How strong are the '73's?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:32 pm

Looking at he '73 clones in .357 mag and .32-20 I was wondering just how warm a load these can handle?

Not looking to make a .35 Remington out of the .357, just want to see if it would handle warmish loads. How 'bout the .32-20's as well?

Thanks,

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:41 pm

The 73 action is not one I would push. AAMOF they fairly frequently come out of the factory with headspace on the wide side, and I'd wanna get it checked by a competent 73 wrench before running too many full power .357s through it.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:13 pm

Can they not be serviced once they get to slack?

Nath.

COSteve · Post by **COSteve** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:33 pm

The basic design of the action (toggle link) just isn't strong enough to take a round like the 357mag. The 44-40 is a low pressure cartridge that wasn't introduced until they released the newer, stronger model 92. That round has nowhere near the bolt thrust of a 357mag.

I understand that with today's stronger metals one can push higher pressures than in the 1870's but I personally wouldn't shoot anything above a 38spl in even a new '73 Uberti or Cimarron. Not a 38spl+P and certainly not a 357mag.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:42 pm

There was a thread on this a while back, on another forum I believe.
The poster said that the Uberti contact said that factory ammo was ok in the Uberti 73 in .357mag.
I am going to buy one of the 24" rifles in .357 as my next lever purchase. I plan to shoot 180gr PB cast bullets in it from my newest mold from a cast boolet group buy. These wont be loaded very hot and should be great in the 73.
Terry M. has a 73 in .357. Maybe he will chime in.
Have fun!

Steve, The 73 was chambered in .32wcf,38wcf and the
.44wcf (.44-40) before the 92 came out. All loaded with BP though.

Terry Murbach · Post by **Terry Murbach** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:46 pm

I HAVE SHOT A SHIQLOAD OF FACTORY 357MAG AMMUNITION THROUGH A UBERTI ' 73 RIFLE WITH NARY A PROBLEM. THE BRASS LOOKS FINE AFTERWARDS.
REMEMBER THIS : THE UBERTI '73 IN 357MAG HAD TO PASS CIP PROOF TO BE SOLD IN EUROPE AND TO THEN BE SOLD HERE. THE CIP PROOF LOADS ARE SLIGHTLY HEAVIER THAN OUR SAAMI TEST PROOF LOADS.
I HAVE YET TO EVER FIRE MY HANDLOADS IN THE '73 BUT THAT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAD A LOT OF FACTORY 357 AMMO TO SHOOT UP. I HAVE NO DOUBT MY HANDLOADS WILL DO JUST FINE IN THIS UBERTI RIFLE.
THE UBERTI 357MAG RIFLES AND CARBINES CAN HANDLE THE MODERN 357MAG CARTRIDGE BECAUSE IT'S MUCH SMALLER CASE HEAD REDUCES BOLT THRUST A LOT. A LOT !!!
ONE CAN DO MUCH THE SAME WITH A 32-20 CARTRIDGE FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT GO OFF THE DEEP END WITH YOUR HANDLOADS.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:48 pm

And here I was thinking a case grips the chamber at peak pressure

N.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:55 pm

'73s are very sensitive to overall cartridge length. You may want to rethink the 180 grainers, especially if the exceed 1.60" overall length.

Terry Murbach · Post by **Terry Murbach** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:56 pm

Nath wrote:And here I was thinking a case grips the chamber at peak pressure

N.

IT DOES !!! AFTER THE THE FIRST THRUST OF THE CASE REARWARD UPON IGNITION AND THEN THE PRESSURE BUILDS TO PUSH THE CASE WALLS OUTWARD TO THE CHAMBER WALLS.

LET ME NOTE HERE AS I FORGOT TO MENTION IT IN THE FIRST POST , YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LOAD THE HECK OUT OF THE 357MAG TO MAKE IT PERFORM LIKE A SHOWPONY IN A CARBINE OR RIFLE. REGULAR LOADS WITH THE SLOW BURNING PROPELLENTS [ 2400, 296, H110 ETC...] WILL PICK UP A LOT OF SPEED IN THOSE LONGER CARBINE AND RIFLE BARRELS, SOME LOADS AS MUCH AS 700FPS, 500FPS IS COMMON AS CAN BE. LET THE BARREL DO THE GOOSIN' NOT HOT HANDLOADS THAT CAN GET YOU INTO TROUBLE.
DON'T ASK ME HOW I KNOW THIS...

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:04 pm

The other thing I would do is remove the side plate, lay the rifle on the bench (so the links don't fall out) and cycle the lever, making absolutely sure the links overcenter, locking the action. I've seen em that are JUST parallel, not overcentered, and folks, that ain't good even with pipsqueak loads, and certainly not with .357 loads. Getting ONE rifle through CIP is one thing, sending em out properly fitted up day after day is quite another. It is well to remember the target market of these guns is CAS use, not boar hunting.

Post by **Hobie** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:28 pm

Let me also point out that breech thrust is also a function of case head size. The .357 Mag has the same case head size as the .223 Rem. FACTORY loads don't produce excessive breech thrust but some "warmish" (for the .357 Mag) might well do that. The Mag is a Mag in name because you don't need "warmish" loads to reach the case's safe potential. If you want a .35 Rem, get one.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:43 pm

Buck, The loads I have been shooting with that bullet measure 1.595 OAL. Will that work in the Uberti .357?
I could trim some brass especially for it if needed.

I have been shooting that 180 gr, WFRN bullet with 10 gr. 2400 for 1311 fps in my Marlin 24" cowboy and getting fine accuracy. Feeding is good and no leading. I size them to .360 in a Lee push through and lube the lube grooves only by dipping in Lee LLA twice before pushing them through the sizer.

11 grains 2400 gives 1420 fps and some leading so I have oven heat treated some and will do further testing in a couple weeks.

I think that bullet will be one of my favorites for general shooting in the .357.
Thanks

Sorry for the Hi-jacking of your post Rusty,but thought it would interest you also.

I have Uberti 73`s in .32-20 and .45 Colt. The .357 will fit right in.

Wind · Post by **Wind** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:58 pm

Hey there Rusty – I’ve probably run close to 15,000 rounds through my Uberti ’73 (.357 Magnum). Never a problem. They are very case length sensitive, but once you find what works, there ya go!! Oliver Winchester did some strength tests on the 1876 to answer concerns by customers. This still staggers my brain. The ’76 is bigger overall that the ’73, but look at these tests on the “weaker” toggle link system!!

The strength of the Model 1876 rifle and the .45-75 W.C.F. cartridge was tested by Winchester in the late 1870s. The factory conducted tests on the strength and reliability of the action to answer concerns by customers. These tests will astound collectors and shooters who have stated the Model 1876's toggle link action is "weak." In response to a letter sent to the company by Charles Hallock, Esquire, of Forest & Stream magazine, Oliver Winchester responded by telling about the tests the factory accomplished on the 1876 rifle. He indicated that engineers first started the tests by removing one of the toggle links and fired 20 rounds (this was with .45-75 W.C.F. cartridge with 350 grain bullet) with no effect. They restored the missing link then went through 6 more trials starting with a charge of 105 grains of black powder, behind a 700 grain bullet! The comment "worked well" is noted. They then increased the charge of powder to 165 grains behind 3 bullets (1,150 grains) and that "worked well." From there, they increased the powder charge to 203 grains and added more bullets until they reached 1,750 grains of lead (five 350 grain bullets). This also "worked well." Finally, they added one more bullet, bringing the total weight to 2,100 grains, and things began to happen. The comment was, "Breech pin slightly bent. Arm working stiff." The seventh and final test was again 203 grains of powder but this time six Martini bullets weighing 480 grains each (2,880 grains) were used. "The charge bent the breech pin, blew out the side plates, split the frame and otherwise disabled the arm," was the comment. Oliver Winchester noted that in this seventh trial, the shell had burst into fragments and the escape of gas at the breech did the damage.

My Uberti ’73 is slick, fun and safe. Hope this helps. Best regards. Wind

RSY · Post by **RSY** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:26 pm

Terry Murbach wrote:YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LOAD THE HECK OUT OF THE 357MAG TO MAKE IT PERFORM LIKE A SHOWPONY IN A CARBINE OR RIFLE. REGULAR LOADS WITH THE SLOW BURNING PROPELLENTS [ 2400, 296, H110 ETC...] WILL PICK UP A LOT OF SPEED IN THOSE LONGER CARBINE AND RIFLE BARRELS, SOME LOADS AS MUCH AS 700FPS, 500FPS IS COMMON AS CAN BE. LET THE BARREL DO THE GOOSIN' NOT HOT HANDLOADS...

My thoughts, exactly.

COSteve · Post by **COSteve** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:29 pm

Deleted

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:37 pm

My observations comes from working on these gun daily. Not just one gun but many over the years. These were guns used by CAS shooters that put thousand of round through them. What I have found is some do just fine but others shoot loose. Some even shot loose with CAS 38's. The part I'm not sure about is how they all started out. From the new guns I've seen I do know that Uberti is notorious for excessive headspace. I suspect the guns that ended up loose may have had excessive headspace from the beginning which in turn will only make it get looser.
Bottom line is a steady diet of standard 357m fodder may not be a problem but the gun may be a problem.
As for the OAL of the ammo the 73 has a built in ammo gage. Open the action, turn the gun over and lay a round in the window where the carrier rides. If it doesn't fit, it's too long. It should be about 1/16 but not more than 1/8th inch from being too long. This length works best because the 73, 66, and 60 does not have a mag cartridge stop. The front edge of the loading gate is the only stop. The carrier is the stop while it's in the up position.

COSteve · Post by **COSteve** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:58 pm

I guess I was sorta right for the wrong reason.

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:09 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:My observations comes from working on these gun daily. Not just one gun but many over the years. These were guns used by CAS shooters that put thousand of round through them. What I have found is some do just fine but others shoot loose. Some even shot loose with CAS 38's. The part I'm not sure about is how they all started out. From the new guns I've seen I do know that Uberti is notorious for excessive headspace. I suspect the guns that ended up loose may have had excessive headspace from the beginning which in turn will only make it get looser.
Bottom line is a steady diet of standard 357m fodder may not be a problem but the gun may be a problem.
As for the OAL of the ammo the 73 has a built in ammo gage. Open the action, turn the gun over and lay a round in the window where the carrier rides. If it doesn't fit, it's too long. It should be about 1/16 but not more than 1/8th inch from being too long. This length works best because the 73, 66, and 60 does not have a mag cartridge stop. The front edge of the loading gate is the only stop. The carrier is the stop while it's in the up position.

Thanks for chiming in here, Steve. My reply came mostly from talking to CAS shooters who have 73s and their experiences good or bad. Your eyes seeing what I'd heard about helps a lot. I too think the "bad ones probably were never right to begin with, either in headspace, lockup, metallurgy or some combination thereof. The story that scared me most was a 73 that was so far out of kilter the links failed to overcenter when new.

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:26 pm

adirondakjack wrote:Getting ONE rifle through CIP is one thing, sending em out properly fitted up day after day is quite another.

No and yes. I believe every gun produced is proofed, and CIP proofs require two proof loads to be fired.

Just looking at the action, I'm amazed it works with the .357.

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:38 pm

KWK wrote:
adirondakjack wrote:Getting ONE rifle through CIP is one thing, sending em out properly fitted up day after day is quite another.
No and yes. I believe every gun produced is proofed, and CIP proofs require two proof loads to be fired.

Just looking at the action, I'm amazed it works with the .357.

I'm not sure every gun destined for EXPORT has to be proofed. Might be they do, but I don't know that. I know US made guns aren't proofed at all and many aren't even test fired at all, even with weak ammo.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:44 pm

Marlin and Savage both say they Proof every rifle that leaves the factory.

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:52 pm

Chuck 100 yd wrote:Marlin and Savage both say they Proof every rifle that leaves the factory.

"proofing" and test firing are not the same thing, and neither is actually required in the US with the exception of handguns to be sold in states requiring the empty cases for their database. FWIW the US is one country that has no requirement for arms to be proofed. For example, a gun imported from the US into the UK must go through "proofing" before release. No such animal here.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:22 am

adirondakjack wrote:
Chuck 100 yd wrote:Marlin and Savage both say they Proof every rifle that leaves the factory.

"proofing" and test firing are not the same thing, and neither is actually required in the US with the exception of handguns to be sold in states requiring the empty cases for their database. FWIW the US is one country that has no requirement for arms to be proofed. For example, a gun imported from the US into the UK must go through "proofing" before release. No such animal here.

Yeah my Rem 700 has English proof stamps, my friends German rifle just has standard CIP marks, no English.

It amazes me how many folk think the guns lock up is what holds it shut as in they think it is holding everything back. It isn't, pressure forces in a millionth of a second the case to grip the chamber walls. I grant it is hard to imagine with out remembering the small time frame in volved. Part of the CIP proof is a greased case that allows all the pressure to bare on the bolt/lock up by limiting how much the case can stick to the chamber and I believe it to be 70% more pressure than a service round.
I would go as far as to suggest that a slow for caliber round with lots of lube building up in the chamber would impart more bolt thrust over time than the hot stuff!

Was there an account of a 94 being shot with the locking lug removed to prove a point? I seem to remember something in that order!

Nath.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:29 pm

Nath wrote:Was there an account of a 94 being shot with the locking lug removed to prove a point? I seem to remember something in that order!

Nath.

Ackley ran that particular test.

Gun Smith · Post by **Gun Smith** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:44 pm

Didn't Snooky Williamson do a missing locking lugs test on an '86. I'm going to look that up.

RustyJr · Post by **RustyJr** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:43 pm

I was wondering if the 357 could be loaded hot enough in the 73 to be abe to take deer out to 100 yards. I imagine if it will take standard 357 rounds then that would be all that is needed.

Thanks,
RustyJr

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:41 pm

"Standard" .357 Mag loads will definitely do the job at 100 yards -- if you do yours...

I've dropped deer out to 140 yards with an original '73 in .32-20.

RustyJr · Post by **RustyJr** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:27 pm

Buck, how hot was your 32-20 loaded in your 73? I was thinkin about either a 32-20 or 357 but i figured you would be able to load the 357 hotter. . . i may be wrong on that though. Another thing i wasnt sure about was the cost of brass for reloading. I figured the 357/38 brass would be cheaper and easier to reload due to the fact that the 357 is a staight walled case.

Thanks,
RustyJr

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:36 pm

RustyJr wrote:Buck, how hot was your 32-20 loaded in your 73? I was thinkin about either a 32-20 or 357 but i figured you would be able to load the 357 hotter. . . i may be wrong on that though. Another thing i wasnt sure about was the cost of brass for reloading. I figured the 357/38 brass would be cheaper and easier to reload due to the fact that the 357 is a staight walled case.

Thanks,
RustyJr

Rusty, it's been eons ago (over 40 years), but IIRC, it was a 110-/115-gr cast bullet over a healthy dose of 4227. Killed deer, coyotes, jack rabbits & cottontails with that rifle & load. Then later swapped it for a '92 -- same caliber.

Today, the .357 makes a heap more sense, IMO.

RustyJr · Post by **RustyJr** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:46 pm

Thanks Buck, im still debating on 73 vs 92. I know the 92 is alot stronger but I just like the looks of the 73 better. Dont knw for sure which one ill get.

RustyJr

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:58 pm

RustyJr wrote:Thanks Buck, im still debating on 73 vs 92. I know the 92 is alot stronger but I just like the looks of the 73 better. Dont knw for sure which one ill get.

RustyJr

FWIW, my favorite "go-to" rifle is my 24" Uberti '73, in .45 Colt. Much as I like the '92s, there's just something about the way the '73 looks and feels... I can push 250-gr. bullets at 1400 + fps from that combination, which ain't too bad.

If I head West from town, then it's my '86 Extra Light. Bears & wolves, ya know... Bears are hibernating right now, but the wolves are out in force -- and hungry.

Gun Smith · Post by **Gun Smith** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:18 pm

I looked in Williamson's book. I did not find anything about removing locking lugs on any gun he tested. He did try to blow up an '86 with 60 gr. 3031 and a 250 gr. jacketed bullet! It did not blow!

SAAJim · Post by **SAAJim** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:22 pm

Steve,
If I'm not mistaken, the .44/40 was introduced with the '73. The '66 used the same rimfire cartridge that the Henry used. Later, the '92 came along and was also chambered for the .44/40.

Jim

COSteve wrote:The basic design of the action (toggle link) just isn't strong enough to take a round like the 357mag. The 44-40 is a low pressure cartridge that wasn't introduced until they released the newer, stronger model 92. That round has nowhere near the bolt thrust of a 357mag.

I understand that with today's stronger metals one can push higher pressures than in the 1870's but I personally wouldn't shoot anything above a 38spl in even a new '73 Uberti or Cimarron. Not a 38spl+P and certainly not a 357mag.

Kansas Ed · Post by **Kansas Ed** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:33 pm

Gun Smith wrote:Didn't Snooky Williamson do a missing locking lugs test on an '86. I'm going to look that up.

I think you're referring to the '86 that he loaned out which broke, and lost about a third of the bolt face and the fella used it anyway...IIRC it was a 40-82.

Ed

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm

SAAJim wrote:Steve,
If I'm not mistaken, the .44/40 was introduced with the '73. The '66 used the same rimfire cartridge that the Henry used. Later, the '92 came along and was also chambered for the .44/40.
Jim
COSteve wrote:The basic design of the action (toggle link) just isn't strong enough to take a round like the 357mag. The 44-40 is a low pressure cartridge that wasn't introduced until they released the newer, stronger model 92. That round has nowhere near the bolt thrust of a 357mag.
I understand that with today's stronger metals one can push higher pressures than in the 1870's but I personally wouldn't shoot anything above a 38spl in even a new '73 Uberti or Cimarron. Not a 38spl+P and certainly not a 357mag.

Jim, you are correct. The '66, or "Improved Henry" still used the .44 Rimfire used in the Henry until after 1873. Like Nate said, he see a LOT more of these guns than any one of is likely to... The only Uberti I've ever had any personal knowledge about stretching was a .38 Spl '66. The "gunmetal" of even the modern '66 copy isn't sufficient to take any higher pressure rounds than the original BP cartridges they were chambered for. However, the '73 is a different metallurgy and quite capable of handling SAAMI .357 Magnum rounds. Personally, I wouldn't push it more... .357M in either carbine or rifle versions are impressive... capable of excellent performance on deer out to 100-125 yards if you do your part.

In my book, if Terry M. sez it... take it to the bank. OK, he's loud... but that's only because you should HEAR what he's saying!

Kansas Ed · Post by **Kansas Ed** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:10 pm

Griff wrote:... The only Uberti I've ever had any personal knowledge about stretching was a .38 Spl '66. The "gunmetal" of even the modern '66 copy isn't sufficient to take any higher pressure rounds than the original BP cartridges they were chambered for. However, the '73 is a different metallurgy and quite capable of handling SAAMI .357 Magnum rounds. Personally, I wouldn't push it more... .357M in either carbine or rifle versions are impressive... capable of excellent performance on deer out to 100-125 yards if you do your part.

Griff,
Are you saying that the modern repo's of the '66 (which by default would include the repos of the Henry) shouldn't be chambered for anything more powerful than the .38 spec? Which of course causes me consternation about the currently chambered Henry's in .44 and .45. Just trying to clarify here....I thought the action was basically the same as the '73, though I've never had a '66 or Henry apart. I've always wanted a repop of the Henry Iron Frame, but now I'm wondering....

Thanks,
Ed

Grizzly Adams · Post by **Grizzly Adams** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:39 pm

Terry Murbach wrote:I HAVE SHOT A SHIQLOAD OF FACTORY 357MAG AMMUNITION THROUGH A UBERTI ' 73 RIFLE WITH NARY A PROBLEM. THE BRASS LOOKS FINE AFTERWARDS.
REMEMBER THIS : THE UBERTI '73 IN 357MAG HAD TO PASS CIP PROOF TO BE SOLD IN EUROPE AND TO THEN BE SOLD HERE. THE CIP PROOF LOADS ARE SLIGHTLY HEAVIER THAN OUR SAAMI TEST PROOF LOADS.
I HAVE YET TO EVER FIRE MY HANDLOADS IN THE '73 BUT THAT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAD A LOT OF FACTORY 357 AMMO TO SHOOT UP. I HAVE NO DOUBT MY HANDLOADS WILL DO JUST FINE IN THIS UBERTI RIFLE.
THE UBERTI 357MAG RIFLES AND CARBINES CAN HANDLE THE MODERN 357MAG CARTRIDGE BECAUSE IT'S MUCH SMALLER CASE HEAD REDUCES BOLT THRUST A LOT. A LOT !!!
ONE CAN DO MUCH THE SAME WITH A 32-20 CARTRIDGE FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT GO OFF THE DEEP END WITH YOUR HANDLOADS.

+1

The Uberti 73 is proofed in Italy for all of the calibers for which it is chambered. Their test proof standards are very strict.

Kansas Ed: I have a Henry 1860 in 44-40 that I have been shooting for over 10 years now. The head space is as tight as it ever was. In addition, it is easily the most accurate 44-40 I have ever owned.

I think a lot of folks base their perception of the capabilities of the Uberti 73, 66 and 60 Henry on the loads they see CAS shooters using, and assume you must shoot "soft" loads in them. Most CAS shooters opt to shoot 38 spls in the Uberti 73, but it's not because the rifle can't handle 357.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:28 am

I will stand by what I said earlier, I believe with no evidence what so ever that soft loaded ammo allows the case to not grip the chamber and thus give the bolt more thrust than if a full power load was used.
So when you have CAS shooters shooting high numbers of soft loads then I can see a situation where upon the lock up is getting a pounding etc.

Nath.

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:19 pm

Nath wrote:I will stand by what I said earlier, I believe with no evidence what so ever that soft loaded ammo allows the case to not grip the chamber and thus give the bolt more thrust than if a full power load was used.
So when you have CAS shooters shooting high numbers of soft loads then I can see a situation where upon the lock up is getting a pounding etc.

Nath.

CAS shooters can be a 'breed apart..." Too many of them fiddle and fool with their perfectly functional firearms, until they no longer are... I figure home-gunsmithing has ruined more Uberti rifles than any combination of loads ever has or will. Just an educated guess, mind you.

JerryB · Post by **JerryB** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:34 pm

I have to agree with you Buck on the fiddlin, the time that I spent in CAS with my grandson, we could not believe the amount of trouble folks had with their weapons.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 am

adirondakjack wrote:
KWK wrote:
adirondakjack wrote:

I'm not sure every gun destined for EXPORT has to be proofed. Might be they do, but I don't know that. I know US made guns aren't proofed at all and many aren't even test fired at all, even with weak ammo.

Cant speak for all US made guns but Marlins are proofed. I think Rugers are too. Kinda thought they all were. Seems irresponsible not to. Where did you get the info that US guns are not proofed?

Chas. · Post by **Chas.** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:33 am

What makes you think Marlins are proofed? If Marlin's were proofed (is that a word?), I would think they mention it on their website. Seems like that would be something to advertise. I looked at both mine and saw no cartouche indicating proof. Civilian weapon proofing is only required in some European countries, mostly European Union.

adirondakjack · Post by **adirondakjack** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:07 am

Leverdude wrote:
adirondakjack wrote:
KWK wrote:
adirondakjack wrote:

I'm not sure every gun destined for EXPORT has to be proofed. Might be they do, but I don't know that. I know US made guns aren't proofed at all and many aren't even test fired at all, even with weak ammo.

Cant speak for all US made guns but Marlins are proofed. I think Rugers are too. Kinda thought they all were. Seems irresponsible not to. Where did you get the info that US guns are not proofed?

The US has never required proofing of arms, which is a LEGAL construct done to insure various makers, often small time outfits of old, used good steel and methods. AAMOF even back in the days of early cartridge guns, the BELGIANS were the first to proof a rolling block and in further tests for their army, tried to blow one up without success.

Ruger TEST FIRES every revolver (two shots) but they use standard fodder. They use heavy (proof) loads in DESIGN testing, but not in every gun. I dunno that Marlins are fired at all (I had a new one once that wouldn't cycle without jamming, even empty, due to a big burr at the back end of the barrel threads interfering with the bolt. Somebody forced it closed and boxed it up. That was sure never fired, as no evidence existed of firing. SA doesn't routinely test fire their guns, as I was told their custom shop doesn't have a range or other test facility. (they had to test fired a repaired gun at a range 15 miles from the shop).

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:48 am

Chas. wrote:What makes you think Marlins are proofed? If Marlin's were proofed (is that a word?), I would think they mention it on their website. Seems like that would be something to advertise. I looked at both mine and saw no cartouche indicating proof. Civilian weapon proofing is only required in some European countries, mostly European Union.

Because I know a couple guys that work there, unless they're lieing every gun gets proofed. Though I'm not certain at what point they stamp it the JM in an oval on the barrel is usually referred to as a proof mark. I figure they dont mention it because its no big deal.

There was a video circulating recently going thru the steps of manufacture and they fired the gun before boxing it up.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:56 am

The US has never required proofing of arms, which is a LEGAL construct done to insure various makers, often small time outfits of old, used good steel and methods. AAMOF even back in the days of early cartridge guns, the BELGIANS were the first to proof a rolling block and in further tests for their army, tried to blow one up without success.

Ruger TEST FIRES every revolver (two shots) but they use standard fodder. They use heavy (proof) loads in DESIGN testing, but not in every gun. I dunno that Marlins are fired at all (I had a new one once that wouldn't cycle without jamming, even empty, due to a big burr at the back end of the barrel threads interfering with the bolt. Somebody forced it closed and boxed it up. That was sure never fired, as no evidence existed of firing. SA doesn't routinely test fire their guns, as I was told their custom shop doesn't have a range or other test facility. (they had to test fired a repaired gun at a range 15 miles from the shop).

Heres a link to the video, they not only proof it but function test them and sight them in.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Video.aspx?vid=1862

Chas. · Post by **Chas.** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:30 pm

I enjoyed the video, Leverdude. Thanks. They apparently do proof their products.

JB · Post by JB » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:40 pm

I can't see any U.S. gun company not at least test firing their guns. Maybe not an actual proof in the sense of over pressure loads, but at least a test firing.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:42 pm

Chas. wrote:I enjoyed the video, Leverdude. Thanks. They apparently do proof their products.

No sweat, I'm glad I could find it again. I'm pretty terrible at retrieving things on the net. I'm technologically challenged in a big way. I do better with things I can cut, grind or beat into submission.

Kansas Ed · Post by **Kansas Ed** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:11 pm

FA Runs proof loads through all of their centerfires, and then puts std. loads on paper. Or at least they used to throughout the 90's. Personally in this litigious society we are in, I can't see any US maker NOT proofing their guns...I would think that the lawyers would be lined up outside their county courthouse if word ever got out that any American gunmaker DIDN'T proof their firearms. There is actually an industry built up around spec. proof load ammo for standard cartridges.

Ed

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:06 pm

adirondakjack wrote:The US has never required proofing of arms, which is a LEGAL construct...

This is true. The government here doesn't require proof. The makers are simply held liable for any harm that mistakes in the manufacture of their guns might cause. From a mechanical engineering standpoint, surviving one or two proof rounds doesn't ensure a gun won't blow in your face after a few hundred rounds of factory ammo; it should, though, improve the odds that it won't.

All major US makers are a member of SAAMI, and this industry group sets voluntary standards. I'm sure all the makers will follow SAAMI recommendations; however, I do not know if SAAMI recommends all guns be proofed. I do know SAAMI has standards for proof rounds that are similar to those used by the CIP in Europe.

Nath, I've just glanced over my copy of the 2007 CIP standards, and I don't see a reference to lubricating the cases before a proof firing. I know the UK method of measuring pressures with a crusher (at the base of the cartridge) used oiled cases.