Ted, two things. That gun is not .006" at 9" from the breech. That thin area is well down the barrels, near the muzzle. Second if the gun is in proof it does not require a trip to the proof house. There is no view in this case. I agree that this gun should not be shot, bought or even owned. But if it is within proof then it can be sold. Shot at the buyers risk. Proof is a bore related issue, not a wall thickness issue. And I think people put too much value on being "in proof", without any understanding what that really means. The pits remaining I bet are in the second barrel that was not honed. Why waste more money making that barrel paper thin?
Another thing buyers need to consider is that barrels can become thin by honing the inside, or striking the outside. Honing the inside will take a gun out of proof, if greater than .010" metal is removed at the 9" measurement location on the inside of the barrel. I also worry about a gun which has been filed heavily, to remove external pits for re-blacking just as much as one honed too much. Does it matter where the metal comes from? Hone a barrel or file the outside of a barrel, make them under .020" and I call them thin, do that to this .006" and I run away as fast as my little legs carry me.
People need to know "in proof" is no guarantee of safe to shoot. Know the wall thickness, the location of the thin area and then go from there. I do not care so much if a gun is in proof as long as the barrels are sound and have thickness greater than .020". I adjust my loads to make sure I do no harm to the gun or myself. Being technically in proof is a false security in this case. So what, it is thin as heck.
