As well as for the overload proved stamps....





.

I dont know. I was not actually there. I am just spitballing. The remington date code stamps were certainly individual hand stamps. And the metal is thick enough in those areas against the lug to where I would not think the chamber area would deform at all.

The overload stamps were large stamps and may have been applied mechanically with a press or something other than a strike with a hammer. The impressions always appear to be relatively uniform which I would think not possible with hand striking. And that large of an area with that sort of pressure would certainly deform the chamber area without support.

Again, just my thoughts. I was not there.

I hope that was a rhetorical question. The amount of pressure necessary to impress the tiny font of the Rem repair code stamps is only a minuscule fraction of the pressure necessary to impress the proof stamp.

Take a pencil eraser and push it against your finger tip. Now take a common pin and apply the same pressure. If that doesn't help explain it, try the above test on your.....oh, never mind

So they stamped it “Overload Proved” before they tested it?

That’s a good point Mike, and it occurred to me me that the subject has been discussed before. The original question was, did they test fire every gun with an overload, proofing shell. I don’t remember the consensus but if they did, then Brian’s theory that they used a mandrill the keep it round would make sense.

On the subject of stamping, I’ve probably related many times, that my serious working career (as opposed to 9 years on ships which never seemed like work) was in the steel foundry business. Every casting, from 20 pounds to over 20,000 pounds, had lots of stamped letters, indicating heat lot, and inspection marks. Much of this work was in high strength alloys the high brinnell hardness. Industry standards required that stamping be done with “Low Stress” stamps. Stamps with very sharp character edges were considered high stress and the resulting impressions could propagate cracks.
All of the stamping we see on barrel flats have sharp impressions and I often wondered if this practice predated the standards for stamped impressions.

1. No Edgar, it wasn’t a rhetorical question at all.

2. But you will notice that the Remington date codes were stamped to a greater depth, for the most part, than the Overload Proved stamps so what does this say to you Edgar?

3. I couldn’t find a pencil Edgar… (please refrain from a witty reply… it’s too late to match wits with you.)





.

Just throwing out the idea that possibly they batch proofed barrels an did this prior to assembly. It seems logical that you pull a few barrels from every batch and test them. If one fails more testing needed.
I also recall watching a vintage video where a whole row of barrels were tested using black powder and a fuse. Possibly just a initial test.
It would seem to me in a large scale production facility you would want the barrels tested well before you invest a lot of manpower assembling, laying ribs, marking barrels, and more finish work. Roll stamping barrels for example would also be much easier to do prior to assembly.
If you were building custom hand built high dollar one off guns that might be a different story.

But the barrel tubes and the “monobloc” (for lack of a better term, and there is one, like lug block or…) were already machined and brazed together as an assembly before the Overload Proved stamp was apllied.





.

Now that I think about it I have seen barrel assemblies in the white with no markings.
I would still think that an initial proof would make sense.

Re: 1, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
2, The smaller the font (sq. area of the stamp) The less force required to
be effective, and the less mass it will displace.
3, I can send you one.