subsonicnat Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 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. See item one of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 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. Sorry it is not up to You to decide. Its the Proof act. And as ACTS are usualy Debated in Parliament, I cannot see where your coming from?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesj Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 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. Sorry it is not up to You to decide. Its the Proof act. And as ACTS are usualy Debated in Parliament, I cannot see where your coming from?. Because the act says that if an alteration unduly reduces the strength of a barrel it is deemed to be out of proof there fore if the alteration dose not unduly reduce the strength of the barrel then it is still in proof. I don't think that screw cutting does unduly reduce the strength of the barrel (if done properly). So it would be for ME to decide if I should send my rifles for reproofing if I were to sell them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 See item one of this thread. I've seen all the 'items' in this thread, and so far no one, including you, can provide a link to which law has been broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 You can lead a Horse, Etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Exactly. You can lead a horse to water but you still can't get it to prove what it claims. Stubborn creatures, horses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I spoke to the Birmingham Proof House this morning and raised the question of screw cutting and proof . 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 . They can maintain all they like, but it does not make it factually lawful as per the example shown in your last sentence. As Scully has correctly pointed out, the Act is most clear on this matter and what you quote the Proof House stated is clearly not correct. The only conjecture is whether or not the screw threading has unduly reduced the barrel strength and if it has indeed done so, then the barrel must be reproved prior to offering it for sale as laid out in section 108 of the act. Many mechanical engineers will testify that the act of threading a barrel with the appropriate thread, has not unduly weakened the barrel. The Proof Act states............... A Small Arm shall not be sold or exchanged, or be attempted to be sold or exchanged, or be exposed or kept for Sale or Exchange, or be exported or attempted to be exported or be kept for Exportation, unless and until the Barrel or every Barrel thereof has been duly proved at the Proof House or a Branch Proof House of either of the Two Companies, or some other public Proof House established by Law, and duly marked as proved. A Small Arm shall not be pawned or pledged, or be attempted to be pawned or pledged, or taken in Pawn or Pledge, unless and until the Barrel or every Barrel thereof has been duly proved at the Proof House or a Branch Proof House of either of the Two Companies, or some other public Proof House established by Law, and duly marked as proved. You can lead a Horse, Etc etc. Indeed ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 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 Hi OF, Thanks for the reply. I've a genuine interest in this as I'm a Toolmaker by trade. I've heard different views concerning the proofing of barrels after screw cutting, + reading the replies, it's looking very much like a grey area regarding whether you do or don't send it to the proof house. My opinion is that it's a money spinner for the proof houses. One thing that crosses my mind is, you remove material & screw cut the thread, but when fitting the moderator you are adding metal back onto the O/D of the thread, theoretically strengthening he barrel back to practically it's original diameter. Might just be me having an engineering background, but if the collar of the mod has more material than has been removed to screw cut the thread, the end of the barrel has to be stronger than it originally was in the first place. Just my 2cents, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Hi OF, Thanks for the reply. I've a genuine interest in this as I'm a Toolmaker by trade. I've heard different views concerning the proofing of barrels after screw cutting, + reading the replies, it's looking very much like a grey area regarding whether you do or don't send it to the proof house. My opinion is that it's a money spinner for the proof houses. One thing that crosses my mind is, you remove material & screw cut the thread, but when fitting the moderator you are adding metal back onto the O/D of the thread, theoretically strengthening he barrel back to practically it's original diameter. Might just be me having an engineering background, but if the collar of the mod has more material than has been removed to screw cut the thread, the end of the barrel has to be stronger than it originally was in the first place. Just my 2cents, Hi appreciate your reply and thoughts and agree with you in a lot of what you say However that only applies if the moderater is on the gun and if its made from a equal strength material Like I said I don't know the law and for peace of mind sent mine for proof The solution is simple over barrel shroud with a screw tightener no need to screw cut All the best Of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 One thing that crosses my mind is, you remove material & screw cut the thread, but when fitting the moderator you are adding metal back onto the O/D of the thread, theoretically strengthening he barrel back to practically it's original diameter. Might just be me having an engineering background, but if the collar of the mod has more material than has been removed to screw cut the thread, the end of the barrel has to be stronger than it originally was in the first place. This very point had occurred to me also, and mate in fact pointed this out to Teague when he had them fit multichokes to an auto shotgun of his. It was still sent for reproof at a cost of around 100 quid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Hi Borrowed this from the net Example of bad work Cut off and re done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Any quote, direct or indirect from the Proof Houses is NOT LAW, it is a quote from a commercial organisation, simple as. The Government makes the Law in this country, not the proof houses, they interpret/administer/act within any part that effects them, as do we, RFD, Police, everyone. There is NO part of any of the Proof Acts that says you have to get a rifle re proofed after a cut or thread, the phrase is materially weakened (or words to that effect), some appear blind to this fact and simply keep saying the proof house says you have to get it re proofed, ask them if you don't believe me. The proof houses maintain their stance for commercial reasons, they interpret the Act to suit their pocket, if they were so certain of their position they would seek out an opportunity to bring an action against an unproved gun owner in these circumstances to set a precedent and increase their revenue stream. The simple fact is they will lose if they did, firstly because it is Councils opinion they do not have a case, metallurgists/engineers/scientists will be brought from all corners of the world to show they don't have a case and they themselves have never failed a cut/threaded barrel to my knowledge due to it being materially weakened, so their own tests show cut/tread of a barrel does not materially weaken it. A chunk of their revenue stream would be removed when they lost the case, so they are happy to maintain the status quo and perpetuate the myth. Now, if you want to get any work checked for your own peace of mind by sending if for re proof then fine, but legally there is nothing that says you must. Have a nice day. Edited February 14, 2015 by Dekers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesj Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for guns passing or failing proof testing and the reasons for any failures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 However that only applies if the moderater is on the gun and if its made from a equal strength material I would think every time you used your rifle the mod would be fitted, but I take your point on the strength of the material... The more I think of it, the greyer this area gets, I think Dekers puts it in perspective. Scully's post on the multichokes being fitted is the scenario that made me make my post above.,seems to be a bit like forced subscription to me, bit like the TV license. It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for guns passing or failing proof testing and the reasons for any failures. I asked the same question in post 21, but it seems that's a grey area as well, has anyone an answer.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunman Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 OK I have heard you all and may I suggest that you all get together , employ legal council and get a court ruling on the matter . Personally I no longer thread barrels and as I will be retiring in just over a year any way my interest in this is largely academic . I put up my post in order to clarify the Proof house position which has remained as I stated in my original post . It is not a question of who is right and who is wrong at this stage , it is all about who enforces the law and who can be prosecuted for any infringement . The British Proof Authorities are subject to the rules laid down by CIP so it is not just the British Proof Act's its a whole raft of other rules that as members of CIP they are obliged to abide by , it is this member ship that has started this whole area of proof in the first place as up until then and combined with the popularity of moderators on full bore rifles , not ever considered to be a problem . There are numerous on going disputes between the trade and the Proof houses at present this is only one of them and until it is fully resolved , we in the trade have to cover our own backs , so must err on the side of caution on this . Sorry if that sounds selfish . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 There are numerous on going disputes between the trade and the Proof houses at present this is only one of them and until it is fully resolved , we in the trade have to cover our own backs , so must err on the side of caution on this . Sorry if that sounds selfish . Not selfish at all; I'd probably do the same if my business depended on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 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. Hi Gunman, since you have direct contact with the proof houses, can you give me an answer to my post quoted above.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunman Posted February 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Joe, I have personally never heard of any rifle actually failing . I have seen a few that should/would have failed due to the abysmal workmanship that some one has done/had done ,no doubt by a mate to save a few pounds but that's a different thing . To widen the scope of the debate there was a time when it was considered that the moderators should also be proofed either individually or as part of the gun . In the past I have submitted a gun and mod to proof and both came back stamped , this has as far as I know gone by the wayside but I understand random type proofing is required . On this I will stand correcting . But who knows CPI may be decided that this is also a requirement , so perhaps it is better to "let sleeping dogs lie "on this one . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesj Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 To widen the scope of the debate there was a time when it was considered that the moderators should also be proofed either individually or as part of the gun . In the past I have submitted a gun and mod to proof and both came back stamped Just to possibly muddy the waters a bit. If a rifle and moderator are tested are they tested together and if so would removing the moderator make the the rifle out of proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 To widen the scope of the debate there was a time when it was considered that the moderators should also be proofed either individually or as part of the gun . In the past I have submitted a gun and mod to proof and both came back stamped Just to possibly muddy the waters a bit. If a rifle and moderator are tested are they tested together and if so would removing the moderator make the the rifle out of proof? No. And to confirm this the rifle and moderator are individually stamped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matone Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 Any quote, direct or indirect from the Proof Houses is NOT LAW, it is a quote from a commercial organisation, simple as. The Government makes the Law in this country, not the proof houses, they interpret/administer/act within any part that effects them, as do we, RFD, Police, everyone. There is NO part of any of the Proof Acts that says you have to get a rifle re proofed after a cut or thread, the phrase is materially weakened (or words to that effect), some appear blind to this fact and simply keep saying the proof house says you have to get it re proofed, ask them if you don't believe me. The proof houses maintain their stance for commercial reasons, they interpret the Act to suit their pocket, if they were so certain of their position they would seek out an opportunity to bring an action against an unproved gun owner in these circumstances to set a precedent and increase their revenue stream. The simple fact is they will lose if they did, firstly because it is Councils opinion they do not have a case, metallurgists/engineers/scientists will be brought from all corners of the world to show they don't have a case and they themselves have never failed a cut/threaded barrel to my knowledge due to it being materially weakened, so their own tests show cut/tread of a barrel does not materially weaken it. A chunk of their revenue stream would be removed when they lost the case, so they are happy to maintain the status quo and perpetuate the myth. Now, if you want to get any work checked for your own peace of mind by sending if for re proof then fine, but legally there is nothing that says you must. Have a nice day. Pleased someone else can see the wood for the trees ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the reply Gunman, & I totaly agree with your second sentence. Edited February 15, 2015 by Bazooka Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/proofhouse.html Hope this link works It may help some 😀😃 All the best Of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 It Works A treat Farrier, Especially The GREYED OUT Bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/proofhouse.html Hope this link works It may help some All the best Of Works fine thanks, but it still isn't compulsory by law to have a rifle barrel re-proofed following screw cut, sorry. It Works A treat Farrier, Especially The GREYED OUT Bit. 'Ey up, I see that horse is back at the water, but still not drinking....... 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.