....I reproof most of my stock guns before sale....
....in recent years has made it a rather risky business with rivelled and bulged barrels left, right and centre....
....the action bar has totally failed in the thin region below the hinge pin....
....that is why I reproof most of my stock guns: I really don't want to be responsible....
Serious question, why not, if it's in proof, run a quick couple boxes of proper shells through it off of a rest. Then, have and experienced gunsmith inspect it? I think it's an odd mindset to feel better about significantly overloading the intended design of a gun.
The failures that you mentioned seem to me like the gun stayed together. Wouldn't a shooter just stop shooting if breaks? Is there any assurance that a gun won't fail if it has a stamp on it? There was a fellow here that shared a barrel failure during the first round or two of clay targets after a fresh reproof.
I don't know how it is out by you, but there're 'experts' here that'll recommend shooting longer shells than are stamped on a gun. If, the shooter is 'responsible'. It's a complete disregard for the concept of proof, but considered normal for classic gun insiders.
Toby, thank you for your thoughts. I hope you don't take my comments as some type internet trolling against you. Maybe, some form of nondestructive testing can be devised, along with buyer education, would save unnecessarily losing these guns forever.
Did you knowingly send that gun to the proof house off face? My bet would say that you thought it would pass proof. It seems to me like the proof house can put any reason down for failure, other than massive over pressure. Only the best to you and yours.
