Steel proof info

[Scully]

1 minute ago, 6.5x55SE said:

Plenty of Berretta and Benelli don't have Fleur de lys which ( as i have done personally ) if you phone GMK they have/will confirm 100% suitable for any Steel shot cartridges as they are Superior Proofed. As for extended choke situation ( again I've personally had it done ) get a eg 3/4 extended lead choke along with a 3/4 extended Steel shot choke and they will mic up exactly the same . Along with your train of thought Scully if the gun is sound it gets steel boring as it is my old Aya gets everything from factory to homeloads and 5's down to B's Steel 7/8oz to 1-3/8oz at least 2-3 times aweek 👍

Every day’s a school day; I wasn’t aware of the Benelli/Beretta lack of a fleur de lys on steel shot proofed guns. My Benelli has one so I just assumed they stamped all that were relevant. 

Good for you. 👍

[did i miss]

Thanks all for the info  and help not in any rush to use steel but it looks like it's on cards that's its gona happen 

[Scully]

22 minutes ago, did i miss said:

Thanks all for the info  and help not in any rush to use steel but it looks like it's on cards that's its gona happen 

You can always use lead! 
Ive been on three different shoots so far this season, and none have specified NTS. 

[thebigH91]

21 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Personally think it’s up to half choke on fixed and internal flush multi chokes ( ring bulge issue)

extended multi chokes (there sacrificial) you can go a lot tighter and replace them cheaply when they wear or get damaged 

 

my Fabarm Classis SxS is an internal flush choke gun and is proofed for HP steel up to Full choke, i think it all depends on manufacturer 

[Old farrier]

18 minutes ago, thebigH91 said:

my Fabarm Classis SxS is an internal flush choke gun and is proofed for HP steel up to Full choke, i think it all depends on manufacturer 

I’m sure it does 

what does your internal full choke measure at?

here’s the problem 

Are the chokes measured on points of restriction or are they marked on the pattern they throw? 
if it’s the amount of restriction they will probably throw a tighter pattern compared to lead with the same choke 

hence 1/2 lead frequently throw’s a full choke pattern with steel 

just a observation to add to the confusion 

[holloway]

I always thought that the choke recommendations was due to the bridging effect with some of the bigger steel shot sizes for instance BBB which is 3.8 mm ish i think.I have never heard of anyone who has damaged the choke end of the barrels using large shot but then I have never seen the need for anything larger than size 1 or a size2. The chance of the shot bridging are I would imagine very slim but technically it could happen ,Using extra full choke with the biggest shot you can get would maybe might be asking for trouble .

[did i miss]

Hi 6.6x55se did try and call gmk but no reply so sent a short email with the guns detail 

And the reply I got was 

No flur de Llys then it's not proofed for superior steel

 

[Stimo22]

On 15/12/2021 at 20:49, did i miss said:

Hi all 

Beretta 686 eell after all the talk about steel shot thort will just take a look 

And now I'm lost

Guns dated  bz = 85

Kg 1400

18.4cam 67

But I can't find a cip  stamp

Any info please 

Thanks

I have a 1986 Beretta 686s which is not steel proof and have used standard steel cartridges through it with no problem at all. When to the BASC steel shoot thing and they confirmed all ok. Will not use for high pressure cartridges but ok for standard ones

[6.5x55SE]

3 hours ago, did i miss said:

Hi 6.6x55se did try and call gmk but no reply so sent a short email with the guns detail 

And the reply I got was 

No flur de Llys then it's not proofed for superior steel

 

And there lies one of the many confusions/problems as i previously posted a person from GMK stated my father's Benelli which has no fluer de lys was/is 100% superior proofed there for suitable for all steel shot cartridges also my father phoned both proof house's which told him exactly the same unfortunately i can't get any pictures of the two guns as my father recently passed away

[did i miss]

And a bit more to add asked about standard steel and what size would be considered safe and was sent a link to basc and a gmk 

So will probably stick to lead for as long as possible and then I may send it to be reproofed  they can blow it to bits rather than me

Thank you all for the advice and help

 

[Scully]

27 minutes ago, did i miss said:

And a bit more to add asked about standard steel and what size would be considered safe and was sent a link to basc and a gmk 

So will probably stick to lead for as long as possible and then I may send it to be reproofed  they can blow it to bits rather than me

Thank you all for the advice and help

 

Good thinking. It won’t blow to bits, and you’ll have increased its value, desirability and trade in likelihood……..and have proven to yourself that you needn’t have! 🙂

Edited December 21, 2021 by Scully

[did i miss]

Your probably right scully I'm not to botherd about it blowing to bits with me that's my fault what dose bother me is some one else being hurt because I couldn't be bothered to try and make things as safe as possible 

For few quid it will cost to get it done for steel I may just send it down 

[wymberley]

We know that ‘magnum’ is an obsolete term with regard to shotguns - having been replaced by‘superior’. Has anyone ever dug there heels in and asked exactly what is the difference in the proof procedures between those for superior and HP steel? Or is some outfit trying to maintain the secrets of the black arts?

 

[6.5x55SE]

8 minutes ago, wymberley said:

We know that ‘magnum’ is an obsolete term with regard to shotguns - having been replaced by‘superior’. Has anyone ever dug there heels in and asked exactly what is the difference in the proof procedures between those for superior and HP steel? Or is some outfit trying to maintain the secrets of the black arts?

 

The gun's I've mentioned along with a zabala o/u was proofed to 1370kg stamped Superior Proof that had been proofed in Europe so had no need to then be reproofed in UK. Obviously i saw the proof marks myself and was beside my father when he called GMK and the proof house's. Now as far as aware due to the confusion etc. Most gun's now are steel proofed with 3" chambers I personally have seen and shot Berretta EELL which has 3"chambers steel proof. I'm sure you can remember the different lead proofing 2" 2-1/2"  2-3/4" 2-3/4" magnum 3" 3" magnum 3"Super Magnum which was proofed 1200kg but if you look a lot of more modern 2-3/4" guns was also proofed for 1200kg totally confusing . Aya done two different Aya no3 ( 1 ) 3 " chambers proofed for 1-5/8oz at 1000kg (2) 3"magnum proofed for 1-7/8oz 1200kg Super Magnum. Total mine field well my Aya is Superior Proof ( self proofed ) as i use ANY Steel cartridges in it .

[wymberley]

8 minutes ago, 6.5x55SE said:

The gun's I've mentioned along with a zabala o/u was proofed to 1370kg stamped Superior Proof that had been proofed in Europe so had no need to then be reproofed in UK. Obviously i saw the proof marks myself and was beside my father when he called GMK and the proof house's. Now as far as aware due to the confusion etc. Most gun's now are steel proofed with 3" chambers I personally have seen and shot Berretta EELL which has 3"chambers steel proof. I'm sure you can remember the different lead proofing 2" 2-1/2"  2-3/4" 2-3/4" magnum 3" 3" magnum 3"Super Magnum which was proofed 1200kg but if you look a lot of more modern 2-3/4" guns was also proofed for 1200kg totally confusing . Aya done two different Aya no3 ( 1 ) 3 " chambers proofed for 1-5/8oz at 1000kg (2) 3"magnum proofed for 1-7/8oz 1200kg Super Magnum. Total mine field well my Aya is Superior Proof ( self proofed ) as i use ANY Steel cartridges in it .

Could possibly ask this another way. Should anyone decide to submit their superior proofed gun for steel proof, perhaps they could ask the proof house exactly what this entails. It seems a tad strange that there appears to be no sign of a definitive (no pun intended) answer - at least one readily available.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, did i miss said:

Your probably right scully I'm not to botherd about it blowing to bits with me that's my fault what dose bother me is some one else being hurt because I couldn't be bothered to try and make things as safe as possible 

For few quid it will cost to get it done for steel I may just send it down 

Fair enough. 👍

[6.5x55SE]

27 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Could possibly ask this another way. Should anyone decide to submit their superior proofed gun for steel proof, perhaps they could ask the proof house exactly what this entails. It seems a tad strange that there appears to be no sign of a definitive (no pun intended) answer - at least one readily available.

As stated my father asked the question and was given the answer " no need to have your guns reproofed " as they are Superior Proofed to 1370 kg. Times and things may have changed my suggestion to anyone concerned do as father done phone both proof house's 👍

[wymberley]

Doesn't/won't concern me, but all this could become interesting. We're told that for some guns the bottom has fallen out of the market and the one criteria in particular for  future shotgun sales/purchases will be the need for steel proof as opposed to simply 'in proof'. No problem perhaps for new gun purchases, but for used, customers will want steel proof. Should they do so, then will, "it's OK its been superior proofed" from the seller be acceptable? I think not. Consequently, if the steel shot used gun market is going to function similarly to the existing lead shot one, the Proof Houses are going to be busy as the momentum builds up.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Hopefully we have a while to go yet as the ban is just a suggestion at the moment.

[Tonka54]

Quite a few RFD's are under the opinion that should steel shot become mandatory across the board, clay shooters who have guns that remain ( Nitro proof to at least 930 bar ) will be able to continue using those guns with standard steel shot, with the appropriate choking of course.

Not being a "game" shooter I do not know if standard steel cartridges would meet all the requirements, If not, it could be the case that even nitro proofed guns used for game would have to be reproofed for HP ( SUP ), repurposed for clay sports or even become obsolete, even if guns used for game meet the required level of proofing ( at least 1320 bar ), according to BASC they would still have to be stamped as  Fleur de Lys. ( see attached  )

[bigroomboy]

Firstly everybody needs to remember nitro proof is perfectly acceptable for standard steel. Steel proof is only required for high performance steel. There is guidance on choke size from the proof houses which is much less conservative than what manufacturer's recommend. Also steel proof is the same pressure as superior nitro proof it comes down to the energy exerted on the chokes. That means there is no danger of a catastrophic failure, only bulging of the choke. So if the barrel won't take it you could pay for a proof house to destroy you barrels or you could just shoot it for free to find out. If you barrel does develop a ring bulge at the choke this is still not a safety concern and you can continue to use the gun. However it will no longer be viewed as in proof for sale.

Always remember if you ask a proof house or RFD if a gun is OK they can only tell you what the proof marks say. That isn't isn't same thing as it being perfectly OK regardless of proof marks.

There is a good video by TGS on YouTube on this from about a year ago. Worth a watch as it goes though the actual proof house guidance, not local hear say.

 

[Scully]

There is no legal obligation ( yet ) to have your gun proofed for either standard or HP steel before you can use it in your gun, just as there is no legal obligation to have your gun proofed for nitro before you put ordinary lead cartridges through it. 
 

[did i miss]

Hi all could just be me being thick but how dose that fit in if you can't find any nitro proof marks or bar ratings 

[timps]

22 hours ago, wymberley said:

We know that ‘magnum’ is an obsolete term with regard to shotguns - having been replaced by‘superior’. Has anyone ever dug there heels in and asked exactly what is the difference in the proof procedures between those for superior and HP steel? Or is some outfit trying to maintain the secrets of the black arts?

 

I have had long debates on PW in this in the past and not going down that road again but for some info.

Someone did contact CIP directly and got an official response which was posted on here some time back.

According to CIP the HP steel/steel-like shot proof uses three cartridges containing large steel pellets and generating some 30% greater service pressure (not burst pressure) per barrel than the standard PSF** 1370 lead shot test. The gun is then marked “Steel Shot” and with Fleur-de-Lys.

Meaning that while the chamber pressures are the same for both steel and lead, the pressure in the rest of the barrel is some 30% greater for HP steel proof test due to the harder steel shot.

In the eyes of CIP a gun not subjected to the steel proof test would be deemed not to have passed steel shot proof and so not suitable/safe to fire HP steel/steel-like cartridges. That is not to say that such a gun would necessarily be damaged but CIP would maintain that the risk of its being so is increased.

The proof test is designed to take into consideration if everything that could go wrong did go wrong (faulty load etc) the gun would survive.

The increased risk is because there is always a remote possibility that your gun could fail the HP steel proof load but would have survive the standard PSF** 1370.

This mythical gun could quite happily survive on HP steel but one slightly different cart (faulty) or change in brand and there could be a failure.

God knows the odds on that scenario but I thought I would point it out all the same, there is an increase in risk, if you are happy with this risk then go for it, if not then don’t.

However, it is only responsible to point out that CIP see an increase in risk however remote.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, timps said:

I have had long debates on PW in this in the past and not going down that road again but for some info.

Someone did contact CIP directly and got an official response which was posted on here some time back.

According to CIP the HP steel/steel-like shot proof uses three cartridges containing large steel pellets and generating some 30% greater service pressure (not burst pressure) per barrel than the standard PSF** 1370 lead shot test. The gun is then marked “Steel Shot” and with Fleur-de-Lys.

Meaning that while the chamber pressures are the same for both steel and lead, the pressure in the rest of the barrel is some 30% greater for HP steel proof test due to the harder steel shot.

In the eyes of CIP a gun not subjected to the steel proof test would be deemed not to have passed steel shot proof and so not suitable/safe to fire HP steel/steel-like cartridges. That is not to say that such a gun would necessarily be damaged but CIP would maintain that the risk of its being so is increased.

The proof test is designed to take into consideration if everything that could go wrong did go wrong (faulty load etc) the gun would survive.

The increased risk is because there is always a remote possibility that your gun could fail the HP steel proof load but would have survive the standard PSF** 1370.

This mythical gun could quite happily survive on HP steel but one slightly different cart (faulty) or change in brand and there could be a failure.

God knows the odds on that scenario but I thought I would point it out all the same, there is an increase in risk, if you are happy with this risk then go for it, if not then don’t.

However, it is only responsible to point out that CIP see an increase in risk however remote.

I’m not disputing anything you’ve written, as you’re simply passing on information, I just don’t get the logic behind the statement by CIP as you have state above. 
Deeming a gun which hasn’t passed proofing for steel as unsuitable or unsafe for that shot simply isn’t logical if the gun in question is in proof for nitro. 
I could understand the statement if barrels made for guns nowadays were made any differently to those made before the advent of steel shot, but as far as I’m aware they aren’t. If they were, then Nitro proofed guns couldn’t be subject for steel shot proofing, but they can, and are. 
Therefore it stands to reason this ‘increased risk’ applies to ALL barrels, new ones which haven’t been proofed at all as yet, and those of older nitro proofed guns being submitted for proofing for steel. Logic dictates it has to be so. 🤷‍♂️