doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Proof House in USA??

The other thing, Larry, is if you can get a competent gunsmith to assure you of your gun's safety, why not get a competent gunsmith to do so rather than involving the government? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Why make it mandatory?

I see this a lot. Some want the government involved in every phase of their lives and love to create bureaus to make them feel more secure.

Interestingly, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government. It was set up with safety of sporting arms and ammunition in mind. It would seem logical that SAAMI could set up a reproof committee for the evaluation of altered guns. It would have to be an organization such as SAAMI for standardization purposes and legitimacy in terms of reciprocity with foreign proof houses IMHO. And the federal government would not need to be involved with reproof anymore than they are already involved with SAAMI. Just a thought for what it's worth.

The IRS was set up to fairly tax the citizens of the US. The ATF was set up to bag illegal firearms and enforce prohibition.

See where this is going?

It would appear that none of the above are capable of doing their job....

Does the article say all the barrels sold were proofed or just the design was proofed ?

Here-in lies the problem many are Skirting over & avoiding. As it stands I can use my 3" gun which happens to be a 16, with the loads for which it was intended, I don't need it proofed. The stated purpose which brought up this whole topic was to "Protect" the unknowledgeable & unknowing.

The only way of doing this would be to proof the guns with the maximum load available for the length chamber the gun possesses. The vast majority would indeed "Pass Proof". This then would tell the "Unknowing" they were quite OK to be fed a regular diet of the stoutest loads available off the shelf. We would actually be doing them a dis-service to do this, rather than trying to educate them.

The best thing to do with mandatory proof in the US is to
"Let it Go, Turn it Loose" while we still can.

It should also be noted that lengthening a chamber does not Automatically render the gun dangerous. There are large numbers of American guns which have ample steel in the chamber area to render them OK for a lengthened chamber. That in fact is probably not the major consideration on most guns, but rather the increased stress of regular use with heavier loads than they were designed for. It has been reported here on this forum on several occasaions that "Factory" gunsmiths routinely opened the chambers on Foxes sent back for re-work to 2 3/4". It is also noted that the factories when they changed from the shorter shells as standard often went to the longer chambers with no other modidifications or "Beefing UP" of their guns, they just cut them with longer chambers.

I made an error in one of my statements above, re the pressure barrels. They were standardized, all made by Winchester, and used by the ammunition companies (at least a couple of which--Winchester and Remington--were also gun manufacturers). It was all about standardization of ammunition velocities and pressures (without, at least per the article, interference from the evil government). And the reason the ammo makers were interested in doing that had to do with making shells that were safe for the guns in which they were to be shot, and also to improve the general performance of their loads. As for the arms makers, the fact that they proofed their barrels can be seen by the proofmarks you'll find on them (as well as reference to the pressures at which the various companies proofed their guns, also from period Rifleman articles) whether it's an Elsie or a Parker or a Winchester 21. And of course there was Olin's famous test, in which he fired a couple thousand proof loads through a 21, comparing its ability to survive the stress of repeated use of proof loads in comparison to Winchester's competitors (all of which also survived dozens of times more proof loads than were generally used in standard proof testing).

Miller makes some good points. Because American shotguns, in general, were overbuilt, it was not necessarily a problem to lengthen the chambers of an American 12ga from 2 5/8" to 2 3/4" and then fire the longer ammunition in those modified guns. (However, it is also worth noting that the American arms companies--again, per Rifleman articles from that period--proofed their short-chambered guns to lower pressures than their long-chambered guns.) But we also know, from discussions on this BB, that in the case of light 20ga guns--especially some Ithaca Flues models--using modern ammunition in those guns, most of which would originally have had 2 1/2" chambers, thus meaning that a full 1/4" of chamber steel would have to be removed if they were lengthened to 2 3/4", has resulted in "catastrophic failures". Especially cracked frames on some Flues 20's. When you lengthen the chambers of a gun that has been proofed for X level of pressure, for the purpose of using ammunition designed for guns proofed for X + something level of pressure, that gun is out of proof. And it is out of proof if it's a Fox or an Elsie, every bit as much as if it's a Scott or a Purdey. The only difference is, we're less likely to know it's out of proof without knowing the original chamber length of the gun in question, when it was made, etc, than we are with a gun sold in a country where it is illegal to sell guns that are no longer in proof. It is, much like the safety on a gun, simply an added (but certainly not foolproof) level of protection for the buyer. Think the law that requires car dealers to disclose the true mileage on a car they sell you. While that does not guarantee that the car won't fall apart shortly after you drive it off the lot, it does guarantee that it only has 50,000 miles and not 150,000 miles. Personally, I think--from the consumer's standpoint--that's a good law. And just as a car with only 50,000 miles can be expected to have more "life" left in it than one with 150,000, so can a shotgun using ammunition appropriate to its level of proof be expected to have a longer life than one fed a steady diet of ammunition with a higher pressure than that for which the gun was built. So while it's not necessarily about danger to the shooter, there's still a very clear consumer protection element involved.

Wow, is there any justification that's unacceptable. What changed, now 'punched out' chamber may be ok and the danger threat level has subsided.

What a farce, by seeing a proof mark, the consumer is assured that the proper loads were used in a gun. Is it even slightly possible to see a problem with this reasoning.

Why confirm some of the biggest worries of the thread. You equivocate gun integrity with other government regulated areas. Does discharging a shotgun shell leave a carbon footprint. Are baby strollers required to support double the rated weight. Are school kids eating a proper diet.

Doesn't matter what the proof house article says, we now understand that you have other agendas. Not once have you addressed the concern that if you scan a gun for a proof mark and none shows up, we can conclude that no mods were done to the gun.

I suspect you prefer serial numbers to be shaken out of the woodwork.

America doesn't need a proof house, America needs reamer control!

Amen.....pass the plate.