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
Jonty wrote: » Is there actually any benefit to having a custom rifle proofed?
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.
Jonty wrote: » Whats involved in the proofing process?
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.
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
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.
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 -
However, on arrival in the EU, every US-made gun has to be proofed before it can be sold.
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.
rowa wrote: » Not this crap again , what has it to do with the chap looking for a lh 7mm mag ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
