.....Reproof and consumer education . . . If there's a requirement for reproof, then the consumer will eventually be aware of that requirement. Even as consumers are aware of the law that prohibits car dealers from turning back odometers....
...Given the presence of those marks, would you not say the consumer is now more "educated" on what shells he can safely use in the gun in question...
....The owner of the gun no longer has to guess whether Bubba lengthened the chambers without submitting it for reproof. It's now right there, stamped in the metal, plain as day, for him to see....
....the "19" on my Sauer tells me that the gun left the factory overbored in comparison to standard 20ga bore diameter. In both cases, the owner knows more about it than he would without those proof/reproof marks....
Worlds apart Larry, but that's ok. 'Eventually' be aware is one of those assumptions that get slipped in that will not happen by osmosis. Say you're an ag who doesn't like some laws, you don't prosecute. Say you want to get the message out about turning back odometers, you prosecute to set examples. The only other way to educate would be for a politician, probably no agenda right, to allocate money for a media campaign.
There are volumes written on the subleties of proof marks. They are part of the history and charm of European arms. I'd bet a proof would be a three page disclaimer if we were being told what kinds of shells could be used in a given gun. 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.
Which leads to original factory proof marks, or what looks to me like your preference to have a spec sheet stamped on a gun. I'm all for a manufacturer doing whatever they want before the gun goes out the door, if there're disclaimers instead of a nice finish showing, I'm not interested. So, we end up educated anyway. I'd bet classic Sauer overbore would have very little resemblance to modern competition skeet barrel work. I know it should be reproofed, but isn't the consumer assured of safety because they recognize a '19' on it.
I only attempt to show your mandate, as previous, relies on honest educated idealists. If we can assume we have that consumer, what do they need protection from. Reading between the lines is a no no, but haven't every concern of proof houses been verified by members who live under those requirements. I think back to the Clarke that was reproofed and had a barrel failure on the first clay target outing, does anyone know of a situation where a proof house raises their hand and says yup it's on us, one slipped through the cracks. Or, is the truth of the matter that proof isn't worth squat once it leaves the proof house door.
