US Government can�t even reasonably allow a long gun to be exported to and return imported from Britain for proofing why would anyone trust it to regulate a national gun proofing program?

Let�s leave well enough alone,
Mark

And end this boring thread?

Controversial may be a better word than boring but I agree we are beating a dead horse here. Interestingly, I recently brought up proofing of guns at two different gun clubs. As opposed to the people involved in this thread most folks were open to the idea of proofing of guns. Unlike many here most of these guys could care less about archaic guns and are in to competition guns with all the barrel alterations which go along. Most felt proofing of these guns a good idea. Interesting dichotomy IMHO.

Mark--We've all seen failures reported here. On the wall of one club where I shoot hangs a Superposed, the obvious victim of a catastrophic failure. (Full disclosure: No one there seems to know the cause of that failure, and it could well have been some sort of barrel obstruction--far and away the leading cause of catastrophic failures.) Some years ago, Remington settled a lawsuit involving barrel failures. 870's or 1100's, can't recall which. Perazzi barrels have failed. So it's not like it does not happen, even with modern guns. Although I'll grant you that it's pretty darned rare, given all the shooting that goes on. And that's probably credit to SAAMI's firearms and ammunition standards. (And the same with foreign proofhouses.)

As for your Damascus vs fluid rupture comparison . . . can't remember who it was (maybe Payne-Galway, pretty sure it was one of the late 19th-early 20th century Brit writers) who suggested exactly the same thing: that a Damascus rupture would just "unwind", thus posing less threat to the shooter than a "shattering" fluid steel rupture. Which, I guess, goes to prove that there's nothing new under the sun.

I'm sure they were just humoring you, like an eccentric uncle who believes aliens are living in his attic.

Careful Genelang, with a statement like that someone might think you're a cop or something like that.....but then again, maybe you are right.