doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Proof House in USA??

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