Larry Brown mentioned in a different thread that Kirk Merrington does not stamp his sleeving jobs as 'sleeved'. This would be illegal in England as the gun would be required by law to undergo reproof as a sleeved gun and would have to be stamped as 'sleeved'. Here in the USA it is perfectly legal and legitimate not to stamp the gun as 'sleeved'. Likewise, lenghthening chambers in the US is perfectly legal without reproof. In the UK by law this gun too would have to be submitted for reproof. The same applies to 'backboring'. Usually I will vote for smaller government for any issue but I think something like a proof house should exist in the US for safety reasons and to prevent fraud. Any thoughts?

NO! It would cost for proof, take lots of time since we have more guns than anyone else, and add a level of government we currently do not have.

If guns were blowing up, I might consider it. But as is, I would be strongly opposed to putting proof of a gun in a vast government bureacracy. Look how well other gvt. agencies work.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=217470&page=14

.......Very dumb Idea.......send old guns in for destruction........

If you are a worry wart, send your guns over there for proof, or move there..........

I was just hoping that old double guns would get more expensive for no reason.
CHAZ

ifn hit aint broke...don fix hit!

I thought we had a poof house

We do jOe. We just duct tape the SOB to a tire, tie a string on the triggers, and let someone else pull the string.

If we had to send our guns to the government to prove that is was safe to shoot we would bore them out, modify them ourselves. Its none of the government’s business what guns we have.

Doug: I can see that this discussion regarding a proof house is unpopular with you and I knew prior to starting this thread it would be unpopular with many. But, the reality is there are UNSAFE guns out there. I am not worried about you or me or many others of this forum. We understand guns and know things (eg, barrel wall thickness less than .020 " is NOT terribly safe) that other more ignorant people don't know. Golly, there are people of this forum who think sleeving is synonymous with a monobloc. My point is there are people selling unsafe guns either because of ignorance or unscrupulous and unethical behavior. A proof house would serve to protect the unsuspecting consumer.

Buzz:

In the real world Buzz, you JUST CANNOT protect all the people all the time........especially at the cost of the entire shooting public, as in this case.......once you open Pandora's box bad things grow out of control.......

Some People will ALWAYS shoot the wrong ammunition in guns, shoot guns with plugged bores and so forth......just the way it is........some are cautious, some are not....some are intelligent, some are not.........

We don't need big brother to govern everything, it's bad enough already.......

Sorry, we cannot legislate against stupidity, it's been tried......

The reality is there are many unsafe things out there. The reality is that the 'regulator' who decides what is unsafe will decide that all guns are unsafe. I wouldn't take my right to choose too lightly.

Buzz - as should be obvious by now, the real reason for the American Revolution was gun owners seeking freedom from the oppression of the London and Contintental Proof Houses....

On a slightly more serious note, anyone know if there has been any studies on the relative rate of injury to gun owners from burst barrels in countries with and without proof houses?

Hello everybody:

I was reading this topic and think that the proof house does not need to be necesary ruled by your goverment.
You are the land of free enterprise, so an independient proof house could work (SAAMI comes to my mind).
Reputable and knowledge people put the rules, do the tests and you pay for the service; even a good bussiness could be.

Well, just an idea!

Best,

Maybe proof loads could be provided for us voluntary tire testers...

jOe I see you fasten your buttstock to the inside of the tire while I tape mine to the side wall. I think your idea is better because you can scientifically measure how far the tire slides to the rear with proof loads. Do you proof both barrels at once or do them individually?

A. This type study would require numerous separate classifications, I doubt any such real world documentation exists country by country, with or without:

1.)....Altered barrels that have been butchered and had barrel steel removed anywhere....
a. including shortening.....

2.)....Factory barrels that have NEVER had any steel alterations....

3.)....Bursts from OPERATOR ERROR....
a. plugged bores during firing....
b. wrong ammunition, size or length or load....
c. misuse, i.e.-old rusted deteriorated junk guns with zero maintenance being fired with modern ammo....

4.)....Bursts from metal fatigue alone under normal pressures and conditions in well maintained guns....

5.)....European Proof House "OVERSTRESS" metal fatigue FIRINGS which fail shortly thereafter....
a. such as in Ballistix999's case with his old Clarke hammer 20 bore which was "re-proofed" with maximum nitro loads and failed I think on the sixth (6th) shot afterwards......

As you can see Doverham, the list could go on and on and the bean counters/data compiler's would have a field day with this one.......and a few million dollars later, ultimately no agreement or conclusion.....

The stupidity factor (operator error) would LOOM LARGE in this type of a study as operator error probably accounts for the majority of bursts in any country I believe.......

I think Homeless Joe has a great idea for a new business.
I think he could set up an American "Old tire" proof house .
He could make a fortune!:)

Thanks, Doug - there are certainly are lot of nuances to that kind of information that could be abused/misused/misinterpreted by a regulator.

I asked the question from a "solution in search of a problem" perspective - is there any documented indication of a safety problem from unproofed guns that might warrant the need for a proof house?

Of course, if you wanted to promote proof houses, offer makers an absolute defense to product liability for proofed barrels. If the barrels pass proof, any subsequent malfunction would be deemed the result of operator error. (That approach ignores the question about how much proofing weakens barrels).

Gun proofing reflects the philosophical divide between the US and Europe on the regulation of risks generally. In Europe, there is risk until proven otherwise. In the US, there is no risk until it is proven. Europe uses bureaucrats to regulate risk, we use trial lawyers.

SERIOUSLY- How many guns( older guns) do we know of that have blown up or had a problem such as the current worry about a proof house. I have been around thousands of rounds fired and only know of two that have blown and they were modern or semi-modern steel barrels. Sherman Bells DGJ articles with proof loads in dilapidated damascus barrel guns tell us the story.

I believe Tony's example of the Clarke barrel failing within a few rounds of being proofed is very telling. The gun was proven otherwise, but the proof house was very quick to blame the shooter. Why not skip the middle man and his fees and just blame the shooter. The fellow that picks up the gun, loads and fires it should be responsible.

Under NO circumstances should we encourage the federal government to "help" us any more than they already do!!

I suggested this last year . I also get asked to sleeve guns ,welded joints ,bored up to .736" no proof and not marked sleeved . I can only guess this to "keep " the gun "original" . Not the machinations of some unscrupulous con man . I dont.

That an American, living in America, presumably a supporter of the Republic and who also owns a gun should even contemplate for one second such an idea gives me a pain in my brain. For f##k sake, don't we have enough of "our betters" telling us what to do? In NJ you have to be approved by the State Police to even buy a gun and I know some States have equally silly laws. Yeah, just what we need, some douche bag telling you that you have to have your firearm tested and approved. Not many subjects provoke me to profanity, this is one.
nial

To intentionally steer this topic in a completely different direction as some people are starting to get really worked up over this, of course I don’t blame them, but why has not someone in someplace living in New Jersey taken their stupid a$$ laws to Federal court. I would think that asking for permission to own a long gun from a state bureau would definitely violate someone’s constitutional rights.

Aside from the big brother aspect, how would you apply proof, retroactively to the millions of guns floating around America? You can't put the manure back in the horse.

I have to imagine establishing a proof house must have been deliberated by early congress'. Could make for an interesting article for enterprising writer.

More than anything, I imagine folks here want protection from dealers selling a shotgun with thin or otherwise unsafe barrels. Only two ways to do that, get a written statement from the dealer that states the minimum wall thickness 3-9" from the breech, 4 inches from the muzzle, and the thinnest point between. Or, a simple, written, no questions asked, return period and the buyer can have the barrels measured elsewhere.

I doubt a proof house would catch guns that had been artfully humped into something else.

Ben, proof would not be applied "retroactively" any more than it was when proofhouses and proofing were first required in European countries. It would apply only to new guns, or to guns undergoing alterations (such as lengthening of chambers) that would require reproof in countries that do have proofhouses.

Right now, we have gunsmiths who solve the "problem" of short-chambered guns by boring them out to 2 3/4", sometimes without marking the new chamber length--or the fact that the gun has been altered. As Buzz pointed out, there are a whole lot of Americans outside of our little clique here who do not realize that the solution to shooting 2 3/4" shells in a 2 1/2" gun is not punching the chamber and then feeding it a steady diet of American factory ammo. I can verify that fact, because long ago and far away, I was part of that group. So there are some reasons why we should do business differently than we now do it. If, after all, the govt is going to license barbers--for example--then should it be all that unreasonable that they also license gunsmiths, or somehow exercise some control over practices which can result in danger to the user of the gun in question? SAAMI works well enough to establish standards for ammunition, and for the proof of new guns by American manufacturers. Where the system falls apart is that nothing happens once a gun has left the factory.

Wait a minute, Larry. In Britain and Europe the proof laws apply to all firearms, not just shotguns, so the implications of bringing proof laws into the USA would be far reaching indeed. It would have to be at the federal level because the states could never be coerced into all passing similar rules and establishing 50 proof houses. How would it be enforced? If you want to sell a shotgun to a friend will you first have to have it proved? Perhaps some fool has punched the chambers before you got it, now what do you do? I say, the few freedoms we have left should be guarded. We don't need Dudley Dorights telling us how to live our lives. That Government is best which governs least. Sometimes I swear there are still a lot of Tories lurking in the underbrush wanting to bring back kings and queens and other assorted trash.
nial

Guns here are exempt from consumer protection legislation. Leave it that way.

It's a fundamentaly dumb idea. I've never heard of a shotgun blowing up that wasn't obstructed, in which case proof wouldn't have helped anyway.

Proof houses were Tax cherries for the government to pluck. We certainly don't need additional taxes on our gun owning citizens.

In my opinion, this is a very sorry distortion of logic and completely fabricated problem. You would impose on the entire US of A because you used to stick 2 3/4" shells in a short chamber gun. What exactly is falling apart with the system.

Just commenting on a head scratcher to me, Craig

Normally I'd remain quiet on things like this, but why would we expect competence from the same organization that struggles to deliver the mail?

If you are concerned with the safety of buyers maybe your crusade would be more fruitful if you targeted automobiles instead of guns. I'm quite sure there are untold more deaths due to someone being sold an unsafe car or truck than a gun.

Oh yeah, it was tried on autos. Remember the old state inspection stickers you used to have to get from an approved inspection station and have affixed to your windshield? Even the government realized that was useless, and gave up. At least Georgia did, many years ago.

SRH

We proof them in the courtroom. Ask Remington about the problems with their Model 700 series trigger/safety. Could probably make a pretty good argument our firearms are safer than in proof countries because the manufacturers know their bottom line is going to be effected should their products be proven unsafe. Whereas in proof countries they are taken off the hook by the proof houses.

Yes Craig, I've never understood people like this guy and their distorted logic.......never has made sense to me......

People with this distorted thought process actually think saftey concerns related to stupidity can be legislated out of various consumer products....Their answer to everything is more legislation, more restrictions, more licenses and tax stamps......

Many of our states have embraced strict anti-gun, anti-ammunition legislation attempting to target the minority abusers, but have, in fact, only punished the honest citizen sportsmen and the sporting industries, Mfg./commercial/retail/wholesale.....

The abusers (Buzz's unscrupulous & unethical) will NEVER pattern their operations to accomodate any law, so no matter how many laws are piled on, the desired results will not be accomplished.......We have a very, very long history of legislative oversights showing this to be true, from many industries.....

Somewhere, at some point in this modern world....CONSUMERS must take full responsibility for what they buy USED and operate......WE HAVE BECOME A SOCIETY WHERE EVERYTHING "IS SOMEONE ELSES FAULT".......as an example, to attempt to hold anybody responsible for a product produced prior to WWII is pure rubbish.......If you don't have the knowledge or experience to inspect used products then hire somebody who does......

You guys are killing me with some of these inflammatory remarks. Would it surprise you to know I am a registered Republican and not a Tory as Nial may have indicated? Actually, however, I consider myself a Jeffersonian and believe in the premise that smaller government is best in most situations. But even Thomas Jefferson knew there was a time for larger government as illustrated by (and what some have considered an unconstitutional act) his purchase of the Louisiana Territory from the French. Now, we aren't talking about anything this grand but what we are talking about IMHO is the safety of our citizens who are purchasing guns, most of which are perfectly safe....a few are not, but rather quite dangerous. What sort of checks and balances do we have in this country to insure these guns whose barrels have been altered in some way (such as barrel honing, opening of chambers, etc) are safe? How do we know if a pro did the work or some clown in his garage with a brake hone? Well, let me tell you...we don't and the average joe on the street doesn't know jack sh*t about it and is rolling the dice when purchasing an altered gun. We can and should do better than this IMHO.

You do Jefferson a disservice by comparing the Louisiana Purchase to the government having greater control over the sales of used firearms. One was the acquisition of more land which was THEN given to the citizens to settle and develop, and TO DO WITH AS THEY PLEASED. The other is giving away freedoms and abrogating responsibility.

Where will it end, buzz? Don't you know that the anti-gun crowd would be on this like white on rice if a bill was ever introduced to institute something like you propose?

When you give away freedoms you never get them back. It's your right to advocate such a thing, but it is mine to fight it tooth, claw and nail 'til my dying breath.

SRH

Proof testing vintage guns only proves that the gun didn't blow when tested...

Send a vintage gun to an English Proof House and ask for some kind of guarantee.

How much unnecessary strain does the high pressure proof test put on a vintage gun ?

I think one point you have missed is that the Proof House here in Britain is nothing to do with the Government; they didn't set it up, it was the Gunmakers themselves in order to protect their products and the public from poorly made guns being sold. It works quite well and the cost is a fraction over £20 per gun which is not that much when added to the cost of a new Purdey costing £60,000. America got around it by having their own in-house testing in the larger establishments such as Winchester but what happened in the smaller places is anyone's guess so the way they got around this is by over engineering the product. By having Proof regulations here the Gunmakers can build a gun light and well balanced that will pass proof knowing it is safe to use. Personally I like the system because it protects me. If someone sells an 'out of proof' gun here it is one of the Proof Houses that take up the prosecution. It is all run by Guardians of the Proof House who are practical Gunmakers and not a bunch of Whitehall Civil Servants. If you set one up in the U.S. that was purely optional I'm sure it would get a lot of use. Lagopus.....

SIMPLE: Never Ever buy altered guns that have visited a barrel butcher......measure everything........product knowledge......

As an EXAMPLE, I've never bought a gun that has had even a recoil pad added, ever....never will.........zero interest in guns with other owner's modifications of any kind.......too many good originals around, why buy the butchered ones.....

Excellent post, lagopus--and that's what those of us who know something about the system in the UK would prefer to see. As opposed to--for example--guns and ammunition regulated by OSHA.

For those that have never heard of unobstructed guns failing for one reason or another, you just haven't been around long enough, or haven't been paying attention. Used to be a guy named Greg Tag who hung around here. He was into Ithacas, and one of his interests was keeping track of frame failures on Flues models, especially the light 20's. He had a few of those documented. Then there are the Bell tests, reported in DGJ. Yes, he used extreme overloads--but the barrels were not obstructed, and they did blow.

And Craig . . . no, I didn't stick 2 3/4" shells in a gun with 2 1/2" chambers. My first introduction to a firearm was my dad's Eastern Arms .410 single shot, which I still have. (Front bead gone, forend taped to the barrel.) It started life as a 2 1/2" gun. When the 3" shells appeared, what was the solution? Some gunsmith lengthened the chamber to 3", and voila. I had the same "surgery" performed on a pre-war Sauer 16. That was long before the existence of doublegunshop, even predated Al Gore's invention of the Internet. AND IT STILL HAPPENS--in spite of our best efforts here (and some of us, like myself, in print publications) to keep it from happening.

Gunsmiths that go to the doublegun school run by Dennis Potter and other experienced doublegun smiths know darned well that you don't punch chambers on short-chambered guns. Unfortunately, that is but a small % of the people in this country who hang out their shingle as a gunsmith. And only a small % of the people who own doubles read this website, or DGJ, or Shooting Sportsman, or other places where they're likely to get good information rather than copious amounts of BS.

But hey, if you want to leave everything in the hands of trial lawyers . . . yeah right. Like that's a rock solid, conservative position.

Larry you think a proof house is some kind of guarantee ?

Jeez Lagopus - we had a good anti-government rant going here and you go and start injecting facts into the discussion . . .

Here are a couple practical points to add to this discussion:

1. With the exception of CSMC (who I believe has their own proof system), no shotguns are made in the US, so all(?) new shotguns sold in the US have been proofed abroad.

2. If that is the case, what we would really be talking about is proofing used guns that that have been modified in the US and not re-proofed by the original proof house or that were never initially proofed.

3. jOe's point about the effects of proofing, particularly on older guns, needs to be addressed. Is there another way to prove guns safe without attemtpting to blow them up?

4. Conceptually, accepting more responsibility for safe use of your gun is a very legitimate point. As a practical matter, however, many of these questions do not have clear answers, often because the industry won't provide useful information. For instance, look how often the question comes about whether it is safe to shoot 2/34" shells in 21/2" chambers. The consensus seems to be that it is safe as long as it is a "light" load. But there are people whose opinions I respect who don't agree with that conclusion.

How about the question shooting steel shot in older guns? The makers will not provide a definitive answer to this question, particularly on the question of potential barrel damage. For isntance, Perazzi offers nothing official on the subject but buried deep in Karl Lippard's book is a passing reference pointing out that chokes with a certain threading are steel-proofed while chokes with a slightly different threading are not. I have the supposedly steel-proof chokes but there are not markings on them and nothing in the owner's manual. And this for a gun that was made only 10 years ago. Is it reasonable for me to rely on what Lippard says?

I totally agree that we do not need any more government regulation of guns (saying that as MA resident who had to get a license to own a long gun). But to circle back to Lagopus' point, the gun industry could do a whole lot better job helping gun owners understand what is and is not safe.

Several things should be noted here I think. Now I am not recommending that anyone with a short chambered gun Rush out & get the chambers lengthened, "BUT", doing so does not automatically turn it into a "Dangerous" gun. Many bbls have adequate wall thickness to allow the longer chamber.
Proofing does not automatically guarantee a gun will never burst. Essentially there are three conditions which will cause a barrel to burst, A flaw in the bbl, An overload or an obstruction.
Proofing will catch some, but not all, flaws while having virtually no affect on the other two. As Larry pointed out from Bell's tests it took a tremendous overload to burst a barrel. Obstructions are still far & away the most commoncause of a burst bbl. Flaws have surfaced afyer much use & burst some bbls, many of which had been proofed.
It should also be noted that "MOST" of the cheap guns the Brit gunmakers were trying to remove from the market "PASSED" proof.
While it has been noted the British proof laws were mandated by the gunmakers, it is also noted they are not voluntary, but mandated. I am not totally familiar with how they are set up, but to emulate them in the US would require an "Act of Congress". The gun companies themselves could not make them legally binding.
Friends "WE Don't Want That to Happen Here" Period.

Doverham,

Where do you think Ruger, Remington, Ithaca, Mossberg and Kolar shotguns are made?

www.americansworking.com/guns.html

SRH

guys: seems like if you have a gun that you would like proofed, then pay a reputable gunsmith to proof the gun and mark it as such, or provide you with a dated certificate of proof and the load used? the gunsmith i use proofs guns with winchester proof loads and either marks the gun or provides a certificate...seems like a simple solution to what appears to be a problem made complex here...

I agree 100%. I have e-mail friend in England who, like me, likes the great M12 pump- he was looking at one for sale there- and in our discussions, if he were to visit the USA and buy one here, he would have to have it proofed in England, and not only that- those here who know the M12 know you don't normally remove the magazine cap to add or remove the three shot plug mandated by a 1935 Act for migratory bird shooting-- But that is NOT sufficient for the Brits-their regs mandate all repeaters have the magazine tune CRIMPED" TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SHELLS- NOT PLUGGED WITH A REMOVEABLE PLUG- AS IS LEGAL HERE- Boy Howdy- we already have a BATF(E) staffed by Holder, with the brain trust of an African pygmy and the reactions of a member of the Hitler Youth- re: fast and Furious FUBAR in mexico- so now we enable the POTUS (read anti-2nd. Amendment loud and clear) and other Eric Holder/Sarah Brady Bill Bunch &^%$#s-- to set up a proof house-

Are you gonna send your GrandDad's leFever Optomist Grade off to the Disney Land on the Potomac to have it checked over by some Civil Service schmucks? I don't think so- be verrrrry careful what you wish for on this Proof business- verrrrry careful indeed!!!

I appreciate that facts were injected here.

So let me understand, a non government industry organization has the power to prosecute and legally require destruction of a firearm. Are there any facts available on how often the proof houses have accepted liability for gun damage or injury after a gun passes proof.

Very interesting, hands up, how many folks would voluntarily participate. I would bet an optional US proof house would get exactly the same use as those folks who're sending guns to the UK for optional proofing at this time.

Remember, my comment was just my opinion. I believe if you substitute the updated information, my thought remains the same. Isn't it a far stretch to mandate proof houses because your favorite smithing school doesn't like lengthened chambers or to protect the public from over pressure testing.

I'm still curious, what liability have UK proof houses assumed for damage or injury after passing proof.

Thanks Stan. Kolar I overlooked, but the rest I thought had sent all their manufacturing overseas (Turkey?). Glad to hear I was wrong about that.

There are comparable organizations already existing in the US. Underwriters Laboratory is one - I believe they provide some industry standards and testing on various products. ASTM is another - they set standards for a wide range of industries but I don't believe they actually test products. The underground storage tank industry had the Steel Tank Institute - not sure if it still around, but it set manufacturing standards for USTs and then offered insurance against tank failure for its members covering tanks built to those standards.

These organization do not have governmental regulatory authority, but in some instances the government mandates compliance with their standards. I think that is how it works in the UK - the proof house sets the proof standard and the government mandates that all guns sold be in proof.

In reference to Mr. Bell's tests a few years ago, the only barrels that 'blew' were reamed out excessively, leaving a miniscule barrel wall thickness, another that gave way under the strain of an overload of Unique(?) powder, and one where he purposely obstructed a bore. Aside from these cases where Sherman went out of his way to make the gun unsafe, the others held up quite well. A few of the guns came off-face a few thousandths or split stocks that were in poor condition to begin with. He stated in his articles that numerous measurements indicated no bulging or expansion in any of the barrels.

There are no real "guarantees" in life. However, at some gun clubs, you'll find that you're decidedly unwelcome if you show up with your Damascus whatever. I have correspondence from this very BB, quite a few years back, from a guy who went to the trouble to send his Damascus Elsie to England for proof, just so he could satisfy the powers that be at his club. Guess you could find another club, if you live in an area where they're not few and far between.

Proof is NOT an attempt to "blow a gun up". It is, rather, an attempt to determine whether a particular gun will safely handle a load that's significantly above the standard service pressure in that particular country. And proofhouses do a good bit more than the "tie it to a tire" test. They do a careful examination to see if there have been any changes--not just critical destruction--following the firing of a proof load. They're just a tad bit more competent than the shade tree gun tester who gives it a go with the gun lashed to a tire, while he hides behind a tree. (And by the way . . . where does said shade tree gun tester get his proof loads, anyhow? SAAMI proof loads develop something like 18-19,000 psi. Unless you have the capabilities of Bell/Armbrust, how would you know that the load you've fired is the equivalent of a proof load?)

Far as I know, all current American gun and ammo makers still proof their own guns and shells. If we were to adopt a CIP (Brit/European) like system, they could continue doing that if SAAMI were willing to verify their testing procedures. Matter of fact, SAAMI could easily act as the American proof house, in the case of guns substantially modified (like having chambers lengthened), if they were willing to take on that role. Or, we could continue to have gunsmiths punching chambers so that the owners of the modified guns can shoot whatever they want in guns designed for lower pressures.

If you read a bit of history, you'll find that everything was a whole lot easier back before WWII. Back then, because the conversion to 2 3/4" chambers and loads as pretty much standard was relatively recent, there were actually more short shells available from American ammo companies than there were 2 3/4". No need to punch chambers; all you had to do was buy the right shells, which were loaded to the appropriate pressures. Today, with only old or foreign guns having short chambers and with short shells not nearly as readily available, it's more of a problem.

So the need for a proof house is really only to protect antiques?

Just saw this thread, I´m surprised that no enterprising individual has set up a "voluntary" proof house in the USA, charge $30 or something and put a load through the weapon that is 30% higher than reccomended. If it passes send it back to the owner with a certificate stating the load that has been fired BUT no guarantee implicit (I know you lot have a lot of lawyers) ! At least this would provide some comfort to chaps who want to keep using their "old" stuff without having to send it to the UK, just a thought, best

That'd be $90. $30 for the proof, $30 for the insurance, and $30 for the lawyers!

Just to expand on a few points raised. Here in the U.K. proof is not quite mandatory. If I made a gun and didn't have it Proofed then that is my choice but it would be an offence if I sold, offered for sale or exported it. That's to protect the other fellow and fair enough. All guns imported here into the U.K for onward sale have to pass through one or other of the Proof Houses unless Proofed in a Country that has an accaptable proof system; those Countries are Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czeckoslovakia, France, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Yougoslavia. If I bought a gun from the U.S. and wanted it for my own use then I would not require to submit it to a Proof House until I wanted to sell it or, ironically, wanted to send it back from whence it came. As for the mention of the Winchester model 12 then that can be left unrestricted as a multi shot repeater but would need to be held on a Firearm Certificate same as a rifle. If restricted to just three shots then it is can be held on a Shotgun Certificate. If a gun is an interesting example such as one with an unusual patent action then it can legally be sold 'out of proof' if the Proof House issue a Certificate of Unprovability or Proof Exemption Certificate and the gun can then be sold provided that the certificate goes with it. This is so that unusual and interesting guns of some historical significance can be sold and collected.

I would not advocate the tyre test as that may just weaken it so that the next shot does burst it. The Proof Master has considerable experience of both eye and sensitive measuring apperatus to check everything is in order after the proof test has been conducted before he stamps it. The tyre test is akin to having someone with a work related first aid certificate being allowed to perform open heart surgery. We have had a Proof House here since 1637 so I guess they have learned a thing or two in that time and it has served us well so far. Lagopus.....

All joking aside, I will confess that I did use the tire test on one of my Remingtons but I measured the barrels with a micrometer at intervals before and after the tire proof test. She proofed OK. I hope that makes me at least a "scientific" redneck Yank to you Brits. I still shoot it, only with way lower pressure loads than I used with the tire proof. By the way, what do you Brits use in your proof houses to hold the gun instead of a tire?

Anything significantly modified, Ben, whether "antique" or not. Remember, the manufacturers already proof test their guns. And they've done so for a very long time. Unfortunately, what they didn't do--going back to the pre-WWII period--was mark all of their guns with chamber length. So, you pick up an LC Smith 16ga and measure the chambers. 2 3/4", so good to go with modern factory ammo, right? Well, someone who really KNOWS Elsies (and that, unfortunately, would not include the vast majority of gunsmiths) would tell you that that gun--if the SN dates it as pre-WWII--almost certainly came from the factory with 2 9/16" chambers, which means metal has been removed from the barrels right where it's most critical, and if you shoot factory ammo, you're now using higher pressure loads than those for which the gun was originally proofed. Maybe you think that's a good situation. I don't.

I have a modern Parker Reproduction 12ga, marked with the chamber length (2 3/4") as are most modern guns. If someone had lengthened those chambers to 3", then that would be another candidate for reproof. In that case, max service pressure is actually the same for both 2 3/4" and 3" 12's, but with metal removed in a critical area, it'd be really nice to have a more scientific opinion on whether the gun is still safe.

I know, I shouldn't revisit here, but I'm going to see if it works this time. Is there a reason why you couldn't be nice to yourself and get a trusted gunsmith to inspect a gun for you.

Do you need a requirement for an entire country. Isn't it foolish to assume that an old gun hasn't been bubba'd just because you can't find a proof mark on it. Or, do we need a tool to help fill in holes in a data base somewhere.

I think that Lapogus was the first in this long thread to mention that after a proof load is fired the barrel is measured with very sensitive measuring devices. The engineer or technician is looking for plastic strain or permanent deformation. Everything is a spring (elasticity, per Youngs Modulas) to the point of permanent deformation.

The tire test would be a form of proof test only if the barrel was measured (at many points) for deformation.

Lengthening chambers and forcing cones, backboring, and reaming metal to remove pitting are all modifications that do affect the strength of a barrel. The question is if there is enough metal remaining adjacent to the modified area so that the barrel will be safe with a SAAMI maximum MEAN pressure load. Yes, if one would read the SAAMI reference book they too would see that the loads are mean or average working or maximum pressure loads.

There are formulas for figuring the hoop stress of a closed cylinder (barrel with projectile being forced through it) just as there is for underground storage tanks. For fluid steel determining remaining barrel strength is a matter of working the engineering formulas. Now, Damascus steel is typically more ductile or elastic and thus more of a spring as Sherman Bell demonstrated with a small sample set of one fulid steel and one Damascus steel sets of Parker shotgun barrels, but that is another subject...

Good discussion,
Mark

I think that a lot of posters on this topic are missing the point. It's not whether proofing shotguns is a good thing or not. It's whether or not a proof house should be established here in the good old US of A. Contrary to what has been said about the proof system not being connected to the government in the UK, it is very much so. Who applies the criminal penalties? Who comes and takes you away? Any time law enforcement is involved it's the government. A statement to the contrary is ridiculous. Proof laws do not only to apply to shotguns but to every firearm. How about the gunsmith in Truth or Consequences, NM who wants to fit a used barrel from one handgun to another? Or maybe change calibers by machining up a new cylinder? The US is filled with gun tinkerers. Does government need to interfere with these people? This has to be the stupidest idea that has ever been proposed on this site. What the Europeans want to do with their gun laws is their business so good luck to 'em. We don't have to imitate them. We can stay the way we are.
nial

+1......This is the most senseless idea ever presented on ANY gun site...ever....

How about Larry Browns proposed SAAMI 18,000-19,000 PSI pressure test idea....what a pile of b.s....how many pre-1945 gun owners would want to jump in that line.......

Just haul your collection down and have it over-stressed for no reason whatsoever.......what a joke.......

For J.R.B. The Proof House 'Tyre'.





I took these photos some time back at the Birmingham Proof House. The Provisional Proof is done in an old brick shed and if you have a copy of Greener's book The Gun and Its Development then the illustration in the book is exactly as it is today.

As to who would enforce the prosecution. British law may differ to yours but anyone can take the prosecution before a court be it an organisation or an individual and that includes criminal cases. Yes an Act of Parliament was enacted on behalf of the Proof Houses so that it is enshrined in law. If they took the prosecution out and a person was found guilty then the court would impose a fine. If then the fine was not paid then the court could issue a warrant and a court appointed baliff could act on their behalf and collect the fine. If it was a Warrant of Distress then they are empowered to take as much of the offender's personal property as they see fit to be sent for public auction in order to recover the fine. Even library fines for unreturned books can be sorted this way. As we live in a democracy then the law of the land should oversee these matters so that they can be dealt with in a fair and legal manner. British law is old and complex as I know from spending over 30 years dealing with it as a Police Officer. The oldest piece regularly used is from The Justice of the Peace Act of 1361. One of my most unusal one was when I took the Chief Constable to court. He had to agree I was right and instruced the force Solicitior to throw the towel in but he ran it anyway just for fun and we had a good laugh about it; even the Chief! :-)

I don't view it as Government intervention in my life but a piece of legislation that is there to protect me the consumer from being sold a piece of rubbish that the seller knows to be rubbish without redress. We have similar legislation that covers the quality of gold, silver and platinum so that the consumer is protected.

Please tell me, how many of you would buy an English gun that was not correctly proofed? And if you did buy it I would suspect that that fact would reflect in the price paid. Lagopus.....

Doug, you ought to be in the business of writing fairy tales, because you do a great job of inventing things, and a very poor job of dealing with reality. But then anyone who'd debate REAL experts like MAJ Burrard and Gough Thomas on the question of long shells (loaded to appropriate pressures) in short chambers . . . what more should we expect?

I neither proposed nor invented the current SAAMI proof standards. SAAMI did that. Those are the proofs for currently-manufactured guns. Here's what that means, for Doug and others that might have trouble understanding the concept: If you are going to fire modern American factory ammo which falls under modern SAAMI service pressure standards, then yes indeed, your gun ought to be proofed at that level--because you're shooting the same loads that are being shot in a new Ruger, Remington, Mossberg, you name it. So if someone took the pre-1945 sxs you now own, which originally had short chambers, and lengthened those chambers to 2 3/4", then your gun ought to be able to pass that level of proof IF you're going to shoot modern ammo in it. However . . . back before WWII, when American gunmakers were making guns with different chamber lengths, they proofed those guns accordingly. A 2 5/8" 12ga, 2 9/16" 16ga, or 2 1/2" 20ga was subjected to lower pressure proof loads than were those same guns with 2 3/4" chambers. And you could go to the local sporting goods or hardware store, and you could buy shells appropriate--in both length and pressure--to your short-chambered gun. So if you have a pre-1945 shotgun with short chambers, then there's no reason to proof it at 18-19,000 psi, AS LONG AS YOU USE AMMUNITION WHICH DEVELOPS PRESSURES APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE GUNS--which are lower than the current SAAMI service pressure standards. And you can do that easily enough either by reloading standard American 2 3/4" hulls to pressures well below SAAMI standards, or by buying shells made for use in "standard proof" CIP (Brit/European) guns, or from people like RST in this country.

And Doug, I do have information--from period articles in The American Rifleman--backing up the above explanation about different levels of proof for American short-chambered vs 2 3/4" guns, back in the 1930's. If you hang around here long enough, you'll actually learn stuff like that. I have, and I'm sure you can . . . if you can keep an open mind.

I did not miss the point at all. Why however would anyone even consider a government law requiring a gun to be proofed or reproofed if they do not know what it pertains to?

Larry's point about a 19,000+ PSI proof load is based on fact. That is what US made 12 gauge guns are proofed at under SAAMI (reference: ANSI/SAAMI Z299.2-1992). If one wants to shoot a steady diet of 11,500 psi maximum mean loads (12 gauge) then they should be sure that a the gun will withstand a proof load. If not, then that person would be safest to shoot lower pressure loads. Passing a proof load test will ensure the gun is strong enough to survive SOME reloading mistakes, a little mud in the muzzle, perhaps a stuck base wad and so on. A little extra strength is usually a good thing.

About a US law concerning proofing guns, forget it! What agency would do it? Eric Holder's BATF might decide to blow up 20% of all guns that are sent to be proofed... It could happen. Let's keep things as they are.

Mark

Well lagopus, whatever about just who is bringing the criminal complaint in British law, it will be the government that will enforce the conclusion. I'm sure you will agree. To do otherwise is splitting hairs. And that's just what gun owners in the USA don't want. Government interference in gun ownership means only one thing; more restrictions. Legislation covering the fineness of precious metals is a whole other ball game. There one can be fairly certain that the law is really designed to protect the consumer. Not so with gun laws. No gun law has ever been all about protection of the gun owner or buyer. Not even the establishment of the proof houses in Britain. They were primarily for the protection and advancement of the better known gun makers.

However, your last paragraph/question deserves an answer because it's very pertinent. While I can't speak for anyone else, I certainly would not buy an English gun that was not correctly proofed. I'm also sure that you are right about price being affected by it's lack of correct proof. It's not uncommon to see British guns with chambers punched from 2 1/2" to 2 3/4", particularly 16 gauge guns for some reason, here in the US without reproof. Such guns will not command the same price as one done in England and reproofed. But even so, I still do not want a proof house here. I only have to read "The Field" or "Shooting Times" to see what the Government has done to shooters in Britain. They are reduced to forming "advisory committees" to tell the minister just exactly how they want to be f##ked. I'd prefer to avoid that kind of love if I can. Americans have a different attitude to politicians. We don't trust them. We know 'em to be lying, sleazy, two faced, thieving, conniving, have I left anything out? bastards.
nial

Larry and Mark, you guys completely missed the point of what is stated......."not whether 18-19K PSI is fact or not with SAAMI, "WHO CARES"........

BUT...WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO SUBJECT THEIR OLD GUN, DOUBLE/SINGLE OR OTHERWISE TO A HIGH PRESSURE TEST THAT IS NEEDLESS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...................

THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEW GUNS....BUT OLD ONES AS ORIGINALLY POSTED BY BUZZ, PLEASE READ THE INITIAL POST.....i.e., sleeved/ altered guns etc......

Like I posted earlier, if you don't like butchered guns, don't buy them, walk away...I do...........

I knew Larry wouldn't get it, but I figured all the rest would.....?.........He can't remember what he writes I guess...?...

WOW-- words of wisdom from the great City that gave us: (1) Rocky Balboa (2) Great Cheese-Steaks, and lest we forget- (3) The Famous Flying Philadelphia %$#@ (something I'd even pay good money to see-

You, Sir- have nailed this down 6 ways to Sunday and back-- we have enough potential anti-gun "Hitlerities" in DC and elsewhere- remember that the Supremes by a scant 5 to 4 upheld the 2nd. Amendment, and if you play the odds- my $ says (sad to say) the GOP Fatheads will self-destruct in 2012 and we'll have the same anti-gun numbnut POTUS we have now- with 4 more sorry *&^ed years to maybe appoint another one or even two Supremes- look at the tenure and caliber (?) of the two most recent Supremes and read the handwriting on the wall-

By starting up a Gov't Proof house, we would be doing a complete 180 from the Tax rebellion that caused a band of ARMED PRIVATE CITIZENS to FORM A RAG-TAG BARELY EQUIPPED MILITIA- THAT KICKED THE LIMEYS TAILS BACK TO LONDON- and Cornwallis had to eat crow before King George for losing the pride of the Redcoats to the lads with the squirrel rifles hiding behind trees--We would be going back almost to the Dictatorship/Monarchy that has pretty much corn-holed private ownership and usage of firearms in England today- do we want to enable this? Watch out to don't become like Haman, the Biblical hangman, who ended up being well hung on his own gallows!!!!

Goodness me. Now that made me smile...such anger...

Maybe we should widen it up and start an argument about US v UK vintage shotguns too?

Lagopus is spot on. I buy British guns that are in proof because it sets a high standard of safety the consumer can have confidence in. What prompted me to create this thread was a recent visit to a gunsmith who had what appeared to be an almost new Ithaca NID 20b hanging off his wall. The gun looked very nice with the exception that the right barrel from just ahead the breech to about 25 cm was filleted wide open. The gun looked nice, but barrel wall thickness was less than .010". Obviously, some rogue redid the gun and then passed it off to an unsuspecting consumer. As the story goes, this gun was given to a kid, who shot the damn thing and was fortunately unharmed. As a physician, however, I could see where serious injury could have happened.....like that a plastic surgeon, hand surgeon, ophthalmologist or undertaker would deal with. This really got me thinking about how we have no checks and balances with altered guns here in the USA and that this incident probably would not have happened in the UK because the gun would not have passed proof and would have been thrown in a junk pile where it belonged. So, gosh, I don't know if a proof house is the answer but I am convinced we need to do a little better keeping things in check with these altered guns.

PA24,

Please do not yell.

I do understand the original question and what the thread has evolved into. I want to know what a proof is before I agree or disagree. My last post should have provided insight into my thoughts on this.

If one wants to shoot modern ammo that may be 11,500 PSI they should consider if the gun will handle any overpressure. Otherwise stick with low pressure loads.

I am certainly not opposed to lengthening forcing cones. I like this better than rechambering since it removes less metal from the barrel. Toward this I want to ensure the remaining barrel thickness is adequate.

Do I need a proof law to keep me safe when I alter or buy an altered gun. No because I will measure the remaining barrel wall thickness virtually at every point in the barrels.
Would I send a gun for reproof at perhaps $100 per barrel. Yes, I would.

Mark

I want the government to keep its hands off my guns. Period. I'll fill out the forms for transfer, but do that reluctantly. As for the government inserting itself into whether my gun is safe or not, I'll just take my chances.

Hi Doc, not a one person here would confirm that a proof house would accept one bit of responsibility. Say Tony's Clarke was being shot by an inexperienced shooter who didn't notice an off sound. That barrel may have filleted open within a couple of boxes of being proofed. Again, I'd have a little bit of faith that Tony didn't fire that gun with an obstruction in it. Plus, if one knew there was an obstruction in a barrel, why send it off to anyone to confirm the obvious.

I truly do appreciate the comments of those who deal with the proof houses regularly. It confirms that what works well in the UK should be resisted vigorously in the US. If anyone looks over a gun, doesn't see a proof mark, they can then conclude that the gun is both original and safe. Good luck.

Hey Ballistix, I know it sounds kind of funny to the Brits, gun toting Americans going ballistic at the thought of politicians making up new rules to disarm us. But really, try living in a high crime area like Philadelphia where I do. Or an isolated country area where police help isn't readily available. I can guarantee that there will be times when having a firearm handy will make all the difference. Either to your peace of mind or to your actual safety. Here in Philadelphia it's not uncommon on hot Summer weekends for as many as half a dozen shootings. About 75% of them, while investigated, go unsolved. Of course it's mostly dealers fighting over drug corners and who ripped off who. Nevertheless, if you live near those areas or have to be in or pass through them it behooves one to go armed.
Meanwhile the politicians tell us all the time that if we would only restrict the legal possession of firearms by perfectly law abiding citizens these same dealers would disarm also and sweetness and light would prevail at said corners. They use any old pretext to reach this illusory goal and would surely jump on something like proof testing. What was it that Barry Goldwater used to say? Oh yeah, "extreamism in the defense of liberty is no vice"
nial

Very well stated.

SRH

Wow. We've jumped from whether proof is or isn't a good idea to a suggestion that having a proofhouse, even if it's SAAMI--which happens to be VOLUNTARY, although as far as I know all American arms and ammo makers subscribe to its guidelines--would end up with our guns somehow being taken away. Get out the tinfoil hats, boys . . . the aliens are about to invade.

First of all, here's what OUGHT to happen: two or three of those shade tree gunsmiths, who lengthen short chambers and advise the owners of said modified guns to "just go ahead and shoot anything you want" ought to be on the receiving end of what's fired from those guns themselves. Then maybe, just maybe, the word would get out that that's not only an unwise practice, but downright dangerous--both to the gun and, potentially, to the guy who owns it.

Second of all, unfortunately, your average buyer of a gun--any gun--won't go anywhere near taking the steps that Mark takes (measuring barrel wall thickness etc) when he buys a gun. There are a whole lot of places that deal in at least some vintage guns where the people selling the guns don't really know how to use a bore and choke gauge, let alone a wall thickness gauge. So, again unfortunately, we have a whole lot of altered and potentially unsafe guns foisted upon an uneducated buying public. And the concept of proof is bad, because it lessens the possibility that someone might end up with an unsafe gun? As lagopus pointed out, if you want to keep a gun and modify it however you want, all well and good. However, if you want to sell it . . . then the game should change. At the very least, you should provide "full disclosure" of your modifications to the buyer. There are "lemon laws" that regulate car dealers. Are they a bad idea? And if not, why not apply them to gun dealers--who are, after all, already licensed by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

If OSHA were to ever get around to examining the gun business, they'd probably go nuts. And if they ever got to the point where they could regulate it, I can guarantee that we would not like the results. Proof laws exist virtually everywhere else, and proof already exists on a voluntary basis here, on new guns and on ammunition. Personally, as some have suggested above, I like the idea of being able to look at the proof markings on a British (or other European) gun and tell that it's been modified--and reproofed with those modifications. In contrast, I pick up a Fox 12ga with 2 3/4" chambers, and if it's from say the early 20's, I'm never quite sure whether that gun started life with those chambers or with short chambers. I like the former concept better. Others can pick their poison. It is, after all, a free country.

There it is. Create an agency for a POTENTIAL problem. Sound familiar?

SRH

You forgot one thing Stan. We need to do a government feasability study first. That way we can throw more tax dollars into another bottomless government hole.

I wouldn't be surprised if that study isn't being done already.

SRH

What the Euro proof houses have going for them is history, they date back to muzzleloading cannon and matchlock days. They developed proof standards for every cartridge that's come down the pike for the past 150 years.

Here in America we have been enjoying the fruits of a free society where invention and innovation has spawned hundreds of firearm designs and thousands of cartridges. Who will decide what the proof load for a 38-55 Winchester will be? How will it be determined, do you blow up a bunch of Ballards and Winchesters?

Do we adopt out of hand, UK standards(Obama hates England)? What about all the wildcatters, do they become outlaws? Does the guy who AIs a 6.5x54MS have to have his rifle blown because the proof house has never seen one?

The rifle stuff is much more complicated and far reaching than the shotgun implications.

Jim

Lengthened chambers on American guns is a POTENTIAL problem? Wow . . . that's strange. Some guys must not get out a lot. I run into "potential problems" just about every time I visit a gun shop that has very many vintage American doubles on hand. And no need to create an agency. SAAMI already exists.

Here's what it comes down to, for me: I can pick up a Brit or European gun, and just by looking at the proofmarks, I know the original chamber length; I know whether the chambers have been lengthened; I know the original bore diameter (which, when I insert my bore and choke gauge, tells me whether someone's done a significant amount of honing); I may know the load for which the gun was built; and I may be able to tell when the gun was proofed. In contrast, I pick up a vintage American gun, and there's some chance--although less than 50%--that the manufacturer might have marked the original chamber length.

Here's a real world example: Several months back, I bought a Sauer 20ga, imported by Abercrombie and Fitch. My bore and choke gauge tells me that the gun is significantly overbored for a 20, which could mean a lot of honing was done . . . except, right there among the proofmarks, there's this little "19"--which means that the gun left the factory overbored. Eliminates my concern in that area. Same situation on an American double . . . first, I'd have to know what the standard bore diameter was, for that particular manufacturer and for that gauge. That might vary by at least .008 from one maker to another, according to one source I have. Then there's the possibility, somewhat remote but there nevertheless, that someone ordered the gun overbored.

What it comes down to is this: proof and proofmarks, European style, answer a lot of questions relatively quickly and easily that can't really be answered on vintage American guns, without a fair amount of research and some tools. Personally, I prefer having it all spelled out, right there on the barrel flats. But for some, I guess, having more information is a bad thing. Not sure why, but to each his own.

That's what I said, and that's what I meant. POTENTIAL problem. Has every American gun that has had it's chambers lengthened blown up? Of course not.

It has to all come back to personal responsibility. There are two ways, that have already been proposed here, of dealing with this. Either don't ever buy modified guns, as Doug said, or get the knowledge necessary to check wall thickness in the critical areas, and make an educated decision as to whether the gun is safe.

All this constant begging for someone to protect me from myself is absolutely sickening to me.

SRH

L.B., You never cease to amaze me......what world do you live in....?.....American guns you say...

1. Quality American guns can be lettered which will show the factory specs, barrel length and choking as delivered from the factory. LOP, DAH, DAC...etc.

2. Intelligent people will research specific brands and know the dimensions (and measure) that a specific company used to manufacture a specific gun during a specific time frame, i.e. chamber lengths by gauge etc. For American Manufactured guns.....

3. The Cody Firearms Museum will, for members, forward a "worksheet" prior to purchase with basic information on a specific gun by serial number....i.e., chokes, barrel lengths etc....
It is very easy to then apply this information to a potential purchase......

4. AGAIN....YOU CANNOT PROTECT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME...."ANYWHERE".....even in a perfect world, Joe DA Hunta will still plug his bore with mud or use the wrong ammo and blow/bulge barrels.......BTW...this happens in proof house nations as well......the point being that more damage and injury takes place from "operator error" than from flawed guns...even with the butchered ones.......

What you are suggesting is controlling the sporting public through regulation so you can have a set of stamped numbers or re-stamped numbers on your guns.....and requiring us to follow suit.....

5. Years ago American manufacturers didn't even put the gauge on shotguns, they figured people were SMART enough to know what gauge of gun they were shooting.........

6. What you propose is a no-common sense approach to a problem that does not exist......

7. Intelligent people don't buy butchered guns, foreign or domestic.....with so many original, unaltered guns available, why buy the butchered ones....?.....

8. PEOPLE WHO require proof plus wanting a holy blessing so they can shoot modern Walmart ammo while having no mechanical apptitude themselves, should buy ONLY MODERN NEWLY MANUFACTURED guns and blast away.......

The wood on the old guns won't take the constant pounding of modern ammo and lengthened chambers anyway.....that's a fruitless misinformed adventure......

Just maybe, here's your reason. I thought this was a consumer protection issue. Is there any mandate that couldn't be justified because a few know what's best for all. As the pages go by, the percentage of rouge chambers is increasing. Careful, you may not have bought the only safe 20ga. in the country just because you memorized some book of proof marks.

What if you woke up tomorrow and decided to buy a Winchester M-12. Is it going to be the British proof marked permanently altered magazine gun or the inadequately marked American original. Same for the hundred year old Purdey, you gonna buy the one that bubba took a file to the proof marks or the correct and original one as intended by the maker.

If a proof system was established a hundred and fifty years ago many answers would be easier to come by, no doubt. I don't see how establishing one today, would make the gun traders life easier. After all, who would decide what the original barrel diameter was on a 1912 Crescent 16ga?

Our Constitution gave us the right to own guns and the balance of the the Bill of Rights was to guarantee our fight to be left alone. In Europe gun ownership is a privilege granted by the government, it's not hard to see how a proof house could be used to control and register our guns.

No tin foil hat here, just an American who sees more and more governmental infringement on our personal liberty as a bad thing.

Your Mileage Obviously Varies

I like the idea of a voluntary proof house that individuals could send a gun to for re-proof. IMHO the liability issue would however be tremendous! Once proof makes were on a gun someone would blow it up just so that they could sue the proof house.

"Our constitution gave us the right to own guns..."

"In Europe gun ownership is a privilege granted by the government..."

Nice theory. In practice, when visiting with my relatives in NYC I was told that handguns are out of reach of ordinary citizen. In my part of Europe, I own as many as I wish including license to carry.

With kind regards,
Jani

As to chambers, I will point out just three of the guns I own.
First is a ca 1893 12ga Lefever G grade damascus with 2 5\8" chambers. Normal for the era so undoubtably original. This gun weighs 8lbs even.
Next a high SN'd 12ga Lefever H grade twist, probbly assembled at Ithaca post 1915. This gun weighs 6 1/2 lbs yet has 2 3/4" chambers. 2 3/4" chambers are "Normal" on late model Lefevers so this one is most likely original as well.
Now the G has quite heavy bbls & the chamber could in fact be extended to 3" & still have thicker walls at the end than the H. I definitely would not recommend re-chambering this old gun to 3" & firiing magnum loads through it, "BUT" in this era Lefever as well as other makers would cut chambers to order. No doubt had that G been ordered with 3" chambers there would have been absolutely no difference made in its bbl configuration.
Last gun is a post 1907 16ga Lefever H grade twist. This gun came to me with 3" chambers, yes you read right, A 3" 16ga. Are these original, well who knows, but Why would it have been re-chambered to 3". At the time it was built 3" chambers could be had to order along with shells to fit. They "Never" became a standard so I highly suspect it was ordered new this way.
It is also noted that many early Lefevers, along with some other makes, came from the factory bored oersize for use with all brass shells.
Does anyone see the can of worms we would be opening up here. None of these early guns were factory marked with either chamber length or bore size.
"WHO" would determine which ones had been modified & needed to be proofed. Bottom line is to ensure all modified guns were proofed every gun sold would have to be subjected to the proof.
"IF" it were not "Mandatory" it would do nothing to protect the "Unknowledgable" Joe Blow on the street that it is suggested to protect, voluntarily wouldn't work. Even then it would still offer no protection to anyone dragging out an old ancestrial short chambered JABC etc & stuffing it with a high powered load.
Best thing to do with this subject is
"KILL IT"
before the wrong people read it & get ideas, "For Our Own Good".

NYC is not a typical American city. Although most do, in fact, poscribe carrying a handgun. In a fairly recent Supreme Court decision, the court decided you could OWN a handgun in your home.

In my part ot the US most people have and carry handguns, and many have Licenses to cary.

There must be some form of consumer protection available in America that protects the citizen from potentially dangerous goods getting into the market place. That's all Proof is. When I have an explosion going off just inches from my face I like to think that the odds are well stacked in my favour. Please realise that the Proof laws here are administered largely by the gun trade, they set the standards not the government. In fact the first proof laws came in under Charles the first and he didn't care what government thought; he ended up losing his head in the end though. Then we did try being a Republic but that didn't last long as Oliver Cromwell started to get a bit power crazed and we went back to a system of Monarchy and Government combined.

Nialmac, the courts are separate to the Government here although laws are formed to some degree by government they then have to have checks made by our two tier system. The courts are answerable to the crown as are the military and police; in other words answerable to the people. A lot of our laws pre date the exsistance of government by several centuries.

No, I'll stick to having a proof house there to test my guns and ammunition for me. I just think that if you had some sort of voluntary scheme in place administered by your gun trade (not your government) then it would be used. I often see threads here in this forum about the expense of sending guns to the U.K. for proof testing so there must be some need out there. Think of the savings. Lagopus..... p.s. Run with the Fox; when mentioning those rag tags with squirrel rifles you forgot to mention the important part played by the French in that affair.

If a lot of guns were blowing up, I could see your point. But they aren't. So what you're buying with your proof laws is exposing your gun to unsafe pressures to prove it will take these unsafe pressures, which is no guarantee it will, after being stressed, continue to be safe. I don't see the logic behind that, but if you're happy with the false sense of confidence it gives you, so be it.

P.S. A lot of our laws also predate government my centuries: The Ten Commandments, for example.

I would suppose that the view process prior to proof gets rid of most that would blow up when they are rejected at that stage. No, there is no guarentee but they should be fine if the correct ammunition is used and it does seem to work. I still can't believe that you have no consumer protection legislation of any kind. Can you sell unroadworthy motor vehicles that are in a dangerous condition over there? Surely there is some sort of testing procedure.

Yes, the ten commandments are pretty early legislation that also pre date the United States of America. Don't go by every law in the Bible as I belive stoning to death is now considered unconstitutional. :-)

Well, America deceided to go its own way in 1776 and I suppose they haven't done too bad. If you don't want a Proof House then I won't force you to have one. I'd still like to know if you did have access to such a facility then who of you would use it? Hands up anyone. By the way, where is Smallbore on this one as he buys and sells a lot of guns and uses the Proof House quite a bit. Lagopus.....

lagopus, guns here are specifically exempt from consumer protection acts, simply because such legislation would lead to havoc. The anti-gunners would argue that such ''dangerous devices'' should never be allowed into the hands of sensible Americans.

Yes, it's perfectly legal to sell unroadworthy automobiles here in the US. But the vehicle wouldn't pass state inspections and couldn't get licensed, but there is no reason why they can't be bought and sold legally.

By the way, aren't the British proof houses supported by the trade and not by public revenue?

I can understand the need for a proof house in Medieval times, when barrels were made of iron, and there was basically a need to protect people from inferior manufacturers. However, proof is not really needed (IMO) for modern steel-barrels. And I own a couple of damascus barrel guns that have survived since the 19th Century, and I suppose they've been more than proofed by time itself.

If I remember my history correctly proof houses were established throughout Europe to restrict trade in firearms under the pretense of public safety. I believe England was the first established to restrict the import of cheaper Belgian firearms so public safety wasn't necessarily uptmost in the British gun trades minds.

I would doubt that in the case of Britain as at the time no gun laws exsited here at all and didn't until around the time of the First World War. I can understand a country being jelous of outside trade coming in and wanting to protect its own. When we started with Proof I don't think Belgium had a gun making industry as such. Other European Countries followed much later and a lot still have no testing proceedure. We fully accept guns from other Countries with recognised Proof Houses without further testing.

Another useful service by the Proof House here is that they will pressure check reloaded ammunition, both shotgun and metallic, for a small fee. Send 11 rounds, one of which is dismantled to check contents, and then the others tested and a report returned. Takes the guess work out of reloading jobs. Lagopus.....

Lagopus, I will say the Uk proof houses are strict, I had a custom made 6.5 x54 mannlicher made for me in the States over the last 2 years which I got a few weeks ago, for details see link below

http://www.chuckhawks.com/m-s_custom_rifle_hays.htm

However I got Hollands to check it for me before sending it for proof. The proof house will not accept for the reasons below,

Bolt will not go over the Go Gauge
Bore dia. 6.54mm, oversize by 0.06mm
Groove dia. 0.263" undersize by 0.003"

Now I´m not bothered, I don´t intend to sell it and it shoots 3 shot groups of 5/8" at 100 yds so I´m happy, I think there must be differences in bore and groove sizes in some countries compared to others (this rifle has a new barrel !) best, Mike

Gene, new guns made in America are, in fact, subjected to HIGHER pressures than are standard proof guns under CIP (British/European) proof laws. The only difference is that our guns are proofed by the manufacturers, adhering to our SAAMI proof standards. And that's been done for a very long time. I have an article from the American Rifleman in the 1930's, which shows the various designs of proof barrels used by many of the major American gun manufacturers.

Thanks, Larry, for furthering my position that proof houses are unnecessary. It's in the hands of the gunmakers, which is exactly what the proof house system initially was as well...the gunmakers set the standard, which eventually became codified.

Thanks for a little more insight into the proofing process. Interesting to have the thought to steer away from the proof house.

I can't help but wonder what legal requirements would be put on the rifle by a proof house. It's also sad that according to earlier posts, the rifle can not be legally taken outside of the UK now.

Very nice rifle.

Is this a 'fact' for or against an American proof house.

This may apply more to ammunition testing than firearm integrity. I've seen pictures, but don't believe I've every seen a new or bubba'd gun for sale with a proof barrel fitted to it. I believe an American proof house can be justified if someone feels like it, but I still haven't seen any factual justification.

Would anyone with say a valuable, historically unique Sauer, voluntarily have an American proof mark stamped on it. There's a reason Americans might bellyache, but pony up to have the proper proof marks stamped on their British best guns.

craigd, it can be sent to me in Spain as we have a proof house accepted by the UK but I couldn´t send it back to the USA !! best, Mike

Right . . . except it applies to modified used guns as well as new ones, which ours does not.

Those interested in what proof REALLY is, as opposed to some here who equate it to the infamous tire and string test, need to read Vic Venters' article in the current (Jan/Feb) issue of Shooting Sportsman. Or, if you wish, you can continue to misunderstand and misconstrue what proof is all about.

The Big Problem many seem to be overlooking here (although it has been mentioned) in comparing the US with England is the Brit's proof laws pre-date the breech loader. One can take a gun proofed in England from virtually any date & state what its original bore size & chamber length was, NOT SO in the US.

"IF" this proof was not made retro-active nothing would be accomplished,
"IF" it were made retro-active, Friend, you are opening a Pandoras's box of trouble.

My ca 1889 10 Ga Lefever Arms Co has an oversize bore (common on early Lefevers) & 3" chambers. "WHO" would determine if I went to sell it, if it would need proofing.
Similar situation with a ca 1910 16 Ga with 3" chambers, though standard bore.

3" shells are currently unavailable in either GA & to the best of my knowledge were "Never" a "Standard" in either. As has been pointed out these early "Long" chambered guns were not intended for "Magnum" loads, so for what would they have to be currently proofed.

Personally I feel the odds are these guns are both "Factory" originals, but if I sold them without proofing under the proposed laws, would I be subject to prosecution, if someoe else decided they had been modified.

A Very laarge amount of thought better be given to this subject before jumping on the band wagon, otherwise you just might get a "Tiger by the Tail" & not know how to turn him loose.

If you guys did get a proof house over there and if there were ever any problems ,all us over here could go to endless speculation as to why . Go on you know you want one realy.

"Ours?" Iowa has a proof house?

Larry, you always get defensive when challenged, and resort to innuendo, but that's OK, that's just your estrogen kicking in.

If you can show any scientific reasons why guns should be tested over here, I will gladly accept these reasons. If not, then your point is invalid.

Gene, Have you at least read the informative article in the recent 'Shooting Sportsman' by Vic Venters which explains in detail the Birmingham Proof House?? He explains what they do thoroughly. It certainly does not appear to be superfluous or unnecessary work to me.

Do you send your guns to be proofed in Birmingham? And if not, why not avail yourself of this valuable service?

Gene: I guess you are referring this question to me. To answer you, I wish I could have some guns with altered barrels proofed in the UK, but I personally have not done so because there is an approximate $500 shipping ticket one way. This is cost prohibitive IMO except for very valuable guns. I do have several Perazzi shotguns with altered barrels I used in competition shooting. I may have been foolish having barrels altered but competition shooters look for perfect patterns and reduced recoil. I had a pro do the barrel work, but these guns are now out of proof in the European sense. It is cost prohibitive for me to have these guns reproofed since we do not have this service in the United States to answer your question. I think my guns are safe because I had an expert do the barrel work but I can't prove it because I haven't had the guns reproofed. And anyone who buys these guns will not know for sure either.

Even if you have them proofed, you only know what happened in one instance of time. You don't know what will happen in the future. There's no guarantee that because it survived one or two or whatever heavy proof loads they endure, this doesn't mean they will survive the next load.

I think it's a false security. It's like a safety on a shotgun, good to have it, bad to trust it.

Buzz, I think Gene is telling us that he's either too lazy or too uninterested to read the Venters article. After all, he knows what proof is all about. It's only firing a few proof loads, no careful examination of the gun in question before or after it's fired or anything like that. Heck, a guy with a string and an old tire can do just as well.

Gene, if it's false security, then why should anyone--foreign proofhouses, American gunmakers, whomever--bother doing it even with new guns? If it's "bad to trust it", then you'd better not pick up ANY gun, new or otherwise. And in your view, it must be OK to punch the chambers on an old gun, which was subjected to proof (but at lower pressures) and shoot modern American factory shells in it, which develop higher pressures.

I think I know one guy from whom I would not want to trust buying a gun . . .

Do YOU send your guns to England for proof, Larry?

Larry: We can lead a horse to water, but it's hard to make him drink. And in this case, we might even be trying to beat a dead horse with all these very closed-minded folks!

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but.... Take a look at Larry's post. His 'evidence' is one informational article about what works well in Birmingham, England. Is that proof that there are problems elsewhere. Why ignore others concern that a proof law would have to apply to all guns.

Also note, punched out chambers are a favorite theme, but you might have noticed at least two other threads have appeared discussing original long chambers. Is it a good idea to have Larry decide that 3" 20 ga. chambers in a 20's Parker must be altered and require reproof. How about the 3 1/4" 12 ga. chambers. Should these guns be proofed for modern 3" loads just because you're protecting dummies from themselves.

Generally, Perrazi competition guns are safe queens right. So, no real world worry of anyone attempting to fire it, but it may be better to get a letter from the barrel man vouching for the alterations until a practical proofing system is available. This thought may become more urgent if that gun is actually fired. No problem if you don't feel like drinking, but fair warning, you've been led to the well.

Why would I (or anyone else) need to do that, Gene--as long as we don't either modify guns significantly (like lengthening chambers) or buy guns that have been so modified without having been submitted for reproof? Long ago, in my then-ignorance, I had the chambers on a prewar Sauer 16 lengthened, after which I fed it a fairly steady diet of high brass pheasant loads. The gun survived and so did I. But thanks in large part to this very BB, that's not anything I'd ever do again. Lesson learned. Ignorance can be cured. Now if I'd continued that practice after having been presented with good evidence that it's a bad idea, that would no longer be ignorant. It'd be just plain stupid. And there are people who are ignorant and don't care to learn, which is why stupidity is much harder to cure.

Thank goodness neither you nor I are neither stupid nor ignorant. Don't know about these other slack-jawed bogger-eating members on the board, huh? Guess we're the lucky ones.

I forgot: what are your reasons for a proof house in America?

Craig, that article concerns HOW proof works (which, quite obviously, a lot of people here don't understand). Reading it and understanding it does not necessarily result in the conclusion that doing it their way is best for us, in this country. That's something that remains open to opinion, pro and con--again, as evidenced by this thread.

And I wouldn't be the guy deciding anything. That'd be up to SAAMI, or whomever ended up responsible for doing the proofing. However, on the 3" chamber issue, you might note that the load for the 3" 20ga back when those early Parkers had long chambers was significantly lighter than the loads we shoot in 3" 20's today. Which might mean--just in case the guy with a vintage 3" Parker wants to shoot MODERN 3" shells--that he might want to have it proof tested with heavier proof loads than the ones used back then. Or else maybe he ought to stick to loads appropriate to the proof pressure to which the gun was originally subjected--which would likely mean something with somewhat lower pressures than today's 20ga service pressure standard of 12,000 psi. Which, by the way, applies to both 2 3/4" and 3" shells.

I understand the hows, it's the whys that leave me cold.

The other thing, Larry, is if you can get a competent gunsmith to assure you of your gun's safety, why not get a competent gunsmith to do so rather than involving the government? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Why make it mandatory?

I see this a lot. Some want the government involved in every phase of their lives and love to create bureaus to make them feel more secure.

Interestingly, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government. It was set up with safety of sporting arms and ammunition in mind. It would seem logical that SAAMI could set up a reproof committee for the evaluation of altered guns. It would have to be an organization such as SAAMI for standardization purposes and legitimacy in terms of reciprocity with foreign proof houses IMHO. And the federal government would not need to be involved with reproof anymore than they are already involved with SAAMI. Just a thought for what it's worth.

The IRS was set up to fairly tax the citizens of the US. The ATF was set up to bag illegal firearms and enforce prohibition.

See where this is going?

It would appear that none of the above are capable of doing their job....

Does the article say all the barrels sold were proofed or just the design was proofed ?

Here-in lies the problem many are Skirting over & avoiding. As it stands I can use my 3" gun which happens to be a 16, with the loads for which it was intended, I don't need it proofed. The stated purpose which brought up this whole topic was to "Protect" the unknowledgeable & unknowing.

The only way of doing this would be to proof the guns with the maximum load available for the length chamber the gun possesses. The vast majority would indeed "Pass Proof". This then would tell the "Unknowing" they were quite OK to be fed a regular diet of the stoutest loads available off the shelf. We would actually be doing them a dis-service to do this, rather than trying to educate them.

The best thing to do with mandatory proof in the US is to
"Let it Go, Turn it Loose" while we still can.

It should also be noted that lengthening a chamber does not Automatically render the gun dangerous. There are large numbers of American guns which have ample steel in the chamber area to render them OK for a lengthened chamber. That in fact is probably not the major consideration on most guns, but rather the increased stress of regular use with heavier loads than they were designed for. It has been reported here on this forum on several occasaions that "Factory" gunsmiths routinely opened the chambers on Foxes sent back for re-work to 2 3/4". It is also noted that the factories when they changed from the shorter shells as standard often went to the longer chambers with no other modidifications or "Beefing UP" of their guns, they just cut them with longer chambers.

I made an error in one of my statements above, re the pressure barrels. They were standardized, all made by Winchester, and used by the ammunition companies (at least a couple of which--Winchester and Remington--were also gun manufacturers). It was all about standardization of ammunition velocities and pressures (without, at least per the article, interference from the evil government). And the reason the ammo makers were interested in doing that had to do with making shells that were safe for the guns in which they were to be shot, and also to improve the general performance of their loads. As for the arms makers, the fact that they proofed their barrels can be seen by the proofmarks you'll find on them (as well as reference to the pressures at which the various companies proofed their guns, also from period Rifleman articles) whether it's an Elsie or a Parker or a Winchester 21. And of course there was Olin's famous test, in which he fired a couple thousand proof loads through a 21, comparing its ability to survive the stress of repeated use of proof loads in comparison to Winchester's competitors (all of which also survived dozens of times more proof loads than were generally used in standard proof testing).

Miller makes some good points. Because American shotguns, in general, were overbuilt, it was not necessarily a problem to lengthen the chambers of an American 12ga from 2 5/8" to 2 3/4" and then fire the longer ammunition in those modified guns. (However, it is also worth noting that the American arms companies--again, per Rifleman articles from that period--proofed their short-chambered guns to lower pressures than their long-chambered guns.) But we also know, from discussions on this BB, that in the case of light 20ga guns--especially some Ithaca Flues models--using modern ammunition in those guns, most of which would originally have had 2 1/2" chambers, thus meaning that a full 1/4" of chamber steel would have to be removed if they were lengthened to 2 3/4", has resulted in "catastrophic failures". Especially cracked frames on some Flues 20's. When you lengthen the chambers of a gun that has been proofed for X level of pressure, for the purpose of using ammunition designed for guns proofed for X + something level of pressure, that gun is out of proof. And it is out of proof if it's a Fox or an Elsie, every bit as much as if it's a Scott or a Purdey. The only difference is, we're less likely to know it's out of proof without knowing the original chamber length of the gun in question, when it was made, etc, than we are with a gun sold in a country where it is illegal to sell guns that are no longer in proof. It is, much like the safety on a gun, simply an added (but certainly not foolproof) level of protection for the buyer. Think the law that requires car dealers to disclose the true mileage on a car they sell you. While that does not guarantee that the car won't fall apart shortly after you drive it off the lot, it does guarantee that it only has 50,000 miles and not 150,000 miles. Personally, I think--from the consumer's standpoint--that's a good law. And just as a car with only 50,000 miles can be expected to have more "life" left in it than one with 150,000, so can a shotgun using ammunition appropriate to its level of proof be expected to have a longer life than one fed a steady diet of ammunition with a higher pressure than that for which the gun was built. So while it's not necessarily about danger to the shooter, there's still a very clear consumer protection element involved.

Wow, is there any justification that's unacceptable. What changed, now 'punched out' chamber may be ok and the danger threat level has subsided.

What a farce, by seeing a proof mark, the consumer is assured that the proper loads were used in a gun. Is it even slightly possible to see a problem with this reasoning.

Why confirm some of the biggest worries of the thread. You equivocate gun integrity with other government regulated areas. Does discharging a shotgun shell leave a carbon footprint. Are baby strollers required to support double the rated weight. Are school kids eating a proper diet.

Doesn't matter what the proof house article says, we now understand that you have other agendas. Not once have you addressed the concern that if you scan a gun for a proof mark and none shows up, we can conclude that no mods were done to the gun.

I suspect you prefer serial numbers to be shaken out of the woodwork.

America doesn't need a proof house, America needs reamer control!

Amen.....pass the plate.

You got it!

Fa-getta-bout-it.

As I see it; in America you do have Proof testing which is that done by the manufacturers. No doubt to both protect the good name of the manufacturer and for some measure of safety for the consumer. You seem quite happy with that. But you have no way of checking a gun's safety after it has been messed around with by some back yard 'gunsmith' but for some odd reason you feel uncomfortable about some system where you can go and check (voluntarily, not compulsory) to see if it is safe or not. A bit like flying in an aeroplane that has no air worthiness certificate but you feel o.k. because it has still got two wings and someone has been round and kicked the tyres. Even with the certificate the plane might crash due to pilot error but I'd still like to know it is in a safe condition to fly in in the first place. Lagopus.....

Ah, but no. You can voluntarily take your gun to a qualified gunsmith and get it tested, if you wish. I don't know what a proof house charges, but I'll bet a gunsmith is cheaper.

With all due respect, an airworthiness certificate is issued at the time of registration. The certificate remains with that airplane for the life of the plane or until revoked thru an overt action by the regulator. Possession of an airworthiness certificate is in no way an indication of the actual condition of the airplane. The airplane can be "messed with" to no end if someone wants to ignore regulations. It happens in general aviation all the time. It even happens on major airlines. You've seen it in the news when it's a big deal. Like any laws, compliance is only as good as the people.

Condition of a gun, like condition of an airplane or any other machinery, is verified by inspection and/or test. Licensed proof house systems are one way of assuring a competent source for the inspections/tests. They are not the only way to verify the condition of a gun.

I'm not opposed to the existance of proof houses, but I am opposed to any regulatory action to mandate such a system. If someone thinks they can make money establishing a proof house in the USA, have at it. There are plenty of standards they can use without any further regulation.

No disrespect intended, but I think most reviewing this thread understood Lagopus' insinuation in comparing an aircraft airworthiness certificate to the properly standardized and certified proofing of guns. Many comments have been made in this thread which question the necessity, feasibility and the sagacity of instituting a proof house in the United States. I think this is understandable considering many Americans fear of the ulterior motives of our government, especially during a time when extreme liberalism has control of the government. And because of this sentiment many Americans are unusually fearful and frankly terrified the government is going to break it's promise of the 2nd Amendment and take guns away from the lawful citizen. I for one do not believe this will happen with sporting guns nor do I believe a Proof House, like that instituted by an organization such as SAAMI, would increase the likelihood of our guns being taken away. The reason being, more gun control is coming with or without a Proof House....and you can count on that despite the maneuvers of the NRA. It boils down to this for me. The proper proofing of guns has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. It's primary goal would be that of consumer safety and to prevent fraud. It's cost would be offset by the increase in value of a gun as 'in proof' as compared to one 'out of proof'. Manufacturing companies in the US such as Mossberg, Ruger, Kolar plus many others would undoubtedly have their liability reduced because much of the onus would be placed with the Proof House in terms of liability. And, a legitimate Proof House would and should share reciprocity with foreign Proof Houses.

Don't you think proof house proponents in this thread have shown plenty of ulterior motives. You're on board with backdoor gun control just because it's going to happen anyway.

When have you shown that values will increase or that current proof houses will accept even the slightest liability for gun damage or personal injury. Was it shown anywhere that consumer safety would be improved or that fraud could be prevented.

Would you want an American proof mark stamped on to your British best gun. I believe the ole horse gets beaten because some folks make personal agenda assumptions and pass them off as fact without justification.

How you going to force compliance. If you run into a bargain that's out of proof, are you going to buy it and proof it, or are you going to turn in the seller.

Last but not least, why do you want foreign laws or regulations applied to Americans in our own country. No disrespect intended to you, just disagree with the ideas and reasoning presented.

It's not a promise. It's a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Assuming proof is the law, then the answer is simple: the dealer in question gets turned in. If I'm a knowledgeable gun buyer and the guy is selling out of proof guns, contrary to the law, I want him out of the business so he doesn't perpetrate fraud upon the next buyer. Same as any other crook. Same as if I learn that the real "bargain" I'm about to buy is a stolen gun. Same as if I learn that the car dealer turned back the odometer.

Larry you ever think of running for pubic office ?

Strange Larry. I thought your proof proof house was protecting folks folks without the knowledge.

My example had nothing to do with criminal activity. What if the old neighbor widow or uncle bob just wants to give you a gun that's been in the closet for years and no one knows anything about. They say if you don't want it they're going to offer it to so and so down the street.

You can tell it's a Parker and that it just might clean up pretty well or it has sentimental value to you. You spot 3 1/4" chambers and offer the informed opinion that it should be proofed before it's transferred to anyone else. You offer to help.

You find out later that it was given away to someone else. Whew, now 'assuming proof is the law', is the answer still so simple to you. If you try to give a prized shotgun to an heir, should they take your word that it's safe and original. Do you have the right to pass it on to the next person, knowing it was not in your possession for the first sixty years of its existence.

I noticed a link by D. Hause in another thread that there is indeed at least one American proof house. Would you and others please send a few guns in each and pass along your experiences and show your sincerity.

Gentlemen,

An optioanl proof house in the USA might be a good thing if they didn't get sued for liability...

A lengthened chamber or long forcing cone if detremental to the gun and shooter would blow where pressure was highest. That is of course in and immediately after the chamber.

I ask all of you, who has seen a gun that burst within 5" of the breach? If so, please tell us about the circumstances.

Please do not bother passing on hearsay or family stories. If you were there or saw the gun afterward and talked to the shooter please relay the story. Otherwise it will be like the size of the fish I caught (although I do not fish).

I suspect that most barrels burst farther from the breach due to some form of obstruction.

Resepctfully requested,
Mark

Mark: Please refer to my post on page 8 of this thread. This gun's right barrel was filleted wide open starting at or near the forcing cone. This, what could have been a catastrophic event, was NOT due to any sort of obstruction!

buzz,

You wrote on page 8:
"What prompted me to create this thread was a recent visit to a gunsmith who had what appeared to be an almost new Ithaca NID 20b hanging off his wall. The gun looked very nice with the exception that the right barrel from just ahead the breech to about 25 cm was filleted wide open. The gun looked nice, but barrel wall thickness was less than .010". Obviously, some rogue redid the gun and then passed it off to an unsuspecting consumer. As the story goes, this gun was given to a kid, who shot the damn thing and was fortunately unharmed."

At or just befor the rupture how thick were the barrels? A thickness of ..10 at the muzzle is safe for pressure at that point. It would just dent far too easy. Only .010" at the forcing cone it is certainly not safe!

Is this the only rupture that you have seen? Why do I ask? Because there are many tales of ruptures and blown barrels but most people have never seen one. Certainly in the case you refer to at least one barrel was homed or reamed far too thin.

Most of use have never seen a breach rupture.

I contend that while this certainly could be a life threatening problem, ruptures are rare even on guns that have had chambers and forcing cones lenghtened.

Is a commercial proof house a good idea? Yes.
Do we need a government proof house? Certainly NOT!

Mark. I am 53 years old and have been shooting trap and skeet off and on all my life. I have been at trap shoots where barrel bursts have occurred on a couple of occasions. I remember a Perazzi in particular where the forearm was blown apart as a result. I do not know the particulars, such as altered barrels, obstructions, etc. I agree with you and others, barrel bursts are relatively rare events, but they do occur at times. And I think most guns out there are safe....some aren't.

buzz,

There lies the problem. Of the uncounted number of barrels (did you count them?) burst at trapshoots that you attended, no data was collected. Was the problem with those guns a poorly altered chamber, hot loads, reloading mistake, obstruction, or even a flaw in an unaltered barrel?

Tonight I measured a few unaltered Parkers barrels. The forcing cones of course added barrel thickness while it constricted the bore. Any constriction will raise pressure. The barrel tapers would have allowed me to lengthen the forcing cones to be parallel to the taper from 1 and 1/4" to 1 and 1 & 1/2" leaving the SAME barrel wall thickness as at the end of the chamber. Were I to lengthen the chambers by 1/4" I would not have reduced thickness by much because the tapers were not abrupt. Personally, I'd rather lengthen a forcing cone as that will allow a longer plastic cased shell to be fired while also reducing pressure within the pressure vessel (from the breach to the pressure seal on the wad). Lengthing a light British 12 ga 2 1/2" to a 3" magnum would be dangerous but more so just plain dumb! Aside from teh increased and unpleasent recoil of a 3" magnum fired in say a 6 lb "game gun", the 2 1/2" load has a lower mean working pressure than our good old USA 3" magnum at 11,500 PSI.

The point of the above paragraph is that properly done, lengthening chambers and forcing cones can be with the safety margin of a shotgun. I will concede that improperly done, a dangerous gun may be created. When in doubt, measure. It seems that far too many barrel failures were never measured to determine the problem. Heck, mandating a proof house for a few dangerous guns would be something similar to taking away drivers licenses from everyone over 70 years old! Most 71 year olds are pretty safe drivers.

I shoot many Damascus barreled guns. If one believed the stories about the weakness of Damascus their fingers would fall off if they even picked up a Damascus barreled gun! Some of us know that is far from the truth. Some of my heavier barreled Parkers and LC Smiths will occasionally fire modern factory hunting loads.

I also have a Parker Damascus 10 gauge with British 3 and 1/2 Ton proof marks. If affordable I'd send a few other Damascus guns for proof just for the fun of proving to the naysayers that good quality Damascus in good condition can be as strong as fluid steel. But then, that would be another story...

PS: I've been close to munitions from .17 caliber to those field pieces and rockets measured in inches for as long as you in both my personal and professional life. A friend did mistake blackpowder for PB and on his 4th shot blew a hole in a LAMINATED barreled early Remington double. He had those loads tested and they were at 24,000 PSI. That was a lot of pressure for any gun and it took 4 shots to burst the barrel a few inches ahead of the chamber. Other than than I can reall never being on hand when a chamber burst. A photo of my friend's blown barrel is in Murdelak's book SHOOTING FLYING.

Mark

You start off right on target in the above post, Craig. One purpose of proof is indeed to protect those who "don't know". So I inform the individual with the altered gun that it's possibly dangerous, and while he can keep it and shoot it if he wants to, I'd strongly advise against it. And, most importantly, he can't give it, sell it, whatever, to anyone else. Why, after all, would any honest, upright individual want to give or sell such a gun to someone else? The individual to whom he gives or sells the gun may well not be aware of the potential danger unless he tells them. That gun is essentially a wall-hanger unless or until it passes proof.

As far as "American proofhouses" go . . . one more time: American gunmakers already proof their guns. Have done so for a very long time. And we also have a cooperative professional organization (SAAMI) to which all American arms and ammo makers belong. But they do not proof guns. As for individual gunsmiths . . . yes, they could fire proof loads in a gun (assuming they could either get their hands on or make those loads, as did Bell and Armbrust in some of their destruction tests). But even a knowledgeable gunsmith lacks the equipment and the experience to do what a proofhouse does.

As for "sending guns in", some Americans do indeed send their guns to England for proofing. I don't know whether anyone here has done so, but I have correspondence dating back a few years from someone who then participated here. He reported that he sent an Elsie with Damascus barrels to England for proof. (The powers that be at his gun club wouldn't let him shoot it otherwise.) Maybe others here have done the same thing. But if you don't have a gun that's been altered significantly, it's unnecessary. If you have one of those, Craig, then maybe you should consider doing it.

Hi Larry, couldn't help but wonder about the nonanswers.

If I started off on the right track, why is it a wall hanger. The old family heirloom is completely original. Must have been proofed when made, right. You imposed your ideology and opinion on your uncle bob, and now he has some splain'in to do to the atf. Also, you never mentioned why your judgement should be consider sound if you desire to pass a gun on to an heir, while others need consumer protecting.

There was an earlier comment about leading a horse to water. I didn't mention bubba and a tire. If your comments mean anything to you, I led you to a scientific ballistic lab that supposedly will properly proof a firearm. I figure there're a couple dozen 'I'd do it if it were here' comments in this thread. Let's step up and give 'em some business so they'll expand the operation and we can suggest teaming up with saami for additional credibility.

Craig, I believe there were some 3" Parkers (assuming you're referring to the 20ga guns previously discussed), but not 3 1/4". Maybe I'm wrong on that. However, there still remains a serious issue: You give someone a gun with 3" chambers and tell them "Yessir, them's factory 3" chambers!" So then, what does the recipient of the gun think when he hears that--unless he happens to be fairly heavily into gun esoterica, like many of us here? Why, he thinks--logically enough--that that gun is good to go with modern, 3" 20ga ammo. Which it most decidedly is NOT. Once more, that gun would indeed need reproof, should someone decide that he wants to shoot modern 3" shells in it rather than the hottest ammo available back when that gun was made.

So Craig . . . if you own one of those, by all means--send it in, wherever you wish, for proofing appropriate to modern 3" 20ga ammo and let us know how it goes. That would be a proof at about 18-19,000 psi. I don't have any specific data for Parker 20ga proof, but 2 3/4" 12ga proof back then was at 16,000 psi. And I also kinda wonder what a steady diet of current 3" 20ga loads would do to the wood on one of those old 20ga Parker beauties.

You ever tried arguing with a rock ?

Well I'm gonna chime in one more time here. Let's just assume we pass this proof law to protect us Dummies, like Me. Also assume I happen to have one of those 20gas with a facory 3" chamber. Now in your own words you say it is "Decidedly Not" good to go with modern 3" magnum loads.

Now assume this gun is submitted for proof & "Passes". And you know what I would guess that its odds of passing are about 99.98% positive. here does this now leave our Dummie.

Not only does he believe all 3" shells are created equal, he now has the proof marks to back him up. And just why if a 20ga wears essentially the same stock & frame bar as does a 12ga which was originally built to handle 1¼oz of shot is 1¼oz from a 20ga at a slightly lower velocity going to create such massive destruction to either the frame or the wood??

On a lot of US doubles if you look at the frames you will see the bars are identical on both a normal 12, 16 or 20, the standing breech size is varied to fit the bbl breeches. The pressure of the 20 ga against the breech thus doesn't have as much leverage as does the taller 12 ga to bend or crack the frame. The light weight thin walled 20ga Flues can of course be an exception to this rule. "BUT" what if it should stand that "ONE" proof load, would that OK it for a steady diet of 3" Magnum loads. There is simply a lot to consider here, more than some are considering.

Well Miller, it might or it might not pass. We don't know until we try. I guess you could submit yours as the "guinea pig" gun, if you want.

But the main issue is that proof pressure back then, at least based on anything I can find, does not = proof pressure now. And as recently as 1940, the heaviest load available for the 20ga was 1 oz. As far as lower velocity, 12ga vs 20ga, according to my book there are current 1 1/4 oz 20ga magnum loads that do at least 1300 fps.

Regardless, if it passes proof--which is a good bit more than just firing one shell, as in the shade tree tire test--then it should be OK (at least the metal parts) with anything currently available. What a steady diet of 3" mags would do to the wood might not be so good. But then a steady diet of even standard target loads might not either, given the age of the wood and what might have happened to it in the many decades since it was made.

Well it is noted that both of the Parkers which Bell finally blew up took approx 30K psi to do the trick. Both of those guns would have passed proof. Buck Hamlin on one occasion took a hammer L C Smith 12ga Damascus & "Re-Chambered it for the 3½" shell. He then proceded to start with the max load of Blue Dot from Alliants manual & worked "UP". I don't recall that he actually had pressure testing equipment, but he loaded considerably higher than the max, in fact as I recall all he could get in the hull. That gun would undoubtably have passed even the 3½" proof.

Bottom line is we have learned to live with the system which has been in place since the first breech loader was fired on these shores. To try to go back & make anything retroactive & start re-proofing century old guns now is just not in anyones best interest.

I don't personally recommend it, but I know a good number of 20ga guns have been re-chambered for the 3" shell & used on a regular basis with the magnum loads. The whole idea here was to protect the "Masses". If I still had an FFL I would probably be all for this. I could then buy up old guns, rechamber them, let them pass proof & make a good return on my investment, selling them to the "Masses". I really wouldn't do this though as I try to discourage the use of modern loads in old guns.

I'm not submitting mine as a guinea pig, remember I'm talking "AGAINST" proof, not for it. But don't kid yourself, the major portion of those guns you are calling dangerous will pass the proof. Then they would have oficial sanction to cram any load one wants in them.

Yes I believe some 3" 20s have been loaded up to 1300fps, but some 12s have been loaded up to 1400fps or beyond. Generally speaking for the same charge of shot a 20 will have less muzzle velocity than a 12, BUT, YOU Know That Don't You??

I hate to interject in this lively conversation but I would like to make a comment as well as ask a question. Firstly, what we have been discussing in this thread in terms of reproof, only deals with guns with altered barrels, such as lengthened chambers, barrel honing, sleeving of barrels or any alteration of the barrel which is not original. I don't believe it has been suggested that century old guns, in their original condition in terms of their barrels, having to undergo a reproof. Secondly, and this question is for Larry, or any other person who knows the answer: Do all the gun manufacturing companies in the US conform to a standardized system of proofing their guns or does each company proof as it sees fit? Also, is every single new gun produced put through a proof process or is proofing done randomly where omly a representative sample of guns actually go through proof, say by lot?

Suggested or flat out stated. Secondly, didn't you notice the metal is probably ok and there's an implication that the wood needs proofing.

One suggestion, if you get an answer to the manufacturers proof question from Larry, you might reask it in a day or two to see if it changes. Why was it again that a US proof house is a good idea.

No only those which have been altered. The big problem here is we have not been under the same or similar systems as have the proof countries. These century old guns are not marked as to their original chamber lengths or bore sizes.

Who thus is going to determine if a 12ga for instance having a 2 7/8" chamber & a .752" bore was originally made with that length of chamber & bored for brass shells or if it has been lengthened & honed. On an English gun if it has a .752 bore & a "12" for bore size we know it was altered, not so on a US made gun.

Thus any gun which differes from the "SO-Called Standard" would need proofed or nothing would be accomplished. If I went to sell my 16ga Lefever with 3" chambers is my word that I "Think" it is probably factory good enough. Well if it is you may as well throw it all out the window. Its not the standard 2 9/16" of the era, thus would need proofed. I would personally hate to see it stand proof & then fall in the hands of someone who would begin feeding it a steady diet of the 2 3/4" magnum 16ga loads carrying 1¼ oz shot, based on the fact it had been proofed. This 16ga Lefever has heavy twist steel 28" bbls having a total weight of 6 3/4 lbs. There is little doubt in my mind it would stand proof, but I don't feed it heavy loads. 1oz is plenty with velocities not over 1200fps or pressures over 8.5K psi. Made somewhere between 1907 & 1915, lock up tight, is not pitted, has a good bit of CC & bbl bluing, why punish it.

I don't need it proofed for my protection, its been proofed by about 100 years of service. As I have stated to give it credability of a modern high pressure smokeless powder proof would actually do more to encourage its abuse than to protect any future owner, but that's just my opinion, but I'm sticking with it till I see some reasonably thought out facts to contrdict.

SAAMI has been recommended as the sourse for proofing. Are they going to set up a secondary proof for older guns on the order of the CIP proofs, I really doubt this could be pulled off. Even if it could I doubt that would have much effect on the folks that it has been stated need protection. They would see the marks, say this gun has been proofed & head for X-Mart for the hottest shells that would fit it.

Craig, wood isn't proofed. Anywhere that I know of. But then wood failure isn't a safety issue for the shooter (except maybe getting a splinter or something, if it's really a catastrophic wood failure!) Metal failure definitely is . . . as we've seen from some posts on this very BB.

Buzz, it used to be that arms manufacturers had different proof standards. But, as can be seen from the proofmarks on old Parkers, Elsies, and Winchester 21's, they did indeed proof their guns. I cannot state with a certainty that each and every gun being produced in this country undergoes proof. However, SAAMI establishes the proof limits which all manufacturers follow (voluntarily), just as all ammunition manufacturers test their loads for pressure and velocity. (Obviously, of course, you don't get to shoot the shells they've tested!) But here's what SAAMI says on the subject, which leads me to believe that all currently manufactured guns undergo proof testing: "In spite of many years of research, no economical or simple substitute has yet been found for the complicated and expensive methods and equipment USED BY FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS for pressure determinations." (Emphasis mine.) Even without a national proofhouse, given our litigious society, I'm pretty sure a lawyer could have a field day with a gun manufacturer that didn't proof their guns, in the event of serious injury to a shooter.

Miller, why do you insist on moving the discussion to what is or isn't loaded in 12ga guns, when we're talking about 20ga guns? The point is that 3" 20ga loads are both heavier and faster than they were back when those 3" Parkers were made--which both of us should know, since all we have to do is look at what was available then vs what is available now. Even if those guns would pass proof, does that mean they're good to go with a steady diet of those heavy loads? Of course not, particularly not century-old wood, even if the metal is OK. But then if I pick up an English gun proofed for 2 3/4" chambers and 1 1/8 oz loads, does that mean it's OK with any of today's 1 1/8 oz loads--including steel shot? Proof is not a 100% guarantee against either ignorance or flat-out stupidity, but it's better than not having proof. Were that not the case, why do we even have SAAMI's voluntary standards in this country? But if someone is going to volunteer to materially alter a gun, then he should be willing to volunteer to submit it for proof as altered, before that gun leaves his hands. Pretty much like--once again--selling a used car with the odometer rolled back. Not being able to do that is, IMO, a good law.

Craig you might as well be arguing with a telephone pole...

Well, Whiskey is proofed....and look where that gets you...No more intervention "for our own good" is required in this country period.....

This thread was "NEVER" Gauge specific, it was about instituting a proof house which would of course proof all gauges.
OF Course Larry, those old guns with long chambers were never intended for modern Magnum loads, no-one has stated otherwise. My Question has been "WHY" do you want to proof them for such. Slowly we are educating folks not to stick SAAMI spec shells in the older guns, but to either load special shells or purchase shells made for them.

If we give SAAMI the job of proofing these guns they will proof them to SAAMI specs. I don't want my old timers proofed to these higher specs, even though I have little doubt that they would pass it. Futhermore I don't want to encourage others to feed their's a steady diet of these heavier loads. Putting a mark on them that they had passed a maximum proof certainly would do nothing to encourage buying higher priced pecial shells for them, much more convenient to run to to the mart & pick up some regular ones.

I'm throuh, lets just say I am Agin ths proofing bit & lt it go a that.

Miller, I don't want to proof them for such. But anyone who wants to shoot 3" shells in those guns certainly should do so. Personally, I'd rather educate everyone off this BB, but that obviously is not going to happen. Thus the problem remains . . . someone without the collective knowledge assembled here picks up a 3" Parker 20ga, and what's he going to think? That it must be good to go with 3" shells, of course! But then those guns haven't been materially altered, which IMO is the real problem. And establishing the original chamber length etc isn't necessarily any easier with a Brit or European gun than it is with an American gun. Prior to the mid-20's, chamber length was not marked on either British or Belgian guns as a matter of course. In both cases--British/European and American--on those early guns, we'd have to resort to whatever factory records are available to determine the original configuration of the gun.

The previous issue with the destruction tests conducted by Bell and Hamlin also should be addressed. At least in the case of the guns Bell used, there were visible changes in those guns--so reported in his articles--before they blew up. Which means they would have failed proof before that final, hottest load that caused a catastrophic failure. Rather, they would have failed proof as soon as visible changes took place. And likely earlier than the visible changes reported by Bell, had they been subjected to the more vigorous "view" standards of a proofhouse.

Larry,

Bell's #2 frame Parkers would have been safe until failure at appoximately 30,000 PSI for fluid and Dasmascus steel barrels.

Isn't that why one would want a gun proofed, for safety?

Also, when failure occured the fluid steel burst with much schrapnel. The Damascus steel split open withour much schrapnel. Maybe we should outlaw fluid steel barrels and go back to the safer Damascus?

This is all good debate but how many chamber failures has each poster either witnessed, or were brought into your shop if you were a gunsmith. I think the number that people would swear to in court will be pretty low.

Mark

Why not have all guns over 20 years old be turned in and new made? Make it illegal to work on guns for any reason. Then everyone will be safe from gun failure.

That would be my fear of the US Government bureaucratic system regulating our sport. The BATF regulates the National Firearms Act and usually does a good job. Occasionally there are the well meaning or perhaps self serving AFT bureaucrats and agents who interrupt the NFA and AFT regulations to meet their ideals. We hear those stories and sometimes so does a US Congressional committee. Need I say more?

As Buzz properly stated, a breach failure could kill or maim severely. A commercial proof house to proof guns to either what they were designed to shoot, or at the owner’s choice, to modern proof pressure would be a good option for some people and guns.

A Government mandated proof program would do nothing more than fail and destroy many of our old guns or perhaps any guns with a lengthened forcing cone! I would not trade our US Government for that of our British friends, but I think the Brit’s bureaucrats must understand not to mess with something that works. If the British Government were smart they would start a program to efficiently, and a reasonable cost accept guns from the USA for proof and return to the US. Think about it? The Brits don’t mess with a good thing like proofing guns but because of either their importation or postal regulations, severely restrict US gun owners from doing so. Or are the restrictions those of our own US Government that choke off the export/import process? If the US Government can’t even reasonably allow a long gun to be exported to and return imported from Britain for proofing why would anyone trust it to regulate a national gun proofing program?

Let’s leave well enough alone,
Mark

And end this boring thread?

Controversial may be a better word than boring but I agree we are beating a dead horse here. Interestingly, I recently brought up proofing of guns at two different gun clubs. As opposed to the people involved in this thread most folks were open to the idea of proofing of guns. Unlike many here most of these guys could care less about archaic guns and are in to competition guns with all the barrel alterations which go along. Most felt proofing of these guns a good idea. Interesting dichotomy IMHO.

Mark--We've all seen failures reported here. On the wall of one club where I shoot hangs a Superposed, the obvious victim of a catastrophic failure. (Full disclosure: No one there seems to know the cause of that failure, and it could well have been some sort of barrel obstruction--far and away the leading cause of catastrophic failures.) Some years ago, Remington settled a lawsuit involving barrel failures. 870's or 1100's, can't recall which. Perazzi barrels have failed. So it's not like it does not happen, even with modern guns. Although I'll grant you that it's pretty darned rare, given all the shooting that goes on. And that's probably credit to SAAMI's firearms and ammunition standards. (And the same with foreign proofhouses.)

As for your Damascus vs fluid rupture comparison . . . can't remember who it was (maybe Payne-Galway, pretty sure it was one of the late 19th-early 20th century Brit writers) who suggested exactly the same thing: that a Damascus rupture would just "unwind", thus posing less threat to the shooter than a "shattering" fluid steel rupture. Which, I guess, goes to prove that there's nothing new under the sun.

I'm sure they were just humoring you, like an eccentric uncle who believes aliens are living in his attic.

Careful Genelang, with a statement like that someone might think you're a cop or something like that.....but then again, maybe you are right.

Brought it up a couple or three pages ago. hpwhite.com ballistic laboratory can proof your shotgun right here in the good old US of A. Isn't it an interesting dichotomy between the folks who know what's best for others and those who walk the walk.

Larry,

We've all seen or rather heard of the rare chamber failure. I ask who has witnessed one or had one brought into their shop. I'll certainly settle for an account from someone you know that blew one up.

My good friend "Bladesmith" mistakenly loaded PB for black powder. On his 4th shot with of 94 grains of PB in a lamanated barrered Remington double the chamber burst. He later had the remaining shells tested at around 24,000 PSI. That is the one and only chamber failure that anyone I know would swear to in court as to exactly what happened.

This is a good discussion even if our opinions differ.

Good and safe shooting to all,
Mark

No doubt chamber failures have occurred. However, I'll champion the most common (of the uncommon)"chamber failure" is a 20ga shell lodged in the forcing cone of a 12ga. It's an obstruction that will blow the chamber in spectacular fashion.

Today I called and talked to a gentleman at the H.P. White Laboratory. He informed me that for $600 they will, normally within a week, proof test a SxS.

I asked how their test compared to those of the Birmingham proof house and received no answer. He informed me that they do use SAAMI proof loads. Their personnel visually inspect a gun before the proof test and again afterward plus they use a "headspace" gauge for the final pass/fail gage.

They do not use any method to measure for permanent deformation other than their headspace gauge. From the man's description I visualized this to be an oversized representation of a cartridge. If it is able to be fully chambered then the gun will have excessive headspace. Of course, a shotshell headspaces via the rim of the shell. Maybe the headspace gauge referenced actually is slightly larget in diameter than the SAAMI maximum allowable for a chamber.

A good gunsmith could do that what this lab does.

Mark

There was a discussion on this before, but I believe the $600 fee from White Lab is more than it would cost to send it to England to be proofed, although you'd likely get it back quicker. The CIP superior proof is 19K +, which is very much in the SAAMI ballpark.

Mark, Greg Tag--who used to post here--was assembling data on Flues barrel/frame failures. Per an email I received from him, 13 years ago, he had 8 reports at that time. And that's only one model from one sxs maker, although there were a bunch of Flues guns made--and the general consensus is that the light 20's in particular are prone to frame failures when fired with loads for which they were not built.

I can't say any more at present, but I know of one barrel failure on a modern sxs from a well-regarded European maker. I did not see the damage to the gun, but I did see the damage to the shooter.

As for knowing what's best for others, I'm all for others knowing what's best for themselves--and not passing on potentially unsafe guns to others without full disclosure.

Larry,

We are much in agreement.

See you next year the at UP Shoot. Maybe we'll be squaded togetehr again. I'll shoot a 10 gauge of course!

Good shooting with you.

Mark

Mark: I want to thank you for checking this info with White Lab for us. $600 is cost prohibitive except for expensive guns IMHO plus it appears they only do cursory examination of proof. In other words, proofing by White's would be no more legitimate than that of the local gunsmith. Let's face reality. In order for proofing or re-proofing to be legitimate in the US it will require a standardized procedure that is reproducible and procedure that will satisfy requirements of certification in harmony with other legitimate proof houses. This, in my opinion, will require government intervention. With this in mind, the ultimate goal would be consumer safety and prevention of fraud.

What's a hand, an eye or even a life worth. I suspected there'd be complaints about the lab, heck give 'em a fair shake, they're doers. What if bubba gets his hands on a two hundred dollar pump gun, or god forbid, Larry thinks your gun is 'potentially unsafe'.

I can appreciate your concern. There is no safe gun and the real fraud is claiming there are other uses for guns besides killing people . Here's hoping you had a great Christmas, and have a Happy New Year.

What?

As a % of the total, I'm guessing there are more vehicles that kill people in this country than guns.

You can't legislate or regulate stupidity.........

Larry, that guess is so accurate, there isn't room for debate.

This has been a fun thread, but the American resistance to a government agency that regulates firearms would be absolute.
As with all governing agencies with control "from above," the wishes of the anti's would be slooowly interjected over time, so that your favorite Parker would be called in, condemned as "too old, unsafe, or some such pap, and destroyed.
I love this country......but I don't trust our government.
Besides.......Brown is as smart as a fox getting the hens in the hen house to cackle while he sits back and grins.

Sam Ogle, Lincoln, Ne

So is Larry the "The Old Brown Fox?" Of course no relation to other well known foxes... Both of whom are likable in their own ways.

Mark

Sam, that's the point. It isn't a Government agency here in Britain. I don't know about the rest of the countries with a Proof House though. Lagopus.....

Anyone who's been in a serious motor vehicle accident would probably agree that it's stupid not to buckle up. Some people will be stupid enough to do so even when it's illegal . . . but there won't be as many of them. So I'd say that it's possible to reduce the general level of stupidity via legislation.

Larry, I'm surprised at an ex CIA guy wanting a proof house. I kinda thought that a "slam dunk" house would be OK. Sorry, couldn't resist.
nial

Nial, not the place to get into a discussion of the whole WMD thing . . . but here's a hint: Stop and think about how the Americans and the Russkies did the arms reduction deal. They sent teams to watch us destroy ours; we sent teams to watch them destroy theirs. We knew Saddam had WMD's at one time, since he'd used them. And lacking evidence they'd been destroyed, the only assumption the analysts could make was that they were still there. So the "proof" worked very well with the Russkies and START. Too bad we did not have it with Saddam. As an ex-CIA guy, I thus believe . . . the more proof, the better.

Aint the same..totally out of context...Behind the wall...

It isn't a government agency, but apparently its rules are enforced by the government. Please explain the difference.

Larry, I think in order for us to have a legitimate proof house in the United States some legislation would obviously have to be passed to get the job done. I am a proponent of a legitimate proof house for several reasons but I want a proof house that proofs guns and that's it...that's all they do. If there is ANY sort of gun control earmarked in any sort of legislation with regards to a proof house, I would be strongly opposed and I would be extremely disappointed in myself for being a proponent in the first place. A proof house should proof guns and reproof guns with altered barrels and that is all they should do IMO. Guns that don't pass either are remedied or end up in a junk pile where unsafe guns belong and that is the only control a proof house should have IMO. BTW, I'm growing weary of this thread, aren't you??

Maybe, the more potential proof, the better.

In other words you are saying that if my gun doesn't pass proof and I refuse to fix it then the proof house should have the power to take my PROPERTY and destroy it? This fantasy proof house can kiss me where my hair grows short and the smell grows strong.

$600 for that service is ridiculous, I think in the Uk it is $150 for the real deal i.e. excluding user stupidity ,no normal load (what the gun is proofed for) will damage the gun or you , regards, Mike

I think you are right, the fantasy proof house is unlikely in the US and this whole discussion is probably moot....but if there is one, I believe it should have the power to prevent you from passing your unsafe and dangerous gun off to the next unsuspecting consumer.

Since I have never sold a gun in my life and never will this little problem would be handed down to the people who inherit my guns. In which case I don't think this fantasy proof house would get anywhere with them either because they are even more independent, freedom loving, and just plain ornery than me.

Buzz, I'm pretty much with you on all of the above. Gun control . . . Everyone knows about the Iowa Caucuses. What they probably don't know is that, in addition to voting for your party nominee for president, you also get to propose planks for the state party platform. At my 2008 caucus, I proposed that the Iowa CC law be changed from "may issue" to "shall issue". (Another attendee proposed the friendly amendment of "with reciprocity with other states", which I was happy to accept.) Iowa now has shall issue, with reciprocity. I'm guessing I wasn't the only person, in all the caucuses statewide, to make that proposal--but I'm proud to say that I'm the one who made it at my caucus. So that's where I stand on gun control.

As I understand the way the British proofhouse works, if a gun fails proof, it goes back to its owner--who can keep it, hang it on the wall, whatever, but cannot sell it. (Of course if it's a catastrophic failure, that pretty much settles the issue.) I wouldn't want whatever American proofing system we came up with to go beyond that, and like you I would not want to see any "gun control" aspects come from it.

Some entity would have to enforce this "no sale of unproofed" guns as well as record the guns in proof. Otherwise, you could stamp a proof mark on any gun you wanted to.

Thus, someone other than the owner and maker, has authority over your gun. To assume this is a benign entity is presumptious.

Larry,

I think that a gun that failed proof in Britian has a cut made into the chamber area. Then it cannot even be sleeved!

If I am incorrect perhaps on of our British members will advise.

Mark

The British handgun ban and amendment are very recent events and seem to be largely knee jerk reactions to isolated highly publicized crimes. I wonder how British law enforcement knew where all the handguns were, at least the legal ones, that needed rounding up.

Genelang, to answer your question. It would be the Proof House authorities that would take the offender to court as they could supply the expert evidence. I wouuld doubt if the 'government' would even know or care much as they would not bear the expense.

A gun failing proof just comes back to the person who submitted it. Nothing cut out of the barrel or anything. It can always be repaired and re-submitted. I have only had one fail proof and that was a little 20 bore hammer gun where the action cracked and it bent like a banana; barrels were o.k. The gun was repaired by the Gunsmith by stainless steel welding and re-submitted and it passed. I could sell it legally but I intend to keep that one anyway.

Craigd. I agree that our handgun ban was unfair and descriminatory. It wasn't the Proof House that supplied any information as they don't keep such detailed records. All handgun owners were registered with the Police and that is why it only affected legitimateley owned guns. Being close to election time was the driving factor on this one. It only affected England, Wales and Scotland as Northern Ireland were allowed to keep theirs as the government deceided that there was little evidence of firearms misuse in N. Ireland; the IRA, like fairies, therefore don't exsist. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man were not affected either.

Out of proof guns can be sold as the Proof House will issue certificates of unpovability in the case of intesting old guns in original condition that can then be sold as curios unintended for use. This is usually in the case of something with and unusual patent action that is rare and should be preserved. This allows it to be sold if accompanied with the relevent certificate.

The Proof House has been in exsistence since America was but a fledgling colony and it seems to have served us well without any problems so far. Lagopus.....

So, the selling of an out of proof gun would be a tort, even though both parties agreed upon the sale? Who would be the plaintiff in this court action, and how would they have standing?

I'm fine with the proof house in existence in England, or wherever else it has been in effect since we were a colony. That's not the issue here, as you'll discover if you read the title of this thread. You guys also drive on the wrong side of the highway, unlike most of the civilized world. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it would work for us.

Gene, the driving on the left side goes back to the days of knights etc. You wanted the guy you were passing to be on your right side, so your sword arm was free to take action if necessary. Guess they didn't worry about left eye dominant people with swords, although I don't know whether natural lefties were all trained to fight right handed.

If we buy handguns or any other kind of gun from a dealer, we have those 4473's--which the govt says they don't retain, but which dealers are required to retain. So it's not like there's not a record out there, somewhere, on most gun transfers in this country.

Well someone would have to complain or else none would be the wiser. It's just a form of customer protection. Yes, it does work for us and maybe it would work for you in some form or another.

Australia, New Zealand and Japan drive on the same side! Lagopus.....

We already have a similar organization - Underwriter's Labs - that examines electrical appliances and apparatus and if everything is grounded properly etc it receives an "UL Seal of Approval"

It is entirely private.

A domestic proof house that is a "real" proof house (not just some shade-tree smith that puts a few hot loads thru a gun) would serve a useful function - I can envision buying a good older shotgun with the sale contingent upon the gun passing proof. The seller could refuse, of course.

There are a lot of lengthened 2 1/2-inch chambers on some fine English guns and it would be much easier to send them to a domestic proof house than back to Birmingham or London.

Forsooth, nay. The French had as many knights as England, as did Spain, etc., and they all drive on the proper side of the road. At any rate, knights jousting pass left side (shield side) to shield side. The English drive perversely because it's part of their eccentricity.

Gene, the fact that the jousters are toting lances might have something to do with passing left to left. Otherwise, unruly horse might cause you to skewer your opponent before the "laissez les aller!" signal has been given. And the French didn't have as many knights as England after the English archers got done with them . . .

That's why we kept beating them! Lagopus.....

Even the world's largest democracy; that's India, drive on the left. http://users.telenet.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm

The English drive on the right side of the road, that is, The Left.
Americans drive on the Right side of the road because it is something else that they got wrong.

Salopian, we're just in the process of catching up with you Brits. We're starting to build roundabouts! Only problem is, because the only place I ever encountered them previously was in England, I have a tendency to turn left rather than right. I always figured roundabouts were just the British getting even with American tourist drivers, because we kicked you chaps out back in the 18th century.

If I remember correctly we used to have them - they were called "traffic circles" and they were largely gotten rid of in the late 40s and early 50s to help speed up traffic.

I think we do go around roundabouts anti-clockwise (left)

Roundabouts are pretty well self regulating and tend to keep traffic flowing better that traffic lights. Milton Keynes has some to spare so maybe we can start exporting some.

Larry, I thought we left rather than be kicked out. Anyway we did come back in 1812 and won round two! Then left again as we couldn't make headway due to the contra flow with the traffic. :-) Lagopus.....

What does any of this prattle have to do with guns or the original subject..Whats next? Recipes?

Speaking of recipes my wife found a new one for quail. Had me filtet the meat off of the breast bone and then she dipped them in egg batter with baking powder and some cayenne pepper and fried them. Then the usual cream gravy, mashed potatoes, and glazed carrots. Oh my it was fine. Night before last.

They were last seasons birds.

They were taken with double guns, mostly 16 gauge Lefevers, Ithacas, Parkers and Birmy boxlocks. The Birmy had nitro proofs, 2-1/2". The unproofed American guns seemed to work as well as the proofed Birmy.

Best,

Mike

Sounds good, Betty (Crocker) Love the way you got this mess back on topic. (Mexican Grenades)..Did I ever tell you about the 54 Hudson Hornet that I had adouble gun in once?

No maker's proofmarks on any of those guns, Mike? That'd be unusual, in my experience. An article in "Army Ordnance" from 1934, by LTC Calvin Goddard, reports the proof standards then used by Hunter Arms, Parker, and Ithaca. Can't say that I've looked for proofmarks on all the American guns I've handled, but I can say that I've seen proofmarks on guns from all 3 of those companies. Also Winchester and Fox. Further information on proof and proofmarks on American doubles can be found in Walt Snyder's Ithaca book, pp 78-79. An example of the Fox proofmark can be seen in McIntosh's book, p. 219. (I seem to recall other reference to proof in that book, but it has a particularly poor index.) For Hunter Arms proofmarks, see pp 189-190 of LTC Brophy's book on L.C. Smiths.

Jeez Larry, lighten up...

The point never was, LD, that American guns aren't proofed by the manufacturer. But we've already been around that mulberry bush at least a couple of times. However, it's grossly misleading to refer to "unproofed American guns".

Doesn't the title sum it up. I thought America does not meet some other standard of firearms proof.

Nit-picking but I don't believe the Winchester 21s were proofed by anybody. I think the barrels were regulated and chokes modified after shooting standard loads in them but I don't believe the 21s as part of the process had proof loads fired in them.


From Schwing's book - I posted the same paragraph on the thread about Winchester chopper lump barrels.

Each Winchester barrel forging had a large long surfaced integral lug. While the idea for interlocking barrels was not new it was an idea that was not employed at that time among other American double gun makers. In addition to this interlocking system, Winchester used soft solder, a mixture of 50 percent lead and 50 percent tin, to join the barrels togeth. Becasue of the strength and reliability of these barrels Winchester was proud to place th Winchester Proof Mark on them. As Edwin Pugsley so aptly put it, "the mark 'Winchester Proof' simply guarantees that it is a heat treated alloy steel of special analysis which is the best that we know at the presnt time for the particular purpose for which it is used."

The footnote to the Pugsley quote says it was in correspondence from Pugsley to Colonel W. F. Sigmund on March 10, 1932.

Mike. I used to own a 16 b Win 21 with VP stamped on it for Violent Proof load. I think they randomly proofed some of their guns but like you, certainly NOT every single gun.

I also have seen the "VP" stamp on 21's.

Craig, one more time--and I'll go slowly, so please follow, because as I said we've been around this mulberry bush several times:

What we do not do in this country, but the Brits are required to do under their rules of proof, is REsubmit a gun to the proofhouse when it has any of various significant modifications. For example, 2 1/2" chambers lengthened to 2 3/4"; 2 3/4" lengthened to 3". I'm not worried about newly-manufactured guns, but rather about guns that are modified and then passed on to the next owner, without that subsequent owner being aware of the modification or its implications. Barrels can even be sleeved in this country, but the gun not so marked. That's the "standard" we don't meet . . . for maybe the umpteenth time.

YADA YADA YADA....

Thanks for walking me through it Larry. I'm pecking one finger at a time on the keyboard for my benefit. What happened to your category of 'potentially' unsafe guns.

You've done a bunch of equivocating. If a new car can be subject to recall or a UL stamped blender zap someone, why can't a new gun have a defect. Every time I've asked how you gonna make shade tree bubba admit he lengthened a chamber there was an umpteenth nonresponse.

I'm beating around the ole bush because the justification is a roving target. You want to protect the unsuspecting consumer by trusting the vultures will proof on the honor system, but it's ok with you because you can spot modifications.

Craig, all asked and answered. Not my problem if you don't like the answers. The system--requiring reproof for guns that undergo various types of modification, such as chamber lengthening--works well in the UK. Why wouldn't it work equally well here?

And you can make shade tree bubba follow the rules the same way we make car dealers follow the rules about not turning back the odometer. The problem is, right now we have too many "shade tree bubbas" punching chambers that should not be punched. Good idea, IMO, to reduce the likelihood of that happening to guns that should not be modified--and present more of a safety hazard after modification than they did before. Used to be lots of people didn't wear seat belts. Lots more of them wear them now. All of these are good things, IMO.

For the "Some-Teeneth" time we simply do not have the same situation here in the US as the UK has. The Brits are "Re-Proofing" guns which were previously proofed to known standards.

If the goal is to protect "Bubba" it has to be mandatory. Make whatever you feel like out of the British system in that it is "Run by the Gunmakers" it is never-the-less Mandatory. There are many guns around which do not need to be fired with modern SAAMI spec loads, "Both" original as well as modified. This does not prevent Bubba from going down to his local Mart & buying his shells there.

The "ONLY" way of accomplishing the stated goal is to require "EVERY" gun sold in the US to undergo proofing with SAAMI Spec shells, even unmodified guns as well as those guns previously proofed under CIP specs. Bubba is after all going to fire SAAMI Spec shells in them if he owns one.

PLEASE! Just don't open up a can of Worms that ends up crawling all over us.

PS; I also am typing one fingered & real slow, because I realize many don't READ real Fast!!

PPS; It is also noted the "Odometer Law" did absolutely nothing to restore those cars previously run back, I do not recall it being retro-active.

Not a like thing Larry, I'm attempting to show there are problems with the philosophy.

Take for instance my point about your equivocating. As has been umpteenth refried, some folks want 100% registration with annual renewal for all guns just because that's what we do for cars. Thanks for making us all the better. Bubba lengthened a chamber, but said I dunno it was already that way, just like a shoddy brake job doesn't prevent a car from having it's registration renewed.

It would take several hundred years for an American proof house to achieve the romanticism of reading proof marks on a hundred year old British best gun. If saami were down the road from me, I'd still send that special gun off to get the proper marks placed on it, if needed.

Well Miller, it's also pretty hard to "restore" a gun that's had 2 1/2" chambers lengthened to 2 3/4". But it is quite possible to reproof it for modern 2 3/4" loads.

Craig, where did I suggest that I want any kind of registration for guns? If you're going to challenge me on something, I think I've posted enough on this thread that you should be able to stick with something I said, not something I didn't say.

Here's my point: I believe the old saying about not being able to legislate morality. However, you can legislate (or enforce) behavior. People stop at red lights even when other cars aren't around because they've learned that a red light means stop, and a cop might write them a ticket if they don't. Many people wear seatbelts not because they want to, but because of "click it or ticket". Similarly, Bubba will stop punching chambers if gun owners realize that a gun with punched chambers has to be submitted for reproof in order to be sold--unless the owner of said gun is prepared to do that. And that's a good thing, both for the guns and for the gun owners. Only my opinion, however, and anyone else is certainly entitled to disagree. But I like the confidence level I get when I read British/European proofmarks and find that the gun matches what those proofmarks tell me.

Larry, I pretty much agree with you, if that's any consolation. I think Miller has some good points to make. It would be a little complicated to get Proof in America going. On the other hand, if we had a Proof House, American arms companies might be able to produce some lighter weight, well-balanced guns which most upland game hunters covet.

Sorry Larry, no big deal. I believe I snip out your actual words and form my opinion. I know what happens if I buy a new or used vehicle, I have to register it. As far as I know, that's the legal record in my area for the mileage on a vehicle.

You did give me a little chuckle though. "Bubba will stop punching chambers if gun owners realize that a gun with punched chambers has to be submitted for reproof". You didn't let on when the consumer became educated, but you did say the unsuspecting consumer needed potential protection.

Never a good idea to try to "snip" someone else's words and form your own opinion of what they're saying. The likely result is that you read not what the other guy is saying, but your erroneous, "snipped" interpretation of what he's saying. You have a right to your opinion, but not to modify my opinion. The existence of a proofhouse and requirement for reproof as a result of modification does not = registration. The tag on the mattress tells me not to remove it, but that does not lead to mattress registration.

A requirement for reproof following significant modification is all part of the process of consumer education. And yes, I see consumer education as a good thing--other than for the Bubbas who are trying to sell their modified guns, or sell unwise modification work. I suspect more than a few people here bought guns that had been modified, did not realize it, but then--maybe as a result of this BB--became aware of what they'd done. Some, like me, probably had chambers punched by Bubba before they knew better. Better to know better sooner.

While we are on this comparsion with automobiles I will attempt to make a few points. I have not been looking at this subject in regards to Registration nor, I believe, has Larry. Automobile registration was never intended, nor any attempt made, to "Deprive" the citizenry of the right to own & operate any number of vehicles they could afford. The same Cannot be said of those desiring Gun Registration. That being said I do not perceive Registration as Larry's intent in favor of this nor is my objection to it based on this aspect.

While I understand the point of those in favor of this, my objection lies on grounds other than registration.
My concern is "IF" it is not made retro-active to include all guns sold, nothing will be accomplished. To go back to the odometer comparsion I can sell any vechicle I might own made prior to the law irregardless of what may or may not have beeen done to its odometer or if it even still works or not, this law made no attempt to "GrandFather" in Older & Antique automobiles.
To make an attempt to GrandFather all the older guns in existence in the US, most with unmarked bore dias & chamber lengths is simply something I don't think we want.
As I recall "ALL" guns proofed in England were marked with the gauge of their bores. Thus a 12ga overbored for brass shells would not be marked 12, more apt to be 11 or 11/1 after 1887. One of the "Chamberless" guns would probably be marked 10. Early guns were not marked for chamber length but after 1904 at least one can determine with reasonable certainity the original chamber by the load it was proofed for. Between 1887 & 1904 it wil have either a C or LC mark, & while this does not denote an absolute chamber length it does offer some limits.
This situation simply does "NOT Exist" on guns built in the US. I have already mentioned that many Lefevers, as well as other early American makes, were bored for brass shells, I have Lefevers with oversize bores which I "Suspect" left the factory that way. I also have several 12ga Lefevers with 2 3/4" chambers & the one 16ga I mentioned with 3" chambers.
I have no intention of using these guns with current SAAMI spec shells nor do I have a desire to have them proofed for such use. I know the proposed law would only apply if I wanted to sell them, but If I did decide to sell them I really don't want to go through the hassel of trying to prove they are original nor the expense of having them proofed. I would much rather sell them to someone who understands them for what they are & with plans to use them accordingly.

Snip or no snip, I do not believe that was Larry's intent either. It does seem like you got my point though. Larry uses examples that have nothing to do with nor do they support the case for a mandatory proof house in America.

I see Larry's justifications as changing and evolving, the ends justify the means. Way back around the biggest of mulberry bushes, he was sure mandating British style proof marks on some guns was going to protect uninformed consumers. Now, there is a consumer education component to contend with. I see another huge problem here, as the the reason for a proof house was because the consumer could not be trusted to acquire the proper education on their own.

Buzz noted he would be the most disappointed of all if the imposition of a proof house was used for anything other than lofty ideals. Trouble is to me, I haven't noticed any possible safe guards against using a proof house to pursuit opposing agendas. The vehicle analogy may not fit completely, but I've noticed how it is much more expensive to drive something that isn't on some pc correct list.

I think it's pretty clear the majority of Americans on this site don't want a mandatory proof law in the US.

On the other hand if others believe it is such a large void in services available in the US, they might want to look into investing in such a business with their savings.

Me? I think there's a dozen or two old double guys a year that want the service in the US.

I think we're pretty much floggin the pony here.

Thanks Chuck, Especially for your revealing and enlightening comments as to how you really feel on the subject. It was helpful. I agree, most Americans on this board are against a Proof house in America. But, what you fail to mention, however, is this is a wholly skewed population and in NO way reflects the general gun owning public. Many, if not most of the people on this board are into archaic/ancient guns.....not what the average American is interested in. And if you review much of what is talked about here, or have reviewed many threads, much of what is of interest is that of very, very old guns. Well. it's not 1812 now, nor even 1912 now......it's the year 2012 and it is time for a better system of dealing with guns, both old and new, in America. Will this happen tomorrow??...I seriously doubt it. But, it will happen, and the sooner the better for consumer safety, and the general good.

It is 2012 alright, buzz. And the buzzword is "you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, you can blame someone else (and probably sue them, too). What happened to investing the time necessary to learn all you can about how to identify potential problems with something before you buy it? No, today it is popular to blame someone else when something goes wrong that you should have had the foresight to see yourself.

As in, learning for yourself what could be wrong with a gun that would make it potentially unsafe. Much easier to transfer the personal responsibility to an agency, and let them make the decisions for you isn't it? Except that the personal pride that comes from having the power of knowledge is not there.

Pay somebody else to do it. Today's byline.

SRH

Buzz,
Another law to regulate an extremely small segment to protect an even smaller segment, resulting in limiting or mandating actions of a huge segment seems to be the trend. But it's all for our own good, right?

Bingo!

Speaking as an outsider it seems odd that in a County so enamoured with compensation and litigation I am amazed that any one actualy goes out to shoot with out a lawyer present .When shooting[thats hunting to you] you all wear high visability clothing ,yet it seems some of you have no or little concern over the saftey of the guns you buy or use, reading some of the posts on this and other sites .I would have thought that as a group shooters would have wanted some kind of standards across the board.
Is it some kind a National fingers up to the government or just that you feel its an infringement on you personaly?
I would imagine that there are standards of safty on all elctrical equipment you buy , as there are on pharacuticals, food and cars in the US . So why not guns and ammunition .

Yes. Our gun rights have been under attack by the lefties for forty years (that I know of) and any law that taxes, legislates, regulates, licenses, certifies, registers, or tracks guns is generally seen by me as an avenue to attack personal gun ownership.

A home with a swimming pool is more likely to have an accidental death in it than a home with a gun. I am both a shooter and a hunter and I spend a lot of time around shooters and hunters and I know only one that has had a barrel blow up on him. It injured his arm. My older sister and many of my friends died in automobile accidents over the years. I have had friends die in motorcycle accidents. In the overall scheme of things the likelihood of being killed or injured by a bad doublegun barrel is pretty low. Espcially when you look at Sherman Bell's tests.

I do have a wall thicknes guage and measure the wall thicknesses before I buy the gun, much less shoot it.

I don't wear hunter orange unless I am hunting with strangers.

Best,

Mike

Gunman,
Yes, it's a figurative flip to the gov't and we feel an infringement. Everytime a new law is made, it takes some freedom away.

There are currently no laws preventing people in the U.S. from doing many many things that could conceiveably have dangerous consequences. Should we have laws for all of that? How about people that want to do their own work on cars? Just think, if someone did the brakes incorrectly on their car and they failed. They could kill a number of people. How about the unsuspecting buyer of a used car worked on by an owner? A law in the U.S. preventing unlicensed owners from working on their own car could completely destroy a huge aftermarket "hotrod" industry that employs numbers likely in the tens of thousands or possibly more. The 'law of unintended consequences' is repeated over and over as new laws are legislated.

Our municipal, county, state, and federal governments are all in financial trouble. Yet people want more laws. Each law costs money to create, maintain and enforce. We have full-time legislators that have a work product that costs something to us. Our human resources manager told us in our firsts manager meeting of the year that there were 760 new laws from federal, state, and local gov't. Then, when our federal legislators get bored, they create criminals by having "investigative hearings" and when someone like a baseball player doesn't tell the truth about taking steroids years ago, he is pursued by our federal gov't at the cost of millions to the public. All for what?

So, yes! It's a finger to the gov't. Why do you ask?

Just that you Americans take so much interest in the activities of the British proof houses ,yet you are so reluctant to take the plunge and get you own proof authority .

Gunman I agree. Quite a paradox. And I am that way myself. Have a great interest in everything to do with British shotguns including the proof houses. I much appreciate that you are posting here too. I read all your posts and am fascinated by your memories and experiences in the British gun trade.

Also, tn regard to the bright colors. in several states Aunty has decided that hunters need to wear Blaze Orange. Not in Texas though.

Best,

Mike

Gunman,
Yes, it's an interest here, but it's primarily the vintage English gun collector/shooters that actually have an interest in using a proof house. And it's a small segment of those English gun collectors that have that need. So, in the scheme of things, it's a tiny number.

Having a technical interest is a lot different than wanting proof law.

gunman, would you happen to know if one of the requirements to proof a gun in Britain would be for it to be properly registered.

I think it would be a true shame to be forced by law to put an American proof stamp on a vintage British best gun.

As Ronald Reagan said in the debates (back when they were more interesting!): "Now there you go again!" Craig, do me the courtesy of sticking to reading what's ON the lines I write rather than imparting your bizarre spin to what you think you can find BETWEEN the lines. "Acquiring the proper education . . . " Oh, if it were only so easy. When I look at a gun, I can tell what length the chambers are, because I have a chamber gauge. I can measure bore and choke, because I have a bore and choke gauge. I can measure wall thickness, because I have a wall thickness gauge. So it ain't only education that's at issue, Craig, but also a whole kit full of tools--and knowing how to use them--as well as knowing what to look for. To those that don't have all those tools, we often say "Take it to a good gunsmith for an evaluation." Well, that's practical for me right now, because Mark Beasland doesn't live that far down the road. Hugh Lomas is a bit farther away. When I lived in Iowa (more densely populated area than the part of WI where I now live), I didn't have a single experienced doublegun smith anywhere near me. So, good advice, but it doesn't work for everyone. And not everyone who goes out to buy their first sxs is going to read this BB before doing so. So, once again . . . do I prefer the system that exists in England and other CIP countries to the nonsystem that exists here? Yes I do. Do I recognize that such a system would be difficult to create here? Again, yes. But I find it much more comforting to pick up my vintage Sauer and know from the proofmarks that the fact it's overbored does not mean it's been significantly tampered with (and is in fact "out of proof" due to bore diameter as a 20ga), but rather that it left the factory that way. As opposed to picking up a vintage whatever American gun, and not being sure whether it left the factory with 2 3/4" chambers (unless I can access the factory records) or whether Bubba decided it ought to be 2 3/4" so the owner can run down to WalMart for ammunition. To me, determining which of those is a preferable situation is a no-brainer.

ALL gun banners without exception start with " In the interest of public safety".Do please look at what has happened to the Brits since Oh,say WW2.

Larry the reason I snip out the quotes are to highlight your actual words, and let others know that there was more either before and or after if they feel I've taken something out of context. Instead of calling you bizarre, erroneous, etc., I remove the stuffing and get to my opinion of the point of the issue.

Take for instance your last post, thank you for expanding on your level of knowledge and the tooling that goes along with it. It adds to your credibility, but how does in reconcile with the above quote, 'process of consumer education'. You propose a government run proof house, with no plan to force compliance, unless you plan law enforcement spot checks of gun shows and dealerships. Maybe, full time positions dedicated to tracking, identifying and prosecuting one bubba at a time, admittedly my read between the lines.

Anyway, whose gonna do the educating and how are they going to determine its effectiveness. You'd think it would be the government proof house as stumbling on an adequate forum may not be reliable. I believe it's reasonable to question off hand comments that are presented as givens, eg. the above passing mention of education. I believe it's also reasonable to point out that some 'equivocating' doesn't make the case, and why not be open to reading between the lines.

I'm sorry that it rubs you wrong, but I appreciate the good discussion. You offer much more than my way is the best. I always enjoy visiting relatives in your now home state, hope there were a few grouse around your area. It was shirt sleeve warm when I was there in October, so it was walleyes instead of ducks.

Take care, Craig

The last time I filled out a life insurance application there were many questions about how I lived my life:

Are you a pilot?

How much do you fly a year?

How many hours do you have?

Do you ride a motorcycle?

Do you drink alcohol?

Do you use tobacco?

Do you use illegal drugs?

Have you ever been treated for addiction?

Have you ever been arrested for DUI?

Some questions that weren't on there:

Do you eat game taken with lead projectiles?

Do you hunt?

Do you shoot unproofed shotguns?

Best,

Mike

Craig. All guns submitted to British Proof are currently recorded. The Proof houses are exempt in British law of any licence themselves. 30 years ago I took guns to proof and was never asked for any authority to posses. But things have changed ,thanks to stupid politicians, so I would assume that all guns submitted privately would need to be licenced. All guns submitted by the trade would need to be on an RFD licence.
Reciprocal proof arrangements have been in operation for years ,the main criteria was that one country would recognise the proof of another if it had a state controlled proof or a proof house run under Government statute. This was prior to the current CIP arrangement. Thus a gun proofed in Italy for example would have its proof status recognised by the US [if the US had proof houses run under Fedral statute] and vice versa.No need to reproof unless necessary for what ever reason.

Am I to take it that British Proof would thus not be recognized by other countries as it has "So Forcibly" been pointed to us Rebellious Colonists that British proof is run by the "Gunmakers" & "NOT" the State/Government???

Me-Thinks you Brits have run afoul trying to convince us your proof does not have the teeth of the Gov in it.

Thanks gunman, I was just curious. I tried to read up on it, but didn't have any luck.

I'm truly surprised the EU hasn't taken over proof law and standards completely over there. They control standards on everything from toothpaste to airplanes. I'm sure they'll get to this oversight eventually.

Miller, you might want to do a bit more research into CIP. The Brits are members of the same INTERNATIONAL proof organization as the French, German, Spanish, Italians . . . almost every major country in the world where guns are actually made (except ours, where SAAMI operates on somewhat similar principles, with differences previously noted in this thread). So British proof is definitely recognized by other countries.

Craig, sometimes my posts are long enough without explaining everything, so I sometimes omit things which, to me, are obvious. Reproof and consumer education . . . If there's a requirement for reproof, then the consumer will eventually be aware of that requirement. Even as consumers are aware of the law that prohibits car dealers from turning back odometers. So, say a gun has had its chambers lengthened from 2 1/2" to 2 3/4". When that happens, the gun receives reproof marks indicating that it is now 2 3/4". Given the presence of those marks, would you not say the consumer is now more "educated" on what shells he can safely use in the gun in question? It's a much shorter and more concise version of the owner's manual that you get with a car, or with various other things you may buy. The owner of the gun no longer has to guess whether Bubba lengthened the chambers without submitting it for reproof. It's now right there, stamped in the metal, plain as day, for him to see. Just like the "19" on my Sauer tells me that the gun left the factory overbored in comparison to standard 20ga bore diameter. In both cases, the owner knows more about it than he would without those proof/reproof marks. All of which is good, IMO.

Larry, Don't you think I Knew That??
My post was in responce to this, as Quoted;

Go back through all 26 pages of this thread & count the times we have been told that British Proof is controlled by the "Gunmakers" & ""NOT"" the Government. (Note the inconsistency of that with the above criteria for recognition)
It appears to me Lary your main problem is you may be a fantastic writer, but you don't read worth a Hoot. I can read & ususally understand pretty well what I read, that's why this inconsistency stuck out so.
You have totally & consistently ignored the fact as I have pointed out that we don't have the background with American built guns to determine if a gun left the factory with "19 or 20" gauge bores.
Until finally presented by irrefutable proof I definitely recall over the years you kept insinuating that all older American guns having chambers longer than 2 5/8" had been rechambered for that was the "Standard". (How many others would take this same attitude?)
The only way this could work at all iis more than one standard for proof would have to be set up (Not likely to happen here) or all guns sold would have to be proofed to SAAMI standards (Undesirablefor many older guns).
This also you continue to ignore, we simply cannot go back to the beginning of the American breechloaders & implement proofs on them as was done in the other countries.

Worlds apart Larry, but that's ok. 'Eventually' be aware is one of those assumptions that get slipped in that will not happen by osmosis. Say you're an ag who doesn't like some laws, you don't prosecute. Say you want to get the message out about turning back odometers, you prosecute to set examples. The only other way to educate would be for a politician, probably no agenda right, to allocate money for a media campaign.

There are volumes written on the subleties of proof marks. They are part of the history and charm of European arms. I'd bet a proof would be a three page disclaimer if we were being told what kinds of shells could be used in a given gun. What's the point, back a few pages, you threw out the notion that there were many original guns that needed reproof because of 'potential' problems.

Which leads to original factory proof marks, or what looks to me like your preference to have a spec sheet stamped on a gun. I'm all for a manufacturer doing whatever they want before the gun goes out the door, if there're disclaimers instead of a nice finish showing, I'm not interested. So, we end up educated anyway. I'd bet classic Sauer overbore would have very little resemblance to modern competition skeet barrel work. I know it should be reproofed, but isn't the consumer assured of safety because they recognize a '19' on it.

I only attempt to show your mandate, as previous, relies on honest educated idealists. If we can assume we have that consumer, what do they need protection from. Reading between the lines is a no no, but haven't every concern of proof houses been verified by members who live under those requirements. I think back to the Clarke that was reproofed and had a barrel failure on the first clay target outing, does anyone know of a situation where a proof house raises their hand and says yup it's on us, one slipped through the cracks. Or, is the truth of the matter that proof isn't worth squat once it leaves the proof house door.

Google this - "barrel burst" injury death

Then this - "swimming pool" drowning death

There are many more shotguns in the USA than swimming pools.

Burst barrel deaths and injuries are nearly non-existent. The best argument against a USA proof house is that we don't need it.

The second best argument is that the Lefties will use it in their guerilla war against our gun rights.

Best,

Mike

Gee Mike, what are you saying! Isn't "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" the absolute truth.

Steve

This whole idea of creating a "Proof House" in this country is ludicrous. Even if it didnt start out that way, it would become a Govt run body at some time. WE DONT need any more legislation or Govt agencies. What the **** ever happened to personal responsibility?

Like I said before, if someone really believes that there are a lot of people that want to have their guns voluntarily proof tested in the U.S., they should invest in a proof house as a business venture.

Those seeking a law to "protect us" should also think about legislation restricting people from working on their own cars, houses, tractors, baby buggies, training their own horses, training their own dog, etc. I mean, jeeze, how many injuries and deaths could we prevent? "Even one would be worth it"

Chuck,
I was just out in CA visiting my brother in Fremont over the holidays. I used to live in Menlo Park back in the mid-70's and loved it. CA has become such a Nanny State since I lived there that I don't think I could ever move back. My brother told me some horror stories about how the state had intruded into his life that made me sick (he wasn't allowed to replace his own hot water heater, it had to be done by a "licensed professional") he and his wife had to stay in a motel for a week while the utility company fooled around fixing an above-ground, after the meter, gas leak at his house. All they had to do was pull the meter and then send a crew around to fix it. What BS, but that's CA in 2012!
I'm sure your second paragraph above "Even one (life) would be worth it" was said tongue in cheek. Haven't these morons ever read Darwin, maybe if some of these fools removed themselves from the gene-pool, the world would be a better place. When I moved back to Houston from Chicago in early 2007, I couldn't get over how bad the Houston drivers were. Then it dawned on me, Houston wasn't blessed with 6 months of icy roads where the real idiot drivers could remove themselves from the gene-pool. Darwin had it right!
Enough ranting for now, sorry.
Steve

So, will the REAL 2 piper/Miller please stand up?? If you "know" that British proof is recognized by other countries, then why the above question? Looks like you knew it before you didn't know it, or something like that.

If you can't recall your own posts, only a page or so apart, how is anyone to believe that you "recall" mine from years ago? Frankly--might be because I'm a poor reader, or maybe because you're a poor writer--but I can't understand what it is you're trying to say about what you "recall" I believed about chamber length on old American guns. I've known for quite some time (all I have to do is glance at the shell lengths listed in my 1940 Shooters Bible to remind me) that not all American guns were chambered 2 5/8"--those were 12's, most of the short 16's being 2 9/16" and the short 20's 2 1/2". In my writings on vintage American guns, I always point out that the change to the current 2 3/4" standard for those gauges did not happen all at once. For that matter, individual companies went to the 2 3/4" "standard" for different gauges at different times. My library includes the Brophy book on LC Smiths, in which the inscription indicates it was given to me by an old friend over 20 years ago--which I think may even predate this BB. And certainly ever since I've had that book--which includes a diagram from 1938 (p. 228) showing the 12ga with 2 3/4" chambers and the 16ga with 2 9/16" chambers--I haven't been very confused about what was going on before all the American companies finally stopped producing short-chambered guns. Methinks your recall is confused . . . or else I don't understand what it is you're trying to say.

What's the point, back a few pages, you threw out the notion that there were many original guns that needed reproof because of 'potential' problems.

[/quote]

Not much to respond to in your latest, Craig . . . other than the above. Here's the deal: We know, for a fact, that American guns with short chambers were proofed at a lower pressure than those with 2 3/4" chambers. So . . . Bubba takes that original short-chambered gun and bores it out to 2 3/4", so he (or the customer foolish to patronize the shade tree gunsmith in question) can shoot modern 2 3/4" shells in that gun. We know, for a fact, that the SAAMI pressure standard for modern 2 3/4" shells is higher than it was for the old short shells. We know, for a fact, that Bubba has removed metal from the chambers. And we know, for a fact, that's right where pressures are the highest. Please don't insult your or anyone else's intelligence by telling us that's not a "potential" problem. My stress, throughout this thread, has been on guns that have been modified. Guns which, if we were in a country which had a proofhouse and proof laws, would have to be submitted for reproof before they could be legally sold. Yes indeed, I do think that would be a good thing. Only my opinion. If yours is different . . . well, just go right on ahead and have Bubba bore out all the guns you want, and go right on ahead and shoot modern shells through them. You're the one taking the risk, not me.

Larry where are the dead and wounded caused by all these dangerous barrels? I know one person that has had a barrel burst and I hang around a bunch of shooter and hunters. I know many that were killed by auto accidents, general aviation small aircraft, motorcycles. Swimming pools are certainly more dangerous.

Lary; JUST HOW IGNORANT" can you get. Of course I knew what I wrote & remembered it well. MY whole point was we had been flooded with remarks about how the "Government Had Nothing to do with British Proof". Then we are told it was recognized "Because it was State or Government controlled". You can't have it both ways, if it is not mandatory & legally enforced then it isn't recognized. That wasn't a jab Larry, that was meant as an "UpperCut" for the KO, I highly suspect everyone on this board got my point but little ol Dumb you, for you still just can't seem to comprend what you read. I have not changed my stance on this at all, have been totally consistente, the stated purpose simply cannot be acheived without total mandatory proof of every gun sold in the US. No mention has been made of enacting a proof law, "Starting Now", no it has been suggested for those guns already in existence, which were not marked with chamber lengths, bore diameters etc. I'm just trying to get some of you folks to take a long hard look at what you are asking for.

I think HomelessjOe summed this thread up back on about page 15 or 16 or so.

....Please don't insult your or anyone else's intelligence by telling us that's not a "potential" problem. My stress, throughout this thread, has been on guns that have been modified....[/quote]

Hey Larry, thanks for squaring me away.

No there you go, taking my quote out of context, now I'm really steamed. Just kidding, take it anyway you might want. Can I point out two things.

First, the quote you selected says, drum roll, 'original', but feel free to assume that means bubba punched out the chambers. Second, and please check if it'll help, you used the word 'potential' when unbubba'd original guns had the misfortune of leaving the factory as a 3" 20ga or 3 1/4" 12ga.

If there wasn't much to respond to, take a look at what I had to work with. Give your case a bit more credit than that...maybe? May as well laugh about it, we're never gonna scratch back this waist of time. I never did care what bubba does to his or his customers guns. That's their business, but I do care about this wounded nation.

People on this BBS should have figured out by now that arguing with Larry Brown is futile. He is often correct, sometimes not, but WILL ALWAYS have the last word...

Just like a woman I used to date.

Miller, I guess "ignorant", in your world, equals reading what you wrote and comprehending it. Not too bright on your part to ask whether British proof "would thus not be recognized by other countries" when you know full well that it would be, and is. You may have been trying to throw a "knockout punch", but worded the way you worded it, you missed the other guy and ended up hitting yourself.

Craig, it is indeed a "potential problem" if an original, unbubbaed, unmessed with gun is marked as 3" when that does not mean what it currently means. We've determined that those guns were not designed to shoot current 3" shells. But the vast majority of current gun owners have absolutely no clue that there were, at one time, 3" 20ga shells which were loaded with essentially the same shot charge and to the same pressure standards as the old 2 1/2" 20ga shells. So yeah, Mr. 21st century gun owner gets his hands on something that's marked both 20ga and 3", and darned right he's likely to start feeding it 20ga mags. And darned right that's a potential problem.

Mike, I realize that this has been a long thread, but it's not just about people dying or getting seriously hurt. Previously referenced, but just as a reminder: straight from this BB--darn, even on my birthday!--13+ years ago: "As many people on the BBS know, I am currently gathering real data for Flues barrel and frame failures. To date I have 8 reports . . . " There you go. And that's only one make (and only one model) of classic American double. So, is it worthwhile, if you own one of those guns, to know what you ought to shoot--and ought not to shoot--in them? Is it worthwhile to know that just because the chambers have been lengthened to 2 3/4", it doesn't mean you ought to go ahead and shoot modern factory 2 3/4" loads in those guns--unless you're willing to take the additional step to have the gun proofed for those modern, higher pressure loads? Is it worthwhile letting bubba the gunsmith know that he shouldn't punch chambers just so the owner CAN shoot 2 3/4" shells in an original, short-chambered gun--when in fact what he's doing is making the gun weaker, thus less safe with those shells?

I think I've now circled all the mulberry bushes in this discussion multiple times. I have my opinion, I've stated it clearly, I've answered every question asked of me--in some cases multiple times. You're welcome to yours if it's different. We already proof test modern guns and shells, and it has not resulted in Communism gaining a foothold on our shores. None of it has anything to do with registration of firearms. What it does have to do with is educating both gunsmiths and gun owners/buyers to practices which are harmful to the guns in question, and yes, potentially to their owners. If gunsmiths think that punching chambers is a good idea and that it will in fact make guns safer to use with longer shells, then why should they object to subjecting their practices to proof testing?

Unless someone has an UNANSWERED question, I'll leave the last word to Last Dollar, just so he doesn't feel left out.

Larry how many of those 8 reports were about barrel failure?

How many deaths and injuries from those 8?

A solution to a problem that isn't.

Thanks for your considered and polite response.

I will leave the last word to others also.

Best,

Mike

Word

I feel like the chump for jumping back in, but maybe all the educating that would eventually come around with a proof house has no hope of happening. Most of the guns in question are around a hundred years old now, plenty of time to learn by dumb luck. But, if you prefer to nanny folks, I doubt we'll know how to treat and feed these guns another hundred years from now, as long as there are agendas.

I'll watch for your articles, but please don't mess up the DGJ too much. It's the only magazine/subscription that I've valued from the start and continue to do so. Other mags come and go, but it'd be tough to humor back door gun control from 'friends' at the DGJ.

I decided to mulberry bush the registration comment, because of willful selective ignoring of the facts. When I drift off in an interesting article, I like to pretend I'm getting decent info. It's entertainment, why do you have to kick me in the shin to put the skeptic guard up.

Larry: I'm in Louisiana hunting Timberdoodle now but checked in on this thread. Wow. These guys are so closed minded it might be easier convincing Lenin or Stalin communism is a bad thing rather than trying to show the virtues of a Proof House to the members here. IMO, they are ganging up like a pack of coyote.

There is no virtue...

After 3 years of thinking about this issue, and watching our current government in action with their gun control initiatives and all, I'm pretty sure jOe and many others here with similar sentiment are right.........A Proof House in America would be a disaster. No argument from me now.

Buzz,
Now that you resurrected this thread, I must say I like the idea of a PRIVATE "proof" SERVICE. Something along the lines of Tom Ambrust's service for shell pressure. I was like a cat on a hot tin roof when I shot my 20ga damascus Flues for the 1st time. Even after having the barrels checked out. To many wives tales.

Just a thought.
Ithaca1

Careful of stiring up this hornet's nest again. The British system actually works well because no-one has to have their gun proofed to be able to use it; that is a matter for the individual. It just becomes an offence to sell, or offer for sale, a gun that isn't so proofed. It protects the purchaser and anyone can go to the proof house to have a gun tested. In fact 'a private proof service' that you advocate. It has meant that I have been able to resurrect guns that could have become scrap and got them back into the field again and also brings peace of mind. It works here and I wouldn't want it the other way. Here it is regulated by the Gun Trade and not the Government. Lagopus.....

Yes Lagopus. But I remember recently Dig was lamenting a recent change in 'rules of proof' in England where tighter tolerances have been established and have thus rendered many old guns that were 'in proof' now 'out of proof'. Government can do things like that on a whim. I think the testing of guns where barrels have been altered is a good idea in general, but it's the mandatory thing that bothers me, and as your government has done, changing the rules on a whim, and making those rules mandatory, it's not a good thing. I believe in England's case, it's another step towards more gun control and the same thing would happen here!

The real value of a proofhouse, to the buyer of a used gun, comes in those various proofmarks. Was my gun originally 2 1/2" or 2 3/4"? For about the last century, one glance at British proofmarks would answer that question. American guns . . . you might be able to find out, IF the company's original records survive. Otherwise, you have a pre-WWII American gun, you're guessing whether it left the factory with short chambers. And very few gunsmiths who punched out chambers bothered to mark the gun with the new chamber length. Much less when the work was done.

Proofmarks also help date a gun, which is otherwise difficult to do unless company records survive. (Down to the month and year, in the case of many German guns.) Which again helps tell you--if it's not otherwise indicated on the gun--whether it had short vs 2 3/4" chambers when it left the factory.

Lagopus, you don't have total regulation of your system by the Gun Trade. Surely they don't run jails for those who violate the rules of proof. The gun trade may set the rules, but it's your police and legal system that handle enforcement. Our gun trade also sets rules. However, those rules no longer apply once the gun goes onto the second hand market. That's where our system--or lack thereof--provides less peace of mind than yours.

Yeah Larry re value, but the real intent of a Proof House WAS to insure a gun's safety to the public. However, under government control, it appears that a Proof House is now a vehicle for gun control, at least in the UK. If it's purpose was only that of gun safety, I would be all for it. But, it appears to have evolved in to much more than a safety issue, at least in the UK, where now with the changes in proof tolerances, it appears to me to be about control as opposed to safety. Also, Lagopus states proof is regulated by the gunmakers and the trade, but if it is 'illegal' to sell a gun out of proof, then that constitutes a criminal act which indeed involves the government (and according to Wikepedia, subject to a £5000 fine, and more if more than one out of proof gun is involved in the sale).

I received this response from Randy Bimson, Director, Technical Affairs, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc. regarding whether SAAMI (a voluntary manufacturers organization and recommendations do NOT carry the force of law as does CIP BUT are certainly used as evidence for Tort claims) had a position on the use of Damascus or Twist barrels. As of May 2014, his office was in the process of electronically cataloging SAAMI historical documents, but he then had no knowledge of whether any published statements relative to the safety or use of Pattern Welded barrels existed. He explained that SAAMI did not have a position on the use of smokeless powder ammunition in Damascus or Twist Steel barrels, but added "should you broach the subject with any of the SAAMI member ammunition manufacturers…the response would be unequivocally 'Definitely not!'" (His emphasis)

Bro. Larry found this article by A.P. Curtis "Advantages of Short Shotgun Chambers" in the March 1938 American Rifleman which dates the SAAMI resolution and subsequent shell box warning:
SAAMI, assembled in serious conference on March 26, 1937, passed the following resolution: "That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition." The motion was made and seconded by representatives of two powder companies.


So if SAAMI took over 'voluntary' proof testing, and refused to proof any pattern welded barrels, and laws were passed prohibiting the sale of used shotguns without proof, what would happen to the value of our 'time bomb' vintage doubles, or to us if we sold one?

As previously noted, H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. in Maryland and Cortland, New York will proof Twist or Damascus barrels for $500 (in 2014) to a pressure of 20,000 psi. A minimum pressure test would be 1 1/2 times the pressure of the intended load.

The proof marks in your context are for historical curiosity or correctness. The key to proofing in the UK is the mandatory registration process, and in America would only give peace of mind to those who have a reason to track and regulate. Individual peace of mind for those who want to proof their guns has never been restricted by anyone, but that's probably not going to be considered enough.

It might be better to have a way of "proofing" gunsmiths in this country.

Maybe a background check and waiting period for the purchase of screwdrivers and files. Buffing wheels would come under NFA rules, naturally.

Anyone that wants the FEDGOD involved in proving firearms needs to try and use a modern gas can.

Mandatory registration process? That wouldn't work very well if connected to proofing. Gunmaker submits gun for proof, so it's registered to him. If re-registration to the new owner is required when he sells the gun, then obviously the link of the gun to its owner, and not its maker (or, for that matter, a gunsmith submitting a gun for reproof) doesn't really have any connection to either proofing or the proofhouse.

Buzz, the Proof House has been in existance for hundreds of years, 200 in the case of the Birmingham one. The Government wouldn't have altered the rules; that would have been the Guardians of the Proof House who represent the gun trade. It is protected by an Act of Parliament though but they advise on the matter. As such either the Police or the Proof House could take someone to court. If the offence came to the light of the Police then they would refer it to the Proof House as they good give expert evidence. Our legal system is a bit different to yours and allsorts of bodies can initiate a court case. As I say it matters not one jot if I use or own a gun that is out of Proof just an offence to sell it or offer it for sale. Protects me and the buyer. Most of Europe copied the idea. It sets a standard instead of relying on pure luck.

Told you it would stir up the hornet's nest again. Lagopus.....

Actually up until a few years ago and at the behest at the CIP [an insidious institution in my opinion that has far over stepped its origins]the only guns that were recorded at either proof house was those that had failed proof . The Proof houses were exempt from our Fire Arms Acts so there was no requirement for the to do so .
We are how ever members of the European Union another insidious bunch , EU laws over ride British Law and EU Firearms Directives have brought the Proof house in line with these .
Proof should be about safety that's all .

That's why I quoted back to your 'peace of mind' comment. It doesn't have a bit to do with new manufacture and sales. Your smith submitting for proof comment goes more to my point, our friends from the UK have told us repeatedly that a gun can not be submitted for proof without registration. Can or will that smith, register then release illegally, grandpa's old duck gun back to a customer who brought it in the door unregistered? First order of business will be to check if it's in proof.

Mentioned before, if it really is just peace of mind, you can get that with a good gunsmith. There's that old saying that we are just saving some of these classics for the next person. Sooner or later folks die off, and all some are really looking for is to identify and regulate legally unregistered guns. If you are a true fan of classic guns, let's say from a country that didn't mandate proof, why would you want it defaced with modern stamps.

The problem is the shortage of "good gunsmiths"--when it comes to not only vintage guns, but vintage FOREIGN guns. Proof information is out there, but unfortunately is scattered around in various sources. Someone needs to update the work of Baron Engelhardt and Lee Kennett on proof, and collect it all in one place. That'd be a very valuable source to have, but I'm not sure the effort involved would result in sufficient monetary reward. It'd have to be a labor of love.

As for a country that didn't mandate proof, outside of the United States, I'm not aware of any major gunmaking country that didn't mandate proof. And given the fact that proofmarks are located on the barrel flats, I don't consider them "defacing"--or at least not any more so than "IC" or "modified" stamped on the flats.

An updated proof book has your name all over it, Larry. With your research skills and knowledge of French and interest in the topic, do it. If you self-publish you can more than make your $$$ back but -- yes -- it will still be a labor of love.

We got in a NEW Sako rifle some years ago and the new owner came back saying it would not feed ammo. He was RIGHT! It had not been chambered! But it had a govt proof! After checking with Sako, we discovered that they only have to really proof test 3 out of every 100 rifles.

At this point in America , and with Joe Biden as President, anything with more gun control would be on the table. A proof house would make their agenda so much easier, and sooooo sadly so. Sad.

That would be the stuff of nightmares.