Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Proof loads

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

Double Rifles, Single Shots & Combinations >> Double Rifles

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
beleg2
.375 member


Reged: 15/08/07
Posts: 591
Loc: Bahía Blanca - Argentina
Re: Proof loads [Re: bonanza]
      #85037 - 02/09/07 01:59 PM

Hi,
Any advice on Black powder proof charges?
I would like to reproof (home made proof) my Snider double rifle as it have been abused by previous owners. I have shot more then 60 times without any problem but just want to be shure.

Standard Snider charge was 70gn of FFg over a 480gn lead bullet.
Im thinking about something like 90-100gn of FFFg (the only powder I can get) onver 510gn bullet.

Any advise will helps.
Thanks
Martin


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: doublegunfan]
      #97739 - 27/02/08 12:06 PM

Proof loads? Why bother? You have already exceeded the design pressures for the action you have chosen. SAAMI Maximum pressures for the 12 gauge are 11,500psi and for the .444 Marlin they are 42,000psi. You may have put some stronger barrels in the gun but the action is still a shotgun action. Here is something I posted on another site regarding what you are doing:

"I had a conversation with Paul Jaeger several years ago about making a .375 O/U on a Ruger shotgun. He had done some conversions like that before and chose the Ruger because of the strength of the action. He said he was no longer converting them because of "problems". I asked what the problems were and he went into a discussion centered around the weaknesses of a shotgun action and problems of overworking it. He mentioned double firing. He mentioned setback. He mentioned safety. A well known USA double rifle manufacturer also gained some early notoriety by converting Ruger shotguns to double rifles. You can sometimes find those early guns for sale online, most often in in .444 Marlin or .375H&H. These days, they refuse to do a shotgun conversion - for good reason.

But bold individuals continue to make cheap conversions using ... shotguns as the basis. I wish them good luck and hope they continue to keep all their fingers. After all, anything works until it breaks."

I would think an engineer would have a good grasp of what's going on. I say, if you really must, take it out and shoot it till it either scares you or blows up.

Good luck.

Grenadier

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Marrakai
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 2693
Loc: Darwin, Top End of Australia
Re: Proof loads [Re: Grenadier]
      #97855 - 28/02/08 02:07 PM

Grenadier:
You are right to advise caution with shotgun conversions, but the sheer number of these things in common use today with no safety issues whatsoever, my own .577 Light Nitro included, might prove your overall assumption incorrect.

Regarding your comparison of 11,500 psi vs 42,000 psi: the basal area of the Marlin case is only a fraction of the basal area of the 12-bore shotshell, so the back-thrust on the action is probably in the same ball-park. With the much thicker chamber-walls of the .444 on a 12-bore action, no worries about barrel strength.

Having said that, the BP load suggested in beleg2's post is a little high and would not be something any of us would recommend for a vintage rifle.

--------------------
Marrakai
When the bull drops, the bullshit stops!
--------------------------------
www.marrakai-adventure.com.au


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarg
.400 member


Reged: 20/01/07
Posts: 1188
Loc: New Zealand Australia South A...
Re: Proof loads [Re: Marrakai]
      #97874 - 28/02/08 07:51 PM

I say guys ! you may have the wrong end of the stick here , he wants to reproof factory rifle with home load !
His rifle , I believe is FACTORY double in Snider cartridge !?

--------------------
No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.

- General George S. Patton


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Proof loads [Re: Grenadier]
      #97903 - 29/02/08 04:25 AM

Grenadier.

You cannot proove an action, only a barrelled action.

The proof pressure of the 12G doner action is irrelivent, it is limited by the chamber wall thickness not the lug sheer strength.
As Marrakai pointed out the thrust is the important figure.

If somebody insists in converting a Ruger O/U which is not a great shotgun base to begin with, into a double using .375H+H which was never designed to be fired in a double rifle then any problems could be likley anticipated.
But .444 on a good S/S action will not move in a lifetime. The thrust bearing area is so much greater than a lever action rifle for which the cartridge was designed.

Regards


(edited because I was being a grumpy old prick )

Edited by Bramble (29/02/08 08:08 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: Marrakai]
      #97916 - 29/02/08 05:08 AM

Marrakai,

You are correct regarding the back thrust. However, there is more to consider. For example, steel has some elastic properties that are much like Silly Putty. You can give Silly Putty a slow pull and it will stretch a great deal. But if you give it a rapid pull it won't stretch, it will break. The pressure curves created by firing shotgun shells and rifle cartridges are very different. The rifle cartridges have a much steeper and higher rise in pressure. It is hard to argue that firing the rifle cartridge isn't working the steel more than firing the shotgun cartridge. You may not have exceeded the elastic limits of the steel in your guns but there can be no denying that you are getting much closer to those limits than if you were just firing shotgun shells.

We understand the pressure/area differences between the rifle and shotgun shells and the effect on back thrust. Now consider that the rear of the small diameter rifle case distributes its high pressure back over just as small a portion of the action face. That little area takes the biggest hit. The area surrounding a shotgun's firing pin holes is the weakest area of the face. This area can be reinforced by installing hard steel bushings where the holes are located, but most people making shotgun-to-rifle conversions don't go through the extra work and expense to do this.

Firing overcharged loads, firing in extremely hot or cold environments, firing through a dirty/fouled bore, firing many shots in rapid succession, and all kinds of other situations will subject a firearm to extra stresses. All guns are "overbuilt" to provide a margin of safety for these types of extreme conditions and, of course, some firearms are "overbuilt" more than others. Converting a gun built to fire 11,500psi cartridges to one that will fire 42,000psi cartridges significantly reduces any margins of safety the manufacturer built into the gun. What you get will shoot --- but so will a zip gun made from a piece of galvanized pipe with a cap screwed over the end. The whole discussion boils down to this: What level of risk are you willing to accept?

Grenadier

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: Sarg]
      #97919 - 29/02/08 05:14 AM

Sarg,

With sincere respect, the original post was regarding "converting a Beretta 411 12 ga SxS into a double rifle in .444 Marlin"

Grenadier

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #97922 - 29/02/08 05:43 AM

Bramble,

Well, I sure didn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers and I never intended to do any "scaremongering".

If you are a professional that bills out at £75.00 PH and you put 100 hours into a conversion then, obviously, your conversions are not the type I was referring to. Regarding "cheap conversions": I still stand by what I said about them. There are many people out there that think you can just solder some sleeves into shotgun barrels, install rifle sights, and thereby magically convert a shotgun into a rifle. My hat is off to you for doing it the proper way.

For what it's worth, £75.00 for 100 hours is about $15,000US. Add that to the cost of a suitable shotgun to build the rifle on and you have enough in the USA to buy a "factory made" double rifle on the used market. You can even pick up some new Euro double rifles for less than that.

Grenadier

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Proof loads [Re: Grenadier]
      #97927 - 29/02/08 08:06 AM

Grenadier

I appologise and I have gone back and deleted my post.

In hindsight I am un-necessaraly peevish tonight, it has been a long week.

The thrust ( no pun intended) of my argument remains. I have a 4xx series Beretta which is in the process of becoming a .470NE. Having examined the action carefully I have no quams about its ability to cope. 444 would be a breeze.
There is no corrolation between the proof pressure of a shotgun action with barrels and the strength same action with rifle barrels and its subsiquent re-proof pressure.

I don't do anything of this nature without serious consideration.
Please see the threads of mine on the .450#2 and 9.3 takedown.

Yes I have $15,000 in that gun in labour alone, the barrels were a further $800, action $1200. etc etc.

But that is the point, it is not a factory built gun, it is hand built.
I could afford to buy one, I just don't want to.
Without departing too far into some mystical BS I really do think that you can pick up a hand made item, gun, furniture, knife etc and somehow it is different to the product of a factory.

I do not for a moment ignore that there are some people that do some silly things and I am one of the first santmonious gits to point it out. But IMHO this is not one of them.

Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarg
.400 member


Reged: 20/01/07
Posts: 1188
Loc: New Zealand Australia South A...
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #97929 - 29/02/08 08:22 AM

I say guys ! it is I who had wrong end eh!
Sorry, I ment beleg2 who asked on his rifle not the 2005 start post !

Thanks

--------------------
No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.

- General George S. Patton


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #100035 - 23/03/08 09:09 AM

Here is the kind of conversion I was talking about:


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=95344942

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
450_366
.400 member


Reged: 17/01/07
Posts: 1068
Loc: Sweden, west-coast.
Re: Proof loads [Re: Grenadier]
      #107093 - 09/06/08 11:09 PM

I dont now if Searcy reproofs his guns, but if he did or sent it to a proof house wouldnt it be ok then?
In the old days they build doubles,combos and shotguns on the same actions, are these also dangerus?

--------------------
Andreas

"Yeas it kicks like a mule he said, but always remember that its much worse standing on the other end"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
4seventyModerator
Sponsor


Reged: 07/05/03
Posts: 2145
Loc: Queensland Australia
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #110150 - 21/07/08 05:04 PM

Quote:

a Ruger O/U which is not a great shotgun base to begin with




Bramble,
I'm not trying to start any trouble, but what are your reasons for disliking the Red Label action for conversion?
No grief here, just interested to know your opinion.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Proof loads [Re: 4seventy]
      #110183 - 22/07/08 11:18 AM

It won't start trouble Alan, it is only my opinion.

My reasons are that:
I don't like the bolting arrangment.
It has inertia cocking of the second barrel.
It is an investment cast SS action, not a forging.
It is light for caliber (7 1/2 lbs 12 guage)
I have a predudiced view that although the American firearms industry has made some superb products over the years, shotguns are not one of these.

Best Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tatume
.400 member


Reged: 09/06/07
Posts: 1084
Loc: Gloucester, Va USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #110203 - 22/07/08 08:49 PM

Quote:

what are your reasons for disliking the Red Label action for conversion?



Quote:

It is an investment cast SS action, not a forging.



Bill Ruger made a strong case for his claim that investment-cast gun parts are superior to forgings.
After several decades of using Ruger products in some very intense chamberings and long, hard use,
I have never seen a Ruger casting fail. Machined forgings often look more classey, but I don't believe
that quality investment castings are mechanically inferior.

Take care, Tom


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Proof loads [Re: Tatume]
      #110240 - 23/07/08 06:49 AM

Hi Tom

yep it could very well be. It is only my predudice after all.

But consider this, for as long as I can remember whenever we want to get real horsepower out of an engine one of the first things that needs replacing is the cast crank with a forged item, same with the con rods.

Are Ruger castings good enough for their origional purpose. I have no doubt whatsoever that they are. But forging does realign the molecular structure of the steel and toughens the component.
When we look at conversions we are stressing the actions beyond their design limits and I just like an added margin.
BH in his article about his nice Red lable 45-70 conversion says himself that he sticks to low end loads. These then are far below NE loads.

Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Birdhunter50
.375 member


Reged: 03/06/07
Posts: 815
Loc: Iowa,U.S.A.
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #110248 - 23/07/08 09:51 AM

One of the biggest problems with converting a shotgun to any rifle caliber is that somewhere out there is a nitwit just waiting to cram one of his hotloaded "Homeloads" into your nicely converted rifle, just because it will fit in the chamber. That is the reason that all of these need to be marked and hopefully built to hold up to ANY factory loads that are available. This is also why, for years any 45/70 loads that could be bought in any hardware store, were largely downloaded, because there were many weak 45/70's still out there that could blow with a modern, hotter loading.
444's are loaded quite a bit hotter than what I load in the converted 45/70's.
I know of one nut here locally that almost blew up his Marlin 444 with overloaded handloads. He was using a bullet that was way overweight and then added more fast powder to offset for the heavier bullets. I went out to see him one Saturday morning and found him filing .100 inch off the ends of his cases so he could crimp the heavier bullets. Left full length, they wouldn't chamber in his gun! Some people could blow up ANY gun if left to their own devices long enough. Bob H.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
450_366
.400 member


Reged: 17/01/07
Posts: 1068
Loc: Sweden, west-coast.
Re: Proof loads [Re: Tatume]
      #110371 - 25/07/08 04:00 AM

Did anyone see the mythbuster episode where they shot a s/s under water? That one did crack nicely, dont now the make but perhaps anyone here does.

--------------------
Andreas

"Yeas it kicks like a mule he said, but always remember that its much worse standing on the other end"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.416 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 4783
Loc: Idaho
Re: Proof loads [Re: Tatume]
      #110388 - 25/07/08 11:44 AM

Quote:

Quote:

what are your reasons for disliking the Red Label action for conversion?



Quote:

It is an investment cast SS action, not a forging.



Bill Ruger made a strong case for his claim that investment-cast gun parts are superior to forgings.
After several decades of using Ruger products in some very intense chamberings and long, hard use,
I have never seen a Ruger casting fail. Machined forgings often look more classey, but I don't believe that quality investment castings are mechanically inferior.

Take care, Tom




Maybe this is the place to ask...

Some time ago I flattened a Ruger bolt handle as I like a flat bolt handle, being a lefty with the gun a righty it makes for easier manipulation and less cramping agains the scope when reaching over.

Anyway, there was a large occlusion in the center of the handle knob. It was unsightly so I drilled it out and made a ring-type bolt handle knob.

But...this gave me pause for thought.

How do they check for such in the lugs?

--------------------
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: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kaimiloa
.224 member


Reged: 12/03/09
Posts: 37
Loc: Arizona, USA
Re: Proof loads [Re: Peterb]
      #132491 - 16/04/09 11:50 AM

Fred (Doublegunfan) and all,
This is such a great thread that it deserves a bit of new life I think. A lot of thoughts are swimming around now, so bear with me if this post gets long. Obviously, all those who read the whole three pages of the thread can see the considerable controversy around proofing. My friends in England absolutely swear by the necessity of their Proof Houses (not the mention the English proof law) whereas I think some of the English customs that prevail with today's proofing are arguably not good.

In the above thread is eyewitness coverage submitted by Bramble of some proofings at the London Proof House in early 2007.He wrote:
"I should like to add to this thread my experiences from the London proof house last week.

There are apparently three methods.

If the cartridge is current and common, they may have an assembled proof load in hand.

For my .450#2 they did not and I was asked to bring primed cases and heads into which they were going to assemble a proof load in blackpowder. However they only do this with lead bullets.

When they discovered that I had Woodleigh solids they decided to use my service load which was near maximum and they took the cases and oiled them liberally before firing the rifle.

The rifle was fired with the foreend detached.

Both barrels were loaded alough they were fired one by one.

The examination before and after was visual and physical. Checking that the rifle was on face, examining the bore and chamber.

Immediatly after firing the technicion removed the rifle from the chamber and before opening it held the breach up to the light to check for any gap opening between the barrels and the action face. He then opened the rifle and removed and examined the cartridges remarking on the ammount of primer extrusion indicating the pressure levels. Both primers were volcanic in extrusion and one had a burr forced up that I could remove with a thumb nail. He examined the chambers and the exterior of the barrels. No measuring equiptment was used.

He did remark to me that a similar process had knocked the .600 from a major manufacturer off the face just a couple of weeks earlier.

My rifle was stamped up as proofed to CIP limit of 3500 BAR.

My 6mm BR Norma Ruger #1 was proofed to the same method at the same time using my Lapua factory rounds again because of the relative rarity of the round."


Now it is my hope that somehow the Proof House has done CUP or Piesoelectric pressure testing using a myriad of oiled cartridges and somehow knows that this constitutes a reliable Proof for various cartridges suitable to stamp the gun as proofed to 3500 BAR. One BAR is about 14.5 pounds per square inch. So by oiling the cartridges, including B.P. ones apparently, we are to believe those guns are safe up to almost 51,000 psi!! I submit that very likely the pressure testing with oiled cartridges has not been done to any degree and so this proof stamping becomes almost ludicrous. If I am wrong I will gladly say so and apologize if offered good evidence.

That brings us back to the U.S. and many other place where fear of lawsuits produces very good and safe guns almost all the time. Many a gun and cartridge now in production started off as a likely wildcat - with many telling the experimenter they were crazy, about to blow themselves up, etc. Modern steels are WAY better than they were when rifles that we shoot with aplomb were made.

We also know that a good many shotgun actions have been converted to fire rifle cartridges and since I have heard of few accidents, its seems the daunting efforts to do this weed out a lot of dunces along the way. So let's just look at some "bottom lines" in this regard.

First off, tho not a DR builder, I am rather familiar with that breed, and would highly recommend that anyone contemplating building one, or having done so, get W. Ellis Brown's book "Building Double Rifles on Shotgun Actions" - 2nd Edition. Having spent a few hours with Mr. Brown in his shop, and read his book thoroughly, I can say that he is unusual in being quite humble about his experiences in this cloudy forest - and not at all afraid to tell of mishaps and serious mistakes. His descriptions of gun building are quite good and the photo back up is superb and profuse. See the last page for what cartridges he will, and WILL NOT, build a double rifle on. Notably, the .444 Marlin is in the low pressure category that he WILL build with.

If you are building with liners you can call the manufacturer and find out what steel is used and whether it is heat treated or whatever. Brown's book has a formula to help figure out needed breech thickness, so that may help. If the liner is intended to hold the pressure of something like the .444 on its own, the mfgr. should be able to tell you. The engineers at the steel-maker can tell you more about it too.

If you are using new barrels on the monobloc breech section of the shotgun, as Brown often does, again the barrel maker can tell you what the steel is and what it is designed to hold. You don't have to reinvent the wheel if it is already designed to hold a good bit more pressure than any standard load in the .444/.

That leaves the action strength, and again Brown tells you what to look for in a suitable SG action. Other SG actions are already being used here in the U.S. and elsewhere. Notably, it is the action strength and resistance to stretch that the London Proof House seems to be wanting to test with their oiled cartridge method.

I couldn't agree more with those who say you are playing with fire by picking out this or that smokeless powder and assuming that 7% above the max load will give you a 30% increase in pressure and therefore yield a suitable proof. This is generalizing dangerously - to say the least. Hodgdon is very progressive in the powder field now and a good talk with one of their senior ballistic techs MIGHT reveal a powder to use for a given cartridge which MIGHT yield linear pressure as you add a small percentage more than the max they list in their tables. This would be "off the record" of course, and very possibly you won't get the info. Again, fall back on what Brown does in his discussion on proofing, - if you feel you MUST proof despite researching all of the above.

If all else fails, and assuming you have built a decently strong gun, it is very likely safe to just fill your .444 cases with 1.5F Swiss B.P., topped with a typical bullet for same, and have a happy life shooting your D.R.

Aloha, Ka'imiloa

--------------------
Few pleasures exceed restoring a nice old gun and returning it to shooting and hunting.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Huvius
.416 member


Reged: 04/11/07
Posts: 2810
Loc: Colorado
Re: Proof loads [Re: Kaimiloa]
      #132501 - 16/04/09 01:25 PM

This is a good thread to revisit once in a while.

A couple questions I keep thinking of are:

1. If you are going through the effort to build and regulate a double for your own personal use, why worry about using maximum loads? IMO, reduced loads are more fun anyway - think cowboy action shooting. Load well below the accepted max. and mark the barrels as such. Or load with BP which is fun too.

2. How does a drilling pass a visual inspection at a proofhouse if it is impossible to see if a gap exists between the barrel and the breechface? Particularly if the rifle (high pressure) barrel is on the bottom?

--------------------
He who lives in the past is doomed to enjoy it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Proof loads [Re: Huvius]
      #132528 - 16/04/09 07:30 PM

As an appendium to this old thread.

London Proof house have revised their methodology under the new Master.

All rifles are being proved with loads assembled in Birmingham. If no proof load exists then one has to wait until they obtain one.

I had to do this last month with 2 new .318WR

I am somewhat uneasy with the science. I am informed that a 10% powder overcharge on book maximum is being loaded. The technicians were unable to give me any further data. I did point out that increases in powder did not necessaraly give liniar increases in pressure. But these guys do not make the rules.

I was not present when the WR were fired my employee was. He tells me that the report was so loud when one of the rifles was fired that the technician was startled. The bolt on that rifle had to be hammered open.

I am not sure the new regeim is a step forward.

Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
450_366
.400 member


Reged: 17/01/07
Posts: 1068
Loc: Sweden, west-coast.
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #132530 - 16/04/09 07:59 PM

Wow, 10% more powder, thats much.

Makes one wonder how much pressure a 460Wby gives at another 10 grains ?

--------------------
Andreas

"Yeas it kicks like a mule he said, but always remember that its much worse standing on the other end"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Huvius
.416 member


Reged: 04/11/07
Posts: 2810
Loc: Colorado
Re: Proof loads [Re: Bramble]
      #132542 - 16/04/09 11:09 PM

Quote:

The bolt on that rifle had to be hammered open.

I am not sure the new regeim is a step forward.





Bramble, Bramble, Bramble...
Of course it is a step forward - in restricting trade and taking more guns away from the British people!

As if the laws weren't restrictive enough, now imagine all of the firearms out there which will not pass the new proof process. I would not be willing to subject any of my doubles to this torture.

--------------------
He who lives in the past is doomed to enjoy it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.416 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 4783
Loc: Idaho
Re: Proof loads [Re: 450_366]
      #132543 - 16/04/09 11:18 PM

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!!

--------------------
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: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)



Extra information
2 registered and 17 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  CptCurl, 4seventy, mickey 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating: ****
Topic views: 56593

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved