My opinion...

No insults are intended {except to the ballistic bureaucrats themselves, none of whom I believe are represented on this forum...}

I've stated in the past, the British Proof House methods demonstrated have never filled me with confidence and I believe they have always been more or less useless and merely supportive of an additional useless bureaucracy. We have no such bureaucracy and certainly do not need it, either. Of course, under the current Regime I can see it coming... No gun may be sold without first being sent...by the dealer selling it it the new owner...to the Washington DC United States Union Proof House. Such a gun once proofed must be stamped with the initials of the Attorney General Eric "Patriot Hanger" Holder...

As for "10% powder overcharge on book maximum", such proves the absolute worthlessness of such a coffee klatch of ballistic buffoons.

Such a policy assumes they rely on Nosler, Hornady, Vitavouri, Speer, Hodgdon, Alliant, Accurate, Mulwex, Somchem, etc to determine maximum for them? Good grief what a stupid rule. All of the bookwriters assert their maximums are maximum using the gun and specific components listed ONLY. In that sense, no such general, universal "overcharge on maximum" exists.

And more...take a revolver for example...{not that many revolvers are being "proofed" by the British Proof House...}. A "10% overcharge" with some loads would demonstrate a dangerous load under the best circumstances.

So, the question is begged...

If the Proof House Genius's damage or wreck a guy's gun due to poor SOP, are they legally liable, or can they merely charge any ole case with any ole charge of any ole powder, blow the dam thing to ribbons, puff their chests out and declare it to have been a loser from the start?

Personally, I trust the legal concept of "civil liability" more than a bureacracy any day of the week.

Yes, I am saying it...I trust lawyers more than bureacrats!!