Interested to hear what you might be able to share from your meeting with the Proof Master,
cheers
franc

Franc,
I'm awaitinga written response to my questions and said I would not go public until I had received it, so, I won't. however, you might find the recent article I wrote for gun Trade News interesting:

When the Proof Houses change the rules, a bit of friendly consultation would be appreciated. The auction rooms have been alive with chatter about new tools, rejections and inconsistency. Diggory tries to unravel the stories behind the gun makers’ grumbles.

The Gunsmiths’ Tale
A well known dealer, with a busy repair shop recounted the sad story of his ‘sleevers'. He told me he has, for years, been submitting sleeved guns for re-proof after completing the necessary work. He has up-to-date chamber reamers from the USA and is sending his work to the proof house now, as he has done for over a decade, expecting the proof process to be carried out without mishap and have the guns returned with new proof marks. Last month a batch failed. He re-submitted them and they failed again. The first reason cited was shorter chambers than required, then they failed again because the diameter was deemed outside of required tolerances.

He has had identically prepared guns passed on a regular basis until now, using the same reamers and gauges. Suddenly, it is all change at the proof house and what was passable in June is a fail in September. Something has apparently changed. What?

Another long-established Birmingham gun-smith has totally given up on re-proof jobs due to recent failures and what he considers inconsistent regulations. “It is simply not worth the hassle anymore”, he said. Now he simply turns away any work that requires re-proof.

Another gun smith told me the “newly dogmatic application of CIP rules” was a hindrance to doing the job correctly, in his opinion. He had delivered a rifle with the rim cut precisely for the headspace he wanted and thought optimal for striking but had it rejected as ‘too shallow’, despite the head fitting exactly flush, as befitting best work.

A mass importer of guns reportedly submitted a batch of new Spanish guns to one of the UK proof houses. They failed view. He then submitted the same guns to the proof house in Spain (also a member of CIP) and they all passed without comment.

The Consultant’s Tale
A leading independent barrel maker told me he was aware of proof house modernisation, aimed at delivering the improvements in accuracy now available to the proof testers with modern equipment. The modern, German gauges are very precise and the CIP regulations are now being applied to the letter of the law. He believes this a good thing. It is better for the public and a “more correct” practice than previously applied. He agreed that it may not suit some ‘less expert’ gun makers than himself but was unapologetic as to the outcome, which he believes is in the long term interests of the trade. It should encourage everyone to raise their standards, in his view. The rationale is they all CIP stamped ammunition must fit all CIP proof tested guns of tent calibre or gauge. To this end, standard minimums have been set for chamber dimensions and standard maximums for case dimensions imposed on ammunition manufacturers.

He was of the opinion that when measuring older guns the proof houses would “allow a degree of leeway”, however, this does not appear to be codified in any official way at present and I’m curious as to how this might be provided for in the new protocols.

The Proof House Tale
Guns have been undergoing proof in London since 1637 and in Birmingham since 1813 so it may come as surprise to some that there could be any novelties in store during what is essentially the same process of view and proof that has been going on for hundreds of years in the same two places. A visit to the Birmingham Proof House allows one the remarkable experience of standing in the very same proof chamber that Greener illustrated with a woodcut of proof firing in his classic The Gun & its Development. It has changed not at all, save a hundred and fifty years of accumulated grime from powder burn and shot impact around the walls.

However, developments in the wider world of gun making and external standards of harmonisation imposed for elsewhere have impacted on the old practices. The CIP (Commission Internationale Permanente), an organisation based in Liege, is now, essentially, the governing body. Some gun makers have argued that we are now building guns to suit the CIP rather than building guns fit for purpose and having a proof test that confirms they are.

The Rules of Proof have not changed recently. According to the Birmingham Proof House website ‘The latest Rules of Proof, those of 1989, were approved by the Secretary of State to come into force on 1 November, 1989, but proof under earlier Rules of 1875, 1887, 1896, 1904, 1916, 1925, 1954 and 1986 remains valid provided that the barrel or action has not been materially weakened or altered so that it no longer conforms with the proof marks.’ There is nothing in this notice to suggest a change of practice in recent months. The trade could, therefore, be forgiven for assuming that what was good in 1989 is still good in 2014.

In the past there were two sets of chamber gauges at the Proof House - a Master Gauge, which was used as a definitive reference and a Working Gauge, which was used daily. If a chamber was marginal, the Master Gauge was brought out to give a definitive reading. It was used so infrequently that it retained its exact original dimensions, whereas the Working Gauge could be suspected of wear through repeated use.

When measuring chambers, the gauges would either be considered ‘go’ or ‘no go’ and stamped (or not) accordingly. Therefore, a chamber that would not accept the 2 1/2” gauge was considered ‘no go’ as being too small. If it accepted the 2 1/2” gauge but not the 2 3/4” gauge, it was passed for 2 1/2” proof. There were certain ‘grey areas’ that were always worked into the tolerances. Many chambers on older guns could be 2 1/2” or 2 5/8* or 2 7/8”, they would be considered as being within the 2 1/2” proof tolerances. CIP schematics allow no such grey areas - they specify dimensions for 65mm and 67mm chambers, as well as the 70mm that corresponds to the old 2 3/4” chamber.

The proof houses now have German-made Triebel gauges, which conform exactly to the CIP schematic drawings of what each gauge should measure in the chamber. It is more complex for rifles, with their plethora of calibre's and chambering permutations but for shotguns, the key measurements are the rim depth, chamber depth and chamber diameter. Using the new gauges, those tolerances are being applied rigorously.

I asked a staff member of the Birmingham Proof House if he knew of any memo to the trade or to any individual gun-makers who submit large quantities of guns for proof with regard to the new gauges and the exacting standards that were now being imposed. He said to his knowledge nothing had been sent. The Managing Director of a leading London gunmaker corroborated this; “I have never once been approached by the proof house’s since these new measures came into place.  We have had to adjust  to make sure our stuff is getting through, as have most people”.

My initial conversation with the London Proof House elicited a short response: “Procedures have not changed, we have just bought new gauges. They conform to CIP specifications, as should the old ones, though they may have been worn.” I brought up the subject of ‘grey’ areas with older guns and the response was blunt: “There are no grey areas as far as we are concerned”.

The Punter’s Tale
Mr Holder gave his Charles Osborne boxlock to a local gun shop to have it sleeved. It was his grandfather’s gun and he had sentimental attachments to it. Unfortunately, the thin old tubes had ruptured during use, thankfully without damaging anyone, and he wanted it rescued from the scrap heap. A sum was agreed, the insurance company paid out and the work to sleeve the gun commissioned.

A time scale was suggested and work commenced. The gun failed proof. Apparently the chambers were too short. Well, that is unfortunate, but these things happen. It was re-submitted. It failed again. This time the diameter was too small. He is now concerned. What is this gunsmith up to? Does he not know his job? Is he actually competent? He begins to get agitated and in turn puts pressure on the gunsmith. He wants answers, he wants his gun last month. It still has not passed proof. Who is going to sort out this mess? Why has it happened?

The gunsmith carried out the sleeving as he has always done successfully in the past, he is now concerned that his tooling may not be up to the task but has no clear feedback to give to Mr Holder to satisfy him that the issue is under control.

Conclusions
The new gauges and rules might be seen as a better and more precise system than the old one. Those making new barrels need to pay close attention to the tolerances that are acceptable and tool up accordingly with appropriately accurate reamers and gauges to ensure they conform to the new rules and practices. This sounds simple but it is costly and there appears to have been no warning or consultation with the trade at large to ensure a painless transfer from the old way to the new.

For old guns being submitted for re-proof, the issue gets more clouded. I would argue strongly that for a gun originally proof tested in 1875, the 1875 Rules of Proof should be retrospectively applied to it when re-proofing. In those days, the gunmakers and proof houses applied different tolerances. More variation can, therefore, be expected. If those rules were the ones under which the gun was made and deemed safe for use, unless the chamber has been altered, the same should apply now regarding chamber dimensions. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of an MOT tester failing a vintage Jaguar for not having anti-lock brakes.

This opinion appears to carry little weight, however, one auctioneer telling me “I know that the "new regime" is pretty tough in it's interpretation of the act, and there is little sympathy for old and collectable firearms.....  in fact no sympathy at all as far as I can see. The rules are black and white and of course this has led to issues with many older, antique and "obsolete calibre" items where it is argued that the act still applies regardless of legal status otherwise.”

The wider implication for the trade is the need to conform, so as to avoid repeated proof failures in future. A good start would be a close look at the published CIP chamber tolerance schematics. Lessons for the future? As with so much in business management, communication is the key issue. Had there been a pre-emptive consultation, a statement of intent or a set of clear guidelines disseminated by the proof masters to the trade at large, either through the GTA, the press, or directly, many of the problems recently facing gun makers and repair shops would have been averted. In the final analysis, it does seem apparent that any official (or unofficial) flexibility in the application of the proof laws has become a thing of the past.

The diagram below shows the points at which the chamber is measured and what minimum dimensions it must have to comply with CIP:

For example, a 12-bore 65mm chamber has to conform to the following minimum dimensions:

G = 22,55 + 0,10
R = 1,85 + 0,10
L = 65,10 + 2,00
I = 20,30 + 0,10
B = 18,20 + 0,70

Corresponding maximum dimensions for CIP approved cartridges ensure all commercial ammunition will fit in correctly sized CIP standard chambers.



Seeking clarification, I asked the proof masters for their official comments on the following questions:

1. When were the new Triebel gauges put into service?
2. What information or consultation went out to the Trade in anticipation of the changeover?
3. What percentage of increased fail rates has occurred since the new gauges were introduced? (Does not have to be precise).
4. Have the tolerances been changed with regard to measurements or is the only difference the fact that the new gauges are exact and the old ones were a little worn?
5. What rules are being applied to old guns, made when tolerances were more flexible under the then Rules of Proof and not materially altered in the chambers since then?
6. What advice would be useful for those submitting new barrels, sleeved guns or old guns for re-proof, in order to minimise the likelihood of rejection or failure?
7. What is the process now for guns with chamber lengths exceeding 65mm but less than 70mm - I’m thinking old guns with chambers that may be 2 5/8” or 2 7/8” etc.

The London Proof Master, Richard Mabbitt declined to answer the questions, saying he had been ‘misquoted on various occasions by the media’ in the past. As we go to press, I’m anticipating feedback from Birmingham, who are in my experience very open and professional in their dealings with the public and the trade.

I have a feeling I will return to this theme in the months to come. I would welcome some official input into the discussion by the Proof Masters, which would, doubtless, be both illuminating and appreciated by all those of us preparing and submitting guns for proof in 2015.

This is without a doubt the best argument I have ever seen for NOT instituting a proof house in the United States. It's just amazing what can happen with too much government interference, and I used to toy with the idea of a proof house in the United States. BAD IDEA!!

Did we not have a disagreement with the Germans so they couldn't tell the British what to do?

Under proof laws if a gun has passed proof in a CIP country is it legal to sell it in GB? Are the proof houses government run and controlled or independent entity?

And when did the the nuts take over? I know you can think that but please do not ask.

Yes, a gun must have valid proof marks from a CIP proof house, for example, French Darne or a spanish AYA is legal to sell in the UK if it has been proof tested in France or Spain, as both are partners in CIP.

Te beauty of the proof system was historically that it enabled British guns to be made light and balanced and sufficiently strong - just right for their intended purpose.

Countries without proof houses made their guns heavy and cumbersome to build in a strength factor to cope with any kind of ammunition, as there were no standards.

It seems we may be heading for a future in whiche every gun made will be required to accept 3" steel shot loads, regardless of the purpose it is purchased for. We already see this in much of the Italian output.

Would a rejected from GB proof house pass another countries proof I wonder? In other words are they over enforcing the rules while other proof house are not. Over here many states have yearly vehicle inspections and some testers are easier than others. In the end most avoid the too tough testers. Might be the same thing with proof testing. Market will adjust to what works best for them not the tester. Send a failed gun to the Spanish proof house and see if it passes. There might be a regional bias against passing British guns there and there might not be. Be a heck of a thing if it passed there but not at home.

I hadn't realised how serious the implications really are.
I'm glad Smallbore was on the ball and has started to look into and question the whole process.
He is, in reality, fighting out of our corner .
Thank you.

This is going to sound harsh, but sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

It appears the English proof house is finally behaving more like a professional proof house and less like a trade barrier to the European gun makers (who can and do make a better product at a cheaper price).

Gentlemen, English proof has been bad joke for well over 100 years. The English proof houses have clearly been passing guns that were mechanically unacceptable under any professional manufacturing standard, including C.I.P.

What we are seeing here is what happens when a set of formal manufacturing standards is suddenly applied to makers who have been accustomed to doing whatever they pleased.

There are any number of people on this forum who will now play shoot-the-messenger. Feel free. I’m not the one who popped your bubble – that was C.I.P. and the people in England who finally decided that England would honor its commitment occasioned by their acceptance of C.I.P.

Kyrie,

A nice dig to enhance the Spanish trade perhaps?

The Spanish certainly produce guns at a cheaper price. I'll give you that.

I think you over state your case to the point of it being undermined.

Kyrie, with all due respect, isn't the original post more concerned with re-proofing old guns ?
I can't comment on the suggested poor standards of practice carried out by the English proof houses as I haven't heard any stories.
Is there any evidence to back up the statement that sub standard guns were being passed ?
No messenger shooting, just wondered

Were there inaccurate measurements taken or pressures used that were below CIP agreements? I wonder if government contract arms breeze through without a hitch.

The Proof houses seem work on the two rule system .
Rule one , The proof house can not be wrong or in any way at fault .
Rule two , If it can be proved beyond shadow of a doubt that the Proof house is incorrect or has made a mistake , see rule one .

Always has been always will be .That include guns rejected because of dented barrels that were not dented on submission etc. unfortunately the British Gun trade association is to weak to stand up to the Proof houses and individuals meet a stone wall of denial of any fault .As many of us have discovered over the years .

You're mistaken. I'm quite fond of some Spanish shotguns, but could not care less about the Spanish gun trade.

From Small Bore's post:



This last bit is especially demonstrative:

“Another gun smith told me the “newly dogmatic application of CIP rules” was a hindrance to doing the job correctly, in his opinion. He had delivered a rifle with the rim cut precisely for the headspace he wanted and thought optimal for striking but had it rejected as ‘too shallow’, despite the head fitting exactly flush, as befitting best work.”

C.I.P. sets the minimum and maximum range of headspace. The gunsmith quoted/paraphrased above was accustomed to substituting his judgment for C.I.P. required dimensions and having the proof house aid and abet his failure to adhere to C.I.P. standards.

So Dig, as the Government don't run the Proof Houses; as some here think they do, and they are really run by the Gun Trade to protect their interests and protect the public at large, then my question is; what are the Gun Trade and the Guardians; who are members of that trade, doing? Is this just another example of Political correctness and 'Elf 'N Safety' gone mad? Lagopus.....

Actually, the gunsmith was submitting a rim that fitted precisely, the CIP dimensions are sloppy, not best practice yet imposed.

What it seems to be is this:

Governments sign up to CIP (which, you are correct, is primarily interested in safety).

The Proof Houses were set up by Act of Parliament to govern the safety of small arms. They act with a Proof Master in charge, answerable to a board.

Rules of proof have been issued over the years to take into account changes in gun making and ammunition.

Presently, the proof houses are having to enforce the CIP directives imposed on all members.

One question is whether introduction of these CIP dimensions is an improvement. I think it is arguable.

Another question is how are the proof houses implementing the rules? This is the main issue currently under investigation.

And there is the issue in a nutshell:

Who sets the manufacturing standards? C.I.P.? Or every gunsmith from a town large enough to have a crossroads?

Clearly, the answer was “the gunsmith.” But that looks to have changed, and the answer is now “C.I.P.”

Small wonder the gunsmith(s) feel put upon. They are unaccustomed to the rule of law, as the English proof houses have let them have their way for many, many years and the change is a shock.

Small Bore, I spent many years in the firearm business here in the States and had friends in the business in England. I understand your predicament and truly sympathize. But the simple truth is the gun making and gun servicing legal environment in England appears to have undergone a sea change to something that at least resembles what the rest of C.I.P. signatory Europe has been coping with for decades. Some makers/gunsmiths will adapt and survive, and some will not.

I wish you well.

Permit me a dissention.

The primary goal of national proof laws, and national proof houses, is to establish trade barriers that protect local industry.

The secondary goal of proof laws/houses is to provide income to the agency that establishes/controls the proof houses.

The tertiary goal of proof laws/houses is prevent dangerously shoddy products from reaching the market.

The primary goal of C.I.P., as an organization, was and is the removal of the Euro zone trade barriers that were imposed by the creation of proof laws/houses. The establishment of a common and enforceable set of commercial firearm and commercial ammunition manufacturing standards is purely the mechanism by which C.I.P. eliminates any technical reason for trade barriers between C.I.P. signatories.

The problem with CIP is that you have a bunch of countries, many of which have had proofhouses for a very long time, but all have continued to use their own proofmarks.

The British continued to use their own system of measurement for proofmarks (tons, which was actually service pressure rather than proof pressure) and could not be converted to anything anyone could really understand if you multiplied by either regular or long tons). CIP converted to the metric system and started expressing proof pressure in kg or bars (although most CIP countries, with the exception of the UK and Spain, didn't use a proofmark with a numerical value). However, at that time, they were still taking their pressure readings via the old lead/copper crusher method. And even though they converted to electronic transducers, they continued to use the same (crusher value) proofmarks. A bit confusing, to say the least.

As a result of the most recent change in CIP proof rules (2006), there are no longer any numerical proofmarks denoting either proof or service pressure. You have STD (standard), the old 850 bars as measured by crusher but 960 bars as measured by transducer, or SUP (superior) which is the old magnum proof.

Which proofhouse does it better? Well, I am aware of a new Spanish sidelock, from one of that country's top makers, which
suffered a "catastrophic failure" in the form of a burst barrel, doing some damage to the shooter. Again, new gun with new factory ammo appropriate for the gun in question. Seems that gun passed Spanish proof with a wall thickness in the thin spot, where it blew, of well below .020. I own and have owned both Spanish and British doubles, and have no ax to grind one way or the other. But based on that alone, I certainly wouldn't go overboard acting as a cheerleader for the Spanish Proofhouse.

Interesting fact is that shotguns from non CIP member countries, some very cheap and rough shotguns, make it succesfully through proof in all CIP jurisdictions.

Which sort of raises questions about those that are made by prestigious makers but fail view or proof, and the effectiveness of Proof as a trade barrier.

Some familiar makes are Boito, Norinco, Miroku, Rossi, Magtech and all US made shotguns. Somewhat surprising that the above factories have the latest tooling and procedures that guarantee first time success in the Proof houses.

Who came up with the C.I.P. standards, and why are those better than the gunsmith's, who may or may not be from a town large enough to have a crossroads?

Google it.

That's what I thought your reply would be. Good luck with your Spanish shotgun forum.

Thank you :-)

Is the problem with reproofing old guns going to make it very hard to get a gun reproofed at all? It sounds like more than a few gunsmiths are so disgusted by the number of failures of what they do not consider to be marginal guns that they are going to stop even offering to have them reproofed if not strictly required. I understand the law is the law but if smiths do not want to take on jobs which will require reproof then many old guns may become wall decorations.

I have bought a few guns at auction and from dealers over the years which I had reproofed after purchase, mostly black to nitro type reproofs. Each was done on a case by case basis and all passed. Old Damascus barrels are not to be under estimated in quality and strength. From the horror stories I have heard lately I would either not even buy them in the first place or just not risk a reproof.

As to the small town gunsmith remark I would never underestimate the quality of the work based on address. I knew a "small" town gunsmith who took a 20 Ga. POS, Spanish double and converted it into a .444 double rifle. It would cut figure eights at 100 yards with the first two shots with a cold barrel using a decent scope. Ten shot groups were in the three inch range as they started to open up the grouping when the gun heated up. Right barrel and left barrel were perfectly converged at 100 yards and he had the load figured out that it was as deadly as the man behind it. And the .444 is no varmint gun.

It showed me that if you took care to get the gun setup right, match bullet to rifling and velocity, accuracy can be greatly improved. That gunsmith worked out of a small shop, with what we call outdated equipment in the backwaters. It is the arrow not the Indian or the size of his tent.

Will it be possible for British gun owners to sell or ship guns to the USA? Avoid all that nonsense about proof. Who is to say that a gun is out of proof if it is shipped overseas? There can't be a requirement for every gun leaving the country to undergo reproof. Am I mistaken? This situation may have a silver lining for Americans.

Ship them over here. If I'm satisfied that the barrel wall thickness is appropriate from breech to muzzle I'll shoot it.

Another reason to get government out of as many facets of our lives as possible.

As for the new Spanish gun that passed proof and still blew a barrel - ask Takata about their airbags that have killed several people - airbags as mandated by government. I'll be 66 in 6 weeks and I have very many hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) miles of driving and have a history of spelunking, rock climbing, solo backpacking, SCUBA diving, skydiving, and I still fly airplanes for fun. Everything we do has risks - firearms blowing up are among the least of them. Get government out of my life and let me decide on the risks that I'll take.

I think you figured out the real reason behind proof, there are requirements.

If a gun in the UK is out of proof it is illegal to offer it for sale. It is illegal to export it or otherwise trade it.

This is partly due to unscrupulous US dealers buying out of proof guns and selling them in the USA. Because of a number or reported failures, the US authorities took steps to redress the issue and the no export clause was enforced.

Don't misunderstand me. I think proof laws can and have in the past helped the Gun Trade by ensuring that every gun made is tested as fit for purpose.

My current argument is about whether the CIP adoption is an improvement to the old system or whether it is imposing standards that are less useful in practice.

Also, the other issue has been lack of communication and the timing of the adoption of new shotgun gauges this year.

So the end result is we end up destroying good guns attempting to obtain certification for export to the US, while the shit coming in from Turkey is simply assumed to be safe.

What a great system.

It has been my experience that British proof houses have done a poor job of examining chamber dimensions for compliance for the last 80 yrs or so.I have imported many used Brit guns and have found the majority to be undersized. There are a number of reasons for this but most must have been overlooked at initial proof and any subsequent re-proof.The issue is as follows:-
1954 Rules of Proof
Table 1 p 26 clearly states 12 bore forward chamber dia to be Min.0.800"Max 0.810", should be clear but......
Note at bottom of table states" To allow for polishing of chamber after proof dia shall be gauged as if such minimum dimension were 0.003" less". I speculate both proof houses only used a .797" go gauge, I also believe they didnt always check even with that
Thus we can see at least on new production guns, barrels and sleevers a forward dia of 0.797" was permitted (with the presumption that it would be polished up to 0.800")CIP no longer accept this and require chambers to be to finished dimension i.e. .800"-20,3mm
SAAMI picked up on this and have set forward dia min as .797".in their standards
Any Brit gunsmith getting reamers from Brownells or other US sources will end up below the now enforced std Brit CIP dia.
I had Clymer custom make me a 3" 12chamber reamer with .802" forward dia, .005" per inch chamber taper and a pilot after an @ 1/2" forcing cone. It cleans up chambers beautifully.
I must sympathize with Digs second point about lack of a heads up to the trade,effectively that last weeks accepted practice will be prohibited on Monday.
To do that the Proof House would have to admit to not doing their job , at least since 1954, which as we see from gunmans rules isn't going to happen.

Turkish guns, Russian guns and American guns imported into Britain have to go through the Proof House before they can be offered for sale. I wonder if there will be problems for those countries wishing to export to Britain. Lagopus.....

I wonder too.

FWIW, this is how proof laws/houses work as trade barriers. Gun makers from outside the proof law zone (read, here, “C.I.P.”) have the expense of proof at point of manufacture as part of the basic cost of production. The same guns are then assessed an additional cost for proof in the destination proof law zone. And somehow guns from outside the proof law zone have proof laws vigorously applied while guns from inside the proof law zone have lax application of the proof laws.

The intent is not to prevent the entry of foreign made guns. Rather the intent is to raise the cost of foreign made guns above the cost of local product. Not hard to do if many foreign made guns fail proof (and are a total loss.)

England has been infamous for this kind of trade chicanery for generations.

Anyone old enough to remember when England tried to discredit guns from foreign countries that passed English proof? For the young fellows, England required all foreign made firearms to be marked “Not English Make” (i.e. “Made By Wogs”). Here is an example, a Czech made .22 target pistol that was imported into England during that period:

I think The Rock has the perfect response to that post:


Oh Brother


OWD

Having grown up in the UK and started my hunting and target shooting "career" there I cannot see any advantage the British could have gained over imports through the proof process. Their products were already priced out of the mass market or non existent, as in the case of clay specific guns.

A look at the Gunmark catalogs of the time, probably the largest importer, is revealing of the market dominace of imports. And it was not a matter of price either. At a time when a new Auto 5 cost about the same as a used Dickson Round Action more UK buyers preferred the Auto 5.

[quote=Kyrie]



The intent is not to prevent the entry of foreign made guns. Rather the intent is to raise the cost of foreign made guns above the cost of local product.

[quote]

The United States did the same thing via tariffs, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

Very interesting example. Correct me if I'm wrong, the significant requirement for any firearm to be in proof is to be lawfully registered and subject to ownership, possession and transfer laws. I hope the British gunsmiths can figure this issue out, rather than give up.

This depends on the country and to some degree the proof house.

At a minimum, to pass proof a firearm must:

1) have a chamber and bore that is dimensionally compliant with whatever standard the proof house follows,

2) pass the final (i.e. definitive) firing proof compliant with whatever standard the proof house follows, and

3) be observed to be in safe operating condition and operate properly.

Proof may lapse if the firearm is significantly altered (by intent, usage, or accident) such that any of the above three requirements may have been adversely affected.

At a basic level proof houses are interested in the ownership of a firearm submitted to proof only to the extent it affects being able to identify, bill, and return the firearm to the owner or his agent.

National governments may levy proof houses with additional requirements, or not.

This post regarding CIP and the Proof Houses here in Brit land has cleared up a strange event I had about three months ago. I took one of my vintage guns which has two thousands of an inch to go in each barrel before it reaches .740 and for a 12 bore that will be the end of the road unless reproofed, to a well-established gunsmiths in Cannock. Somehow the conversation went along the lines of it is not out of proof yet so I would not go to the bother of having a re-proof yet. Also don’t you think it will ruin the looks of the gun having metric proof marks especially since it has a vintage set of London black powder and an early Birmingham Nitro marks though never saying the gun was not sound enough to pass proof. Talk about throwing chaff in the air, so after some further conversation it became apparent that he did not want to undertake the work even after I had reminded him that not that long ago he was very sure the gun would have no problem passing proof and in the end it would be me paying his bill. On leaving the shop I could not work out what the conversation was all about but I can now! Though I would still like the gun to have a re-proof but the way things are working out it may never happen for the foreseeable future.

Of course, just to clarify the law here. A person can make, own and use a gun that has never been through a Proof House if he or she wishes. It just becomes an offence to sell, offer for sale or export an un-proved gun. It is surprising how many turn up that were imported by U.S. Service personnel when there were a lot of air bass during the war and after. They sold them on to locals rather than take them back. I acquired a Winchester model 12 dated 1939 and an L.C.Smith double also dated 1939 in this way after they had passed through a few hands. Technically the seller committed an offence but I sent them to the Proof House before parting with them although I used them for a while without breaking any laws. I should think there are quite a few of these grey imports still about. Lagopus.....

Burrard discusses chamber dimensions and proof issues in his The Modern Shotgun. He observed that under the Rules of Proof there were no legal limits on chamber dimensions so the Gunmakers Assoc. drew up what became minimum dimensions. Gunmakers then typically made chambers slightly larger to accomodate faster loading. While there was some variation among makers, most increased chamber width by two thousandths and chamber length by five thousandths.

I have been going through copies of late 19th century and early 20th century 'The Sporting Goods Review & Gunmaker' magazine recently. It was the trade mag and mouthpiece of the Gunmakers Association.

Although I did not make notes, I did skim several articles, from around 1900, which discussed the Gunmakers Association deliberations concerning chamber lengths. One of their members volunteered to make a set of chamber dies to be presented to the London Proof House, for it's use. There was a photograph of the dies for several gauges in their own wooden case. I believe a Birmingham maker did the same for the Birmingham Proof House a little later on.

Sorry that the detail is fuzzy!

Tim

Damascus,

I would never advise someone to re-proof a gun unless legally required to do so. If it is two or three thou in proof, it is in proof.

Re-proof is a strain on a gun, can potentially ruin it and does nothing to help it. I think your gun maker gave you sound advice. He saved you unnecessary expense and risk to the gun for no tangible benefit.

Your gun will still be two thou in proof when you die, as long as you don't get it rusty and lap out any more.

Hi Small Bore

Firstly thank you for the advice Dig but there is a little more to my reasoning for needing to reproof the gun. It all started at the beginning of the year when I purchased a couple of thousand of my usual 2 ½ inch cartridges now usually my first choice is “Hull cartridge company” but at the time “Eley” 2 ½ where the only ones available. Now as far as I was aware both manufacturers produced a quality product so I thought no more about it. Until the first double using the new batch of Eley cartridges the guns recoil made all the fillings in my teeth rattle and at my age that is quite a few. On inspecting the cartridge cases closely I could see that the tip of the cases had entered the barrels forcing cone and in doing so caused the recoil problem.
The cure I was told was to have the chamber length increased slightly and this would enable the gun to cope with varying manufacturer’s case lengths, the down side was if the chamber was materially altered the gun would need a reproof now as the bore diameter was .738 inch and had been that size for some 45 years to date my thinking was to have the work done and this would extend the guns life into the next century.
Now after giving it a lot of thought, Dig you were going to be my next port of call for a second opinion on the problem.





In case the worst did happen at the proof house I did write a post about the guns first owner and his very colourful history, it was quite long so I was going to post it around Christmas time but I am not sure now if the gun does not go for proof.

If your gun only needs lengthening the cones a bit, and the metal is there to do so safely, and you have no plans to sell it, trade it or export it, why not do so? If I understand your proof rules, as posted on this thread, it would not be illegal for you to own and shoot it yourself. You just could not transfer it to anyone else. Fix it where you can enjoy it, shoot it the rest of your life, and let your heirs worry about it being out of proof. Do you not think you could find another gunsmith to do the work? Or is it illegal for them to do so?

SRH

Lengthening a chamber definitely requires reproof. Lengthening just the forcing cone, however--which sometimes is all that is necessary, with older guns that have very short, sharply tapered cones and present problems even with the 67MM shells approved for use in 2 1/2" guns--does not necessarily require reproof. According to McIntosh and Trevallion in "Shotgun Technicana", the London Proofhouse states that just lengthening the cone doesn't take a gun out of proof, but the Birmingham Proofhouse holds that it does.

Dig or any of our other British contributors: any comment on those conflicting views?

Damascus,
Thanks for posting that photo. I had the identicle problem with an old American gun, and posted about it, here, but, I had no photographic evidence.

The cure for my gun was a simple lengthening of the forcing cone, NOT the chambers. The cones in that gun were rather short and were more like "steps" for lack of a better word. I did have regular posters, here, reply that they doubted what I was describing could actually happen.

Best,
Ted

'Easing' the forcing cone does not affect the chambering and should sort out your problem. Lengthening the chamber will require re-proof. I also recommend trying different shells. Recently, I tested a Dickson round action for a client and forend that the case ends ragged when using Eley First, Hull High Pheasant and Eley VIP but not when using Eley Grand Prix. A lot of guns favour one cartridge over another - find what that is and stick to it.

Dig, I find that some early German built guns with 65mm. chambers have a very sharp chamber cone; almost a step, and will cause problems with some cartridges by cutting off a piece of the case mouth. I suspect that they were made for a true 65mm. paper case roll crimped cartridge which would work perfectly by unrolling right up to the length of the chamber. Something worth looking at on older guns. Lagopus.....

That is about right.

Ted, Charles Fergus reported that problem, also with a cone that was more like a step, in an article on Damascus guns he did for Shooting Sportsman. His problem came with the 67MM Brit shells in a 19th century gun. Same shells in a 2 1/2" Brit gun from the 1930's: no problem. In his case, he found that true 65MM shells (don't recall that he specified a particular brand) worked OK in his 19th century gun. I believe, but can't recall for sure, that one or two others here may have reported a similar problem with very short cones.

This is often the case, British retailed shells for 2 1/2" chambers can actually be 65mm,67mm, 67.5mm. The thickness of the plastic may also be an issue.