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

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.