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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
423
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,583
Posts546,726
Members14,425
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,788 Likes: 767
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,788 Likes: 767 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,096 Likes: 37
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,096 Likes: 37 |
Horrow show...what a shame for such a lovely frame to end it's life that way.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. - Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,359 Likes: 399
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,359 Likes: 399 |
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.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
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...?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
George it would've made a pretty table lamp...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
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
Makes one wonder...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,047 Likes: 54
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,047 Likes: 54 |
Exactly your point I was alluding to Toby.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,279 Likes: 210
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,279 Likes: 210 |
I'm not sure of the Proof House nomenclature. "Action off Face" ? Is that what they call a cracked bar ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,359 Likes: 399
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,359 Likes: 399 |
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...? 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.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|