Bill: We're not talking medicine here (unless, of course, it's to sew up what's left of the hand of an unfortunate victim of a proofing experience gone bad!). And neither do I wish to beat a dead horse, as I too am aware that knowledge/ times/methods/technologies have all advanced light years in the past century; but in a roundabout way you are making my point. People like the aforementioned Sherman Bell do use sophisticated computerized pressure guages, and also have at their disposal the latest measuring instruments. Further, we have companies that are set-up with the latest equipment to measure shell pressures to the inth degree so that handloads can be tested, and so that modern proof loads can be the most consistent and efficient indicators of tube strength than our vintage gun makers could have ever concieved 100 plus years ago. I realize that you are about to become a US agent for the English proof house; but again, how can their system be any more accurate, more precise, or produce a better end result that what is presently being done here? Certianly, the phrase "this gun has genuine British proof marks" sounds glamourous and exciting; but, if the process is indeed as Destry has described above, British proofing certainly doesn't sound any more sophisticated than our PBR hay-seed redneck tying his gun to an old tire and using a pull string from a safe distance? As a novice, it seems to me that the primary determinate of a realistic proof test is the proof load itself, and I don't even understand why a strain guage would even be a part of the equation; the barrels and bolting either fail or pass, and to what degree is determined visually or via precise measurement. I have had a number of conversations with one of the best vintage gunsmiths in this country regarding his personal testing of Damascus barrels. At one time he provided a mono-blocking service (Damascus barrels mostly) and became very courious as to their relative strength and limitations; so he acquired some junk barrels and tried to blow them up to no avail. As a result of his experimentation he will no longer mono-block a set of Damascus barrels. Obviously barrel steel type, and rigorous proof testing is no guarantee against barrel failure, as I'm sure you noticed the photo showing the failure of the Armor steel tubes above. The previously noted Smith gun I saw explode was also Armour steel, and was split in the same fashion; although the set I witnessed was obstructed by a fibre base wad that lodged in the barrel leaving a visible buldge at that point. I see no obvious buldge with this set, but in both instances we see a tube split that is several inches long and resulted in bodily injury. Based on the manner in which we see fluid steel tubes rupture, and comparing that rupture to a Damascus tube rupture (a long split with fluid steel vs a short section with a Damascus tube), I can only hope I'm holding a Damascus barrel if, God forbid, a barrel rupture should ever happen to me or someone I know. Again, all I have ever asked is for someone to explain the advantages of British proofing (besides the potential added gun value of the proof mark) over what can and is being done by qualified individuals here. At this point that question either has not been answered, or there is no advantage other than the potential monetary increase in the value of the gun. If that is the only advantage, the next question is will that value increase cover/offset all the expenses one will incur with the cost of the British proofing process itself? The only other potential benefit I see from knowing one's American/domestic double gun bears an in-proof British proof stamp is the "feel good" factor, which one would assume is priceless. But again, proofing is not a science, nor is it an absolute guarantee against barrel failure; it is instead only a test that, even when conducted in the most sophisticated manner and under the most stringent and controlled circumstances can never guarantee a barrel will not fail at some point. Therefore, given that possibility and one's concern for personal safety we must then ask, why would anyone ever risk shooting a gun? By the way, where I grew up near Danielsville, GA, the community actually had a "Doc Adams", or Dr. Bonds. Old Doc had a tiny little one-man, one nurse office on the courthouse square; and I never saw any sophisticated equipment on the few occassions he saw me, but it seemed old Doc had a lot of common sense and wisdom, so he always understood how to treat his patients. Some of this modern gun stuff, like the vast majority of modern medicine, has become so specialized and complicated that simple things have become the source of much confusion; so just maybe there are some valuable lessons we can learn from a little retrospective of old "Doc Adams" too. At any rate Bill, this was a good thread; I enjoyed the debate, and I sincerely hope our comments will provide the impetus for additional input.