S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,932
Posts550,848
Members14,460
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194 |
I guess I've never really understood the determination of parameters for proof testing. If a a piece of machinery is built to withstand specific stress limits, how do you determine how far beyond those limits should be considered safe? To me, it's kinda like taking my new car out and revving the engine a few thousand RPM beyond the redline just to make sure everything's o.k. If it was o.k. before, it very well might not be afterward. I'd be interested in knowing how many guns failed proof testing during the lifetimes of the Parker Brothers, Smith, Fox, or Ithaca companies. Bill Frech
LCSMITH
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 433
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 433 |
In the past three years it seems to have gone from bad to worse - it is almost as if they don't like the gun trade (but that is paranioa on my part). Very hard to get people to talk openly because we are all tied to them and entrusting thousands of pounds worth of our business to their good offices. Nobody wants to be on their 'sheet list'. I'm surprised that it's taken this long for this to pop up on a BB. This has been a problem for quite some time. I was warned off and redirected to Birmingham a while back. What I keep getting from the trade is it's the London PM.
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
It maybe just another way of taking dear ol'grandpop's gun off the moors(streets in the New World Order lingo). Oh sorry mate - it went to bits yesterday!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,642 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,642 Likes: 1 |
Thorny, very insightful of you. And in the case of the alleged blown Purdey pair, not only are two guns off the street but a "bloody capitalist pig" gets it.
(I am almost serious here.)
JC
"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."ť Charles Darwin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
JC, do you think Al Gore works for the London Proof House? It's a funny world, with alot of fingers in alot of pies!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
BF - you have brought up two differing cases; destructive testing and non-destructive testing. During the design phase, it is common to test to failure to see if the article meets expectations. If not, the designer will strengthen the design. If expectations are exceeded too much, the article will get "cut back" a bit. It may or may not be necessary to fully test serial production. If you do, for sure you will be using non-destructive tests. Proof is just such a non-destructive test. The gun is examined and measured prior to firing a known heavy load. After firing, it is re-examined for any damage or change in dimensions. Guns are designed in such a way and built of such materials that failure after proof testing is very, very unlikely, barring abusive use or conditions.
Your car design underwent a whole series of destructive tests before release to production and your individual car underwent a whole series of non-destructive tests as it progressed down the assembly line. The design of car building is such that it is not envisioned that the consumer needs to perform tests of his/her own beyond normal operation. Same with gun proof; the consumer does not need to reproof the gun on some schedule. Actually, only gunmakers are allowed to submit guns for proof (as I recall). They submit only guns that have had modifications or repairs that could possibly make the gun unsafe; for example, lengthening the chambers or honing/reaming out deep pits.
American guns are self-certified by the manufacturer, so we have no idea as to failure rates (although I'd be they were very low). European guns are tested at government proof houses, so there may be records as to failures. I'd still bet on low rates - makers can't afford to have big investments disappear in a flash of light and a puff of smoke.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,109 Likes: 39
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,109 Likes: 39 |
Actually, only gunmakers are allowed to submit guns for proof (as I recall). Not true, at least until about 5 years ago. I submitted my own gun to the Birmingham House, mailed it direct (pre-1898 gun). They accepted it, proved it, the charge was less than $100. They would not, however, return it to me. Seems they don't have an export license so I had to pay the $400 "carriage" charge our cousins love to collect for mailing a gun back to the states.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. - Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 322
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 322 |
Are these brand new guns or old and possibly altered guns, or don't we know?
Sorry, I missed the original post that must have discussed this.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,383 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,383 Likes: 2 |
Why don't you hold poor billionaires hand and cry together, oh please!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Tacky, Jag, very tacky!! What reason do you have for depricating anyone's misfortune, reguardless of his financial status?? Purdey's is the one who will take it on the chin. There are some very fine people who's jobs are put at risk by this event, if true.
Second part to consider. If this can happen to a new gun, as seems likely if the story is true, consider that your 'ole beater could be next if it ever requires reproof.
|
|
|
|
|