Quote Originally Posted by Dimitri View Post
That is where your wrong, a proof load can be passed with a rifle of questionable manufacture that would not hold up after repeated firings.

Its like a weight lifter, a weight lifter can max out with 500 pounds and do it a couple of times without showing signs of not being able to, just as a rifle can handle a couple of proof loads, but when that same weight lifter does sets, he may only be able to do 250 pounds 15 times before having to stop.

Metal fatigue is the issue, not necessarily the rifle passing the proof testing. Especially when materials of questionable origin are used. Most military and commercial arms continue to use the same few materials as they always have because the arms designers know they work and will hold up in the long term with little to no metal fatigue from repeated firings, as well as can handle the pressures generated with proof loads.

Dimitri

When this topic was previously discussed and I pointed out that my rifle had been proofed in the UKicon AND in Germanyicon, I `phoned the Federal German proofing authority and was assured that proofing standards in the EU are NOT limited to proof firing the weapon. The action is removed from the stock and inspected for material damage, headspace is checked and the weapon inspected thoroughly. Proof houses in Germany and the UK have been doing their job for hundreds of years. They are government agengies and would be liable for any damage caused by their negligence.

So why should I heed the impotent bleating of self appointed "experts" who cast doubt on the reliability of an item that has not only been thoroughly proof tested, but has further stood the test of two World Wars?