Livefast123 Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 It would be interesting to see how you would prove that it has weakened the barrel when in the case of my CZ the barrel was almost double the thickness when it was cut back to 14" and screwcut. LOB in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 Mine was a Sako Quad, they only came in a 22" barrel and I had it chopped to 14" so straight away any RFD worth his salt would have known Strange thing was....it NEVER had any proof marks on it to start with, but when I got it back it was covered....lol It will have had Finnish proof marks, I would imagine. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 My hmr was bought new and came screw cut but has no marks on the barrel muzzle. So are cz breaking the law ? My winchester cf was also bought new but was screw cut at the dealers, it was not shortened just screw cut and mod fitted. again no marks. So if i sold both of these guns 1 would be ok and the other would be illegal to sell or would both be illegal to sell without coughing up a hundred quid or so to get someone to stamp the barrel ? Are the proof house like a protection racket where you have to pay dues ? Basically, the brief who wrote the opinion for Jackson Rifles was saying just that but in more polite terms. I agree with him that a rifle barrel almost certainly won't need proofing simply by virtue of it having been threaded at the muzzle. He makes the same point as regards moderators. It would be very easy for the proof house to prove otherise, especially with mods as many dealers offer them for sale with or without proof. Simply prosecute and settle the matter. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 I went to part ex my Remmy 700 22.250 at a local r.f.d , when he asked had i had it chopped down to 22" i said "yes" and i,ve also paid for it to be re-proofed and stamped, his reply was that he was,nt bothered !! i said he could,nt legally sell it to some one else unless it was proofed, but he was,nt bothered, he said if nobody ask,s i,ll just sell it to them--- at that point i put my rifle back in the case and walked out, never to return to the shop again !!! shaun If it's been cut down then how could it need re-proof? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 This whole issue is nothing more than a wheeze dreamt up by the proof houses to keep themselves in work/business. They had lost too much work due to loss of pistols,s/a rifles and the lack of domestic product,they were running out of work basically. Its one big scam,but they`ve engineered it legally. I agree with everything you say apart from the last part. It has been engineered simply to frighten people into giving them money and not remotely 'legally'. If the proof houses think that their version is correct then they should simply prosecute. After all, a successful prosecution would see them make even more money as it would end, once and for all, the issue of selling unproofed post-manufacture threaded barrels and mods. J. do they need to proof mark rimfire due to lower pressures or is it just centre fire rifles? All firearms must be proofed. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 Interestingly, some providers of liability insurance to RFD's insist on proofing, others dont. Do they insist on proofing of threads or just that the gun be "in proof"? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 It would be interesting to see how you would prove that it has weakened the barrel when in the case of my CZ the barrel was almost double the thickness when it was cut back to 14" and screwcut. LOB in my opinion. Precisely. More importantly, the Proof Act says that to be out of proof the barrel must have been not just weakened but "unduly" weakened. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 for once i'm inclined to side with JonathanL - it's all just a money making scheme which isn't remotely legal, but is presented as such Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 The cost of proving a case against somebody would be absolutly monumental, it would be for the proof house to prove that the barrel had been 'unduly weakened' and they would have to provide expert evidence to prove this which I guess does not come cheap these days which is why I suspect people turn a blind eye and they know that they won't win. Surely the weekest part of the barrel is at the muzzle, as long as the screwcut is thicker than the muzzle then there cannot possibly be a problem. Maybe something else for the shooting orgs to add to the list of things to challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matone Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 No doubt if you cut the unproven threads off ,the gun would be back to being legal to sell ! It`s total nonsense . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 for once i'm inclined to side with JonathanL - it's all just a money making scheme which isn't remotely legal, but is presented as such How dare you!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 No doubt if you cut the unproven threads off ,the gun would be back to being legal to sell ! It`s total nonsense . Yes, that's the thing! It goes back to the question I asked further up the thread about a chopped barrel having to be re-proved. If you have chopped it then it isn't there any more so can't affect the rifle and cannot be subject to proof. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 if the cut off piece has rifling it becomes PART 1,,, and as such is a FIREARM, just because it has been CUT OFF, it still retains part one. This is the LAW.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 if the cut off piece has rifling it becomes PART 1,,, and as such is a FIREARM, just because it has been CUT OFF, it still retains part one. This is the LAW.. Wouldn't it actually require a chamber to be a licensable part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 No, Just the fact it was once part of a part 1 firearm, if gunsmith cuts it off, on his ticket it will read confiscated. it is STILL part of the original Weapon: And he will NOT let you have it back: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 No, Just the fact it was once part of a part 1 firearm, if gunsmith cuts it off, on his ticket it will read confiscated. it is STILL part of the original Weapon: And he will NOT let you have it back: Am I missing something here? Why would anyone want the part back? If the above is true wouldn't you have to inform the Police as the act of cutting it off has become a 'variation'?If this is so,when I had my barrel chopped I have broken the terms of my FAC by not informing licensing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshwarrior Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 if the cut off piece has rifling it becomes PART 1,,, and as such is a FIREARM, just because it has been CUT OFF, it still retains part one. This is the LAW.. I can see where your going or come from with this. And I assume only the prof houses could re classify it as a barrel blank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 if the cut off piece has rifling it becomes PART 1,,, and as such is a FIREARM, just because it has been CUT OFF, it still retains part one. This is the LAW.. I don't know, but that is my understanding as well, you can't have the cut off piece of barrel back, does seem a tad strange but that's what I thought, no idea what legislation covers this though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Where's Jonathan when we need him? I'm not bothered about getting the off-cut back,it's no good to me,but I would like to know if I have dispensed with a part of a firearm which is classified for legal reasons as a firearm,then why does no-one have to inform licensing whenever they chop a barrel? In light of what has taken place,and if what has been suggested by sunsonicat is true,then by law,shouldn't we have to inform licensing as we do when getting rid of a firearm which isn't to be repaced with another? It's not a 1 for 1 is it,as you can't chop one bit off and add another! Edited May 16, 2013 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Majyk Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Well i do hope no notification for a barrel chop is required, i had another shooter (i know and respect) say it wasnt needed by law (but ofcourse will needed to be re-proofed if i ever want to sell it, unlikely it was my first gun! wanna keep it till im dead!), he chopped a bit off my 1451 .22lr and screw cut it down to 16" to optimise it for subsonic. disposal of the off cut was VERY effective! cut it straight down the length with an angle grinder into 2 seperate pieces,good luck putting a bullet through that , i then chucked the two pieces in my forge and hammered them into a knife blank! and a very fine knife it made as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) if the cut off piece has rifling it becomes PART 1,,, and as such is a FIREARM, just because it has been CUT OFF, it still retains part one. This is the LAW.. It isn't and it doesn't. It is not a component part as it cannot be fitted to a firearm. It is not a firearm as it does not meet the definition of the word in the Act. It is the same status as a barrel blank. J. No, Just the fact it was once part of a part 1 firearm, if gunsmith cuts it off, on his ticket it will read confiscated. it is STILL part of the original Weapon: And he will NOT let you have it back: No it won't. It isn't part of a firearm so doesn't need to be recorded anywhere. J. Edited May 16, 2013 by JonathanL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Am I missing something here? Why would anyone want the part back? If the above is true wouldn't you have to inform the Police as the act of cutting it off has become a 'variation'?If this is so,when I had my barrel chopped I have broken the terms of my FAC by not informing licensing. You haven't breached the terms of your cert or the law. Even if you did it your self and kept the part you are not in unlawful possession of it as it is neither a firearm nor a component part of a firearm. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Some people ask for the removed barrel part to make a thread protector - in answer to an earlier question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Majyk Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 To Jonathan: Can i ask how you know all this for sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delburt0 Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) According to syss aka rim fire magic, it only needs reproofing if the gunsmith deems that the shortening or work carried out has significantly weakened the gun , on the other hand Birmingham proof house says that if any metal is taken off any gun it needs reproofing Edited May 16, 2013 by delburt0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.