Quote:

---

Same way you "proof" a bubba'd milsurp or rebarrelled Remchesteravage. There ain't no cradle-to-the-grave bureuacratic handholding for doubles or Mausers in the USA,

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I read the "proofing loads" thread and it kind of scared me. Is there a good chance that if I tried my hand at converting a DR from a shotgun and did as good of job as can be done, it will fail? It just sounds like this might be a common thing. This is the only way I'll probably ever put my hands on a DR and I'd be sick if I put $2000 in it just for it to fall apart on the first shot.

Other than that I think I have a pretty good idea about how they are proofed, except for what to measure before and after the proof loads. But as Bramble said they didn't use any measurements at the proof house just an examination.

---

Sort of reiterating what somebody over on the Proof Loads post stated, my opinion is that if you have to ask the series of specific questions you are asking, you should not attempt to do this yourself.

Good heavens, friend, of course it might fail!

Make no doubt about it, I personally think the British proof system is, from a safety standpoint, a joke, though I readily admit that a defendant in a court of law might find it of some value, inasmuch as courts of law are something of a joke as well. So yes, it does serve a valuable purpose, though it does not declare a gun safe for every use it might be or should be expected to survive. I believe Bramble's description of the British proof system definitively "proofs" my point.

In fact, I believe the British system, while it might separate some wheat from chaff, is dangerous to rely on IF, IF the person shooting the gun somehow thinks that he doesn't have to inspect and maintain and knowledgeably feed his own hardware every time he heads to the range. DITTO ALL OTHER SYSTEMS.

They all serve a purpose in CYA for the gunmakers but "proving" a gun DOES NOT mean it is "SAFE". It only means that it fired a certain load on a certain day and it stayed together when it was fired and if done at the British proof house, the work was done by some guy who didn't have to get his cousin out of his sisters bed long enough to load the ammunition.

This gun thing is inherently unsafe. It is not golf. I enjoy it and so do many blokes who read these posts, but let us never forget that things that go boom nicely can go boom in a decidely unpleasant way. And never forget that the early-number 1903 Springfields that blinded some Doughboys were EVERY ONE PROVEN, and with known-pressure ammo to-boot. {BTW, I've never heard of a Lee Enfield letting go like them, but then they were proven in Merry Old. } But don't forget also that it can happen even to Modern Man, as it did with the SAKO's that were recalled a few years back.

I have no doubt about my own ability to prove a gun as I and, I might add, every other handloader does it all the time, literally every time we work up a load. If you don't know what I mean by this, please see my first paragraph above.

Putting it another way, IMHO, every time you change a load and fire a round of ammunition the pressures of which are unknown to you {and they all are unless you own and use accurate pressure testing equipment}, you ignore and indeed nullify the value of your gun's original proof and you step out into the realm of proof-testing your own gun.

Now, Sir, do you need John Bull for that?

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

About what I said earlier, I know that the gun could fail. I was just wondering is there a high percentage of conversion DR's that do?

---

I have utterly no idea what percentage of conversions "fail" {I'd love to know, too}. Just because I am half Irish and my ears are still ringing from 4th of July celebrations doesn't mean that my cantankerousness is without purpose here {I'm an Anglo-phile at heart! }.

When you say "fail", you MUST define what that means. When a broom and a vaccum cleaner are needed to collect your gun after proof firing I think we all would agree it "failed" proof. But what if it is still more-or-less together, but after firing it is "a little" loose? I will assume here that even if it is intuitive, there must be some standard {maybe not...} used by the British proof house to establish "failure". Bramble notes a loose .600 and that is exactly the point I am trying to make. That one failed.

Would it have failed your own proof or would you have looked at your checkbook and the cost to build the thing and the arguments with Honey over the construction expenses and said "Ahh, it'll hold..."?

See what I mean?

If you prove your own gun, you will have to establish parameters of what constitutes failure and passing. Why? Because catastrophic failure is not the only result that can occur when a gun is fired with the mystic "30% overload".

In fact, as an example, as I mentioned in the Proof Loads post, proof firing was used as a manufacturing process in the building of Lee-Enfield rifles and IIRC, .002 setback of lugs and .001 expansion of chamber were anticipated as a result of proof firing. These are measurable effects of proof firing, so don't let anybody tell you that all gun types shouldn't be effected AT ALL by the firing of a proof overload.

But the rub is, that was with L-E's. What about your basement double? What effect would YOU allow, and would you even be able to measure it?

See my point?

By now everybody who is still awake and following this probably thinks I am a mole for the Royal Proof House.

To the contrary. As mentioned, I believe an individual can prove their own gun. In fact, I don't think it is that difficult. But that person MUST establish parameters of acceptance before doing so. As mentioned, catastrophic failure is not the only option... And wisely, that person must ask himself if he ever wants to sell the thing and mull over how his proof will stand muster if there is trouble down the road. Yes, personally, I believe proof testing isn't difficult at all FOR SOMEONE WHO IS COGNIZANT OF THE ISSUES. and it certainly doesn't need the addition of a government bureaucracy to get it done, particularly when that b-cracy performs as described by Bramble in his expositions {very informative by the by}.

Bramble states: "The process of proving does not allow anybody to abuse a firearm or subject it to unknown pressures." Absolutely true. The last bit sinks the ship of all those who place metaphysical faith in proof firing or who handload. Why? Because as soon as you use any other load than that which was used for proof firing you step outside the assertion of safety provided by the proof firing of the gun, and whether that firing was done by a Bureaucracy or Bubba's sister's boyfriend doesn't matter.

Does proof firing provide a "benchmark for safety" as Bramble states? I think it does, but once the gun leaves the proof house {or Bubba's basement} it is up to the gun owner to determine if the gun continues to be safe and in order to keep the ghost of Johnny Cochran at bay i would NEVER assert that because a gun passed proof inside a British Proof House it continues to be safe! Just because it passed proof doesn't mean it continues to be "safe". Remember the exploding, "craze cracked" No.4 Lee-Enfields? And ditto for some 96-actioned Swede target rifles? All had been proved, but all those that blew up needed careful inspection and didn't get it.

My main reason for yapping so much about this topic is that I think the whole concept of safe firing/testing/handloading/proving gets shortshrift and needs to be evaluated and kicked around from time-to-time. {Don't worry, I'm almost through with the topic...} I have literally heard guys say that because a gun is "proof tested" and because a "margin of safety" is built into it {"the manufacturers aren't allowed to sell something if it isn't safe..."} the thing can handle a few grains above max, or even book max when even book max is unknown as far as pressures in their specific gun is concerned. That some get away with it for years only encourages activity that damages guns. I have seen MANY guns worn out from excessive firing or excessive firing of heavy loads. Revolvers and DOUBLE SHOTGUNS and other break-actions in particular.

As far as legal liability in the USA is concerned, the mere fact that a gun has been proofed, sorry, proven, is no stop to the juggernaut of the USS Alan Dershowitz. So it has been proven. So what? If it has been worn out, or modified, or damaged, or such points can be concocted by the claimant and the defendant saddled with them, the sale of the thing may constitute a negligent act.

That it hasn't been proven by a gub'mn't proof house is no guarantee of legal liability for damages either, if the one-to-which-it-was-sold feeds it a steady diet of handloads made up of cases overflowing with Bullseye powder, levelled with a strike from the Ace of Spades and compressed with two bullets and fired with the cleaning rod left in the barrel.

Regardless of proof, every gun sold must be accompanied by honesty, forthrightness and good faith, and even then it might come back to bite a guy!

I admit, a British Nitro Proof mark might fool the lion's share of jurors, but it's lack is no guarantee of the Defendant's post-trial poverty, either.

Here's a question for you: From a gun that has been proven at a British Proof House {or Belgian, etc, or Bubba's Basement}, how many bullets can be safely fired?

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Edited by 9ThreeXFifty7 (09/07/07 11:35 PM)

Post Extras: