doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The Value of Proof

That gun wasn't designed or intended to see the level of proof that the Birmingham proofhouse uses today. As the photo clearly demonstrates.

I understand the notion of trying to see the gun is ready for another lifetime of use. That said, I can't fathom why anyone would expect a gun of this age to pass current proof levels, repairman, or, buyer.

A shame.


Best,
Ted

Horrow show...what a shame for such a lovely frame to end it's life that way.

I'll agree with Ted here. What would we prove by loading a 19th century percussion gun with a hefty charge of Bullseye? And, even if it did survive, how can we be sure it hasn't exceeded the elastic limits of its' barrel or action so that the next normal load doesn't finish it off? I think a gun that was seriously off face would be much more likely to have a case failure than a breakages of the frame. I'd want to throat-punch the MF'er who signed that failure tag.

We have some old wooden covered bridges in my area that are still in use. We don't test them by driving heavily loaded tractor-trailers over them to prove them. We instead post and enforce sensible weight limits for them so we can continue to enjoy them.

For all those who think the gun was 'off face' when submitted for proof, please read Shotgunjones' post on page one. I thought you would all know how the proof test worked by now.
What was I saying about ill-informed opinion...?

George it would've made a pretty table lamp...

Makes one wonder...

Fascinating failure! Not where it is expected, the junction of the breech face to the flats but at the underside of the cross pin. Knowing the preppng for proof this gun presumably was "fitted on the circle" yet it still took a fair amount of stress on the cross pin.

Makes me wonder about the Poisson effect in thick walled cylinders which show a contraction when stressed radially and inevitably a recovery when the pressure is reduced, both phases occurring rapidly and violently. I wonder if it contributed to this failure.

Exactly your point I was alluding to Toby.

I'm not sure of the Proof House nomenclature. "Action off Face" ? Is that what they call a cracked bar ?

What exactly is "ill informed" about the realization by several of us, that it may not be wise to stress things like old guns or old wooden bridges well above their intended design limits? It seems to be common knowledge that the Birmingham Proof House is testing to some higher standard, which is apparently causing guns to fail that likely would have came though unscathed in the past. If you loan me one of your shotguns and I fire a super-hot and inappropriate handload that sends the barrels flying several yards down-range, would you be upset if I returned the shattered pieces to you and said, "This thing's off face!"

Only one person questioned whether the gun was off-face when submitted for proof, but he quickly said he'd bet you thought it would pass proof, i.e., he assumed you did your own educated and informed visual examination prior to the Proof House doing the same. Sorry about your luck, but when you posted this for discussion, you might have guessed that not everyone would agree with your decision to let someone destroy your gun.