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

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