"Personally I think its time we started from scratch again ,but that's not going to happen so we just muddle along as best we can hopping we get it right most of the time." Good idea Gunman, I feel like the British Proof Houses stance on removing anything "substantial" isnt a very substantial rule.
I guess I can see why the proof houses feel this way. They probably see hundreds of barrels a year fail that seem perfectly fine, obviously due to any number of conditions not related to removing "substantial" material, most are probably new barrels made of poor steel. In America its like talking to a cardiologist or oncologists, they will tell you everyone dies from cancer or heart attacks depending which one you are asking. If you ask the proof house modifying barrels makes them out of proof and therefore dangerous.
Has there ever been a major case where the proof house has provided evidence in a lawsuit that a barrel has been modified and out of proof? Living and growing up in America, shooting thousands of guns that have never been subject to a government proof, I guess I just dont get the point of the proof house. I suppose it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that I am buying a gun that is in proof, but from a manufacturing standpoint it seems like a total waste of money and time, but thats jmho.
Channing
