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

I received this response from Randy Bimson, Director, Technical Affairs, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers� Institute, Inc. regarding whether SAAMI (a voluntary manufacturers organization and recommendations do NOT carry the force of law as does CIP BUT are certainly used as evidence for Tort claims) had a position on the use of Damascus or Twist barrels. As of May 2014, his office was in the process of electronically cataloging SAAMI historical documents, but he then had no knowledge of whether any published statements relative to the safety or use of Pattern Welded barrels existed. He explained that SAAMI did not have a position on the use of smokeless powder ammunition in Damascus or Twist Steel barrels, but added "should you broach the subject with any of the SAAMI member ammunition manufacturers�the response would be unequivocally 'Definitely not!'" (His emphasis)

Bro. Larry found this article by A.P. Curtis "Advantages of Short Shotgun Chambers" in the March 1938 American Rifleman which dates the SAAMI resolution and subsequent shell box warning:
SAAMI, assembled in serious conference on March 26, 1937, passed the following resolution: "That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition." The motion was made and seconded by representatives of two powder companies.


So if SAAMI took over 'voluntary' proof testing, and refused to proof any pattern welded barrels, and laws were passed prohibiting the sale of used shotguns without proof, what would happen to the value of our 'time bomb' vintage doubles, or to us if we sold one?

As previously noted, H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. in Maryland and Cortland, New York will proof Twist or Damascus barrels for $500 (in 2014) to a pressure of 20,000 psi. A minimum pressure test would be 1 1/2 times the pressure of the intended load.

The proof marks in your context are for historical curiosity or correctness. The key to proofing in the UK is the mandatory registration process, and in America would only give peace of mind to those who have a reason to track and regulate. Individual peace of mind for those who want to proof their guns has never been restricted by anyone, but that's probably not going to be considered enough.

It might be better to have a way of "proofing" gunsmiths in this country.

Maybe a background check and waiting period for the purchase of screwdrivers and files. Buffing wheels would come under NFA rules, naturally.

Anyone that wants the FEDGOD involved in proving firearms needs to try and use a modern gas can.

Mandatory registration process? That wouldn't work very well if connected to proofing. Gunmaker submits gun for proof, so it's registered to him. If re-registration to the new owner is required when he sells the gun, then obviously the link of the gun to its owner, and not its maker (or, for that matter, a gunsmith submitting a gun for reproof) doesn't really have any connection to either proofing or the proofhouse.

Buzz, the Proof House has been in existance for hundreds of years, 200 in the case of the Birmingham one. The Government wouldn't have altered the rules; that would have been the Guardians of the Proof House who represent the gun trade. It is protected by an Act of Parliament though but they advise on the matter. As such either the Police or the Proof House could take someone to court. If the offence came to the light of the Police then they would refer it to the Proof House as they good give expert evidence. Our legal system is a bit different to yours and allsorts of bodies can initiate a court case. As I say it matters not one jot if I use or own a gun that is out of Proof just an offence to sell it or offer it for sale. Protects me and the buyer. Most of Europe copied the idea. It sets a standard instead of relying on pure luck.

Told you it would stir up the hornet's nest again. Lagopus.....

Actually up until a few years ago and at the behest at the CIP [an insidious institution in my opinion that has far over stepped its origins]the only guns that were recorded at either proof house was those that had failed proof . The Proof houses were exempt from our Fire Arms Acts so there was no requirement for the to do so .
We are how ever members of the European Union another insidious bunch , EU laws over ride British Law and EU Firearms Directives have brought the Proof house in line with these .
Proof should be about safety that's all .

That's why I quoted back to your 'peace of mind' comment. It doesn't have a bit to do with new manufacture and sales. Your smith submitting for proof comment goes more to my point, our friends from the UK have told us repeatedly that a gun can not be submitted for proof without registration. Can or will that smith, register then release illegally, grandpa's old duck gun back to a customer who brought it in the door unregistered? First order of business will be to check if it's in proof.

Mentioned before, if it really is just peace of mind, you can get that with a good gunsmith. There's that old saying that we are just saving some of these classics for the next person. Sooner or later folks die off, and all some are really looking for is to identify and regulate legally unregistered guns. If you are a true fan of classic guns, let's say from a country that didn't mandate proof, why would you want it defaced with modern stamps.

The problem is the shortage of "good gunsmiths"--when it comes to not only vintage guns, but vintage FOREIGN guns. Proof information is out there, but unfortunately is scattered around in various sources. Someone needs to update the work of Baron Engelhardt and Lee Kennett on proof, and collect it all in one place. That'd be a very valuable source to have, but I'm not sure the effort involved would result in sufficient monetary reward. It'd have to be a labor of love.

As for a country that didn't mandate proof, outside of the United States, I'm not aware of any major gunmaking country that didn't mandate proof. And given the fact that proofmarks are located on the barrel flats, I don't consider them "defacing"--or at least not any more so than "IC" or "modified" stamped on the flats.