Is it not entirely probable, in a case like that Clark, that the proof load itself was responsible for the ultimate demise of the barrel/s? The argument can be made that it would have not failed nearly as quickly, nor possibly ever, using service loads, had the barrel not been subjected to such an overload by reproof, IMO.
I am very dubious of doing reproofs unless something drastic has been done to possibly lower the structural integrity of the barrels, such as extensive honing, chamber lengthening, heavy striking, etc. I'd rather pass entirely on a gun so modified than subject it to reproof, but that's just my opinion, and my prerogative.
SRH
