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

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 1�oz of shot is 1�oz 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 3�" 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 3�" 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 1� 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.