First, great topic.

They are seemingly quite common and like Daryl I've always considered them dubious. In addition, this is one of theose modifications that seems to be accepted by many collectors on the "If it's German, it must be done right" theory when if such a thing was done to a modern action by a modern gunsmith the gun would be accepted by everyone as only good for holding tomatoes up in the garden.

It is a hideous modification IMO and yet some of the books say it is fine, etc, etc, etc.

Thanks very much to the Germans here for their comment. VERY interesting. I always wondered what extent of this modification WOULD scratch proof.

Now, here is a question;

I recognise that each country has their own legal liability standards and such, but in nation's where there is a national proof house and law, who is liable for a gun that self destructs with normal pressure factory loads, the proof house or the gunmaker?

Does proof eliminate legal liability of the maker?

I'm one of those ones who in spite of the insanity of the American court system on many issues believes our system is right-on in not requiring proofing but am really curious about how the liability end of things works in nations where proofing is required.

Thanks.