Proofing

tac foley

That's an interesting point there - only guns that you have bought from the UK will have been subject to UK proof, and, of course, guns made in those countries that have equivalent standard of proof, like Germany, Finland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and a couple of others I can't think of right now.

No gun made in the USA, sold directly in the RoI, has been proofed.

tac

rowa

tac foley wrote: »

That's an interesting point there - only guns that you have bought from the UK will have been subject to UK proof, and, of course, guns made in those countries that have equivalent standard of proof, like Germany, Finland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and a couple of others I can't think of right now.

No gun made in the USA, sold directly in the RoI, has been proofed.

tac

This is true tac but the likes of remington do proof their firearms.

deerhunter1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Nobody ever was told that, unless they bragged about doing the work them selves, which is a horse of a different colour.

In regards to barrel length and a mod.
I have a 20" Remington barrel with a 4" ASE Mod.
Leaving the OAL 24"
I find this very effective in offhand shots as the rifle is balanced very well.
I have a 24" .223 which uses the same mod and I find off hand shots more difficult.
I would not go shorter that 20" even though I have researched it.
I think 22" is the best compromise accuracy Vs OAL

Don't shorten your barrel so you can fit a big donkey of a mod, buy a shorter mod

Well I remember when I was a member of midlands, I remember people talking about not being allowed fire their rifles because they had them threaded and not re proofed, when I went there with my rifle and modifier I was questioned if it was factory done or did I have it done myself, and if I had i could not fire it until it was re proofed

Tackleberrywho

deerhunter1 wrote: »

Well I remember when I was a member of midlands, I remember people talking about not being allowed fire their rifles because they had them threaded and not re proofed, when I went there with my rifle and modifier I was questioned if it was factory done or did I have it done myself, and if I had i could not fire it until it was re proofed

If you DIY'ed it back then that was the case (and still is).
This was prior to having a custom rifle builder in the country.

I'm guessing you are talking about a few years ago. A lot has changed since.
Since then we have a pilot reloading scheme which was stuff of legend back then.
And a fullbore range out to 1200 yards.

tfox

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Nobody ever was told that, unless they bragged about doing the work them selves, which is a horse of a different colour.

When I was sitting my HCAP at midlands there was a note saying that only rifles that were proofed for threaded mod or muzzle break could use them on the range.

Cass

Lads,

The reason ALL ranges not just the midlands have to be so careful about such things is because of the amount of lads that are capable of doing a threading job on a rifle from their background in machine work, but with no actual firearm experience or more to the point no firearms dealers license which is a requirement for any person using, working on or having possession of a firearm belonging to another person.

Every firearms dealer, gunsmith, rifle builder, even stock maker should have a firearms dealers license and a register for AGS. An Gardai can inspect the premises at any time and request that every firearm, even barrel or action of a rifle be acconted for. Same with the threading jobs. There must be accountability. If a lad has been making aluminium pieces in work for X amount of years and has the ability to thread a rifle it doesn't mean he can or should.

A gunsmith/rifle builder has insurance to cover the work they do, the unregistered ones don't. So if you arrive on a range and "Paddy" from down the road done your thread job for €20, and the threading is wrong/faulty and there is an accident the range could be responsible as they carry a duty of care, and to get a guarantee that the firearm(s) is in perfect working order.

With the arrival of new rifle builders over the years the "need" to go to a "back street machinist" is not there, plus more and more ranges will be or should be inspecting such firearms and getting proof of the workmanship of the firearm. As we have no proofing house work carried out by a licensed and reputable gunsmith is generally accepted.

rowa

Could you tell me please ezridax how many of these new custom rifle builders/gunsmiths are time served ? I know of three qualified gunsmiths and none of them are doing anything with custom rifles , another thing , i know of two gunshops giving firearms to people who are not qualified but who are registered to work on firearms. So you leave your rifle in to a shop to be threaded and it winds up being done by someone with less experience then yourself but thats ok because he holds a piece of paper saying he's registered ?
Someone on here recently stated it was great being able to have a rifle built entirely in the republic as the lack of paperwork involved sending it to the uk to be built or rebarreled, as the only proof houses to the best of my knowledge are in birmingham and london does this mean the completed rifles are not proof tested and certified as such , eg a proof cert ?

Cass

rowa wrote: »

Could you tell me please ezridax how many of these new custom rifle builders/gunsmiths are time served ? I know of three qualified gunsmiths and none of them are doing anything with custom rifles

I don't know how many or what level of experience/expertise they have. You seem to so i'll leave it to yourself to answer that one. My point is not the ability (so much/solely) as it is the fact that they are in some way registered and known to be doing what they are doing.

You are concentrating on the level of ability more than the point behind my post which was to highlight the amount of people doing it without ANY paperwork, registration, etc. In other words illegally. Whatever comeback you have from a registered person you have none from someone that is not known to AGS or whatever relevant authority would cover this.

, another thing , i know of two gunshops giving firearms to people who are not qualified but who are registered to work on firearms.

Then stay away from these gun shops so. If their work is inferior why go to them. Registered or not.

So you leave your rifle in to a shop to be threaded and it winds up being done by someone with less experience then yourself but thats ok because he holds a piece of paper saying he's registered ?

Basically yes. This is where ability comes into it. If a person is registered, but poor at their work then you have legal channels should something go wrong (assuming you were unaware they were crap prior to going to them). If a person is excellent at their job, but not registered, and something goes wrong you have no comeback. Word of mouth or a "gentleman's agrement" is not orth the paper its written on.

So you are on the range, your fire a shot, there is a major accident. You are interviewed by AGS, and they ask who done your rifle. You say "Paddy" from down the road. Next question will be is he qualified. Then they go to Paddy and if he has no paperwork he is screwed, and so is everyone that went to him.

If its a registered gunsmith (ability aside) then the Gardai interview him, question his workmanship, practices, etc. You also have some recourse as he is a registered RFD (which all gunsmiths must be to possess/store firearms).

By having a proof mark on your gun you are also showing the customer/range officer, etc that the firearm has been tested and is safe.

Very true. There is nothing to stop anyone sending their rifle to the UK to get it done.

Someone on here recently stated it was great being able to have a rifle built entirely in the republic as the lack of paperwork involved sending it to the uk to be built or rebarreled,

That is a bonus. Its not a huge ordeal to have a rifle built elsewhere and shipped here, but having that facility here saves paperwork, extra fees, and should there be a problem there is no shipping fees/times to have it looked at/repaired immediately.

as the only proof houses to the best of my knowledge are in birmingham and london does this mean the completed rifles are not proof tested and certified as such , eg a proof cert ?

To the standards they do in the UK - No. how could they be unless sent to the UK. I do not know what methods they here. A rifle can be sent to England for proofing. Its not expensive and if you intend to shoot abroad could be a necessity (especially on some ranges).

For the moment that seems to suffice and until the DOJ/Gardai demand or make it a legal requirement to have a proof test done on every rifle, and set up a proofing house or sytem for testing, what we have is what we have.

I'll say again. I'm not defending the system we have here. However im also not seeking to destroy it by refusing to buy a rifle built here unless it has a proof mark. No gunsmith would hand off a firearm to a customer without having tested it. It would be professional and financial suicide.

My entire point here was to answer the query above as to why some ranges seek proof that the work carried out was done by a reputable, and registered person. For safety and legal reasons.

Cass

Splitting this off into its own thread to prevent further derailment of the Original thread.

rowa

I wasn't attacking you ezridax , just looking for answers for questions

Q. What qualifications does someone need to be a registered gunsmith ?
A. None apparently , just register with the doj/guards

Q.how do you know the gunshop you leave your gun into for work won't leave it down to the local handyman/ garage to be worked on ?

A. You don't and it seems to be common practise.

As for the legal requirements of proof , i thought it WAS a legal requirement under the firearms acts ( maybe sparks could clarify). And as i mentioned the chap being refused permission to shoot at the midlands because he couldn't prove who threaded his barrel is something that ranges obviously take seriously. Surely the same questions would have been asked if his irish built custom rifle did not display a proof mark.

Cass

rowa wrote: »

I wasn't attacking you ezridax , just looking for answers for questions

I know you're not. :cool:

Q. What qualifications does someone need to be a registered gunsmith ?
A. None apparently , just register with the doj/guards

See the problem is you are joining two seperate "entities" into one. There is a link between, an important one, but having only one these is not enough.

Gunsmith - Person that repairs, builds, etc firearms.
Registered - Holds a license / authorisation from the relevant body ie - DOJ/AGS.

By this i mean i can apply for an RFD license. I can pay the fee, and then start immediatley threading rifles. I am registered and covered legally however my quality is s**t.
Other case. I am unbelievable at threading rifles, fitting barrels, etc. However i am not registered, and hold no licenses. Something happens your rifle then everyone i came in contact with/done work for will suffer for leaving their firearm with me, and then me for peforming work on illegally held firearms (thats what its classed as because i have no personal licences for each firearm nor a dealers license to store multiple firearms)

So my point is by all means go to a qualified/competent gunsmith/rifle builder. But make sure he is registered. For your own sake and everyone elses.

Q.how do you know the gunshop you leave your gun into for work won't leave it down to the local handyman/ garage to be worked on ?

A. You don't and it seems to be common practise.

Again very true. The problem here, other than the dealer, is the customer. I would never allow anyone to do work on my firearm without knowing who they are, how qualified they are, and are they covered should something go wrong. Now i'm not sure of the legal ramifications for the dealer as you are doing the business with him , and he is independantly sourcing the work out so therefore the contract with the "gunsmith" is between the dealer and him not you and the gunsmith.

As for the legal requirements of proof , i thought it WAS a legal requirement under the firearms acts ( maybe sparks could clarify). And as i mentioned the chap being refused permission to shoot at the midlands because he couldn't prove who threaded his barrel is something that ranges obviously take seriously. Surely the same questions would have been asked if his irish built custom rifle did not display a proof mark.

Again as there is no proof house that point is moot. We had aproof house (i think) years ago, but no more. For the moment custom rifle builders are using either their own numerical system or simply their brand name on a rifle to satisfy any range that the work was carried out by them. By no means fool proof (no pun intended), but the best we have currently.

landkeeper

afaik it's a LEGAL requirement for a barrel to be marked with the calibre and the name of the rebarreling company
i have seen some that have been done and there is nothing on the barrel :eek: no proof mark no calibre markings or makers mark now to me that is shockingly unprofessional and irresponsible however the customer should in my book have demanded it be done
the other thing that needs to be remembered is if you get a rifle re barreled and its not reproofed and marked is, it couldn't be sold or used in the uk legally as it's an offence afaikr to sell or use a gun that is out of proof or one that hasn't been proofed

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

afaik it's a LEGAL requirement for a barrel to be marked with the calibre and the name of the rebarreling company
i have seen some that have been done and there is nothing on the barrel :eek: no proof mark no calibre markings or makers mark now to me that is shockingly unprofessional and irresponsible however the customer should in my book have demanded it be done
the other thing that needs to be remembered is if you get a rifle re barreled and its not reproofed and marked is, it couldn't be sold or used in the uk legally as it's an offence afaikr to sell or use a gun that is out of proof or one that hasn't been proofed

I think its only required to have a gun proofed before sale in uk not use;)

BELOWaverageIQ

tomcat220t wrote: »

I think its only required to have a gun proofed before sale in uk not use;)

Id say you are correct there but is certainly is a legal requirement for the barrel to be stamped with the calibre both here and in the UK.
I too have seen rifles that have been re-barrelled without the calibre stamped on the new barrel.
That is an accident waiting to happen. Say for example someone chambers the wrong calibre and fires!!, bye bye face for the poor dude behind the but stock and bye bye house business etc for the guy that re-barrelled the gun.

tomcat220t

BELOWaverageIQ wrote: »

Id say you are correct there but is certainly is a legal requirement for the barrel to be stamped with the calibre both here and in the UK.
I too have seen rifles that have been re-barrelled without the calibre stamped on the new barrel.
That is an accident waiting to happen. Say for example someone chambers the wrong calibre and fires!!, bye bye face for the poor dude behind the but stock and bye bye house business etc for the guy that re-barrelled the gun.

If we were all to repeat what we seen in the custom world this topic of legal marking which has nothing to do with this thread would go to ground fairly quick,imo!The thread is on proofing ......But your right ive seen a certain( 300 win) custom rifle without any name or cailber either ....stones in a glass house comes to mind ;)As for uk law ,one can shoot ,own ,use ......an unproofed firearm in the uk !

landkeeper

tomcat220t wrote: »

I think its only required to have a gun proofed before sale in uk not use;)

i will rephrase it then, if you have a rifle rebarreled here and it's not proofed it would be illegal to use it in the uk yes/no
that would then mean that anyone shooting competitions in the north or the uk probably would not be let compete

maybe tac foley could comment

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

i will rephrase it then, if you have a rifle rebarreled here and it's not proofed it would be illegal to use it in the uk yes/no
that would then mean that anyone shooting competitions in the north or the uk probably would not be let compete

maybe tac foley could comment

NO!

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

If we were all to repeat what we seen in the custom world this topic of legal marking which has nothing to do with this thread would go to ground fairly quick,imo!The thread is on proofing ......But your right ive seen a certain custom rifle without any name or cailber either ....stones in a glass house comes to mind ;)As for uk law ,one can shoot ,own ,use ......an unproofed firearm in the uk !

This thread has raised some very interesting points - ALL of which could have been addressed had the long-gone Dublin proof house survived!

As for shooting an Irish-built gun in the UK [including the North of Ireland] - this is from Dave Cushman's excellent site on the subject -

Quote -
The Firearms Act of 1868 (Section 122(4)) makes it an offence to import any small arm into the United Kingdom, unless it carries foreign proof marks that are accepted under reciprocal agreement, unless their arrival is notified to the Proof Master at London and Birmingham within seven days and/or they are submitted for Proof within 28 days. This ruling apparently does not apply to anyone who imports an unproved arm for his/her own personal use. While it remains his/her personal property it can be used unproofed. Whilst it may be legal to use such a weapon it would be foolhardy to use this loophole to avoid proof. For you own peace of mind... submit the weapon for British proof. [NOTE - I hasten to point out that this site is intended for a UK home audience, NOT citizens of other countries - in Ireland, of course, you can do what you want with your gun.]

Reciprocal arrangements have been made by various countries:-

• Austria Austrian proof marks were accepted in the UK pre WW II, but only marks post January 1956, are now valid.
• Belgium... The specifically recognised marks of the Proof House at Liege only.
• Czechoslovakia... Marks of the Czech Proof Authorities have been recognised in Great Britain since 14th October 1963.
• France... Proof was optional in France prior to July 1960. Only specific, agreed, marks applied after that date are valid in the UK.
• Federal Republic of Germany... new marks from September 1955 are acceptable, but marks prior to that date are not now accepted.
• Italy... The current marks are accepted.
• Ireland... Irish proof is acceptable after 9th June 1969.
• Spain... Spanish proof is accepted.

The products of all other countries, including the United States of America, must be submitted for proof within 28 days of importation. End quote


It's very interesting to note that Ireland is included there, and without the benefit of local knowledge, I'd be interested to know where the Irish Proof House is located.

In any case, as one poster notes - you can surely shoot your Irish rifle in the UK, but until it has been shown to have been proofed - by the Irish Proof house? - you cannot legally sell it, even if, as one poster reminded me, that Remington [at least] claim to have 'proofed' their guns. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence of any kind visible on any of their products in support of this claim - nor on any other US-made firearm sold to the public.

As Ezridax also points out, the proofing of a gun is also part of it registration and trail of existence within the UK, something that proved very useful on the odd occasion during the recent troubles.

Whinemeal, I'll be doing some investigation into the Irish Proof House.

Ahah! Thought I'd find the thread - here y'are - note there is legislation, but no current requirement -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=201829

tac

tomcat220t

As i said, one can own and or shoot an unproofed firearm in the uk or the north of ireland .....the law is very black and white on that in the uk .Rifles ranges in the uk can have their on policeys on this subject outside the law.

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

So one can own or shoot an unproofed firearm in the uk or the north of ireland !

So it seems. What you cannot do is sell it to a citizen of the UK without it being proofed. THAT would be illegal.

On the other paw, shooting an unproofed firearm anywhere in the UK or British Isles Crown Dependencies - The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - which then becomes violently dismantled during the bang process, might cause all kinds of serious problems. If it is you, the owner, that catches the bolt with your eyeball, then that is YOUR tough luck, and YOUR serious problem, providing that none of the other rapidly-moving fragments/shards/components of your gun hit anybody else, that is. Your own health insurance/NARGC or whatever might cover your [expensive] medical bills, but is likely to draw the line at reconstructive surgery above and beyond the original design of the face you had prior to the 'big KA-Boom'. IOW, you'll end up looking a bit like you did before, but NOT George Clooney. I'm told that rubber ears - even noses - can be pretty convicing these days, but so far as I know, the production of a functioning rubber eyeball has thus far eluded medical science.

However, if you - the owner of this unproofed gun - let another person who is a citizen of the UK or British Crown Dependencies shoot it, and neglect to advise him of its lack of current proof, and he then collects sundry parts of your disintegrating gun in his person, you'll likely end up selling the ould homestead to pay the damages...

'In that the Accused, [name] knowing the firearm to be unproofed under the United Kingdom Proof Act, loaned it to and allowed another person, the Claimant/Injured Party,[name] to fire it, whereupon it blew up, causing the Claimant/Injured Party, [name], severe and incapacitating injuries from which he has yet to recover, as well as loss of earnings concomittant with the extended period of his recovery thus far. The Claimant/Injured Party, [name], who is/was a commercial airline pilot/senior police officer/game warden/orthopaedic surgeon/TV media director/fashion model will, on his eventual recovery, have to seek an alternative lifelong career that excludes the use of eyesight/manual dexterity, and it is for this reason that we claim VERY substantial and life-supportive monetary damages in perpetuity amounting to [use your imagination here].'

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

So it seems. What you cannot do is sell it to a citizen of the UK without it being proofed. THAT would be illegal.

tac

Post 13, i had already stated that .........but thanks for clearing it up for some of the guys here!

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

So it seems. What you cannot do is sell it to a citizen of the UK without it being proofed. THAT would be illegal.

On the other paw, shooting an unproofed firearm anywhere in the UK or British Isles Crown Dependencies - The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - which then becomes violently dismantled during the bang process, will might cause all kinds of serious problems. If it is you, the owner, that catches the bolt with your eyeball, then that is tough luck, and YOUR serious problem, providing that none of the other rapidly-moving fragments/shards/components of your gun hit anybody else.

However, if you - the owner of this unproofed gun - let another person who is a citizen of the UK or British Crown Dependencies shoot it, and neglect to advise him of its lack of current proof, and he then collects sundry parts of your disintegrating gun in his person, you'll likely end up selling the ould homestead to pay the damages...

'In that he [name] knowing the firearm to be unproofed under the United Kingdom Proof Act, loaned it to and allowed another person, [name] to fire it, whereupon it blew up, causing the firer, [name], severe and incapacitating injuries from which he has yet to recover, as well as loss of earnings concomittant with the extended period of his recovery thus far. The firer, [name], who is/was a commercial airline pilot/senior police officer/game warden/orthopaedic surgeon/TV media director/fashion model will, on his eventual recovery, have to seek an alternative lifelong career that excludes the use of eyesight/manual dexterity, and it is for this reason that we claim VERY substantial and life-supportive monetray damages in perpetuity amounting to [use your imagination here].'

tac

I has a reasonable knowledge of uk firearms law and third party liabilities of such ,as im sure you have .

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

I has a reasonable knowledge of uk firearms law and third party liabilities of such ,as im sure you have .

Who, me? :cool:

tac

tomcat220t

What would some of the guys do without you:P.::P:P.Its great :D:D

freddieot

Just to clear up an impression that may be running through this thread.

I was one of the people who, for a period, could not shoot with a moderator in Mildlands. The reason for this had nothing to do with the law at the time, as I had permission for the mod from the local cops.

The difficulty was with the insurance cover of the range. The insurers did not want anyone shooting there with a rifle that had been threaded (by anyone) after it left the factory unless it had been proofed again after the threading.

Despite the fact that I obtained a letter from the Company that threaded the rifle (one of the most used and best known of such companies in the State), that detailed their experience and the measures they took during the threading process, the range could still not let me (or anyone else) shoot for insurance reasons as the insurer would still not alter their position, and this was explained clearly to me at the time.

Things have changed since then of course but I thought it important that the real cause of that difficulty, some years ago now, should be expained.

rowa

Will the midlands allow you shoot a newly threaded rifle without a reproof now freddieot ?
With the popularity of f-class and people building rifles surely it is time to open a proof house ? There was one in the recent past that closed when kavanagh the gunmaker ceased trading so the people involved with it must still be around.

Tackleberrywho

rowa wrote: »

Will the midlands allow you shoot a newly threaded rifle without a reproof now freddieot ?
With the popularity of f-class and people building rifles surely it is time to open a proof house ? There was one in the recent past that closed when kavanagh the gunmaker ceased trading so the people involved with it must still be around.

As pointed out it is to do with insurance, if you go to a rifle builder/RFD and get work done; then their insurance covers their workmanship.

I had thought I had pointed this out several posts ago......
The sale of goods and supply of services act 1980 covers it.
(services, ie: any work carried out by a third party has to be covered by the third party if it is proven that their workmanship caused a fault)

I also was a person who fell into the position of Fred, 10 years ago at MRC.
I pointed out that things had changed dramatically since then, and it was some of the changes that drove this, primarily the custom rifle scene; not specifically thread jobs.
With the advent of 1200 yard shooting factory spec rifles did not cut the mustard, so customization had to be undertaken.

Therefore many changes were needed.
All these changes were interrelated.

323

rowa wrote: »

This is true tac but the likes of remington do proof their firearms.

I would say that is a definate for all reputable US firearms makers, even though there is no proof stamp as with European manufacturers. ,roblem is. adheering to SAAMI/ANSI standards is voluntary for commercial manufacturers in the US.
While living over there trained and qualified as a gunsmith, never practiced(just wanted to learn more about firearms
in general), had to build and test a rifle as part of the course(Caliber stamped on the barrel is a federal requirement,new or rebarreled).
However it was stressed that after any major action or barrel work, the firearm should always be proof tested (I would be very wary of using it otherwise, regardless of who did the work).
In my case I used what is termed as a "blue pill", a cartridge made of steel instead of brass, overloaded to give an excessive (SAAMI defined) chamber test pressure.

As tac an others point out, all mostly to do with insurance and liability, though safety should always come first.
Yes, should be a proof house here, but many I spoke to over there loaded their own proof loads, a problem as no reloading allowed here.
They can be bought loaded but I'm guessing importing overloaded test loads may also be a issue here?

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

open a proof house ? There was one in the recent past that closed when kavanagh the gunmaker ceased trading so the people involved with it must still be around.

That was around the early 1970s.The trouble with the proof house was that the Govt at the time failed to employ a master prover as well.Wether because of political motives or just incompetance it never happened.

@Tac
ASFIK the proof house was up in the surrounds of Dublin Castle.There was an article on it in a now long defunct Irish shooting magazine[Rod & Gun] years ago that had the entire story of it.Maybe somone still has that mag somwhere?
As for the Remington situation on proving their barrels.I would ASSume that with massive product liability suits in the USA ,that all gun makers do test their products to some extent.However,seeing that you can build your own guns over there,they proably have a massive wriggle out clause in saying it wasnt serviced by an authorised dealer gunsmith etc?? Or they have enough money to do a " Ford Pinto " option.

As for this situation of being a registerd firearms dealer/gunsmith over here.It is as different as chalk and cheese. A gunsmith should be a learned trade,and by rights have the facility of limited storage,on guns in for repair or building.A dealer is just that,somone who buys and sells guns.After all,do you ask a car dealer or the mechanic about the rattling noise in the engine after you bought it??:pac:
Nor should there be any reason that a gunsmith couldnt buy proved barrels from the Uk ,Germany,etc to build your rifle,rather than going to the expense of setting up a proof house over here again.

323

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nor should there be any reason that a gunsmith couldnt buy proved barrels from the Uk ,Germany,etc to build your rifle,rather than going to the expense of setting up a proof house over here again.

Know next to nothing of proofing shotguns, but as far as rifles go, you do not buy proved barrels.
The rifle should be proof tested as a complete system action & barrel, after the barrel has been threaded, fitted, tightened & correctly headspaced for the given action.

Tackleberrywho

Would you want a rifle that someone

In my case I used what is termed as a "blue pill", a cartridge made of steel instead of brass, overloaded to give an excessive (SAAMI defined) chamber test pressure

Inserting a steel casing into a brand new polished chamber, loading the shi*e out of a round and firing it?

All proofing does is takes the good out of custom polished barrels, then hands you back a yoke that may as well have fired 1000 rounds and tells you, well it did not blow this time :rolleyes:

It always amazes me that people want this done when it is NOT% required here, and not required if shooting in the UK or NI.

Some companies provide drop tests on products, would you like someone to drop your rifle for you too?
Yes, the rifle was dropped from a height of 1m and still functioned normally, looked like a bag of shi*e but we Proved it could be dropped :eek:

landkeeper

would you like your pride and joy remington action embedded in the side of your skull !!or your truflite barrell added as an extra digit to your hand the reason that guns are proofed after being 'worked on ' is to prove that they are safe just in case some numpty riflesmith/gunsmith has done something silly to your pride and joy that could actually kill you

tomcat220t

If proofing was a requirement tomorrow in ireland and a proofing house available here ,im sure dealers and gunsmiths would gladly use this service .As it stands ,its not compulsory but im sure if you wanted an irish built rifle proofed @ an additional expence and time it could be sent to the uk .People who are concerned about not having a proofed rifle and want it done ,its simple really ,imo.I personally wound not bother ...i happy with the system the way it is !

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

would you like your pride and joy remington action embedded in the side of your skull !!or your truflite barrell added as an extra digit to your hand the reason that guns are proofed after being 'worked on ' is to prove that they are safe just in case some numpty riflesmith/gunsmith has done something silly to your pride and joy that could actually kill you

Is your new build proofed ?

landkeeper

not yet but it will be

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

not yet but it will be

I rest my case landkeeper :(:(:(:(How can you judge posters (tack inc) on dangers of not have his rifle proofed but you yourself are in the same boat :eek::eek:.Your blowing hot air ,sorry bud .

323

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Would you want a rifle that someone

Inserting a steel casing into a brand new polished chamber, loading the shi*e out of a round and firing it?
:eek:

Woooh................, Sorry, not my intention to upset anyone, really getting away from this thread but.

A proof cartridge, though steel, is also plated and polished.
Would not say the shi*e is loaded out of it, mearly enough to produced pressure a certain percentage higher than the SAAMI pressure for the given cartridge. Like the BS test pressure on an Oxy/Acetelene bottle.

Personally, I would like to know i was safe, if were in an area of high altitude or high temperature where chamber pressure is likely to be much higher than normal.

rowa

The reason i said remington proof their rifles is i seen a video of a remington 700 being made from the wood and steel coming through the door to the completed rifle being packaged and dispatched, and they did have a dedicated proofing area and also an area where the accuracy of the rifle was tested.

As for proofing taking the good out of a barrel tackleberry , i'd rather that then it detonating in my face , i know two people badly injured with bursting barrels , one lad lost the sight in his right eye and it was a disaster for his life , lost job, couldn't get another , motor insurance increased premiums etc etc and this was on top of the physical pain and distress he suffered, another chap lost three fingers off his left hand and he too found it f***ed up his life to a huge degree.
Saying a mechanical device does not need testing is daft, a lot of things need testing and certification In ireland and world wide, steam boilers , compressor receivers , hydraulic hoses and they all work at far lower pressures then gun barrels.

landkeeper

yeah whatever tomcat :rolleyes: i did say 'yet' didn't i


just because you have issues with a certain rifle builder why jump on anyone who uses him or eludes to using him 'bud' did you check to see if the barrel fitted to your .204 was proofed when you bought it ??

tac foley

323 wrote: »

Know next to nothing of proofing shotguns, but as far as rifles go, you do not buy proved barrels. The rifle should be proof tested as a complete system action & barrel, after the barrel has been threaded, fitted, tightened & correctly headspaced for the given action.

Here in UK [sorry to mention the UK again, but it's almost inescapable in this thread so PM'ers to me with your death-threats please note that as ever, I'll be ignoring them], a rifled barrel is NOT subject to proof. As an item it is currently unusable as a firearm, and could, in theory, actually be bought as a bit of fancy tubing.

HOWEVER, a CHAMBERED barrel IS subject to proof, since it can be used in a firearm as such.

In any event, it is incumbent on the builder of the gun here in UK [whoops] to have his worked proofed, as it is illegal to sell it without it clearly stamped up all over the place with -

a. the calibre.

b. the length of the chamber in inches.

c. the pressure test to which the arm was subjected [for a typical .308Win - 19 tons - [long tons, NOT Tonnes or metric tonnes] per square inch.

d. the proof house inspection stamp and date as a cypher.

e. the proof house view mark.

f. the type of proof ie, Nitro proof [N] or black powder proof [BP]


Purely as an aside, note that in the case of a revolver, every chamber in the cylinder is proofed individually, and each chamber bears the proof stamp on the back end nearest the recoil shield - this naturally includes BP as well as nitro revolvers, and yes, there ARE modern nitro cartridge-firing revolvers, and single-shot pistols, here on mainland UK - they just look a little, well, odd, that's all.

tac

tomcat220t

landkeeper wrote: »

yeah whatever tomcat :rolleyes: i did say 'yet' didn't i


just because you have issues with a certain rifle builder why jump on anyone who uses him or eludes to using him 'bud' did you check to see if the barrel fitted to your .204 was proofed when you bought it ??

Whats up ?Sturr not working out they way ya taught ?Im not the one making statments about the probability of gun failure to one guy over his rifle not been proofed(built by gunsmith A) and you happily shooting your own newly built (unproofed aswell) rifle (built by gunsmith .The only one with the issues is yourself !The barrel on my .204 may have been proofed under German firearms Law but the .204 itself is not proofed .

Tackleberrywho

It's touching that so many here worry about my personal safety.

In regards to firing ammo outside approved spec to see if the barrel bursts?

Does anyone have any actual experience of the Quality of truflite barrels?
I looked down my barrel and chamber with a borescope prior to any round been fired out it, and all I could say was WoW.

The quality and strength was far in excess of the factory proofed barrel that came off it.
In fact my barrel is ~1/4 thicker than the factory barrel made out of much higher quality steel.

So I'll ship it over to UK to have some Bozo blow a round in excess of SPEC Just to prove my barrel will not blow; I don't think so.....

Mr.Flibble

rowa wrote: »

i know two people badly injured with bursting barrels , one lad lost the sight in his right eye and it was a disaster for his life , lost job, couldn't get another , motor insurance increased premiums etc etc and this was on top of the physical pain and distress he suffered, another chap lost three fingers off his left hand and he too found it f***ed up his life to a huge degree.

Had those guns been proofed?

Mr.Flibble

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Does anyone have any actual experience of the Quality of truflite barrels?

Yes.

vixdname

I done my range test for the Hcap in May of this year in the Midlands range and they told us on the day that no rifle that had be threaded after it left the factory and hadnt been reproofed could be used on the range under any circumstances.

rowa

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

Had those guns been proofed?

One barrel was blocked by snow/ice and blew just forward of the fore end and not the chamber end which probabily saved his life, the other i simply don't know. I just mentioned those two instances as an example, because you will have people trying to tell you that modern guns simply don't rupture.

rowa

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1968/en/act/pub/0020/index.html

Cass

rowa wrote: »

One barrel was blocked by snow/ice and blew just forward of the fore end and not the chamber end which probabily saved his life, the other i simply don't know. I just mentioned those two instances as an example, because you will have people trying to tell you that modern guns simply don't rupture.

Thats somewhat of a different situation to having a rifle/firearm proofed. No info on one, and the other with a blocked barrel. Even a proofed firearm with a blocked barrel can rupture. So seems kinda moot in relation to the theme of the thread.

rowa wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1968/en/act/pub/0020/index.html

Am i wrong in thinking that this was repealed? I believe there is a re-instatment of the Act underway, but it has not been done yet, nor has it been commenced as an SI. Am open to correction on that as my legal skills are amateur at best.

However if it is re-instated there are obligations upon the DOJ to provide facilities for the testing. In the 1968 Act section 2, and 3 state;

2.—As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the Institute shall provide or procure under its control such facilities as shall be approved by the Minister for the proofing of firearms for the purposes of this Act.
Duties of Institute regarding proofing of firearms.
3.—Upon the provision or procuration by it of the facilities referred to in section 2, the Institute shall— ......................................

Meaning the dept. authorised to proof rifles must provide the facilities for proofing along with trained competent staff members, etc to provide the services described within the Act.

So until they are established this Act is irrelevant and stands unworkable IMO.

rowa

Its not really a moot point as i said in the post , i related the instances just to show that accidents can and do happen with firearms , they are mechanical devices and there is always a possibility of failure.

Cass

It is a moot point when you try to link mechanical failure due to abuse
(accidental or otherwise), and mechanical failure on a firearm that is unproofed when even a proofed firearm would fail the same test. One is down to ignorance on behalf of the operator, the other failure by the manufacturer.

If i'm driving down the road and the wheels fall off my car because of an impurity in the metals used to make the studs then its the manufacturers fault.
If i'm driving down the road and the wheels fall of because i overtightened the nuts when i put the wheels back on and wrung/sheered them then its my fault. So matter how well tested they were leaving the manufacturer it cannot prevent or account for my abuse of the product.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I looked down my barrel and chamber with a borescope prior to any round been fired out it, and all I could say was WoW.
The quality and strength was far in excess of the factory proofed barrel that came off it.
In fact my barrel is ~1/4 thicker than the factory barrel made out of much higher quality steel.

Er, tack, you can't measure the strength of a barrel with a borescope. Read the accident report on US Flight 232 (the one that crashed at Sioux City a decade or two ago) and specifically the part relating to why the turbine blade failed to see exactly why.

That said, I don't think proofing will pick up those kind of failures either.
Frankly, I don't think you're really any safer with a proofed firearm than with an unproofed one.

323 wrote: »

the BS test pressure on an Oxy/Acetelene bottle

I don't think that's really comparable 323 - they ramp up the pressure far more slowly in that test, and oxy/acetelene and diver bottles all have a weak point built in for safety, like modern pressure cookers and water boilers (a pressure vessel without a built-in weak point to fail well below the tensile strength of the material it's made from, is more commonly referred to as a bomb...)

BTW, this is something that concerns air rifle and air pistol shooters a bit because if you look carefully here:



The pellet may not be enormously dangerous, but that silver cylinder under the barrel is a small compressed air tank running at 200 or 300 bar of pressure (depending on the rifle - that one's 200, walther's are 300). Same with modern air pistols. In terms of explosive force, that's the equivalent of one or two hand grenades suspended about two feet from your face.

You tend to look into accident statistics, inspection times, design lifetimes and failure modes when you realise that

rowa wrote: »

Saying a mechanical device does not need testing is daft, a lot of things need testing and certification In ireland and world wide, steam boilers , compressor receivers , hydraulic hoses and they all work at far lower pressures then gun barrels.

Yeah, and while they're tested with overpressure, they're not tested with the same level of an overpressure pulse as firearms are. You might run a hydraulic hose 100% overpressure to test it, and a rifle barrel at only 10% over; but you can spot defects in the hose caused by the test, you can't with the barrel, and the barrel will have taken more of a beating from the test because the pressure builds up so fast relative to that in the hose.