Screw cutting and Proof.

[Gunman]

I spoke to the Birmingham Proof House this morning and raised the question of screw cutting and proof .

Please bear in mind that the Proof Houses are the authority and we in the trade must work under their interpretation and application of the law , no matter what we may think or believe .There have been no changes to the rules .

To put it briefly they maintain that any rifle barrel that is threaded after original proof becomes out of proof .

If it is your own gun and you have it threaded the gun is rendered out of proof .This is between you and the person threading the barrel and on the understanding that you are aware of the fact , as here is nothing in law , to prevent you from owning or using it . It only becomes relevant if you later wish to sell the gun .

However if the gun is taken to a third party , that is the shop you get to do the work takes it to another to do the actual work , then that person is obliged and required under the rules of proof to have the gun reproofed before it is retuned to the shop and on to you the owner .

 

I do understand all the arguments and have made them myself .I realise that within the Proof Act there are many contradictions , as with a shotgun for example ,if I bore out .010" that's .005" per side the gun will be out of proof . if however I file off .010" of the outside to remove marks then this has no effect on the guns proof status .

But as said they set the rules and we in the trade are bound by them .

[matone]

And if you cut the threaded portion off ,it`s back in proof .......

[subsonicnat]

I spoke to the Birmingham Proof House this morning and raised the question of screw cutting and proof .

Please bear in mind that the Proof Houses are the authority and we in the trade must work under their interpretation and application of the law , no matter what we may think or believe .There have been no changes to the rules .

To put it briefly they maintain that any rifle barrel that is threaded after original proof becomes out of proof .

If it is your own gun and you have it threaded the gun is rendered out of proof .This is between you and the person threading the barrel and on the understanding that you are aware of the fact , as here is nothing in law , to prevent you from owning or using it . It only becomes relevant if you later wish to sell the gun .

However if the gun is taken to a third party , that is the shop you get to do the work takes it to another to do the actual work , then that person is obliged and required under the rules of proof to have the gun reproofed before it is retuned to the shop and on to you the owner .

 

I do understand all the arguments and have made them myself .I realise that within the Proof Act there are many contradictions , as with a shotgun for example ,if I bore out .010" that's .005" per side the gun will be out of proof . if however I file off .010" of the outside to remove marks then this has no effect on the guns proof status .

But as said they set the rules and we in the trade are bound by them .

VINDICATED:

[Gunman]

Correct !

[Scully]

I spoke to the Birmingham Proof House this morning and raised the question of screw cutting and proof .

Please bear in mind that the Proof Houses are the authority and we in the trade must work under their interpretation and application of the law , no matter what we may think or believe .There have been no changes to the rules .

To put it briefly they maintain that any rifle barrel that is threaded after original proof becomes out of proof .

If it is your own gun and you have it threaded the gun is rendered out of proof .This is between you and the person threading the barrel and on the understanding that you are aware of the fact , as here is nothing in law , to prevent you from owning or using it . It only becomes relevant if you later wish to sell the gun .

However if the gun is taken to a third party , that is the shop you get to do the work takes it to another to do the actual work , then that person is obliged and required under the rules of proof to have the gun reproofed before it is retuned to the shop and on to you the owner .

 

I do understand all the arguments and have made them myself .I realise that within the Proof Act there are many contradictions , as with a shotgun for example ,if I bore out .010" that's .005" per side the gun will be out of proof . if however I file off .010" of the outside to remove marks then this has no effect on the guns proof status .

But as said they set the rules and we in the trade are bound by them .

So which part of this is law, and where does that leave the RFD's who have carried out this work for us in the past? They haven't sold anything back to the owner, they have merely charged the owner for work carried out by a third party, and charged the owner a premium on top, which is why we cut out the dealer and went direct to the bloke who carries out the work. What or which law has our RFD broken?

[subsonicnat]

It only becomes relevant if you later wish to sell the gun .

 

This Part: From the moment of Cutting to the SELLING.

if it blows for any reason, it will be run through the Proof house and checked at which point the gun was altered.

Who did the work and why was it not submitted BACK to Proof.

Then the **** hits the fan.

[Gunman]

Scully , I think that is one for you to take up with the Proof House .This is some thing that has been ignored for years ,but rulings have been made partly because of the CIP agreements . I do not know the answers to you questions I have merely pointed out the Proof Law as stated by the Proof houses . Until there has ben test cases , no one will know for sure exactly where we all stand . I must have treaded dozens of rifles over my working life and never thought any thing of doing so .There have been many hundreds of .22's that have been screw cut and sold that were technically out of proof so can you take a rifle back to a shop you bought it from 20 years ago and demand your money back as you were sold an "out of Proof gun " .

Problem is there is a whole can of worms for which there is no definitive answers as yet and there are not likely to be any in the near future .

Edited February 12, 2015 by Gunman

[Dunkield]

VINDICATED:

 

Not. You said it was the law and it isn't - sorry

Dekers will be along soon to point that out you

[Gunman]

It only becomes relevant if you later wish to sell the gun .

 

This Part: From the moment of Cutting to the SELLING.

if it blows for any reason, it will be run through the Proof house and checked at which point the gun was altered.

Who did the work and why was it not submitted BACK to Proof.

Then the **** hits the fan.

I do not know of one case where a barrel that has ben correctly screw cut has blown . It is also a fact that guns that have been factory screw cut bear no marks to say so . So there will be a question of proof as to when it was screw cut .

 

Another silly point . If you buy a new rifle pay for it and the ask the dealer to have it threaded ,he can do so without any law being broken , provided he does it himself . If however you buy the rifle have it screw cut and then pay for it you are being sold an out of proof gun .Which is against the law and the seller can be fined up to £5000

[Scully]

It only becomes relevant if you later wish to sell the gun .

 

This Part: From the moment of Cutting to the SELLING.

if it blows for any reason, it will be run through the Proof house and checked at which point the gun was altered.

Who did the work and why was it not submitted BACK to Proof.

Then the **** hits the fan.

But 'this part' still doesn't make it against the law to not have a rifle reproofed after screw cut. Furthermore, if 'it blows', why will it 'be run through the proof house and checked at which point the gun was altered'? There is no requirement in law to submit a blown gun to the proof house as far as I know.

Who can prove who did the work when there is no paper trail? I certainly couldn't prove who did mine.

The fact remains no one is breaking the law by not having their rifles reproofed after screw cutting, and if they want to sell it to someone else at anytime, they can either remove the thread or write 'given' or 'gifted' on the other persons certificate, and thereby no law is broken.

[subsonicnat]

Not. You said it was the law and it isn't - sorry

Dekers will be along soon to point that out you

l Would be very dissapointed if he didn't.

Sometimes a flick with a feather can be as painful as a baseball bat.eh.

[Scully]

Scully , I think that is one for you to take up with the Proof House .This is some thing that has been ignored for years ,but rulings have been made partly because of the CIP agreements . I do not know the answers to you questions I have merely pointed out the Proof Law as stated by the Proof houses . Until there has ben test cases , no one will know for sure exactly where we all stand . I must have treaded dozens of rifles over my working life and never thought any thing of doing so .There have been many hundreds of .22's that have been screw cut and sold that were technically out of proof so can you take a rifle back to a shop you bought it from 20 years ago and demand your money back as you were sold an "out of Proof gun " .

Problem is there is a whole can of worms for which there is no definitive answers as yet and there are not likely to be any in the near future .

I meant no offence, so apologise if offence was taken; I am genuinely interested.

I thought Jackson Rifles had sought clarification to this matter in court, but i may be wrong.

[Scully]

 

Another silly point . If you buy a new rifle pay for it and the ask the dealer to have it threaded ,he can do so without any law being broken , provided he does it himself . If however you buy the rifle have it screw cut and then pay for it you are being sold an out of proof gun .Which is against the law and the seller can be fined up to £5000

Agreed, that is a silly point, and one I'm not sure I understand.

In both cases the buyer has asked to have the work done AFTER the sale has been agreed? But the law has only been broken if money actually changes hands for the sale of the rifle (at which point it must be entered on the buyers ticket as sold) AFTER the work has been done? So if the buyer has the gun entered on their ticket as 'sold' PRIOR to the work being done no law has been broken? If I've got this right then this would tally with no offence having being committed as the RFD hasn't in fact sold the gun out of proof, only receiving payment for doing the work AFTER the sale, and therefore no entry has been made on the owners ticket after the work. Have I got this right?

Think I'm ready for a lie down.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Scully

[Dekers]

This goes round and round, the Proof houses do not make the Law, they administer the Law, but they interpret it to suit themselves. So seeking opinion from the Proof Houses will be a waste of time. Just the same, I go back a long way with Richard Mabbitt, the London Proof Master, I knew him for many years before he got the job, next time I bump into him I'll open the Hornets nest!

 

However, this has been well documented in the Jackson Rifles Council opinion, I note the Proof houses have sought no such legal opinion.

 

The Proof houses have never bought a case and nobody has ever been prosecuted for selling a cut/threaded rifle which has not been re proofed. If this is such a clear cut LAW as some appear to suggest then why is it not being enforced?

 

Any argument about not wanting to be the test case is irrelevant, there is only opinion and interpretation of the law here, there is NO specific law.

 

I have bought and sold threaded rifles not re proofed, from and to RFD, I am not the only one here, how come all these RFD at not visiting Her Majesty if this is such a heinous crime?

Edited February 13, 2015 by Dekers

[matone]

It was all just a money making scheme dreamt up by the proof houses to replace their dwindling workloads .

[subsonicnat]

It was all just a money making scheme dreamt up by the proof houses to replace their dwindling workloads .

If You READ Gunmans Report From the proof House, and Written very well I might add.

"It is Not A NEW Ruleing" .

its like riding a bike on the pavement or having no lights,

Its just gone Lax. Doesn`t mean to say it is not there.

Wanted from the horses mouth, well the guy wrote what he was told by The Proof House. Well Done That Man.

[matone]

I did say `was`.I did read the OP and it is a good synopsis of the current sad state of affairs.This does not make the Proof Houses stance sensible or right.

Edited February 13, 2015 by matone

[subsonicnat]

I did say `was`.I did read the OP and it is a good synopsis of the current sad state of affairs.This does not make the Proof Houses stance sensible or right.

It is not a sad state of affairs my friend, in the reading it does state "ACT" , Now I don`t know if this is proof house act or parliament act.

But the Ruling was made, by whoever to protect people form dangerous guns, that people played with, but still deemed SAFE.

it was to "PROTECT" people, includeing army guns etc.. Even BLACK POWDER has to be Proofed in Batches.

Which I might add, A Mortar which resides outside the Proof house Doors, They Even invite The Mayor to that one. .

[lister22]

are the proof houses marking the muzzle not the breech to force reproof

[Old farrier]

Hi

Very interesting thread and felt I should comment as I've hopped in and out so much 😀😃

 

Just my view

Don't know about the law and its interpretation is open to debate

But I can see the sense to re proof after work is done on the barrel of a gun

I've seen a fair number done by (experts) off center done with a die not lathe cut and badly lathe cut ones

So I see it as a safety get out clause safety for the gun owner and more so the person stood beside them

Now just my thoughts if you intentionally render a gun out of proof by work you have done and a accident occurred how would you stand

Personally screw cut my 222 and then for peace of mind sent it for proof (it passed )

Also note that I think if I screw cut a gun for a freind and they wernt present for the entire time as I'm not a rfd I would be breaking the rules (law?)

Just a few thoughts

All the best

Of

[Bazooka Joe]

On a side note, how many have actually failed the proof test after screw cutting.?

 

Is it a lot, a few, or any at all, TBH I've never heard of any.

[subsonicnat]

Hi, Joe,

Fair Comment, But it doesn't alter the Fact the Gun Should be Sent For Re-Proof.

It Appears, None have Failed Because They All Have Not been Submitted ::

As Stated so Well by the Thread, Even if enough metal is removed from the DIa to remove Rust or Dents,

it should still, to be (In-Proof),,Submitted,,(COST),,And not Wanting to Know are the Culprits Here.

[Old farrier]

Hi Jo

Don't know how many failed but I do know how many I messed up learning how to screw cut them I was practicing on scrap barrels

It is a precision job and a lot of materiel to remove from some of the heavy bull barrels and very important to leave the correct amount to put the thread into

Best advice pay a proffesional gunsmith and go for re proof

Just my thoughts

All the best

Of

[Scully]

Fair Comment, But it doesn't alter the Fact the Gun Should be Sent For Re-Proof. This doesn't seem to be sinking in, whether it's deliberate or not I'm not sure, so I'll try again. If you send your gun to a RFD to have it screw cut it does not have to be submitted for proof because even if the gun has now been taken out of proof it has not been sold, the gun already belongs to the owner and therefore no entry is required by law to be made on the owners ticket. It is only an offence to SELL an unproved or out of proof gun. No sale has taken place and therefore nothing to enter on owners ticket.

It Appears, None have Failed Because They All Have Not been Submitted :: How can failing to submit a gun for proof be an indication of whether a gun fails or not following screw cut? The suggestion is ridiculous. Those guns which have been screw cut and not reproofed are still merrily shooting away as they were designed to do, the lack of proof has no bearing on any guns ability to withstand those pressures it was designed to cope with.

As Stated so Well by the Thread, Even if enough metal is removed from the DIa to remove Rust or Dents,

it should still, to be (In-Proof),,Submitted,,(COST),,And not Wanting to Know are the Culprits Here. I have no idea what you mean by 'culprits'. No one is guilty of any offence by not submitting their rifles for reproof following screw cut. It is not an offence.

[bluesj]

As said in another thread I think the law is worded something like "Any barrel that is altered in a way that unduly reduce its strength is deemed to be unproved"

It doesn't say any thing about screw cutting or filing out rust pits or dents of anything else. So does screw cutting unduly reduce the strength of a barrel?

If the barrel of a .50 was threaded for a 5/8" mod then i would say yes if a .22lr was cut for a 1/2" mod the probably not.

If the person doing the work believes the work has not unduly reduced the strength of the barrel then it is not out of proof as I see it.

I don't think the law has ever been tested in court so if I were screw cutting a barrel for someone I'd probably get it reproofed, wouldn't want to be involved in the test case. On the other hand I have not got a problem with using a rifle that has been screw cut and not sent for reproofing if the workman ship looks good.