shooting Hopkins & Allen shotgun

Some folks tout "re-proving" as the solution. But if you submit a nice old gun to be re-proved, and it blows, you are left with a mass of junk - safe, but junk. I would rather retire an old gun to the wall than be left with scrap iron.

A proof test is simply a test with an over pressure round. Generally the load is about 20 to 30% over pressure. The more over pressure rounds a weak barrel made of substandard materials is exposed to, the sooner it will blow with standard rounds.

People have screwball ideas about proof tests. I have an Dope Bag article from the 1950's that I recently re read. The author told the American Rifleman of a "proof test" he had conducted on a Japanese rifle. He had filled a case with bullseye pistol powder, fired it, and the rifle was intact! He wrote the American Rifleman asking their opinion about his clever proof test. They told him the rifle was probably unsafe to shoot further.

American's have this screwy belief that Proof Testing is supposed to be a destructive test. I think they get this idea from Hatcher's Notebook, where he describes Springfield Armory behaviors during the period of the single heat treat receivers. SA did not have pyrometers in the forge shop or heat treating ovens. SA also did not have an incoming material inspection. Receivers made of defective materials and inconsistent heat treatments passed proof tests but blew in service. Instead of Springfield Armory figuring out why they were making defective rifles, they simply decided to increase the proof pressures of their proof test. Which blew up more rifles, but did not fix the problems of a chaotic and uncontrolled production line. I believe that people read this and somehow get the idea that proof testing is supposed to blow the gun up, which is of course, nuts. No manufacturer would set up a factory, pay all the workers, and expect to make money if they blew up all the product at the end of the production line.

The Germans have a severe Proof Test program. You have to have the gun tested each and every sale. That includes sales between individuals. They inspect things, gauge, test the features to see if everything works. Prior to 1968, if the gun failed any part of the Proof test, such if the safety was dysfunctional, the whole firearm was destroyed. The whole purpose of this is to send old and dangerous guns to the scrap yard. The law was later changed so that only the offending part was ruined, but still, the gun had not passed proof and therefore could not be sold. I will bet when it comes to twist barrels, the proof inspector examines the barrel for pin holes with a magnifying glass, and if he finds them, the barrel is crushed right then and there.
 
No idea where you got that story about Germany from, but Germans don't reproof guns on sale. There is an "Instandsetzungsbeschuss" when a major part is replaced, but sales in Germany don't trigger that.
 
H, Slamfire,

I am not sure of your point. Any time you submit a firearm for proof you take the chance that it will fail and become junk. That is the whole idea of proof testing. Of course the proof standards are set so that only guns with a defect will fail, but the whole idea is to weed out those guns. Whether the barrel would fail with standard rounds is beside the point, but very probably most of the guns that fail proof would have been be fine with standard level loads, perhaps for many years.

Jim
 
Of course the proof standards are set so that only guns with a defect will fail, but the whole idea is to weed out those guns.

Proof testing is a historical procedure, goes back centuries. It was an assurance of the quality of the piece in a time period when production processes depending on the human hearing, taste, touch, sight and smell. Quality was much more variable than now. The fact that guns passed proof tests only to fail later shows a limitation in non destructive testing. I don't know how any non destructive test, or series of non destructive tests, can assure that all defectives in all products can be revealed. Instead, non destructive tests are set up under the assumption that most defects are revealed.

I would love to see an analysis of structural defects that would be revealed in a 30% proof test, versus those that would pass. Because proof testing is an historical artifact, I doubt that analysis has ever been made. I also doubt any analysis has ever been conducted into proof test levels. Why is 30% better than 20%, or even 50% over pressure? Of course any proof test that exceeds yield would be a destructive test, but stressing an item just to the ultimate stress level, but not over, does that prove that it is structurally sound for thousands of load cycles?

I am certain that the fatigue lifetime of twist barrels is quite finite, and what I do know about fatigue lifetime is that over stresses reduce the operational life of a steel part. Proof testing old and weak barrels only proves if they passed or failed the proof test. Not failing in proof is not an assurance that it won't fail later, with standard loads. Something I am going to claim, is failure of a weak and structurally defective steel part is more likely after a proof test, because the endurance life of the part was reduced by exposure to an over pressure load.
 
Finally spent some time shooting my Hopkins & Allen .38/.45 today. At 25 yards it was pretty easy to keep the shots on a paper plate with just the front bead sight. I believe with some kind of sight on it, I could do a lot better than that. Even so, it was a lot of fun just shooting it. The .38 shot a lot closer to point of aim than the .45 acp did. Had to aim off the plate with .45 to hit it. I have some steel targets bigger than the plates. I kept them ringing. No doubt that I could put some meat on the table if needed.
 
Did you try each adapter in each barrel? Could be the way the barrels are regulated/aligned. The difference could be the barrels and not the ammo.
 
I thought about the barrel orientation. Of course they are made to come together at a common point of aim at some distance from the gun. didn't swap between barrels. I did discover that rotating the adapters changed where they hit some.The .38 on the left did fairly well so I didn't mess with it. I was able to move where the .45 on the right came closer to where I wanted it as I moved it around. I think I may play with the distance to the target and see what happens there. As the adapters are in o-rings, maybe some sort of thin shim to change the position of the front of the adapter may zero it in. I also just removed the shotgun's extractor to keep from pulling the adapters part way out each time I break open the gun. Once I figure out the best position, that will keep them from moving every shot. The extractor serves no purpose with the adapters in place anyway. Need to get back out and shoot some more this weekend. For what they are, I am really pretty satisfied with them. Just needs some fine tuning I think.
 

Attachments

  • 2016-08-26-182349.jpg
    2016-08-26-182349.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 433
  • 2016-08-26-182509.jpg
    2016-08-26-182509.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 432
Back
Top