doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Proof failures

Thanks to Roy Hebbes's encyclopeadic memory & knowledge and Birdog's help I have been able to re-live this nightmare. It's funny how things tend to be forgotten and heal up if we don't prod the wound isn't it?
Diggory, I think it would be beneficial if you as an aggrieved party were to make an official enquiry about these failures, rather than us carrying on speculating.
You did say that you would get to the bottom of it two years ago, but like me I guess because it 'went away' we forgot about it.
I do have problems with reconciling myself with why we should subject our pride & joy to two rounds of stress just to appease the common market? Which as far as Britain is concerned, nothing good as come out of it apart from the road out.

Two years ago I was told by the Birmingham Proof House that they would make an announcement when they were ready. None was forthcoming.

The declined to answer any specific questions about the incidents and procedures then of concern.

The London Proof House likewise declined to shed any real light except to say that they now get their proof loads from Birmingham.

Richard Purdey commented on my "scurrilous website comments about the Proof House" when I went there for lunch as a guest. I replied "When you stop blowing things up, I'll stop writing about it". He said "We are in the business of blowing things up".

Don't expect to get any answers from either proof house other than what they decide they want to tell you.

Regarding prof failure, the response is simply that the gun was tested and it failed proof. End of discussion.

The quality of stamping also seems to have deteriorated. Double stamps, stamps in places where it results in damage to the action etc are sadly all too common thesedays.

I have a comment to make that although I may be a little off topic, I think bears some thought regarding bulging of barrels near the muzzle. A few years ago I inspected an Italian (less common maker) 410 over/under that had about 47 thou of choke in one barrel---about double the normal full choke constriction ---my bore gauge would not fit into the muzzle! Although it bore Italian proof, I had a safety concern---I also had a concern how it would pattern. I declined to purchase it.

I think it's based on gun and barrel weight.

It appears as though this problem has gone away as fast as it started.
The Proof Houses are not aware of any problem!
Perhaps that is why they didn't comment two years ago?

Bottom line....you send those thin barreled old war horses in for a torture test expect a few not to make it home.

jOe,
Unfortunately, and worryingly new guns with ample barrel thickness are bulging also.
But why would you subject a barrel to a double dose of torture when once was always good enough? Plus I can't find it in the 2006 rules of proof as to why we have to double test?
Another thing, why have they changed from commercially provided ammunition to loading their own? Why did a commercial cartridge manufacturer decline to load for them?
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for answers, unfortunately they are not forthcoming.
Over to you Diggory.

In the past has either house had a suit filed against them for failure of a proofed gun causing injury? Perhaps they are doubling loads up to lessen the chance of such an occurrence. Sort of like Smith & Wesson putting internal locks on guns, perhaps they are becoming scared of the lawyers. Perhaps their insurer is demanding it.

Cheaper to get sued when a good gun gets blown up than when a good hand gets blown off.

Apparently several new AYAs recently failed at the chokes. This is just more of what has been reported to me verbally so 'Allegedly' should be added wherever appropriate. The Trade is rife with gossip about unusual proof failures at the muzzle ends of guns that pass visual inspection and have been properly prepared by top gunsmiths with strong expectations of them passing.

Something is wrong.

Small Bore,
Reference Burrard,The Modern Shotgun Volume 3,The Gun and Cartridge, pages 375-378,[deals with obstructions and bulges near the muzzle.]
Quote:"Ring bulges near the muzzle are usually caused by some form of obstruction in the bore.They normally occur between .75 and 1.25 inches from the location of the obstruction. Position of the choke [acting as a restriction] and the wave pressure generated by the charge fired are also important factors in the location and forming of ring bulges."
A pertinent question for the Proof House:might well be;
"Dose the Proof house test proceedure require the barrels to be cleaned and viewed prior to and after the first proof test; so as to ensure that there are no fragments of the first charge remaining and/or permanent deformation of in the barrel, prior to the second proof test? If this proceedure is not in place[and strictly adhered] to,the possibility of fragments of the first charge remaining in the barrel exists and could result in formation of a ring bulges.