Miller, I guess "ignorant", in your world, equals reading what you wrote and comprehending it. Not too bright on your part to ask whether British proof "would thus not be recognized by other countries" when you know full well that it would be, and is. You may have been trying to throw a "knockout punch", but worded the way you worded it, you missed the other guy and ended up hitting yourself.
Craig, it is indeed a "potential problem" if an original, unbubbaed, unmessed with gun is marked as 3" when that does not mean what it currently means. We've determined that those guns were not designed to shoot current 3" shells. But the vast majority of current gun owners have absolutely no clue that there were, at one time, 3" 20ga shells which were loaded with essentially the same shot charge and to the same pressure standards as the old 2 1/2" 20ga shells. So yeah, Mr. 21st century gun owner gets his hands on something that's marked both 20ga and 3", and darned right he's likely to start feeding it 20ga mags. And darned right that's a potential problem.
Mike, I realize that this has been a long thread, but it's not just about people dying or getting seriously hurt. Previously referenced, but just as a reminder: straight from this BB--darn, even on my birthday!--13+ years ago: "As many people on the BBS know, I am currently gathering real data for Flues barrel and frame failures. To date I have 8 reports . . . " There you go. And that's only one make (and only one model) of classic American double. So, is it worthwhile, if you own one of those guns, to know what you ought to shoot--and ought not to shoot--in them? Is it worthwhile to know that just because the chambers have been lengthened to 2 3/4", it doesn't mean you ought to go ahead and shoot modern factory 2 3/4" loads in those guns--unless you're willing to take the additional step to have the gun proofed for those modern, higher pressure loads? Is it worthwhile letting bubba the gunsmith know that he shouldn't punch chambers just so the owner CAN shoot 2 3/4" shells in an original, short-chambered gun--when in fact what he's doing is making the gun weaker, thus less safe with those shells?
I think I've now circled all the mulberry bushes in this discussion multiple times. I have my opinion, I've stated it clearly, I've answered every question asked of me--in some cases multiple times. You're welcome to yours if it's different. We already proof test modern guns and shells, and it has not resulted in Communism gaining a foothold on our shores. None of it has anything to do with registration of firearms. What it does have to do with is educating both gunsmiths and gun owners/buyers to practices which are harmful to the guns in question, and yes, potentially to their owners. If gunsmiths think that punching chambers is a good idea and that it will in fact make guns safer to use with longer shells, then why should they object to subjecting their practices to proof testing?
Unless someone has an UNANSWERED question, I'll leave the last word to Last Dollar, just so he doesn't feel left out.
