Proof-testing

tac foley

As a matter of interest, how does a gun-builder in the Republic proof a gun that he has assembled from parts acquired for that purpose? The Republic of Ireland, with no firearms' industry of its own, is not a member of the CIP, and the Institute of Industrial Research and Standardsoffice in Dublin does not appear to be set up for gun-proofing of any kind, although I'm happy to be corrected on this sticky matter.

True that the action - made by SAKO [Finland is a CIP member] - may have been proofed, but only as a complete action + barrel + stock. Finding a SAKO action by itself is going to be very difficult as the factory do not sell items like this individually.

tac

Jonty

tac foley wrote: »

Finding a SAKO action by itself is going to be very difficult as the factory do not sell items like this individually.

tac

There was a thread here about an old sako rifle for sale in Connollys of Goresbridge for 500 quid. The only way to get an action would be through licensing a shot out rifle.

J

It wasn't me!

If a customer were to want a gun proofed, it can be shipped over to Birmingham for the work. Since it's not a requirement here, however, most don't seem to bother.

And yes, you'd buy a donor rifle for the action. If you happened to get anything you liked with it, such as a decent stock, bonus points! Otherwise break it down, junk or sell the barrel and stock and keep the action for your project.

Jonty

Is there actually any benefit to having a custom rifle proofed?

tac foley

Jonty wrote: »

Is there actually any benefit to having a custom rifle proofed?

Since you don't bother with such a trival matter in the Irish Republic as having a gun proofed as safe to shoot without disintegrating in your hands, I guess not.

It's just that just about everywhere else proof is required prior to the sale of any firearm to another person, either privately or commercially.

If the OP ever decides to sell it, then the buyer had better be in the RoI. It cannot be sold outside the country - say, to somebody in the north of Ireland, without having been subjected to proof.

Anyhow, for some reason this is a somewhat touchy subject for many here, so I'll shut up.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Since you don't bother with such a trival matter in the Irish Republic as having a gun proofed as safe to shoot without disintegrating in your hands, I guess not.
It's just that just about everywhere else proof is required prior to the sale of any firearm to another person, either privately or commercially.

Only in every country in CIP.

Countries like the US, where SAAMI is the standard used, do not require proofmarks before selling firearms because SAAMI isn't legally mandatory.

And given the origins of mandatory proofing laws (which had far more to do with seeking to establish commercial monopolies so that non-gunmaker-guild manufacturers would be driven out of business); and given that there have been a few injuries from people shooting CIP-proofed black powder firearms because CIP has loopholes (the firearms in question were CIP-proofed to the minimum 10,000 PSI for export from Spain but the manufacturer was recommending 25,000 PSI loads): I don't think you can reasonably say that proofing is the be-all and end-all of safety testing. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like any other testing mechanism, and you trust any test blindly at your own peril.

You sure shouldn't try slagging off an entire country because it doesn't do what another country does, purely on the basis of blind trust in such a test!

Jonty

Whats involved in the proofing process?

juice1304

They shoot a cartridge trough the gun %30 over the recomended saami pressure

tac foley

Jonty wrote: »

Whats involved in the proofing process?

Please read - as you can imagine, it does not involve tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away....

We are talking about LAWs here, not advice to handy home-proofers -

Purpose and brief history

Proof is the compulsory and statutory testing of every new shotgun or other small arm before sale to ensure, so far as it is practicable, its safety in the hands of the user. Reproof is the similar testing of a small arm which has previously been proved. Both necessarily involve the firing through the barrel of a considerably heavier load than is customary in the shooting field, thereby setting up pressure and stress on barrel and action much in excess of the pressure generated by standard load cartridges. Such pressure should, and is intended to, disclose weakness in guns, whether new or used, for it is preferable that weakness be found at a Proof House rather than in the field, where personal injury may result.

Link to Article.

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Please read - as you can imagine, it does not involve tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away....

We are talking about LAWs here, not advice to handy home-proofers -

Purpose and brief history

Proof is the compulsory and statutory testing of every new shotgun or other small arm before sale to ensure, so far as it is practicable, its safety in the hands of the user. Reproof is the similar testing of a small arm which has previously been proved. Both necessarily involve the firing through the barrel of a considerably heavier load than is customary in the shooting field, thereby setting up pressure and stress on barrel and action much in excess of the pressure generated by standard load cartridges. Such pressure should, and is intended to, disclose weakness in guns, whether new or used, for it is preferable that weakness be found at a Proof House rather than in the field, where personal injury may result.

Link to Article.

tac

Tac, Jonty asked what was involved in proofing; your post there tells a lot about what laws make it mandatory in the UK, but it doesn't actually tell you anything at all about what's involved in proofing. Proofing might as well be someone tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away for all you've written there.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Tac, Jonty asked what was involved in proofing; your post there tells a lot about what laws make it mandatory in the UK, but it doesn't actually tell you anything at all about what's involved in proofing. Proofing might as well be someone tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away for all you've written there.

Sir, as the UK is signatory to the CIP, the standards of proof are the same in all those countries who are signatory. Only by having the same standards of proof throughout the CIP community can any sort of inter-operable standards be maintained.

Basically, it involves submitting the barrelled action to an inspection or 'view' prior to and after firing an excessively high charge relevant to that calibre. Depending on the nature of the firearm this might be done up to three times. Most guns, however, for sale to civilians, are only subjected to proof once.

After examination, visually and by actual measurement and, often, by fluoroscopic test, proding it has passed the test, the firearm is stamped accordingly -

Proof stamps in the UK also notes the size of the cartridge case in inches, and the authorised/recommended safe loading pressure commensurate with that particular calibre expressed in tons per square inch (.308Win - 20TONS PER IN sq). This is stamped on the breech of the firearm.
The bolt and any pressure-bearing parts are also stamped with a cypher - BNP - Birmingham Nitro Proof - or LP - London Proof.

All CIP nations use this proof-house cypher (Ulm, for instance, uses a half-antler sign) and date code, which may be obvious - as in 09 [2009] or cryptic, as in the Italian Roman number/Capital letter code. The gun will also be stamped NITRO or BP, and, if a shotgun, with details of the choke and actual cartridge dimensions - in metric, of course.

Shotguns and their ilk have a convenient set of flat surfaces under the barrels and on the water-table of the breech for a whole scad of letters and numbers.

Guns made in the USA are subjected to factory proof, which, having been successfully undertaken, get stamped with a very small cryptic letter or number or combination - have a look at your Remington 700 and see if you can find it. However, on arrival in the EU, every US-made gun has to be proofed before it can be sold. Obviously this would not apply to any firearm entering directly into the Republic of Ireland from the USA, but such a firearm cannot be sold to anybody else outside the RoI without being proofed.

I hope that answers the question in a better way.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Basically, it involves submitting the barrelled action to an inspection or 'view' prior to and after firing an excessively high charge relevant to that calibre. Depending on the nature of the firearm this might be done up to three times. Most guns, however, for sale to civilians, are only subjected to proof once.

After examination, visually and by actual measurement and, often, by fluoroscopic test, proding it has passed the test, the firearm is stamped accordingly -

*That* was more what Jonty was asking about.
Got any more details?

However, on arrival in the EU, every US-made gun has to be proofed before it can be sold.

No, just on arrival in any CIP signatory country in the EU (ie. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom), which is less than half the member states of the EU. Though to be fair, states may have their own proof laws; I just don't know what those might be.

Jonty

It just seems a bit pointless to me, afterall, there is probably a considerable factor of safety engineered into firearms. I have heard that UK guns that have been screwcut after proofing, require reproofing.




Just my 2c.

juice1304

I would rather have my firearms proofed then have it explode in my face. There are many thing which could affect the pressures and it could be fine with %99 of ammunition but what if you tried some new hot ammo and it went kaboom?
I think saying that they don't need it is a bit silly.:rolleyes:
Everyone makes mistakes even someone doing the same thing day in day out.

Sparks

juice1304 wrote: »

I would rather have my firearms proofed then have it explode in my face. There are many thing which could affect the pressures and it could be fine with %99 of ammunition but what if you tried some new hot ammo and it went kaboom?
I think saying that they don't need it is a bit silly.:rolleyes:
Everyone makes mistakes even someone doing the same thing day in day out.

Counterarguments include the point that destructive testing in mechanical engineering has been superceded by better testing methods; and the point that you might introduce a weakness in the barrel with the proof test that may later fail with a normal load; the proof test is unable to detect a weakness like this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

rowa

Not this crap again , what has it to do with the chap looking for a lh 7mm mag ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Not this crap again , what has it to do with the chap looking for a lh 7mm mag ?

Fair point. Splitting it out...

juice1304

Sparks wrote: »

Counterarguments include the point that destructive testing in mechanical engineering has been superceded by better testing methods; and the point that you might introduce a weakness in the barrel with the proof test that may later fail with a normal load; the proof test is unable to detect a weakness like this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

Do all Irish gunsmiths implement all of these high tech testing methods? I would think not, Which is why i would rather have it proofed. Other than the fact that all the major firearms manufacturers still proof test their firearms before they leave the factory, they would'nt do it if they thought they were going to damage it.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Counterarguments include the point that destructive testing in mechanical engineering has been superceded by better testing methods; and the point that you might introduce a weakness in the barrel with the proof test that may later fail with a normal load; the proof test is unable to detect a weakness like this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

Hi Sparks, since you not convinced about proofing methods .....whats your understanding on how/what is involved in proof testing in the uk ?
Regards ,Tomcat.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

Hence my earlier point about the 180 degree opinions on gun proofing.

Here in the CIP countries we live with it.

I'd like to point out that I shoot a considerable number of guns made in the US of A actually IN the USA and have not been overly worried. All were made by reputable manufacturers, and have been tested at the source of manufacture. Blow-ups are, thankfully, very rare.

As the topic seems to have either worn itself out or disintegrated into argument for and against (again), I don't believe that I have anything more to add to it.

tac

Croppy Boy

Anyone know what the fail rate is in proofing new guns?

rowa

I done a course in heavy pipeline welding a few years back, every weld for the test had to pass a visual , which was simply a once over by the examiner , then it was taken away and the weld is x-rayed. The testers are able to pick up a fault smaller than the size of a grain of sand , which obviously means a fail.
Parts of aircraft engines are worked on in places like airmotive and pwa, they are also x-rayed and crack tested regularly. boilers and compressor receivers also have to be tested by law.
I doubt it would be difficult to have gun parts or completed guns x-rayed or crack tested and then do a proof test. Anything is better than nothing which we currently have.

CJhaughey

Wasn't there a proof house here in the ROI a long time ago?

tomcat220t

rowa wrote: »

I done a course in heavy pipeline welding a few years back, every weld for the test had to pass a visual , which was simply a once over by the examiner , then it was taken away and the weld is x-rayed. The testers are able to pick up a fault smaller than the size of a grain of sand , which obviously means a fail.
Parts of aircraft engines are worked on in places like airmotive and pwa, they are also x-rayed and crack tested regularly. boilers and compressor receivers also have to be tested by law.
I doubt it would be difficult to have gun parts or completed guns x-rayed or crack tested and then do a proof test. Anything is better than nothing which we currently have.

Hi Rowa, my understanding of rifle proofing is there is more to it than cheaking for metal flaws .
Just as important and dangerous is the consequences of improper Head-Space.!
Regards,Tomcat.

rowa

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Rowa, my understanding of rifle proofing is there is more to it than cheaking for metal flaws .
Just as important and dangerous is the consequences of improper Head-Space.!
Regards,Tomcat.

Excess headspace in rifles is dangerous , some rifles such as the lee enfields have interchangeable bolt heads , if excessive headspace is detected a tighter bolt head can be fitted easily enough. Headspace in shotguns is not considered dangerous (i don't know why that is) but it does lead to heavier recoil. Headspace can be measured by go no-go gauges so proofing wouldn't really be neccessary to detect it and it might be careless to proof a gun you know to have excessive headspace.

tomcat220t

rowa wrote: »

Excess headspace in rifles is dangerous , some rifles such as the lee enfields have interchangeable bolt heads , if excessive headspace is detected a tighter bolt head can be fitted easily enough. Headspace in shotguns is not considered dangerous (i don't know why that is) but it does lead to heavier recoil. Headspace can be measured by go no-go gauges so proofing wouldn't really be neccessary to detect it and it might be careless to proof a gun you know to have excessive headspace.

Hi Rowa, that im aware ..headspace with rifles is measured/cheaked and is an important part of the proofing process .
Its not just Excessive headspace but also Insufficient headspace that would cause problems with a rifle.
Regards ,Tomcat.

rowa

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Rowa, that im aware ..headspace with rifles is measured/cheaked and is an important part of the proofing process .
Its not just Excessive headspace but also Insufficient headspace that would cause problems with a rifle.
Regards ,Tomcat.

Headspace maybe a proofing requirement but i don't know why that would be. It is after all a physically measurable dimension, if there was insufficient headspace the bolt would not close on the go gauge and it would be instantly noticeable to the smith or proofing tester.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSU2zBQvM8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

tomcat220t

rowa wrote: »

Headspace maybe a proofing requirement but i don't know why that would be. It is after all a physically measurable dimension, if there was insufficient headspace the bolt would not close on the go gauge and it would be instantly noticeable to the smith or proofing tester.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSU2zBQvM8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Hi Rowa,how many rifles turn up to be proofed with improper headspace ....no idea, but i guess it must happen and thats why it part of the proofing process .
Im sure by tomorrow maybe someone will have contacted a uk proofing house to find out weather or why they cheak headspace or not, on rifles .
Regards,Tomcat.

juice1304

If the headspace is wrong it will cause a pressure spike and could lead to the gun exploding it would also mean the gun is'nt within the safe saami pressures. Which is what i was getting at in an earlier post it might work fine with %99 of the ammunition you fire and then you try some +p or some hot stuff and boom you need a new face.

tomcat220t

juice1304 wrote: »

If the headspace is wrong it will cause a pressure spike and could lead to the gun exploding it would also mean the gun is'nt within the safe saami pressures. Which is what i was getting at in an earlier post it might work fine with %99 of the ammunition you fire and then you try some +p or some hot stuff and boom you need a new face.

Hi juice, if for any reason a new factory rifle was found to be defective and caused injury or worse in the normal course of using it ,then the manufacture of the rifle could be held to task or maybe personal insurance would cover you .
But what if you found yourself in the above situation with a altered/built unproofed rifle ?If you had personal insurance ..would you be covered ...would any third party be insured ?Would the person who altered/built the gun have product liability insurance ?
Dont get me wrong ....the chances of anything like that happening is very unlikely .

Regards ,Tomcat .

rowa

The birmingham proof house is supposed to be a great place to visit, some other information.

http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html

juice1304

To be honest I don't know but I do know who I would be holding accountable. The "gunsmith" for not testing it properly. If it went to court I would imagine that the judge would side with the person who's face it blew up in. If the gunsmith is payed to do a service and he messes it up and the rifle explodes then he has'nt done as he was paid to. We can't reload here so that argument can't be used against the person whos rifle blew up either.
I don't know though that is why i would rather be safe than sorry.

tomcat220t

juice1304 wrote: »

To be honest I don't know but I do know who I would be holding accountable. The "gunsmith" for not testing it properly. If it went to court I would imagine that the judge would side with the person who's face it blew up in. If the gunsmith is payed to do a service and he messes it up and the rifle explodes then he has'nt done as he was paid to. We can't reload here so that argument can't be used against the person whos rifle blew up either.
I don't know though that is why i would rather be safe than sorry.

Hi juice,if somebody had concerns about proofing or not, they could at least ask for a copy of the gunsmiths product liability insurance cert .
Regards,Tomcat.

EWQuinn

About everything you wanted to know about proof testing, including ye olde UK perspective. Bottom line for modern manufacturers is that if they were producing poor quality stuff they wouldn't be in business very long. Interesting aspect is that with modern technology more and more folks can be gun makers. Despite all the laws in the world, the old Roman saying still holds, caveat emptor.

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

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/01/testing-firearms-proof-test.html

http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/index.html

rowa

EWQuinn wrote: »

Bottom line for modern manufacturers is that if they were producing poor quality stuff they wouldn't be in business very long. Despite all the laws in the world, the old Roman saying still holds, caveat emptor.

buy any taurus revolvers lately ew ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftq9hNpvBc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

EWQuinn

Nope, nor would I ever buy a Taurus.

Grizzly 45

CJhaughey wrote: »

Wasn't there a proof house here in the ROI a long time ago?

There was in Dublin castle I belive,and we have a proof testing act.
However,we never employed a competant master proof tester,and it really became superflous after the one and only commercial gun factory closed down in the 1970s.

Grizzly 45

juice1304 wrote: »

To be honest I don't know but I do know who I would be holding accountable. The "gunsmith" for not testing it properly. If it went to court I would imagine that the judge would side with the person who's face it blew up in. If the gunsmith is payed to do a service and he messes it up and the rifle explodes then he has'nt done as he was paid to. We can't reload here so that argument can't be used against the person whos rifle blew up either.
I don't know though that is why i would rather be safe than sorry.

1] NEVER assume a judge will go with what you expect in a court decision!!Lots of people including eminent barristers are regulary made aware of that fact.

2]
This is another reason I do belive that gunsmithing should be an apprenticed and qualified trade same as being a doctor or somthing of the like,to prevent somthing basic like excessive headspace or whatever being overseen by some of our "gun plumbers" over here.Being a gun dealer does not make you a gunsmith!!.
3]
If it was a qualified gunsmith building your custom rifle,there would be no way he could legally hand it out to you unless it was legally proof marked.
That is the proof houses job,so he would be coverd on things like barrel weakness,action failure,etc.All stuff the proof house should pick up on,and absolves the GS from liability.
So unless it was negligence in putting it together.IE he used inferior bolts for the stock bolts and the barrel flew back and walloped you in the head.Your arguement would be with the proof house not the GS.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.............. ,and we have a proof testing act..

The 1968 Firearms Proof Act.


Repealed before it came into effect.

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

1] NEVER assume a judge will go with what you expect in a court decision!!Lots of people including eminent barristers are regulary made aware of that fact.

2]
This is another reason I do belive that gunsmithing should be an apprenticed and qualified trade same as being a doctor or somthing of the like,to prevent somthing basic like excessive headspace or whatever being overseen by some of our "gun plumbers" over here.Being a gun dealer does not make you a gunsmith!!.
3]
If it was a qualified gunsmith building your custom rifle,there would be no way he could legally hand it out to you unless it was legally proof marked.
That is the proof houses job,so he would be coverd on things like barrel weakness,action failure,etc.All stuff the proof house should pick up on,and absolves the GS from liability.
So unless it was negligence in putting it together.IE he used inferior bolts for the stock bolts and the barrel flew back and walloped you in the head.Your arguement would be with the proof house not the GS.

I think you're being a bit harsh there griz , after all self regulation of your own work has been a great success in the building industry :rolleyes:.

Grizzly 45

I dont work in the building industry..
But then again,the building industry is a good example of unregulated cowboys in action.Were firearms built like some Irish houses..:eek:

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I dont work in the building industry..
But then again,the building industry is a good example of unregulated cowboys in action.Were firearms built like some Irish houses..:eek:

I was only takeing the whizz , but then again ......

EWQuinn

rowa wrote: »

buy any taurus revolvers lately ew ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftq9hNpvBc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Research has turned up several instances barrel separations in S&W revolvers and Rugers Redhawks. In one instance some S&W 686 range guns, a scoped Ruger Redhawk, some S&Ws purchased by a state dept of corrections, and a S&W snubby titanium with cracked frame and separated barrel. Like the Taurus, the cases I found had no findings reported except for the Redhawk. Early in production Ruger used a faulty lube in barrel assembly, resulting in overtorquing the barrels, some of which then were then shot off by users.

As to the Taurus, note well how the shooter is covering the sides and cylinder gap with the range bag, not a safe practice. Did he impede the cylinder from fully indexing? Note also in the video the huge flame from the sides at point of ignition, larger than normal, with no apparent discharge at the muzzle. Would need to know if a bullet ever left the barrel, was the previous shot a squib? Also with a range gun, you never know what was shot in it before this, at least the shooter isn't out any of his own money, maybe just a pair of drawers.

Too many questions to conclusively pin the cause on Taurus. Common with these You Tube failures, you never get the final outcome, sometimes nobody wants to go there. In any event, I stand by what I wrote, not having guns "proofed" in US is fine with me and most other shooters. Of the very few failures, in turn very few of those result in any serious injury.

stick shooter

Grizzly 45
2]
This is another reason I do belive that gunsmithing should be an apprenticed and qualified trade same as being a doctor or somthing of the like,to prevent somthing basic like excessive headspace or whatever being overseen by some of our "gun plumbers" over here.Being a gun dealer does not make you a gunsmith!!.

In some ways i would agree with you Grizzly 45 , But that would be counter productive for Irish shooting as it would leave no gunsmiths building rifles here in the Rep Ireland .

Grizzly 45
3]
If it was a qualified gunsmith building your custom rifle,there would be no way he could legally hand it out to you unless it was legally proof marked.
That is the proof houses job,so he would be coverd on things like barrel weakness,action failure,etc.All stuff the proof house should pick up on,and absolves the GS from liability.

I cant see proofing becoming a legal requirement here in Ireland, As the DOJ are happy to leave well enough alone and not proof , and gunsmiths regard it as bo..ox and is one of the biggest legalised criminal activities available within the UK.

Grizzly 45

stick shooter wrote: »

In some ways i would agree with you Grizzly 45 , But that would be counter productive for Irish shooting as it would leave no gunsmiths building rifles here in the Rep Ireland .

How many actual qualified gunsmiths do we have here??
By that I mean people who have done a recognised and certified in some country like the UK,Austria,Germany,etc apprenticeship and master qualification???
With all due respects to those that are out there and have learned from experiance and time in real life and can call themselves gunsmiths in anyones parlance,bar a beuracratic one,as unless they can produce paperwork to say they are,they aint!!
Whats to stop them building the gun sending it to Birmingham ,getting it proof tested,then selling it to their customer??
Wouldnt you rather have somthing passed by a 3rd party that certifies your work,and can be blamed if it fails to meet the certified standard???
If I was a GS,I'd rather have that option..

I cant see proofing becoming a legal requirement here in Ireland, As the DOJ are happy to leave well enough alone and not proof , and gunsmiths regard it as bo..ox and is one of the biggest legalised criminal activities available within the UK.

Not unless we start mass production of firearms here which is about as likely as swine flying.Those that are made here can easily be proofed if wanted or needed in the UK.

Depends on which Gunsmiths you talk to.The Germans consider it a mandatory and welcome point of firearms production,to the point that it shows their handbuilt product[in some cases] is a safe & sound gun to use.

I'd certainly agree that it is a con on things like cutting threads for silencers or re choking a shotgun barrel,that it must be reprooved.

stick shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How many actual qualified gunsmiths do we have here??
By that I mean people who have done a recognised and certified in some country like the UK,Austria,Germany,etc apprenticeship and master qualification???
With all due respects to those that are out there and have learned from experiance and time in real life and can call themselves gunsmiths in anyones parlance,bar a beuracratic one,as unless they can produce paperwork to say they are,they aint!!
Whats to stop them building the gun sending it to Birmingham ,getting it proof tested,then selling it to their customer??
Wouldnt you rather have somthing passed by a 3rd party that certifies your work,and can be blamed if it fails to meet the certified standard???
If I was a GS,I'd rather have that option..

I am unaware of any gunsmith building rifles in the Rep Ireland with any qualification specific to rifle building . As far as i am aware they are virtually self taught with minimal if any training in gunsmithing , prior to receiving a RFD licence and starting business . Which would make all the more common sense, for these gunsmiths to have there rifles proofed .

Not unless we start mass production of firearms here which is about as likely as swine flying.Those that are made here can easily be proofed if wanted or needed in the UK.

Apparently the DOJ are happy with the way it is at the moment and have no intentions on reintroducing proofing .

Kinzig

I am unaware of any gunsmith building rifles in the Rep Ireland with any qualification specific to rifle building . As far as i am aware they are virtually self taught with minimal if any training in gunsmithing , prior to receiving a RFD licence and starting business . Which would make all the more common sense, for these gunsmiths to have there rifles proofed

.


Such a nonsensical post, what qualifications had John Moses browning or Eliphalet remington:rolleyes:

rowa

Kinzig wrote: »

.


Such a nonsensical post, what qualifications had John Moses browning or Eliphalet remington:rolleyes:

yes but they lived in very different times, every second ad on television now is an ambulance chasing solicitor looking for personal injury cases. The fact the gunmakers aren't qualified isn't so much an issue, the fact the guns aren't independently tested may be.

Witcher

If rifle makers here aren't proof testing their rifles and the buyer wants it they should have the stones to demand it..you're paying enough money for the rifle at the end of the day.

It wasn't me!

You're paying money for the rifle. If you want it proofed, I can't imagine any gunsmith telling you to go and shíte, they'll just add the cost of proofing, plus shipping both ways onto your bill. You're paying enough for the rifle, but you'll certainly pay more for proofing, since no gunsmith is going to absorb the extra costs themselves.

Kinzig

Blay wrote: »

If rifle makers here aren't proof testing their rifles and the buyer wants it they should have the stones to demand it..you're paying enough money for the rifle at the end of the day.

The guys here dont make rifles, they assemble them..