doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The Value of Proof

As many of you will know, I reproof most of my stock guns before sale, 'whether they need it or not'! Actually, not quite true as the tightening of the proof tests in recent years has made it a rather risky business with rivelled and bulged barrels left, right and centre.
And that is the point: I have become accustomed to barrel failures but this week I got a Blanch back from the proof house with a significantly higher level of failure!
The picture below shows the action bar has totally failed in the thin region below the hinge pin and in all honesty, not even the miracle workers I know can fix this one!
Some in non-proof countries will say that this only goes to show how terrible and destructive the proof test is.
For myself, yes, I am well out of pocket on this gun but then that is why I reproof most of my stock guns: I really don't want to be responsible for any unseen flaw in barrels and action even if the gun could have been sold without reproof.
So I will continue to reproof most of my stock guns and hope that this sort of almost total loss doesn't happen again too soon.
Oh, and by the way, if anybody want an elegant 1880's paperweight for their desk I would be happy to sell it to them...!

How much for the paperweight Mr Barclay?...Geo

Wow - sorry that happened.

What kind of condition was the gun in when it was submitted?

Was the everything original - hinge pin, bolt, etc?

Did you tighten everything up before submitting?

What could cause that kind of damage -- action flexing, hinge pin being pushed forward by bbls?

OWD

Serious question, why not, if it's in proof, run a quick couple boxes of proper shells through it off of a rest. Then, have and experienced gunsmith inspect it? I think it's an odd mindset to feel better about significantly overloading the intended design of a gun.

The failures that you mentioned seem to me like the gun stayed together. Wouldn't a shooter just stop shooting if breaks? Is there any assurance that a gun won't fail if it has a stamp on it? There was a fellow here that shared a barrel failure during the first round or two of clay targets after a fresh reproof.

I don't know how it is out by you, but there're 'experts' here that'll recommend shooting longer shells than are stamped on a gun. If, the shooter is 'responsible'. It's a complete disregard for the concept of proof, but considered normal for classic gun insiders.

Toby, thank you for your thoughts. I hope you don't take my comments as some type internet trolling against you. Maybe, some form of nondestructive testing can be devised, along with buyer education, would save unnecessarily losing these guns forever.

Did you knowingly send that gun to the proof house off face? My bet would say that you thought it would pass proof. It seems to me like the proof house can put any reason down for failure, other than massive over pressure. Only the best to you and yours.

Thanks for posting that pic and description, Toby.

Regarding proof testing, there will always be that question in my mind ................. Yes, if failed proof because the frame broke. But, would it have ever broken there using normal and appropriate loads? Though I cannot, obviously, prove it ....... I'll bet not.

You're to be commended for going the extra mile in trying to screen your guns that you sell to users. I have no bone to pick with you at all. You are doing what you believe to be a "best practice".

Sorry for your monetary loss, however.

All my best, SRH

It broke because it was flexed beyond it's elastic limit.

This is obvious, of course, like stating a ship sank because it could no longer float.

Frames are case hardened to provide a durable surface, while allowing a certain amount of flex.

The 'proof test' in this case proved where the frame was brittle.

The root cause of the failure is as simple as that. The question is was this caused by fatigue and did it present a danger going forward.

My personal opinion is no, and no.

A microscopic analysis of the failure and adjacent areas may conclude otherwise.

Until somebody does that, we're just guessing.

I agree with most comments above, we will never know if the gun would have lasted until the end of time or let go on the next round. And anyway, that type of failure is not particularly dangerous, as Craigd says above, the shooter just needs to stop shooting.
The reason I reproof is partly because I can but mainly because I get asked unbelievably uninformed questions at every show I exhibit at, demonstrating the level of ignorance amongst the gun buying public.
Also a lot of people in the USA reload which is an excellent way of producing mild cartridges for vintage guns. It is also an excellent way of producing proof charges if you don't know what you are doing or are distracted by the dog peeing on your foot!
I have no way of knowing who is going to land up shooting my wares, their level of knowledge, stupidity or if their dog is house-trained.
I also can not be sure that someone isn't going to block their barrels with a 20g shell or a wad of snow and turn their carefully selected recipe into a proof load.
As Stan says above, its about going the extra mile.

There's a failure tag in the picture with a clear reason, no guessing. It is the law there and recognized not only by that nation, but all other CIP member nations. Even though we're willing to question that recent arbitrary proof changes are wrecking guns that likely would've passed under previous standards, I still think it's a slap in the face of a classic gun expert who couldn't anticipate an elastic limit failure point, but knew if it were on face or not.

edit to add, thanks much Toby for your follow up comments. I don't question your decisions for a moment, only wondering out loud if this process assures us of anything.

Even if it was B.P. originally, that's not where you'd expect something to crack. I know hindsight is a great thing but those square corners the crack started at seems like an obvious place when you see it now, but it's worrying if you have an old gun you'd like to have re-proofed.
I'm guessing it was off face after their proof loads and not before

Of course Nick.

Had it been off face as submitted they would not have fired the proof load. This is called a 'view' and is the initial part of proof procedure.

The 'official' reason for failure to pass proof is 'off face' (no kidding).

This is an inevitable consequence of that big friggin' crack.

Mr. Barclay does make some valid points.