How do I proof test?

[250-3000]

I inherited a Euroarms of America 1851 Colt Navy replica that was assembled many years ago, but never fired.. The instructions say to have proof tested. Any idea how to accomplish this. I have several BP rifles and pistols I have built, but all were factory proofed, so am not a rookie with black powder. Thanks

 

[arcticap]

I can't tell you how to proof test a revolver that unlike a rifle, has chambers with limited powder and projectile capacity.
One would think that the proof houses max. load it somehow and then take measurements and/or do diagnostics to test for metal fatigue.
The instructions sound more like some sort of a legal mumbo jumbo to me.
Euroarms was a reputable company and perhaps just casually checking for signs of stress and fatigue after normal loading would suffice.
As far as I know, none of the India made guns are proof tested and since proof testing is optional, people load and fire them on the basis of faith.
I guess that a person could always load the revolver up with a max. load of 4F powder and remotely pull the trigger with a string if someone were concerned about the revolver not being proof tested.
But without employing the proper diagnostic tools or methods to test for metal fatigue then I don't know what good that would do to prove its safety.
I would be sure to wear eye protection, perhaps work up loads gradually and hope for the best.
Or just sell the gun and be done with worrying about its safety.

 

[skeeterfogger]

It probably has been tested. Post pixs of every marking on it. If I remember there were or are countries that require proof test if sold there. I tend to side with articap on the liability mumbo jumbo.

 

[250-3000]

It probably has been tested. Post pixs of every marking on it. If I remember there were or are countries that require proof test if sold there. I tend to side with articap on the liability mumbo jumbo.

No markings at all on the gun!

 

[skeeterfogger]

Not even on bottom of barrel under ram lever?.
Does the paperwork give any indication of country of origin?
I've seen pixs of older models that had markings on frame under grips.

 

[250-3000]

Not even on bottom of barrel under ram lever?.
Does the paperwork give any indication of country of origin?
I've seen pixs of older models that had markings on frame under grips.

Will look under grips, but 0 markings on any visible surface. Only know who mfg the kit because it is in the original package.

 

[Ephraim Kibbey]

I do not believe that Italian Firearms Law requires the proofing of gun PARTS that are exported as would be found in any kit. I believe there is one of the distributers of the Indian manufactured muskets who proof their items here before delivery but I can't remember which. No American made guns are required by US Law to be proofed either.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

From the OP

...that was assembled many years ago, but never fired..

This implies it was a kit, therefore it would not have been proofed.
That explains why there are no proof marks.
In Italy, firearms are required to be proofed, but not the parts as eluded to in a previous post.
I expect that the instructions to proof, are to comply with Italian law once the parts become a firearm.
That said, in the US there is no requirement to proof, and most firearms here are not.
I'm not sure where the OP is located, but likely not required there either.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

… The instructions say to have proof tested. Any idea how to accomplish this. I have several BP rifles and pistols I have built, but all were factory proofed, …..

OK so first, the answer is you must ship your revolver to an approved proofing house (I recommend the one in Birmingham, England) to have the revolver proofed. There is no way to do it here in America, nor in Canada, nor in Mexico. But you probably don't need to spend that money...

No factories proof their black powder barrels, anywhere. In the countries that require black powder barrels to be proofed, the manufacturers ship the barrels to the "proof house" (testing facility), and after successful completion of the proof test, the barrels are stamped and returned to the manufacturer. A factory anywhere (even in America) can test fire a barrel, and can exceed the testing done at a proof house, but it is not legally proofed, by definition. Anybody that tells you they "proofed" a black powder barrel, and the barrel isn't stamped by one of the CIP Certified Proofing Houses located in one of several countries abroad..., is not being accurate. They may have TESTED the barrel; nothing was proofed. This includes India origin muskets.

Now India origin muskets, or an unproofed kit from Italy, when they get changed to be in firing condition, and in a country with a proofing house, must be submitted to that country's proofing house and must pass proofing, and get stamped. IF a person is caught with an unproofed, but working musket (touch hole drilled) without a proof stamp, there is a hefty fine and a confiscation of the gun. I am familiar with folks living in England and Germany who have had to send their India origin muskets out to have them proofed, at their expense.

Interestingly, when an American manufactured muzzle loading smoothbore or rifle, or modern gun for that matter, is imported to England, they have to undergo proofing. Even Winchester's "Winproof" testing is not sufficient to comply with UK Law in this area.

LD

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

I have shot pounds of lead through unmarked kit guns I built. Proof it with WEAK loads, and work your way up. If the gun doesn't like it, it will tell you.

 

[expat_alaska]

I have an ASM 1860 Army Colt (BC/1993) with a factory proofed round engraved cylinder. I have since fitted it, with no modifications, with an Uberti full-fluted cylinder bought in 2019 from VTI as a part with no proof marks. Since it has no Italian proof marks, should I worry about its integrity? I hardly think so. I also think that any gun put together from a kit should have the same integrity. It is just that, as kit parts, the factory does not have to go through the process of getting it "legally" proofed, and I hardly think they use factory "seconds" for their kits. I have a 1911 Olympic Arms stripped frame that I used to create a 1911 .22 in 2013, and it is clearly stamped with a "K" in 3 places (top of the trigger guard bow and above the S/N, the other is on the left side of the frame) to denote it as a "kit" gun (a factory "second" only because of casting gas holes beneath the grip panels).



I have bought Uberti and Pietta cylinders and barrels from VTI for repro 1860 Armies and 1851 Navies with no proof marks, and they are the same as the parts that would come "proofed" if it was from a complete gun shipped from Italy.



You folks have a good day!

Regards,

Jim

 

[grter]

From my limited knowledge old school British proof loads were 3 times the max charge and double the weight of any projectile you will ever use. That is pretty stout and may be a problem for revolvers with thinner cylinder walls. After firing the barrel and chambers are examined for any deformities. These deformities can easily be too small to see with the eye and require measuring tools but if they are found the gun fails the proof. Modern technology methods like magnetic flux testing (I think thats what its called) is also used to test shipments of steel stock used for pressure bearing parts (barrels, cylinders, etc.) in addition to proof testing.

Europeans require all firearms both smokeless and black powder to be proofed by official government proof houses. The Italian proof loads are only 1.3 times the max load I think although I am not too sure maybe someone can shed some light on this.

The United States has no government proof houses this is done by the firearm manufacturer to determine if smokeless firearms at least meet SAAMI specs which is a very good standard that has worked well for a long time and is probably a higher standard than European proof houses use. In the United States SAAMI specs are used for smokeless powder only and there are currently no proofing requirements for black powder firearms of any kind either by law or in industry practice.

In India all firearms are so strictly regulated that muzzle loaders made there are exported as non firing replicas (wall hangers) and upon arrival in the US ignition holes are drilled and they are essentially turned into black powder firearms. The companies that sell these often have insanely low recommended powder charges that are historically incorrect (too low) and virtually useless for anything but paper punching. They warn that using higher charges could be dangerous yet many people load these with full service loads anyway. While I understand the reasoning to ship them as wall hangers to avoid legal hassles doing so also shields these companies from any liability whatsoever if they blow up. One company that sells these even says proof testing is a total waste of time. I do not agree. I don't own or fire any muzzleloaders made in India.

 

[arcticap]

From what I understand, many India made guns either pass or are capable of passing European Proof House testing requirements.
Of course there are many different makers so it can be hard to generalize about their quality unless sold by reputable dealers.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

OK so first, the answer is you must ship your revolver to an approved proofing house (I recommend the one in Birmingham, England) to have the revolver proofed. There is no way to do it here in America, nor in Canada, nor in Mexico...

I know where your coming from, but anyone can proof test the revolver. However, only the proof house can legally put their proof house mark on the revolver.
If it is proof tested by a recognized 3rd party, then plenty of folks (dare I say most) will accept it as a valid test since they are supposed to be experts and working off recognized standards.
If Joe Blow proof tests it, then Joe may be the only one who trusts the integrity of the test, but maybe Joe's the only one who cares anyway.
If the revolver resides in a location where there are specific requirements for a proof test then those requirements need to be followed e.g., use a recognized proof house.
If there are no specific requirements for the proof test, then the owner of the revolver gets to decide if when and how to proof test the revolver. (in the OP's case I wouldn't worry about it for a second)
Proof tests were being done before any of the proof test houses ever existed so they're not a requirement unless some recognized authority says so.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I know where your coming from, but anyone can proof test the revolver. However, only the proof house can legally put their proof house mark on the revolver.

I know where you are coming from too, but the term "proofed" is very legally specific, and if it isn't being done by a Certified CIP Proofing House, then the "testing" that is done, whether by an individual or some actual lab, is just that.... testing.

As I mentioned, that testing can actually exceed one or more of the proofing houses for black powder (since each house has it's own set of criteria for a black powder proof test..the only standardized pressures are for modern cartridges).

There is nothing stopping an actual lab from stamping the barrel either...so long as they don't use a proprietary mark already used by a certified proofing house. However, they cannot say it was "proofed"..., hence for example Winchesters use of the term "Winproof" to denote they did testing, but not at a CIP proofing house.

Sorry if this seems nit picky to you, but it is a very important distinction. (imho) It is made because people will say, "the barrel was proofed" or this was "proof tested", and that literally means by a CIP Proofing House...when they actually mean "I put a bunch er that black powder in, and jammed me in a couple o' them balls, and set her off and she didna blow up so she must be gud!"

LD

 

[arcticap]

I know where you are coming from too, but the term "proofed" is very legally specific, and if it isn't being done by a Certified CIP Proofing House, then the "testing" that is done, whether by an individual or some actual lab, is just that.... testing.

As I mentioned, that testing can actually exceed one or more of the proofing houses for black powder (since each house has it's own set of criteria for a black powder proof test..the only standardized pressures are for modern cartridges).

There is nothing stopping an actual lab from stamping the barrel either...so long as they don't use a proprietary mark already used by a certified proofing house. However, they cannot say it was "proofed"..., hence for example Winchesters use of the term "Winproof" to denote they did testing, but not at a CIP proofing house.

Sorry if this seems nit picky to you, but it is a very important distinction. (imho) It is made because people will say, "the barrel was proofed" or this was "proof tested", and that literally means by a CIP Proofing House...when they actually mean "I put a bunch er that black powder in, and jammed me in a couple o' them balls, and set her off and she didna blow up so she must be gud!"

LD

I would disagree about the legal definition of a proof test even if only for the sake of argument.
The text book definition of a proof test is not a legal one as far as the United States is concerned.
The test book definition is basically " a form of stress test".
IMO Ruger can perform a "Ruger proof test".
Another company can perform a "Sammi proof test".
Joe Blow can perform a "Joe Blow proof test".
The only difference is that they are not CIP legal proof tests.
The funny things about CIP proof testing is that Italy doesn't perform the same proof test as Spain, or Germany or the UK or Belgium.
Or any of the other CIP countries.
The CIP proof houses are only performing CIP legal proof tests.
But why in the world would anyone want to assert that CPI owns the legal definition of the term "proof test"?
It only has a legal meaning among the countries that signed the CIP agreement which is not legally binding in the US.
That means that proof testing means whatever the standards used for the proof testing say that it means.
If Ruger or Remington perform a proof test, then it's still a proof test.
It just doesn't necessarily meet the CIP legal requirement for being a CIP proof test.
However in actuality the private proof test may exceed the CIP requirements.
Whether it does or not doesn't mean that it's not a proof test of one form or another in the generic sense.
And since this is the United States the proof test for a black powder gun doesn't need to be CIP compliant.
Sorry to nitpick but I wanted to make a mountain out of mole hill because I have nothing better to do.

 

[Slamfire]

I recommend you do not "proof test" under any circumstances.

Proof testing goes back hundreds of years and probably was a useful process to determine quality of construction when gunsmiths used brass and wrought iron in the construction of their firearms. Post Renaissance materials to the 1940's (plus or minus) were crap, lots of slag and impurities, and the further you go back, the worse they are. Stress screening is a complicated topic, the proof test was an early version, a one shot stress which assumed if the weapon passed a single test, that somehow it would last through many pressure cycles to the end of its lifetime. Even in pre WW1, the US Army was proof testing their single heat treat M1903 receivers only to find that given more stress cycles, the things blew up in the field. A proof test will not reveal minor heat treatment and material defects, a proof test will only reveal gross faults. Latent defects will surface later, and given the crappy materials of only 100 years ago, that occurred more frequently than people can conceive of today.

Today, with modern materials and modern production methods, no weapon should need to be proof tested, if the production line is stable and the materials are consistent. (two big if's) A function test should be enough, but proof testing is historical and it makes everyone feel better. A proof test should be less than the yield of the materials. It should not exceed yield under any circumstances. Once materials are stressed beyond yield they should be scrapped, period, no exceptions.

I am going to claim that the materials used in your parts gun are of a late enough vintage that proof testing is un necessary, will not show anything conclusive, and since you don't have pressure equipment, you are more likely to over stress the pressure bearing parts of your pistol, such that, it will blow up in your hand with continued use. .

If you really and truly have misgivings about your pistol, if you are really concerned about the quality of the materials used in your parts gun, don't shoot it. Do not go around looking for rabbit's feet or the advice of idiots to convince your self to do something unsafe.

 

[250-3000]

Thanks for all the responses, will follow the advise in post #10 using the minimum charge of 3f that will compress with the rammer and work my way up.

 

[arcticap]

I would like to remind folks that as recently as 2017, Lyman had at least several breech plug failures of guns that underwent Italian CIP proof testing.
Not sure if the breech plugs were improperly stressed when threaded into the barrel, if it was the materials or another design or assembly flaw, but it goes to show that what Slamfire said is true.
A single stress test won't reveal all of the potential defects.
Lyman recalled just about their entire 2017 year's production of right handed rifles in order to remove all of the potentially risky breech plugs from the US market.
So much for the Italian CIP proof house testing procedures.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I would disagree about the legal definition of a proof test even if only for the sake of argument.

You just proofed my point....ha ha ....get it?

Your reply adds the modifier "Ruger" to "Ruger Proof Test", and "Saami" to "Saami Proof Test", and "Joe Blow" to "Joe Blow Proof Test"...which indicates the usage in the language is that "proof" alone, for example, "the barrel was proof tested" is understood t mean the CIP proof test, with the passing stamp. Otherwise, no additional modifier would be necessary. Winchester, as I mentioned, also supports my argument with their "Winrpoof" procedures.

I NEVER argued that a barrel cannot be tested, NOR did I ever argue that such testing needed to equal nor exceed any of the CIP Proofing House tests....the argument is that when one says "the barrel has been proofed"...if it has not been done by a CIP Proofing House, and received a proper black powder proof stamp, such a statement (since it does not include the modifier as you pointed out) is wrong.

LD

 

[arcticap]

You said that the term proofed is very legally specific.
But the legality has no meaning in the US or even among the CIP countries since the testing is not standardized.
What's the legal definition of a proof test?
What the legal definition of a proof test in the US?
What does proof test mean?
Does it have a legal definition or not?
I don't think that it has a legal definition in the USA.
A proof test can be anything that a person wants it to be, especially in the US.

 

[grter]

Legally binding or not SAAMI is the standard in the United States and most US made firearms have a reputation for being safe in general. It's my opinion that it is a good standard and perhaps even better than most other standards elsewhere in the world. The problem is SAAMI specs are used for the more modern smokeless charges not black powder charges of days by gone.

It is an accepted industry standard in general among all or at the very least most (and by far most) US (and probably other) firearms manufacturers as well as a very great example of an industry policing itself in the interests of safety without the need for any government intervention.

This is not true of certain imported firearms made in places unknown out of unknown untested materials with written disclaimers of non liability if they are used as firearms and no legal relief if they pipe bomb when used.

Those kit guns assembled "many years ago" where known to have problems from time to time. Unfortunately bad quality steel used to make pressure bearing parts was one of them along with fit and finish issues. The instructions to have it proofed means it's on you to insure it's safe to fire. Making sure everything is clean, smooth, symmetrical, and well aligned can go a long way safety wise.

On a positive note the old civil ware era originals as pointed out in an earlier post were made of some bad quality steel. MOST of them did not blow up thanks to the lower pressures of black powder but safety standards NOW are much better than they were back then even with black powder firearms. It's up to you if you want to take any chances or you can take it to a gunsmith who knows his stuff about cap and ball revolvers to have it inspected and tested.

Keep in mind too that black powder under the right conditions (not seating the ball on the powder charge [air gap] bore obstruction etc..) can generate tremendous pressure that can and will destroy a firearm and shooter my point being not take the lower pressures of black powder for granted.

I would inspect the cylinder chambers and compare it to the bore size. (slug the bore and see if it drops into the chambers.) Italian imports are notorious for having chambers that are too small for the bore. This affects accuracy negatively but also relieves pressure when firing. On the other hand I have read of one case where an old Italian made Walker had grossly oversized cylinder chambers making the 60 grain capable monster unsafe for firing so check to make sure especially with these older Italian imports.

I don't remember anyone here ever saying that proof testing is the ultimate end all for determining firearms safety but it is still used today extensively yes extensively in the US and the by the US military as well. It is not a useless outdated testing method when done properly. In the US however proof testing is not a priority for black powder firearms.

 

[Slamfire]

I don't remember anyone here ever saying that proof testing is the ultimate end all for determining firearms safety but it is still used today extensively yes extensively in the US and the by the US military as well. It is not a useless outdated testing method when done properly.

I am going to state that nothing should fail proof testing. If a firearm fails proof testing then the entire production facility should be shut down, all processes examined, all materials in process tested and re certified, and all workers re trained. And a lot of management officials should be let go.

Production technology has improved considerably in my lifetime. I toured the GM Arlington plant in 1982. There was inventory all over the place, the place looked like a junk yard. At the end of the assembly line, just as the group walked up, seven guys were pushing a car off the the side because it would not start. That car went into a row of vehicles that were being debugged. I remember a quote from a GM executive from the 1970's, he said "Production builds it, marketing sells it, and customer service makes it work". That was the attitude of the time and it is no wonder that GM almost went bankrupt. (in the 1980's while Toyota's were selling above MSRP, GM was selling Nova's, which were rebranded Toyota Corolla's, for a discount) I have toured the Mercedes plant (1990's) and the Corvette plant (2017), and at the end of the production line asked the tour guide, "how many vehicles have not started up?". That actually startles the tour guides, typically they were born decades after my first plant tour, and none that I have asked could remember a vehicle not starting up and driving away.

Design verification tests are only conducted once for the vast number of military equipment. There is no reason, and the cost is prohibitive, to stress each and every item to its design limits. I consider a proof test a DVT type test, and in my opinion, un necessary in a ISO 9000 world. But if it makes the consumer feel better, because the consumer simply does things because Grandpa did it that way, well, manufacturer's will respond to keep the consumer from going irrational happy to irrational unhappy. However, I will say, based on the incalculable number of hot loads shooters report using on the internet, irrationality is alive, well and thriving. The typical attitude is, "if my gun has not blown up (yet) then it must be safe!" Just read any surplus ammunition thread I have commented in, I have shown lots of blown up firearms with old ammunition, but the majority consensus of the shooting community is, "it's cheap therefore it has to be good".

I invite all those who think there is a Federally Mandated US proof test, to search the Code of Federal Regulations and find the section. If is not there, then it does not exist. In the US, proof testing is anything the manufacturer wants it to be. Or in case of the Army, whatever the Army is willing to pay, and the contractor is willing to accept.

If the OP creates his own, uninstrumented proof test, and stresses the materials close to, or above its design limits, he has simply shortened the number of cycles it will take for the cylinder to rupture. If there is any real concern about the workmanship of the piece in question, it is far better not to shoot the thing. The consequences of a severe accident, such as losing an eye, losing a hand, or a frame in the brain, are not only irrecoverable, they are not worth the price of a cheap firearm.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

It is unreasonable to assume that proofed or proof test means a CIP proof test.
If it's a CIP proof test then defining it as a "CIP" proof test is required to be certain.
There are proof test for things other than firearm barrels, and even when specifically referring to a firearm barrel, there are multiple well accepted proof tests in existence.
As I indicated earlier the term proof test predates the existence of the CIP proof houses.
Without a recognized authority defining the term, or a reference to a specific standard, the proof test could be just about anything you want it to be.
I'm beating the dead horse because some folks may really want to understand the difference.

 

[tbob38]

I would like to remind folks that as recently as 2017, Lyman had at least several breech plug failures of guns that underwent Italian CIP proof testing.
Not sure if the breech plugs were improperly stressed when threaded into the barrel, if it was the materials or another design or assembly flaw, but it goes to show that what Slamfire said is true.
A single stress test won't reveal all of the potential defects.
Lyman recalled just about their entire 2017 year's production of right handed rifles in order to remove all of the potentially risky breech plugs from the US market.
So much for the Italian CIP proof house testing procedures.

Yep, one of my Lyman Plains pistols is at Lyman right now for replacement. It was never fired before sending in. I only hope the one they send me is as good looking as the one I sent in.