|
|
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,488
Posts561,974
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866 |
Gentleman, the method in my madness relates partly to what Gunman has posted above. 3 1/4" was a fairly common chamber length for heavy English 10's of this era ( 1890) although they were black powder proofed and not at the magnum pressures of our modern 3 1/2" guns.Thus we retain some historical integrity. Being as how I reload suitable loads for virtually all my vintage guns,I don't really want to subject the action of the gun to excessive proof pressures unnecessarily. If 3 1/4" chambered guns can be nitro-proofed at the lower 900 Bar level, with the use of longer forcing cones,I would feel comfortable reloading and using 3 1/2" cases loaded to suitable pressures. This makes it easy to get and load modern components etc. If they only re-proof 3 1/4" at the magnum level then we may have to rethink the whole process..... 
Last edited by Terry Lubzinski; 06/06/12 10:05 PM.
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid,than open it and confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,571 Likes: 165 |
I can't speak to the English proof rules, but SAAMI pressure standards for 2 3/4" and 3" shells are the same in 12 and 20 gauge, and for 2 7/8" and 3 1/2" 10 gauges. Because of this, it would seem to me that the same proof loads would be used for the longer chambered guns as the shorter one. Am I mistaken in this?
Tom, under SAAMI rules, I believe you're basically correct. Since the service pressure is the same for both long and short 10's, the proof pressure should also be the same--although they probably would not use 3 1/2" proof loads in a gun with a 2 7/8" chamber. That would cause a pressure increase in the short-chambered gun.
'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,543 Likes: 102
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,543 Likes: 102 |
There is no facility Under CIP rules for older 12 and 10 bores with 3 inch chambers to be reproofed at the original intended service pressures . The old 12 bore 3 inch standard [2& 3/4 magnum equivalent ] is a thing of the past I am not sure about 2 inch guns either . Standardization is all well and good for new guns but the problem seems to be that CIP is run by educated bureaucrats , not gun makers/repaires so they seemed to have missed the point of reproof . Shame .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 866 |
Thanks for all the replies.I have decided to go the 3 1/4" route as explained above. The next question that perhaps Gunman can help me with is regarding the pressures relating to black powder re-proof for both 12 and 10 gauge and again whether chamber length plays a part??? Sorry for belaboring the issue but would be interesting to know if pressures are similar or not.
BTW Gunman, I am also disappointing that the proof house is unable to recognize the issue of standard proof for vintage guns...
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid,than open it and confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
