Bill: I had assumed the old liability issue might be the major negative as regards someone on this side of the pond getting involved in proofing, but my primary question remains unanswered; what is/are the advantages (other than liability) of having a gun proofed in England as opposed to having a competent gunsmith conduct an appropriate strain/pressure test here? Also, as to potential liability, if you agreed to be an American agent for an English firm promoting/providing such proofing service; would you not also risk liability, given our litigeous society, in the event a proofing contract you facilitated later resulted in a barrel burst and/or injury? Having no education in legal matters, I personally have no idea; but, if liability was a primary concern, that might be sn issue one would give serious consideration. Also, for those who may have misinterpreted the intentions of my posts on this topic, which were solely designed to stimulae disucssion; the Damascus guns I have had proofed are never shot with heavy loads, these guns are used with low pressure loads only for, like Bill, my fear of a mishap causes me to have a great deal of cautious respect for Damascus barrels. That said, I will and do use them with correct loads. Also as FYI, my writers copy of the Spring issue of the DGJ has arrived and to no one's surprise has another article by Sherman Bell on Damascus barrels; however, this installment is a bit different as he actually manages to blow some Damascus barrels (one of which was an LC Smith). But to do this he had to alter the barrels (by thinning barrel walls); and with barrel obstructions. No barrel steels would have survived such tests under these conditions.