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.
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.
CJhaughey wrote: » Wasn't there a proof house here in the ROI a long time ago?
Grizzly 45 wrote: » .............. ,and we have a proof testing act..
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.
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:
rowa wrote: » buy any taurus revolvers lately ew ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftq9hNpvBc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
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.
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 .
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 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..
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.
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
Kinzig wrote: » . Such a nonsensical post, what qualifications had John Moses browning or Eliphalet remington:rolleyes:
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.
Kinzig wrote: » The guys here dont make rifles, they assemble them..
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Quite a pertinent point.... A gunsmith should be able to take a lump of metal,a barrel blank and a lump of walnut,and build for you your custom rifle out of those raw materials.
rowa wrote: » 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.
Blay wrote: » I'm well aware of that.
Kinzig wrote: » Then why call them rifle makers in the first place:rolleyes:
Kinzig wrote: » The point I was making was that the gun Industry was built by guys with no qualifications..
I personally don't believe a gunsmith needs to be able to build their own action from bar stock. That is a rather restrictive definition. It would certainly exclude a great number of artist gunmakers, like Biesen and Martini. It would be crass to describe what they do as mere assembly. The stature of a gunsmith should be measured from the finished article, and a beautiful, flawlessly functional rifle built off an old military Mauser action is certainly as good as that art gets.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » I see..So Holland& Holland,Purdey,Boss,Merkel,Ferlach,Bereatta etc,etc have been wasting their time for generations hand building their recivers and actions and barrells???? Wonder how they managed in the pre industrial age when every gun was handmade???Not to mind charging the Earth for the hand made part of the whole affair.
It wasn't me! wrote: » 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.
