Do we need mandatory proof testing anymore?

[JonathanL]

As the title says - do we need to proof test every single firearm which is sold in the UK any more?

 

Personally, I don't think we do. When it comes right down to it modern guns do not blow up in a catastrophic way which presents a danger to people. The USA does not have mandatory proof testing of guns and they probably have the most sales of civilian firearms in the world. There is not even a volutary scheme to proof test guns. Given that our American cousins are not shy to run to court over even minor problems I think it says a lot about the subject. Also, we do not hear of guns blowing up in the USA due to design or manufacturing issues which strongly suggets that there isn't a problem which proof testing claims to prevent happening.

 

So, is it time to finally do away with outdated practice?

 

J.

[Imperfection]

I think its outdated and un-necesary. The guns safety should be evaluated by its user like how the US does and they dont appear to have a problem with firearms constantly exploding in their faces.Also,if you shorten a rifles barrel it has be re-proofed (if you wish to sell it on) which is absurd because you've done nothing to alter its integrity.

 

Armed forces firearms dont require proofing so why civvies.

[Wharf Rat]

I recently had a query about a Remington I own. I contacted the manufacturers, who told me that they proof test in house and warranty up to 12000 psi for that particular gun. I should imagine that they have some kind of test to ensure that they can guarantee their products.

 

As for the UK, i am quite happy that imported guns are tested. I nearly bought an Ithica 37 that turned out to be a Chinese copy a while ago. Having supplied thousands of pressure tested pipe fittings etc, and seen the failure rate of some of the Far Eastern stuff that we experimented with, I would be very wary of untested guns from low end Asian suppliers.

 

As for whether the proofing process could be modernised or improved - I should imagine so. Imperfection points out one absurdity.

[Cannon]

I have heard of firearms that haven't passed proofing for numerous reasons. A batch of Mossberg shotguns was apparently rejected because the barrel stamps on the outside of the barrel were supposedly visible on the inside of the barrel to the point where they could be read. There are certain manufacturers that should be subject to mandatory proofing I think, but then again what's to stop a major manufacturer who has an excellent track record from producing a faulty firearm?

[Scully]

Wasn't proofing introduced to protect the British gun trade from the glut of cheap shotguns entering this country from the continent in the 19th century?Nowadays it seems it serves no other purpose than a revenue gathering vehicle.

[chrispti]

Wasn't proofing introduced to protect the British gun trade from the glut of cheap shotguns entering this country from the continent in the 19th century?Nowadays it seems it serves no other purpose than a revenue gathering vehicle.

 

 

Which is why alot of new imported guns (the silver pigeon 1 for example) are not sent to the Birmingham proof house, to keep the cost down.

 

They are proofed in the country they were made in which is good enough.

[mpk]

I agree i have owned a urika2 and a silver pigeon 1 of which both are italian superior proofed but.do not have the fluer de lise

 

They are both sold as steel shot proof and i.will and have put a lot of hp steel through the urika and will be with the silver pigeon.

 

For me it is purely a price and not a safety issue.

 

Obvousliy old full choke game guns are a slightly.different story

[bedwards1966]

I think that it is an outdated procedure. As JonathanL has said, not having the proof system works well for the Americans, so what reason could there be that it would not work here?

 

Perhaps the way to answer it is to find out how may guns that appear to be in acceptable condition (i.e usable, no excessive wear etc) fail the proof testing? If the figure is 0 then that answers the question.

[Caisterboy]

I recently had a query about a Remington I own. I contacted the manufacturers, who told me that they proof test in house and warranty up to 12000 psi for that particular gun. I should imagine that they have some kind of test to ensure that they can guarantee their products.

 

As for the UK, i am quite happy that imported guns are tested. I nearly bought an Ithica 37 that turned out to be a Chinese copy a while ago. Having supplied thousands of pressure tested pipe fittings etc, and seen the failure rate of some of the Far Eastern stuff that we experimented with, I would be very wary of untested guns from low end Asian suppliers.

 

 

:thumbs:

I would not trust these cheap imitators with "doing the right thing" as far as any gun i would own. Why would anyone do away with something that protects us from poor quality products and that doesn't cause us any grief? - i hope its not to save on cost as this would never be passed on to the customer anyway

[JonathanL]

I think its outdated and un-necesary. The guns safety should be evaluated by its user like how the US does and they dont appear to have a problem with firearms constantly exploding in their faces.Also,if you shorten a rifles barrel it has be re-proofed (if you wish to sell it on) which is absurd because you've done nothing to alter its integrity.

 

Armed forces firearms dont require proofing so why civvies.

 

It doesn't. The proof house say differently but they exist to make money. I'm not aware that anyone has ever been prosecuted for this and I very much doubt that anyone ever would be.

 

The wording in the Proof Act is (from memory) if you 'unduly reduce it in strength' then it has to be re-proved. Chopping a barrel at the muzzle-end cannot reduce the strength of what is left let alone 'unduly' reduce it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

I recently had a query about a Remington I own. I contacted the manufacturers, who told me that they proof test in house and warranty up to 12000 psi for that particular gun. I should imagine that they have some kind of test to ensure that they can guarantee their products.

 

As for the UK, i am quite happy that imported guns are tested. I nearly bought an Ithica 37 that turned out to be a Chinese copy a while ago. Having supplied thousands of pressure tested pipe fittings etc, and seen the failure rate of some of the Far Eastern stuff that we experimented with, I would be very wary of untested guns from low end Asian suppliers.

 

As for whether the proofing process could be modernised or improved - I should imagine so. Imperfection points out one absurdity.

 

That's quite interesting. Was it just a look alike or an actual fake? I can see the point of proof testing stuff like this but in the case of a fake I don't think it will make any difference as they will just fake the proof marks too.

 

J.

Edited July 23, 2012 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

I think that it is an outdated procedure. As JonathanL has said, not having the proof system works well for the Americans, so what reason could there be that it would not work here?

 

Perhaps the way to answer it is to find out how may guns that appear to be in acceptable condition (i.e usable, no excessive wear etc) fail the proof testing? If the figure is 0 then that answers the question.

 

I've been thinking of making a FoI request to get the answers. I suspect that if the answer isn't actually zero it will be very close to it. Even then, I think that total catastrophic failures will be very, very rare indeed.

 

J.

[Livefast123]

In my opinion it's an outdated procedure that needs to be removed from firearms legislation, after all, do we get every car proof tested incase they are involved in a crash or blow up?

 

Apparently my CZ is out of proof because I had the barrel shortened and screw cut even though the screw cut is far thicker than the end of the barrel that was cut off

 

It is just a profit making exercise and one that makes it harder to buy/sell secondhand guns so Dave isn't going to get rid of it. In this world that is full of litigation, do you think a manufacturer would risk producing a dangerous firearm.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Livefast123

[Imperfection]

Something else to add with regards to proofing.A while back a batch of WW2 rifles comming into the country were sent to be proof fired and on their return it was found a number of them still had cosmoline packed down the barrel...along with a new proof stamp ontop.

[matone]

In my opinion it's an outdated procedure that needs to be removed from firearms legislation, after all, do we get every car proof tested incase they are involved in a crash or blow up?

 

Apparently my CZ is out of proof because I had the barrel shortened and screw cut even though the screw cut is far thicker than the end of the barrel that was cut off

 

It is just a profit making exercise and one that makes it harder to buy/sell secondhand guns so Dave isn't going to get rid of it. In this world that is full of litigation, do you think a manufacturer would risk producing a dangerous firearm.

 

IMHO the reproofing of screwcut barrels and moderators is just a fund raiser to replace all the pistol/semi auto rifle work that

the Proof Houses lost when they were legislated against.It`s a load of cobblers !

[JonathanL]

Something else to add with regards to proofing.A while back a batch of WW2 rifles comming into the country were sent to be proof fired and on their return it was found a number of them still had cosmoline packed down the barrel...along with a new proof stamp ontop.

 

Funny you should mention that. We have a T8 moderator with a proof stamp on it which clearly says '.308' which is funny as it's a .223. Fortunately the chap who owned it never used it! Now, I suppose that the internals and top part may havebeen changed but I don't understand why you would proof (and stamp) the body section which isn't the bit which determines the calibre.

 

J.

 

IMHO the reproofing of screwcut barrels and moderators is just a fund raiser to replace all the pistol/semi auto rifle work that

the Proof Houses lost when they were legislated against.It`s a load of cobblers !

 

That is essentially what the Barrister who drafted an opinion on the matter for Jackson rifles said.

 

J.

[deershooter]

If we didn't have it there would be more 4 fingered cabbage cultivators and at least it stops the bodge smiths on here from removing our fingers and eyes

Excellent idea to keep it. should we do away with the GAS SAFE REGULATIONS AS WELL

 

its only there for safety

 

Deershooter

[HDAV]

In my opinion it's an outdated procedure that needs to be removed from firearms legislation, after all, do we get every car proof tested incase they are involved in a crash or blow up?

there are type approvals which are used and SVA tests for none type approvals (limited production) CIP regs are well documented the issue is quite big I believe police firearms are proofed military is different and there are NATO specs but I believe there is type approval which would seem the obvious answer subject to suitable quality assurance every been through UL assurance the US stuff makes proof testing seem a breeze and cheap

[matone]

Funny you should mention that. We have a T8 moderator with a proof stamp on it which clearly says '.308' which is funny as it's a .223. Fortunately the chap who owned it never used it! Now, I suppose that the internals and top part may havebeen changed but I don't understand why you would proof (and stamp) the body section which isn't the bit which determines the calibre.

 

J.

 

 

 

That is essentially what the Barrister who drafted an opinion on the matter for Jackson rifles said.

 

J.

 

Damn !!! Didn`t know I had such valuable opinions !Bet he charged a fortune for his lol!

[Livefast123]

Manufacturers should have new models of firearm type approved at a high standard then there should be periodic testing of batches by the manufacturer making sure that they take the responsibility for the firearm being safe from new.

 

Proof is pointless as it just proves at a certain point in history that a gun could take a said load without blowing up. Who is to say that the same gun 20 years down the line and still in proof won't fail under the same load.

 

Guns that fail usually fail because of obstructions in the barrel or dodgy 'afterburner' home loads which proofing does nothing to prevent. I would like to see the percentage of new guns that actually fail if anybody has that info?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Livefast123

[matone]

Manufacturers should have new models of firearm type approved at a high standard then there should be periodic testing of batches by the manufacturer making sure that they take the responsibility for the firearm being safe from new.

 

Proof is pointless as it just proves at a certain point in history that a gun could take a said load without blowing up. Who is to say that the same gun 20 years down the line and still in proof won't fail under the same load.

 

Guns that fail usually fail because of obstructions in the barrel or dodgy 'afterburner' home loads which proofing does nothing to prevent. I would like to see the percentage of new guns that actually fail if anybody has that info?

 

You`re spot on there,over the years I`ve seen many ancient relics being used with horrendously

pitted barrels,loose ribs and actions,and with overly powerfull shells.Not one ever `let go` to

my knowledge.Every failure has been due to a blockage of some sort.

I would guess that the more modern,overly engineered,guns will stand just about anything!

[Graham M]

So, on the basis of what's been posted on here, we could get rid of the MOT for cars as well. Because let's face it, an MOT is only worth the paper it was written on, on the day it was passed. So why do we need it?

G.M

[kent]

If we didn't have it there would be more 4 fingered cabbage cultivators and at least it stops the bodge smiths on here from removing our fingers and eyes

Excellent idea to keep it. should we do away with the GAS SAFE REGULATIONS AS WELL

 

its only there for safety

 

Deershooter

 

I am in full agreement, some so called smiths of today scare the beegybies out of me.

[JonathanL]

So, on the basis of what's been posted on here, we could get rid of the MOT for cars as well. Because let's face it, an MOT is only worth the paper it was written on, on the day it was passed. So why do we need it?

G.M

 

The MOT and proof testing are too utterly different concepts. Are you saying that guns should be re-tested each year?

 

J.

[HDAV]

So, on the basis of what's been posted on here, we could get rid of the MOT for cars as well. Because let's face it, an MOT is only worth the paper it was written on, on the day it was passed. So why do we need it?

G.M

Cars are type approved and don't require an MOT from the factory for 3 years after registration.... HGV and PSV have to go for MOT from the factory. Reasoning the factory defects are too potentially lethal to trust to the factory so VOSA inspect them before road legal.... The retesting idea is a good one make every one take all firearms to a certified test centre every year to be tested!