Destry: What you have described is exactly the manner in which I understood the British proofing process worked; meaning that their method is no better/no worse that what is presently being done by qualified individuals in the US, the only difference being that they have a formal system(government owned, I assume) or "proof house". Further, I suspect that all current English makers(and past, since the establishment of proof house English proof laws) have/had already proofed their guns in-house (and possibly to an even higher standard due to fears of liability and negative publicity) prior to sending their guns for proof; and if so, then the government proof house is a duplication of that process which then only serves the public interest by providing some additional "feel good" as to safety margin. And although such standard is great to have, there still remains no guarantee that any barrel surviving proof will not explode on the next shot (the only barrel explosion I have witnessed was a Field Grade Smith, Armor Steel, with an obstructed barrel that removed a significant oportion of a man's left hand when it opened up). The guys I know in the US who have "informally" proofed barrels (by informal I refer to the fact that the US apparently lacks; or has not published uniform governmental standards, although it seems the gun industry itself apparently polices itself to very high standards) use the same proceedures you describe; very carefully measure and inspect each tube prior to proofing, test each barrel with a high-pressure proof load, then carefully inspect each tube afterwards. If the barrel tubes survive with no problems or dimensional changes they are considered "proofed" (but again, all the guys I know who do such work NEVER recommend any loads be used in vintage guns generating greater pressures than these guns were originally designed to handle). And Dr. Bill, I'm certainly not trying to pick a "fight" on this issue; but rather I am being the "devil's advocate", and my questions are legitimate. It is entirely possible that the British method of proofing is the "be all/end all" system that the entire world should adopt; but, assuming the information Destry has provided is entirely factual (and we certainly have no reasons to think otherwise; as afterall, he wanted to find out for himself before he placed one of his hard-earned treasures at risk), I again pose my question. How is the British system better/superior to what is presently being done in the US? Where is the additional science and technology in their method that is lacking here domestically? If a guy wishes to risk his gun and spend all the additional monies involved for international shipping and insurance; plus the charges for the proofing proceedure itself, what are the PRACTICAL/REAL advantages offered? I understand that a Damascus barrel bearing a British proof stamp will sometimes be worth more from a monetary standpoint; but your issue, according to your comments, is not monetary, but pertains only to the safety factor. So again, what are the actual advantages? Personally, as I know you are a completely trustworthy individual who only treats others as he himself would wish to be treated, I would put my faith in your ability to conduct a proper and totally honest proof test over someone on the other side of the pond who doesn't know me from Adam. It is unfortunate that our vintage American makers failed to formalize their proofing proceedures, methods, and pressures; but based on my personal experience, I don't believe for a minute that whatever method our best makers adopted in the US was inferior to what was being done/performed in Britian and Europe during the same period (and keep in mind that some of our makers, LeFever comes to mind, advertised his products as actually being superior to any foreign made gun). We also know from surviving literature that all of our quality makers proofed their barrels for use with smokeless powders once that technology was developed; and further, we also know that these same makers experienced problems with their gun designs upon the advent of smokeless powders, which forced change upon those products. However, the problems they experienced were not with barrel steels; but with their actions and stocks, as we see nearly all these early makers (the Smith gun being the exception) scrambling to increase the relative strengths of their bolting mechanisms, frames, and stock heads which were being pounded and split much more rapidly by the increased strain exerted on these critical areas by the stonger powders. And although I am sure it has happened, I have yet to learn of a set of original and unaltered Damascus barrels from a gun of a quality American maker failing to survive the standard English proof test; certainly such mishaps would be rare. As to Simth guns, I've wondered many times how the process of proofing Smith barrels was conducted. With the Jerred gun, the barrels were fitted to the frame; but the bolt and all internal parts had never been fitted or assembled, yet the unfinished barrels featured their period nitro proof mark. How were those barrels proofed? The only theory I can surmize is that they were placed in some sort of "proofing fixture", then fitted to the frame and locking bolt? At any rate, this is an intersting thread; and one that should provide some enlightened understanding to every one of us who is interested.