SAAMI MAP for 7x57 = 51,000 psi
CIP MAP for 7x57 = 57,000 psi
Since this posting does not have any rationale, I assume it is a version of revisionist history. Those may be the standards today, but they certainly were not the standards when the Remington Rolling block was manufactured. I am of the opinion that CIP pressure standards, that is European pressure standards, are higher for certain cartridges, such as the 7mm Mauser, is primarily due to the fact that European sellers must submit their firearms to proof before sale.
I am basing my information on the book
The Standard Directory of Proof Marks by Gerhard Wirnsberger. I am ashamed to admit that I bought this book in 1988 only for the proof mark pictures, so I could date firearms by proof marks, and I did not read the test until recently. The text was quite interesting in its own right, the author really knew German proof laws, and from the book, there are reciprocal agreements between EU Nations. That is, all these Nations had to raise their proof standards to an equivalent standard, for Germany to recognize Finnish proof marks, for the French to recognize Germany proof marks, for Austrian proof tests to be recognized as valid by the Finns, French, Germans, etc, etc, etc. I knew that firearms regulation was different in European countries, I sort of knew of Proof Houses, but that was about it. While I hardly know anything about individual EU country firearm laws, but according to this book, all European firearms have to be proofed before sale. In the US the manufacturer proofs the firearm once. The firearm may be out on the American civilian market for 150 years, pass through a hundred owners, bought, sold, stolen, but the firearm is only inspected for soundness by the manufacturer once. In Europe, every time that firearm is sold, it has to pass through a proof house. So if the firearm had 100 owners, it would have been proof tested 100 times. The book states that the proof marks of various American manufacturers are not accepted as valid in Europe, so newly made American firearms have to be proof tested before they can be sold in Europe.
If I am wrong about this, if the laws have changes since 1988, I would like to know.
Anyway, what is ignored by those touting CIP pressure standards as a way of justifying dangerous practices, is what a Proof House does and what those CIP means for the European consumer. All American’s know about American proof testing is that some sort of an overpressure round is fired in the firearm. We actually don’t know what American manufacturers are doing. They may not be firing overpressure rounds at all. I do know that some manufacturers function test their firearms. But that is all I know about it. I actually don’t know for certain what any American manufacturer does. I assume they function test, I assume they fire an overpressure round, and I assume that a Quality Assurance Specialist gages the chamber, barrel, etc for compliance to standard. But, there is no uniform proof law in the US and some manufacturers may be doing nothing more than boxing the guns with a warranty card. It could be like the bad old days of General Motors. Back in the 1970’s a General Motors Executive said
“Marketing sells it, manufacturing makes it, and customer service makes it work”
As for what an European Proof House does, based on what I have read, an European Proof House does more than just fire a round in the firearm. They gage the firearm. They gage the chamber, barrel dimensions, and probably conduct a number of extra inspections. I assume they function test every feature, such as safety and trigger. This is conducted before the live fire test. Proof testing is conducted with a cartridge that produces 30% more pressure than a standard cartridge. For the test to be valid, they lubricate the cartridge. Parasitic friction results when a dry cartridge is fired in a dry chamber. This parasitic friction between case and chamber reduces the load on the locking mechanism. (It also stretches the case) Lubricating the cartridge fully loads the locking mechanism. This is important, as the European Proof House is the one certifying that the mechanism is safe. Since they are an independent entity, they don’t have a financial interest in selling the firearm. They do have a financial interest in protecting their reputation. If they did not lubricate the cartridge they would be rightly criticized, perhaps sued, for an inadequate test of the locking mechanism. They would not be able to certify that they loaded the mechanism 30% over standard loads.
American tend to be totally conflicted on lubricated cases. The American shooting public has been indoctrinated to believe that lubricated cartridges produce dangerous pressures. The use of lubricated cases in a proof test reinforces this belief, because Americans also assume the purpose of a proof test is to blow up the mechanism. The second part of the sentence is the story that people create in their minds, and after, I believe, reading Hatcher's Notebook. Hatcher mentions that the early single heat treat 03's were blowing up in the field, so Springfield Armory increased the proof pressures, to blow up more 03's before they got out the door. Somehow people contort this section into a belief that the purpose of proof was to blow up rifles and that lubricating cartridges helps that process. Nothing is further from the truth. Unless the cartridge is lubricated the locking mechanism is not fully loaded, due to parasitic friction between the case body and the chamber. Therefore any proof tests with dry cartridges and dry chambers is technically unjustifiable as the locking mechanism is not as uniformly loaded as the chamber. This is recognized in NATO EPVAT testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing NATO EPVAT testing specifically calls out the testing of firearms with an oiled proof load as the final test.
Something that people miss in Hatcher's account of the Army's actions is that Springfield Armory did not attempt to figure out why their rifles were blowing up in the field, nor why these rifles were structurally deficient, which should have lead to eliminating the problem within the factory, eliminating the shipment of structurally deficient rifles to the field. Instead of examining their processes and finding the root cause, the Army implemented the lazy man's approach: they raised proof pressures at the end of the production line and blew up more rifles. Implicit, but unstated in their actions, is that the Army accepted that they would continue to make defective rifles, a certain percentage of structurally defective rifles would pass a higher pressure proof, would be shipped to the troops, and would eventually fail in the field. And that is exactly what happened, structurally deficient rifles did pass the elevated proof test only to fail later in the hands of Troops, injuring many.
Along the way, Army Ordnance never informed anyone that they had built 1,000,000 structural suspect rifles, of which 33 1/3% would fail in high pressure situations. When rifles did blow up, the Army Ordnance Bureau blamed the shooter and “greased bullets” or “greased chambers”. This is the origin for the belief that greased or oil cartridges are dangerous. These Army Ordnance Department cover ups only work, because no matter how incompetent Army Ordnance personnel might be, the general public is far more incompetent and will accept any lie that the Army puts out.
American’s just assume Proof Tests are free or ignore the issue. Based on what I found on the web, the British proof house charges today it costs ₤30 for a shotgun, ₤25 for a centerfire, ₤15 for a rimfire rifle or barrel to be proofed.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/08/29/show-proof/#sthash.xKe1BcBu.dpuf I thought it would be more.
If a firearms does not pass proof it can’t be sold. According to my book, in Germany, prior to 1968, guns which failed proof, for whatever reason, were destroyed by smashing or cutting. This must have been fun for the Proof House workers, smashing an otherwise perfectly good firearm because the safety failed. After 1968, only the bad part are given a rejection mark. I assume all the disappointed Proof House workers left to get jobs at Fed Ex where they can smash up all the rifle shaped packages to their hearts content.
It is clear that one intended effect of European proof laws is to reduce the number of old, antique firearms in civilian hands. Old firearms are tested against current standards, current proof pressure cartridges. Old firearms, worn out firearms, that do not meet proof cannot be sold. I don’t know what the owner does, maybe he can sell parts off it. This is a financial risk to the owner, I am very certain the buyer expects the owner to pay for the cost of proofing. In time, old, structurally insufficient firearms will be weeded out of the system, either by rejection by the Proof House, or by owners deciding that the risk of failure is such that owning or modifying an antique is just not worth the financial risk.
For cartridge manufacturers, for countries with aggressive and universal proof test systems, they know that the population of firearms out in the market have been tested to the latest pressure standards and are therefore can handle full power loads.
In America, with all those ancient, substandard, unknown condition rifles sloshing around, the financial risk of a lawsuit to an ammunition manufacturer is substantial. Therefore, pressures for certain cartridges, like the 7mm and 8mm Mauser are quite low.
