Side by Side Club

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

if I may ask your no1 was it built on the monoblock system or the other method where the barrel is almost sleeved into the breech

As far as I know ALL AyA s/s guns are chopper lump barrels (i.e. two tubes which are seamless from end to end without any separate breech parts joined side by side withn the lumps forged as an integral part of the barrels).

13 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

iv a aya that I was thinking about opening up and going for the hp rep roof myself and now thanks to your experience I’m in a bit of a turmoil as to what to do

Some AyAs are 'heavy duty' and might be better suited to HP reproof?  I don't know enough about the heavy duty models, but most if not all 'game' AyAs seem to be proofed at 900 bar, so to raise this to 1320 bar is a big increase.

[Old farrier]

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

And thank you for your kind remarks in the first paragraph.

I can add a bit more (I hope positivity!).  I have a No 1 and love it - it is my 'go to' gun and was bought (second hand) because I needed something 2 3/4 chambers (my English guns are only 2 1/2).  The No 1 is a very nice 'English style' and as such light and fast handling,  but it isn't ideal for heavy loads for that reason.  You did exactly the sensible thing in trusting the supplier and getting them to 'do the work' at their risk. 

I have another AyA which has a 'history' including a second set of barrels which I will explain as best I know the story;

My gun was made with 28" barrels, proofed for normal 900 bar 2 3/4" and it on a fairly 'beefy' action (compared to the No 1).  It was kept originally in Spain by the factory.  It later came to the UK and at some stage a then owner decided that he wanted more 'uummph' and ordered (from AyA) a set of 30" barrels choked full and even more full, 2 3/4 chambered but proofed for 1200 bar.  These were to be for 'high pheasants' and this was done circa late 1980s.  At some stage the original 28" barrels were opened to 1/4 choke in both.

The new barrels were finally fitted to the gun in the UK and the action and new barrels proofed in Birmingham at 1200 bar.  A leather case was also made in Birmingham to take the whole set.  Unfortunately, well before my ownership, and I don't know how long it all took (or what it cost).

So I now have a gun with two sets of proof marks, Spanish at 900 bar on the 28" barrels, English (B'ham) at 1200 bar on the 30" barrels and both sets of marks on the action.  Note that even at 1200 bar, that is not as high as the fleur de lis requirement.

I actually far prefer the No 1 ........

your second gun that’s got two sets of barrels 
Is it number 1 of a pair? If you don’t mind me asking 

as I have a similar 2 barrel set 

Just now, Old farrier said:

your second gun that’s got two sets of barrels 
Is it number 1 of a pair? If you don’t mind me asking 

as I have a similar 2 barrel set 

 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Old farrier said:

your second gun that’s got two sets of barrels 
Is it number 1 of a pair?

No, it is a single gun.  Pictured on page 5 of this thread alongside my No 1 (a while back!)

[buze]

Now I wonder if at some point, you could get a "deal" on a new set of barrels from AYA? Could that explain that just the 2 of you have a gun with 2 barrels sets?

@JohnfromUK aren't "new" AYA (the one in the catalogue, #1, is nearly 20 grand new!) come with HP proofed barrels? Also, I wonder about the 'balance' when using both sets -- is the heavier set pulling the center of gravity forward quite a bit?

(mind you, I LOVE the center of gravity being forward a bit, my hammer gun is 32" damascus (!) with center of gravity perhaps 1/2" forward and I absolutely love the feeling! horses for courses!)

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, buze said:

Now I wonder if at some point, you could get a "deal" on a new set of barrels from AYA? Could that explain that just the 2 of you have a gun with 2 barrels sets?

@JohnfromUK aren't "new" AYA (the one in the catalogue, #1, is nearly 20 grand new!) come with HP proofed barrels? Also, I wonder about the 'balance' when using both sets -- is the heavier set pulling the center of gravity forward quite a bit?

(mind you, I LOVE the center of gravity being forward a bit, my hammer gun is 32" damascus (!) with center of gravity perhaps 1/2" forward and I absolutely love the feeling! horses for courses!)

I can only say that all I know is the the barrels were supplied through ASI (the UK importers).  I don't know if the current No 1 is HP steel or not.  Personally, if it needs 1320 bar proof, I would think it would need to be heavier? (to be comfortably usable apart from anything else).

My two barrel gun is certainly more front heavy with the 30" barrels.  I have to be honest - I don't think I have ever shot them!  I might have tried the odd clay, but I have certainly never shot game with them as full and even more full isn't suited to anything I ever do.  The 30" barrels are certainly heavier and I think 'slightly meatier' in wall thickness.  Weights (barrels) are;

28" = 2 lbs 11.4 oz

30" = 3 lbs 4.3 oz

and 28" on my No 1 are 2 lbs 13.8 oz

[Old farrier]

18 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

No, it is a single gun.  Pictured on page 5 of this thread alongside my No 1 (a while back!)

Ok many thanks for the reply 👍😊

[enfieldspares]

I'm sorry for the OPs predicament. This is all the fault of Spanish makers.

Who there, in Eibar, in the 1970s by bringing to the market such things caused this totally unnecessary practice of manufacturing standard game guns with 70mm chambered barrels instead of what they should have had which was 2 1/2" chambered barrels.

If AYA had made the thing in the first place with 2 1/2" chambered barrels this thread wouldn't exist. The OP would have simply bought as a "hack" or a duck gun an all around heavier, stouter, thicker barreled gun suitable for HP steel.

One size seldom fits all. Back in the day if a game shot wanted to shoot duck (other than as part of a normal driven day) he'd put his 2 1/2" chambered game gun to one side and pick up an all around more robustly proportioned 2 3/4" chambered duck gun.

He didn't try to make his single trigger Boss easy-opener or Holland Royal into a Thomas Bland "Brent" or a Greener "Empire". Because he knew that the a standard game gun isn't intended to perform as a duck gun at duck gun performance velocities firing duck gun loading weight charges of shot.

Or if not and he just had the single gun he'd pick up a box of Eley Maximum (2 1/2" case) 1 3/16 ounce lead loads and use them in his 2 1/2" gun. What he wouldn't do is try to make a perfectly adequate game gun into what it was never intended to be...that is a dedicated chambered and proofed for heavier cartridges duck gun.

Today then the equivalent might be for that game shot with his now usual 70mm chambered game gun to use only standard steel and accept that it'd be OK for duck presented on a normal driven day.

But if he wanted to go past that limitation then (as did his forefather with a 2 3/4" gun) buy a dedicated duck gun certified for HP steel to give him higher performance capability.

My own harsh view is that a fine gun has been needlessly ruined for the sake of trying a make it capable of something that it was never intended even though it may have been made with 70mm rather than 2 1/2" length chambers.

In fact I'd go further and say that notwithstanding it did originally have 70mm chambers that it'd wasn't even then a suitable gun as a substitute duck gun even though it'd chamber and fire a 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax load. 

It doesn't matter than the barrels would or wouldn't be OK with that "back in the day" 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax (or todays HP steel) for simply the lump and how the barrels were secured to the action wasn't designed for such cartridges and the gun would soon be off the face.

However criticism without offering anything constructive does nothing but annoy. So here, for what it's worth, is constructive advice. See if a good gunsmith would be willing to do one of two things. I hope that by thinking outside the box that Sportsman are in you may find an answer.

1) See if a good gunsmith will in fact sleeve the now out of proof barrels you have with new tubes that are suitable for steel. After all the breech portion and the rib of your gun should still be OK. 

2) See if a good gunsmith can remove the ribs and in fact swage down the bulges and after relaying the ribs then re-proof the gun for standard lead cartridges and don't entertain the HP steel option. Just use it with what it was designed for.

3) See if a good gunsmith can shorten the barrels below the bulge to make the equivalent of a Holland's Brevis with twenty-six inch barrels or Gough Thomas's twenty-seven inch barrel Henry Atkin. Again lead only.

I am sorry for the OP that he has had this unhappy event and I've never a good opinion of UK proof anyway. It is a destructive test and as such the wrong side of history. We now batch test...motor vehicles...and etc.

We don't test every single one by subjecting every single one to a destructive test. There's not a man with a hammer sat in the motorcycle helmet factory hitting every and each helmet with a hammer to "proof" it before it can be sold.

They batch test and assess by visual examination and modern methods using x-rays, and in wyas similar to how turbine blades are tested. To my mind some of the practices and reasoning of proof are little more advanced than those other long established old customs of divining devils and witch burning. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by enfieldspares

[matone]

10 hours ago, buze said:

@JohnfromUK really no need to appologise at all, your questioning is perfectly legitimate and was very nicely put as well, which is much appreciated. Thank you for that, I think this forum could do with a lot more of civility.

I wouldn't think i would want to put /super/ heavy load thru that fabled "one game gun" but since I had been 'caught short' with my damascus hammer gun on a day where quite a few lovely malards showed up and all I could do was stare and wave at them, I *wished* I had a slightly beefier gun for that sort of circumstances. 

Perhaps if that AYA #1 had been "my" gun for a while, I would have questioned a hell of a lot more the idea of having it reproofed, and yes, perhaps as everyone seems to say, I would have declared it "a bit too ligth for that" but at that time, it was not (yet) my gun, and I only had shot a few clays with it, all I could really do was trust the "experts". 

Also, my experience (not /extensive/ TBH) of "normal" steel load is underwelming. The time I picked up a duck that had been solidly broadsided, but was still alive a good 20 minutes later once we finally found her, having traveled considerable distance in a lot of pain and was going to die slowly there afterward, I was not impressed at all. Call me a softy!

Thus my requirement of "HP" because since then, I've been shooting these RC3's in 32g #3s and they've been dropping ducks/geese *solid*.

Luckily, perhaps I'll get the best of both world with a new set of barrels, proofed from the factory. I'll update the thread once I know a bit more. I'll also post anything else found about the failed barrels, in the interest of the nice few people on this threads who can write more than a rude one liner 😉

 

I would question the validity of any advice from the person who thought it was sensible to put that gun in for reproof at that level !! Always a very high risk of the result which they achieved.........

[Old farrier]

9 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I'm sorry for the OPs predicament. This is all the fault of Spanish makers.

Who there, in Eibar, in the 1970s by bringing to the market such things caused this totally unnecessary practice of manufacturing standard game guns with 70mm chambered barrels instead of what they should have had which was 2 1/2" chambered barrels.

If AYA had made the thing in the first place with 2 1/2" chambered barrels this thread wouldn't exist. The OP would have simply bought as a "hack" or a duck gun an all around heavier, stouter, thicker barreled gun suitable for HP steel.

One size seldom fits all. Back in the day if a game shot wanted to shoot duck (other than as part of a normal driven day) he'd put his 2 1/2" chambered game gun to one side and pick up an all around more robustly proportioned 2 3/4" chambered duck gun.

He didn't try to make his single trigger Boss easy-opener or Holland Royal into a Thomas Bland "Brent" or a Greener "Empire". Because he knew that the a standard game gun isn't intended to perform as a duck gun at duck gun performance velocities firing duck gun loading weight charges of shot.

Or if not and he just had the single gun he'd pick up a box of Eley Maximum (2 1/2" case) 1 3/16 ounce lead loads and use them in his 2 1/2" gun. What he wouldn't do is try to make a perfectly adequate game gun into what it was never intended to be...that is a dedicated chambered and proofed for heavier cartridges duck gun.

Today then the equivalent might be for that game shot with his now usual 70mm chambered game gun to use only standard steel and accept that it'd be OK for duck presented on a normal driven day.

But if he wanted to go past that limitation then (as did his forefather with a 2 3/4" gun) buy a dedicated duck gun certified for HP steel to give him higher performance capability.

My own harsh view is that a fine gun has been needlessly ruined for the sake of trying a make it capable of something that it was never intended even though it may have been made with 70mm rather than 2 1/2" length chambers.

In fact I'd go further and say that notwithstanding it did originally have 70mm chambers that it'd wasn't even then a suitable gun as a substitute duck gun even though it'd chamber and fire a 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax load. 

It doesn't matter than the barrels would or wouldn't be OK with that "back in the day" 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax (or todays HP steel) for simply the lump and how the barrels were secured to the action wasn't designed for such cartridges and the gun would soon be off the face.

However criticism without offering anything constructive does nothing but annoy. So here, for what it's worth, is constructive advice. See if a good gunsmith would be willing to do one of two things. I hope that by thinking outside the box that Sportsman are in you may find an answer.

1) See if a good gunsmith will in fact sleeve the now out of proof barrels you have with new tubes that are suitable for steel. After all the breech portion and the rib of your gun should still be OK. 

2) See if a good gunsmith can remove the ribs and in fact swage down the bulges and after relaying the ribs then re-proof the gun for standard lead cartridges and don't entertain the HP steel option. Just use it with what it was designed for.

3) See if a good gunsmith can shorten the barrels below the bulge to make the equivalent of a Holland's Brevis with twenty-six inch barrels or Gough Thomas's twenty-seven inch barrel Henry Atkin. Again lead only.

I am sorry for the OP that he has had this unhappy event and I've never a good opinion of UK proof anyway. It is a destructive test and as such the wrong side of history. We now batch test...motor vehicles...and etc.

We don't test every single one by subjecting every single one to a destructive test. There's not a man with a hammer sat in the motorcycle helmet factory hitting every and each helmet with a hammer to "proof" it before it can be sold.

They batch test and assess by visual examination and modern methods using x-rays, and in wyas similar to how turbine blades are tested. To my mind some of the practices and reasoning of proof are little more advanced than those other long established old customs of divining devils and witch burning. 

Good post^^^^ 

I tend to agree however I also agree with buze he took the advice and we have all learned from this experience 

anyone know what load is put through a gun to proof for HP steel? 
 

[Smokersmith]

One or two may have missed that it's a 'no loss' situation for the OP.

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

anyone know what load is put through a gun to proof for HP steel? 

According to this article it is a 'pressure' of 1320 bar ........ but later down the page (on cartridge box text' it also says 1370 bar.

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/will-my-shotgun-be-safe-with-steel-shot-cartridges-25848

Because they have changed the way they measure from 'max safe load' to pressure, it isn't possible to do a direct comparison easily.

[JohnfromUK]

9 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

This is all the fault of Spanish makers.

I can't really agree with that.  The Spanish makers have used 2 3/4" (70 mm) almost universally for many many years - probably because a lot of their guns sell to the USA where 2 3/4" is common for their 'lighter loads' and 2 1/2" is a rarity - and so there are few AyA or other Spanish guns (talking 12 bore here) with 2 1/2" chambers.   So did other Continental makers such as Darne who built very light guns, but always seemed to use 2 3/4" chambers - and again they sell much more in the USA than here.

If there is a 'fault' - it is (in my view) the thought that you can make a gun designed for use with high density lead shot work to the same level of 'clean kill' performance with a much less dense steel shot - and do so by simply increasing cartridge pressure.

Really - a gun designed for steel to mirror the performance of one designed for lead doesn't want to start in the same place.  It needs to start out heavier and stronger all round.

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

According to this article it is a 'pressure' of 1320 bar ........ but later down the page (on cartridge box text' it also says 1370 bar.

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/will-my-shotgun-be-safe-with-steel-shot-cartridges-25848

Because they have changed the way they measure from 'max safe load' to pressure, it isn't possible to do a direct comparison easily.

1320 bar appears to be the maximum pressure they say the gun can safely fire 

to achieve this I’m wondering how much above that the proof loads are above the cartridges that we purchase for shooting and what pressure they generate 5% more? 25% more? 
does anyone know 

are both barrels fired simultaneously in the proof test ? 
as you can see I’m not overly familiar with the way guns are tested and the limits they are stretched to 

[JohnfromUK]

There is some data on proof here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_test

and here

http://www.gunproof.com/Proof_Memoranda/RULESOFP.PDF

It looks like CIP is 25% over, but where not CIP specified 30% over is used.  Each barrel is fired twice (I'm sure I have read somewhere that it s 3 times for steel 'fleur de lis'?), but I don't know if that is together for a double.

[Old farrier]

54 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

According to this article it is a 'pressure' of 1320 bar ........ but later down the page (on cartridge box text' it also says 1370 bar.

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/will-my-shotgun-be-safe-with-steel-shot-cartridges-25848

Because they have changed the way they measure from 'max safe load' to pressure, it isn't possible to do a direct comparison easily.

So the cartridges used generate a pressure of approximately 1650 almost double the 900 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Old farrier said:

So the cartridges used generate a pressure of approximately 1650 almost double the 900 

Remember the 900 will have been tested at 900 + 25% as well

[London Best]

10 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I'm sorry for the OPs predicament. This is all the fault of Spanish makers.

Who there, in Eibar, in the 1970s by bringing to the market such things caused this totally unnecessary practice of manufacturing standard game guns with 70mm chambered barrels instead of what they should have had which was 2 1/2" chambered barrels.

If AYA had made the thing in the first place with 2 1/2" chambered barrels this thread wouldn't exist. The OP would have simply bought as a "hack" or a duck gun an all around heavier, stouter, thicker barreled gun suitable for HP steel.

One size seldom fits all. Back in the day if a game shot wanted to shoot duck (other than as part of a normal driven day) he'd put his 2 1/2" chambered game gun to one side and pick up an all around more robustly proportioned 2 3/4" chambered duck gun.

He didn't try to make his single trigger Boss easy-opener or Holland Royal into a Thomas Bland "Brent" or a Greener "Empire". Because he knew that the a standard game gun isn't intended to perform as a duck gun at duck gun performance velocities firing duck gun loading weight charges of shot.

Or if not and he just had the single gun he'd pick up a box of Eley Maximum (2 1/2" case) 1 3/16 ounce lead loads and use them in his 2 1/2" gun. What he wouldn't do is try to make a perfectly adequate game gun into what it was never intended to be...that is a dedicated chambered and proofed for heavier cartridges duck gun.

Today then the equivalent might be for that game shot with his now usual 70mm chambered game gun to use only standard steel and accept that it'd be OK for duck presented on a normal driven day.

But if he wanted to go past that limitation then (as did his forefather with a 2 3/4" gun) buy a dedicated duck gun certified for HP steel to give him higher performance capability.

My own harsh view is that a fine gun has been needlessly ruined for the sake of trying a make it capable of something that it was never intended even though it may have been made with 70mm rather than 2 1/2" length chambers.

In fact I'd go further and say that notwithstanding it did originally have 70mm chambers that it'd wasn't even then a suitable gun as a substitute duck gun even though it'd chamber and fire a 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax load. 

It doesn't matter than the barrels would or wouldn't be OK with that "back in the day" 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax (or todays HP steel) for simply the lump and how the barrels were secured to the action wasn't designed for such cartridges and the gun would soon be off the face.

However criticism without offering anything constructive does nothing but annoy. So here, for what it's worth, is constructive advice. See if a good gunsmith would be willing to do one of two things. I hope that by thinking outside the box that Sportsman are in you may find an answer.

1) See if a good gunsmith will in fact sleeve the now out of proof barrels you have with new tubes that are suitable for steel. After all the breech portion and the rib of your gun should still be OK. 

2) See if a good gunsmith can remove the ribs and in fact swage down the bulges and after relaying the ribs then re-proof the gun for standard lead cartridges and don't entertain the HP steel option. Just use it with what it was designed for.

3) See if a good gunsmith can shorten the barrels below the bulge to make the equivalent of a Holland's Brevis with twenty-six inch barrels or Gough Thomas's twenty-seven inch barrel Henry Atkin. Again lead only.

I am sorry for the OP that he has had this unhappy event and I've never a good opinion of UK proof anyway. It is a destructive test and as such the wrong side of history. We now batch test...motor vehicles...and etc.

We don't test every single one by subjecting every single one to a destructive test. There's not a man with a hammer sat in the motorcycle helmet factory hitting every and each helmet with a hammer to "proof" it before it can be sold.

They batch test and assess by visual examination and modern methods using x-rays, and in wyas similar to how turbine blades are tested. To my mind some of the practices and reasoning of proof are little more advanced than those other long established old customs of divining devils and witch burning. 

I am not sure everything is the fault of the Spanish makers, but there is a lot of sense in this post.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, London Best said:

I am not sure everything is the fault of the Spanish makers, but there is a lot of sense in this post.

2 1/2 was a largely British size.  The vast majority of continental and American guns (12 bore) have been 2 3/4" for a long time.

[London Best]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

2 1/2 was a largely British size.  The vast majority of continental and American guns (12 bore) have been 2 3/4" for a long time.

I think most British made guns have been chambered 2 3/4 since about 1960.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, London Best said:

I think most British made guns have been chambered 2 3/4 since about 1960.

I don't know.  Powell guns were 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 at buyers choice for their  'made to order guns' in the 1980s (the last full catalogue I have).

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Remember the 900 will have been tested at 900 + 25% as well

1125 

[wymberley]

I really do think that we're getting in a muddle and we could do with pausing. I have spent most of my adult life getting soaked in hydraulic oil as a fluid power technician which covers liquids and gases. Consequently understanding standard working pressures, test pressures and proof pressures - call them what you will - is second nature. The only one problem is staying up to speed with the current measurement units. Neither does it help when the rating for any particular one is changed - the classic being 'bar', 14.7 psi to 14.5 - which as an aside is the reason why we have several opinions on the validfity of the 450436 figure.

We, back along, used working pressure as our indication of 'proof' and elsewhere used the proof pressure annotation. Just one example of our need to pause is that the figure of '900' is a prime example of a proof pressure which could have been given with various different terminology except that the figure remained the same.

As not everyone will know or understand all of the nitty gritty details, there is the reason for the advantage of the existance of our proof houses.

Life was so much easier when we only had one shot type and I, for one, will not be using any other. 

[McSpredder]

buze, just for interest, could you clarify where the bulging occurred?   (“Bulged both barrels just at the forcing cones”)

In the past I have read of forcing cones as the transition from the chamber to the bore, and possibly London Best was thinking along the same lines when enquiring“Were the chambers deepened to 3 inch?”.

On the other hand, enfieldspares may have been assuming those barrels bulged around the conical section at the start of the chokes, (“See if a good gunsmith can shorten the barrels below the bulge to make the equivalent of a Holland's Brevis with twenty-six inch barrels .....” ), which would tally with published warnings we have seen regarding steel shot and tight chokes.

(Apologies for not inserting quotes in the normal manner.   For some reason the new forum software will only allow a single quote, and not multiple quotes, on my system).

[JohnfromUK]

47 minutes ago, wymberley said:

I really do think that we're getting in a muddle and we could do with pausing.

I hear what you say - but the key point here is that the 900 for 'normal lead' and the 1320 for 'steel' proof (HP) are measured in the same way, so the conclusion that one is about 50% bigger than the other still applies.

I preferred the old 1 1/8 oz proof marking ....... because it tied in with the cartridge marking.

[Gunman]

13 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I'm sorry for the OPs predicament. This is all the fault of Spanish makers.

Who there, in Eibar, in the 1970s by bringing to the market such things caused this totally unnecessary practice of manufacturing standard game guns with 70mm chambered barrels instead of what they should have had which was 2 1/2" chambered barrels.

If AYA had made the thing in the first place with 2 1/2" chambered barrels this thread wouldn't exist. The OP would have simply bought as a "hack" or a duck gun an all around heavier, stouter, thicker barreled gun suitable for HP steel.

One size seldom fits all. Back in the day if a game shot wanted to shoot duck (other than as part of a normal driven day) he'd put his 2 1/2" chambered game gun to one side and pick up an all around more robustly proportioned 2 3/4" chambered duck gun.

He didn't try to make his single trigger Boss easy-opener or Holland Royal into a Thomas Bland "Brent" or a Greener "Empire". Because he knew that the a standard game gun isn't intended to perform as a duck gun at duck gun performance velocities firing duck gun loading weight charges of shot.

Or if not and he just had the single gun he'd pick up a box of Eley Maximum (2 1/2" case) 1 3/16 ounce lead loads and use them in his 2 1/2" gun. What he wouldn't do is try to make a perfectly adequate game gun into what it was never intended to be...that is a dedicated chambered and proofed for heavier cartridges duck gun.

Today then the equivalent might be for that game shot with his now usual 70mm chambered game gun to use only standard steel and accept that it'd be OK for duck presented on a normal driven day.

But if he wanted to go past that limitation then (as did his forefather with a 2 3/4" gun) buy a dedicated duck gun certified for HP steel to give him higher performance capability.

My own harsh view is that a fine gun has been needlessly ruined for the sake of trying a make it capable of something that it was never intended even though it may have been made with 70mm rather than 2 1/2" length chambers.

In fact I'd go further and say that notwithstanding it did originally have 70mm chambers that it'd wasn't even then a suitable gun as a substitute duck gun even though it'd chamber and fire a 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax load. 

It doesn't matter than the barrels would or wouldn't be OK with that "back in the day" 1 1/4 ounce Alphamax (or todays HP steel) for simply the lump and how the barrels were secured to the action wasn't designed for such cartridges and the gun would soon be off the face.

However criticism without offering anything constructive does nothing but annoy. So here, for what it's worth, is constructive advice. See if a good gunsmith would be willing to do one of two things. I hope that by thinking outside the box that Sportsman are in you may find an answer.

1) See if a good gunsmith will in fact sleeve the now out of proof barrels you have with new tubes that are suitable for steel. After all the breech portion and the rib of your gun should still be OK. 

2) See if a good gunsmith can remove the ribs and in fact swage down the bulges and after relaying the ribs then re-proof the gun for standard lead cartridges and don't entertain the HP steel option. Just use it with what it was designed for.

3) See if a good gunsmith can shorten the barrels below the bulge to make the equivalent of a Holland's Brevis with twenty-six inch barrels or Gough Thomas's twenty-seven inch barrel Henry Atkin. Again lead only.

I am sorry for the OP that he has had this unhappy event and I've never a good opinion of UK proof anyway. It is a destructive test and as such the wrong side of history. We now batch test...motor vehicles...and etc.

We don't test every single one by subjecting every single one to a destructive test. There's not a man with a hammer sat in the motorcycle helmet factory hitting every and each helmet with a hammer to "proof" it before it can be sold.

They batch test and assess by visual examination and modern methods using x-rays, and in wyas similar to how turbine blades are tested. To my mind some of the practices and reasoning of proof are little more advanced than those other long established old customs of divining devils and witch burning. 

In my youth clay shooter used 1/14oz loads so 2&3/4 guns were required , now they shoot 28gr loads so no need fo 70mm chambers  . Problem is so many people want a gun that will do everything  ,clays , game and wildfowling . so all sorts of gimmick like adjustable combes and multi chokes have become the norm instead of a gun for each discipline. Ff we translate this to vehicles they would all be driving long wheel base Transit Vans .