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

Thanks gunman, I was just curious. I tried to read up on it, but didn't have any luck.

I'm truly surprised the EU hasn't taken over proof law and standards completely over there. They control standards on everything from toothpaste to airplanes. I'm sure they'll get to this oversight eventually.

Miller, you might want to do a bit more research into CIP. The Brits are members of the same INTERNATIONAL proof organization as the French, German, Spanish, Italians . . . almost every major country in the world where guns are actually made (except ours, where SAAMI operates on somewhat similar principles, with differences previously noted in this thread). So British proof is definitely recognized by other countries.

Craig, sometimes my posts are long enough without explaining everything, so I sometimes omit things which, to me, are obvious. Reproof and consumer education . . . If there's a requirement for reproof, then the consumer will eventually be aware of that requirement. Even as consumers are aware of the law that prohibits car dealers from turning back odometers. So, say a gun has had its chambers lengthened from 2 1/2" to 2 3/4". When that happens, the gun receives reproof marks indicating that it is now 2 3/4". Given the presence of those marks, would you not say the consumer is now more "educated" on what shells he can safely use in the gun in question? It's a much shorter and more concise version of the owner's manual that you get with a car, or with various other things you may buy. The owner of the gun no longer has to guess whether Bubba lengthened the chambers without submitting it for reproof. It's now right there, stamped in the metal, plain as day, for him to see. Just like the "19" on my Sauer tells me that the gun left the factory overbored in comparison to standard 20ga bore diameter. In both cases, the owner knows more about it than he would without those proof/reproof marks. All of which is good, IMO.

Larry, Don't you think I Knew That??
My post was in responce to this, as Quoted;

Go back through all 26 pages of this thread & count the times we have been told that British Proof is controlled by the "Gunmakers" & ""NOT"" the Government. (Note the inconsistency of that with the above criteria for recognition)
It appears to me Lary your main problem is you may be a fantastic writer, but you don't read worth a Hoot. I can read & ususally understand pretty well what I read, that's why this inconsistency stuck out so.
You have totally & consistently ignored the fact as I have pointed out that we don't have the background with American built guns to determine if a gun left the factory with "19 or 20" gauge bores.
Until finally presented by irrefutable proof I definitely recall over the years you kept insinuating that all older American guns having chambers longer than 2 5/8" had been rechambered for that was the "Standard". (How many others would take this same attitude?)
The only way this could work at all iis more than one standard for proof would have to be set up (Not likely to happen here) or all guns sold would have to be proofed to SAAMI standards (Undesirablefor many older guns).
This also you continue to ignore, we simply cannot go back to the beginning of the American breechloaders & implement proofs on them as was done in the other countries.

Worlds apart Larry, but that's ok. 'Eventually' be aware is one of those assumptions that get slipped in that will not happen by osmosis. Say you're an ag who doesn't like some laws, you don't prosecute. Say you want to get the message out about turning back odometers, you prosecute to set examples. The only other way to educate would be for a politician, probably no agenda right, to allocate money for a media campaign.

There are volumes written on the subleties of proof marks. They are part of the history and charm of European arms. I'd bet a proof would be a three page disclaimer if we were being told what kinds of shells could be used in a given gun. What's the point, back a few pages, you threw out the notion that there were many original guns that needed reproof because of 'potential' problems.

Which leads to original factory proof marks, or what looks to me like your preference to have a spec sheet stamped on a gun. I'm all for a manufacturer doing whatever they want before the gun goes out the door, if there're disclaimers instead of a nice finish showing, I'm not interested. So, we end up educated anyway. I'd bet classic Sauer overbore would have very little resemblance to modern competition skeet barrel work. I know it should be reproofed, but isn't the consumer assured of safety because they recognize a '19' on it.

I only attempt to show your mandate, as previous, relies on honest educated idealists. If we can assume we have that consumer, what do they need protection from. Reading between the lines is a no no, but haven't every concern of proof houses been verified by members who live under those requirements. I think back to the Clarke that was reproofed and had a barrel failure on the first clay target outing, does anyone know of a situation where a proof house raises their hand and says yup it's on us, one slipped through the cracks. Or, is the truth of the matter that proof isn't worth squat once it leaves the proof house door.

Google this - "barrel burst" injury death

Then this - "swimming pool" drowning death

There are many more shotguns in the USA than swimming pools.

Burst barrel deaths and injuries are nearly non-existent. The best argument against a USA proof house is that we don't need it.

The second best argument is that the Lefties will use it in their guerilla war against our gun rights.

Best,

Mike

Gee Mike, what are you saying! Isn't "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" the absolute truth.

Steve

This whole idea of creating a "Proof House" in this country is ludicrous. Even if it didnt start out that way, it would become a Govt run body at some time. WE DONT need any more legislation or Govt agencies. What the **** ever happened to personal responsibility?

Like I said before, if someone really believes that there are a lot of people that want to have their guns voluntarily proof tested in the U.S., they should invest in a proof house as a business venture.

Those seeking a law to "protect us" should also think about legislation restricting people from working on their own cars, houses, tractors, baby buggies, training their own horses, training their own dog, etc. I mean, jeeze, how many injuries and deaths could we prevent? "Even one would be worth it"

Chuck,
I was just out in CA visiting my brother in Fremont over the holidays. I used to live in Menlo Park back in the mid-70's and loved it. CA has become such a Nanny State since I lived there that I don't think I could ever move back. My brother told me some horror stories about how the state had intruded into his life that made me sick (he wasn't allowed to replace his own hot water heater, it had to be done by a "licensed professional") he and his wife had to stay in a motel for a week while the utility company fooled around fixing an above-ground, after the meter, gas leak at his house. All they had to do was pull the meter and then send a crew around to fix it. What BS, but that's CA in 2012!
I'm sure your second paragraph above "Even one (life) would be worth it" was said tongue in cheek. Haven't these morons ever read Darwin, maybe if some of these fools removed themselves from the gene-pool, the world would be a better place. When I moved back to Houston from Chicago in early 2007, I couldn't get over how bad the Houston drivers were. Then it dawned on me, Houston wasn't blessed with 6 months of icy roads where the real idiot drivers could remove themselves from the gene-pool. Darwin had it right!
Enough ranting for now, sorry.
Steve