APRIL 7, 1906. ] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 

= 
qj lB 
bY 
aa LW, , A: *. 
US. 
Drain Gao’ +e f 
NAV CAME NS 
W it - 
\ 
i 

The proof of the Cartridge is in the shooting. The United States Army, 
by careful tests, have proven the VU. S. Cartridges to be the most 
accurate and reliable. 
UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE 
LOWELL, MASS., U.S. A. 

MANUFACTURED BY 
Agencies: 497-503 Pearl St., 35-43 Park St., New York. 

COo., 
114-116 Market St., San Francisco. 


Proofs of Barrels. 
REFERENCES have appeared in our columns from time 
to time concerning the new rules of proof which have 
been under the consideration of the two proof authorities 
for several years past. Possibly the procedure in proof 
matters is not generally so well understood as it might 
be. The Proof Act of the year 1868 confirms the charter 
of the Gunmakers’ Company, which is the London proof 
authority, and it lays down the conditions of the Bir- 
mingham proof house organization. The Proof Act 
applies to England only, and relates to all firearms which 
are sold in this country. Guns sold in Scotland and 
Ireland are not subject to the provisions of the Proof 
Act; but public opinion in this matter causes gun- 
makers in the two sister countries to observe the pro- 
visions of the Proof Act with the same exactitude as 
though the obligation to do so were legally enforced. 
Were guns sold in Scotland and Ireland without proof 
marks great inconvenience would arise through the re- 
sale of these arms in England, should they subsequently 
change owners. 
The provisicnal proof of a gun is usually regarded as 
a gunmaker’s test, while the definitive as applied to the 
finished arm is for the benefit mainly of the sportsman. 
The former is exceedingly severe, and is applied to the 
tubes of which guns are made in an early stage of manu- 
facture, when the metal is all-sufficient for withstanding 
the great stresses set up. The fact of the tubes of a gun 
having passed the provisional test qualifies them for what 
is known as the definitive proof, to which they are sub- 
jected as finished weapons. This test is mainly one for 
the breech and breech fastenings, and the pressure 
created is proportioned to what is recognized as current 
in service charges. <A third test is known as _ supple- 
mentary, and should be applied to all guns intended for 
the firing of nitro powders. Where unproved guns, 
which have not received the provisional test, are sub- 
mitted for definitive proof, the latter is applied in ac- 
cordance with the specification of charges laid down for 
the first proof. Hence it necessarily happens that the 
definitive test of a weapon which has not been pro- 
visionally proved is very severe, so that an undue pro- 
portion of thoroughly sound weapons are liable, in cer- 
tain circumstances, to give way in proof. This must 
apply mainly to shotguns, since it is well known that 
imported American and other rifles are thoroughly 
capable of withstanding the definitive proof on the pro- 
visional basis, to which they are subjected before being 
legally entitled to be sold in this country. 
Such matters as the above are laid down in the Proof 
Act, 1868, and they represent the hasis of our system of 
proving guns and rifles in England. A supplementary 
ortion of the original Act covers what are known as the 
Rails of Proof. These comprise a number of regula- 
tions subsidiary to the conditions enforced in the act 
itself. They relate, among other things, to such ques- 
tioris as the charges that shall be used for different 
classes of proof, and the manner in which the various 
tests for the time being in force shall be applied. It 
naturally follows that, as fresh developments arise, and 
increased knowledge of the behavior of firearms is avail- 
able, reforms of a more or less comprehensive character 
are called for. Consequently provision is made in the 
main act for the. revision, as circumstances require, of 
the rules‘of proof. The procedure adopted is a very 
simple one. The two Proof Houses appoint a joint proof 
committee, who meet from time to time with a view to 
settling on a comprehensive basis the alterations that are 
required. A committee of this character has been en- 
gaged for some years past in investigating various dif- 
ficulties that have arisen in applying the existing methods 
of proof, 
In the case of Express rifles, for instance, it has be- 
come apparent that the present mode of proof displays 
a large number of objectionable features. In order to 
obtain the necessary amount of pressure where black 
powder is used, the charge must not only fill the car- 
tridge, but run some distance up the barrel. Express 
rifles, and in fact most other kinds of arm, are thus 
treated for proof purposes as muzzleloaders. The empty 
cartridge is first of all placed in the breech and the 
proof charge is passed down the barrel by means of a 
funnel. The powder is then rammed, and a soft felt wad 
is duly seated. A cylinder of lead of approved substance, 
dimensions, and weight is then seated on the wad, and 
a further wad is inserted to keep the lead cylinder in 
position. The charge which is then fired is calculated to 
produce needful proof strength, but the conditions exist- 
ing are of such an exceptional character that the cer- 
tainty of reaching a specific pressure cannot be guar- 
anteed. 
The ignition of a long column of powder appears to 
produce what is known as a wave action within the 
powder chamber. Instead of the pressure being de- 
veloped in a normal way, it seems as though the gases 
are evolved in a manner causing them to rush from one 
end of the powder chamber to the other. Powder gases, 
although apparently of small weight, have an enormous 
energy when traveling with the velocity created by their 
sudden evolution, so that on meeting the resistance of 
the builet they accumulate and cause an intense local 
pressure, which tends to produce a ring bulge, so sup- 
posed to contain local weakness at the particular place 
where damage is done. These and other circumstances 
have all pointed to the need for a system of proof in 
advance of the methods now current. Not only are good 
weapons at times seriously damaged, but it is by no 
means a foregone conclusion that the powder invariably 
burns in the pre-determined manner necessary to pro- 
duce the required test of the gun or rifle. In some in- 
stances proof charges are specified which actually cannot 
be inserted in the weapons submitted, even if they were 
to be filled with powder up to the muzzle. 
Again, as regards shotguns, it is a well-known fact that 
the nitro proof test, and for that matter, the definitive 
proof as well, are not all that could be desired. For 
instance, in the nitro proof test a quality of powder is 
specified which consists partly of large and partly of 
small grains. The original assumption was that the larze 
grains, by burning slowly, would produce a sustained 
pressure that would afford a test for the forward portion 
of the barrel; whereas the small grains, by burning 
quickly, would provide the necessary high pressure cal- 
culated to test the breech end of the gun before the shot 
had got far on its course. Recent experience goes to 
show that this peculiarity of behavior only exists in 
theory, and that such powder behaves in accordance with 
the average size of the powder grains which compri-= 
it, with the added disadvantage that, when shaken in 
receptacles, the large grains tend to come to the top, 
and the small ones to pack tightly at the lower end of 
the canister. Hence, with such a powder, there 1s an ever 
present tendency toward variations of strength, accord- 
ing to the degree of separation which has taken place. 
These and many other problems have formed the sub- 
ject of systematic inquiry by the two proof authorities, 
and experiments based thereon have been carried to a 
logical conclusion by experts of great experience, who 
have been appointed by the proof authorities to look 
into the question. ‘They have fired thousands of shots 
in pressure guns specially adapted for the investigations 
undertaken. The outcome of this important work has 
been duly reported to the proof committee, with the re- 
sult that they have remodelled the specifications of proof 
on a systematic basis, which represents the best that ex- 
isting knowledge can accomplish. 
It is well known that, in accordance with existing 
practice, all guns are marked alike, whether they are 
submitted for proof in England by foreign manufactur- 
ing firms or by the home trade. The effect of this pro- 
cedure has been that guns of foreign origin have been 
purposely submitted for the English proof in order that 
they might subsequently be marked so as to appear to 
be of English make. The effect of this anomaly has 
been shown in many ways. The sportsman is liable to 
be supplied with a foreign gun, all the while that he 
thinks he is purchasing a weapon having the character- 
istic merits of English workmanship. Gunmakers are 
similarly prejudiced by the equal terms upon which 
foreign guns are marked in proof, no matter what their 
nationality. It has been maintained, with good reason, 
that the purchaser should at least know, in the case of 
arms which do not bear the maker’s name, what char- 
acter of weapon he is buying. At any rate, the view is 
generally upheld that the marking which is applied to 
guns for the protection of sportsmen as a sign of 
adequate strength should not be misused so as to be- 
come part and parcel of a system of misnaming foreign 
weapons, as though they had been turned out in one or 
other of our gunmaking centers. ‘ 
While all are agreed as to the general desirability of 
the application of a special mark to foreign-made guns 
which do not bear the full name and address of the 
