PROOF MARKS

[david ross]

Hi All:)
Did the USA ever have it's own proof house like England and Europe if not
why not?. So would older US guns be as safe as proof house guns from
England and Europe and are there any proof marks on US made guns.

All The Best Dave.:bigbye:

[Rick Losey]

As far as I know of there has been no attempt to establish a national proof house in the US. Just a guess but I wonder if it has anything to do with an inherent distrust of government control of firearms.

Many if not most US makers had their own proofing processes and proprietary marks.

Proofing standards have changed several time over the years and alterations such as barrel honing may have occurred. Original proof marks on a gun are no more an assurance of safety than an out of date inspection sticker on an old car.

In my opinion any old gun regardless of original proofs should be looked at by someone who has the ability and experience to judge each piece on its own merits.

[Drew Hause]

April 20 1895 Sporting Life
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1895/VOL_25_NO_04/SL2504014.pdf
A discussing regarding establishing a Proof House in the U.S., which did not occur.

As Rick said, U.S. makers test their own guns:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/19686599/386195959.jpg

Hunter Arms proof marks first appeared about 1922

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/19686599/385198145.jpg

LTC Calvin Goddard writing in Army Ordnance in 1934, stated that Hunter Arms proof tested 12ga 2 3/4" chamber barrels at 14,300 psi.

[Kevin McCormack]

The answer to the first question about a US Proof House having been established similar to those in Great Britain is "NO". The vast majority of British guns were built to customer specs (i.e. light game guns or heavy waterfowl guns) as more or less "one-off" designs.

The barrels were built per specs then proofed twice; once for "blow/no-blow" performance in the rough; then struck and polished and fitted to the ordered gun, then proofed again in finished form before final finishing and fitting to the gun as a finished unit per the weight and balance of the gun, which in many cases resulted in significant weight reductions primarily in barrel striking (filing to fit the action of the gun). When everything passed proof, you had a purpose-built gun to that shot charge weight and pressure AND NO OTHER. Then, you had a gun that was perfectly tuned for 7/8, 1, or 1 1/8-oz. of shot at nominal velocities. If you crammed it full of magnum loads when it was built for light game shooting, eventually you had a problem! (Split stocks; bulged barrels; swaged roll pins, etc.).

In the typical American way (e.g., "Bigger is Better"), most American made SxS were subjected to "violent overload proofs' (C. 17,500 psi,) when tested; most were manufactured to the same generic standards as John Browning's Colt M 1911 .45 caliber pistol, the great A-5 autoloader, or his legendary .50 cal. BMG (Browning Machine Gun), since no contemporary American maker could or would invest the time to figure out if the local Nimrod would use his 0-frame C-grade 16 gauge for woodcock or ducks so far as ammunition potency was concerned. The American makers looked ahead and never underestimated the potential for the average guy to look upon his SxS as a universal or "go-to" quail, duck, goose, or turkey gun (lucky for us!).

The overload-proof destruct trials conducted and documented on The Parker Gun as published in The Double Gun Journal a few years back (Sherman Bell et. al.?) showed that a #2 frame Parker SxS 'gave it up' at c. 30+000 psi. Most interesting is that this carefully-controlled test showed that not the barrels failed at that super-pressure; but that the channel drilled for the extractor shaft fractured, orbiting the destructive force vector upwards and around the breech end of the barrel extension(s), resulting in the breech-end bursting of the barrel set at that juncture.

If any conclusion can be drawn from a metallurgical standpoint from this test, it must be that the barrel tube construction itself had yet to be impacted adversely from the super-violent pressure overload test (e.g. the chamber area did not fail), but first and foremost that the compromised radial surface area (the hole drilled in the barrel 'base' to accomodate the extractor/ejector shaft) accentuated the weakening of the whole unit to the point where the integral barrel tubes failed. GO PARKER! (And a lot of other American-made doubles).

PS - Ever handled or examined a Super Fox?

[david ross]

:) Hi Kevin
:crying: No unfortunately i have not handled or examined a super fox but one
day who knows. I thought your post was excellent and very imformative .
And to all you other gentlemen who replied all your posts were very
interesting:cool: .

Thanks All Dave :bigbye: