Proofing of a modified rifle barrel

[bullet dodger]

I have a CZ 223 which has in the past had the barrel shortened. The gunsmith who did the work advised at the time I did not need to have it proofed if I was intent on keeping the gun for myself. I have been approached to sell the gun now that I have restocked it and was curious to know the cost of having an RFD send it away to Birmingham for proofing. I presume the gun would need to be stripped to just the action for proofing to take place ? Any information would be greatly recieved,

 

Thanks

Gaz

[bluesj]

If you have just had the barrel shortened then I would say it does not need reproofing, if it has been screw cut then may be.

The bit of the law that deals with this says if the barrel has be substantial weakened (or words to that effect) then it has to be reproofed. The only way I can see of deciding if it has been sudstantial weakened is to proof it, If it passes the proof test then it didn't need to be reproofed.

[Scully]

As above, if the barrel has just been shortened then there is no need for re-proof; how do you proof something which is no longer there?

If it has been screw-cut then it theoretically falls into the category blues explains above.

It is worth bearing in mind that it is only an offence to 'sell' an unproofed gun. It is not an offence to 'give' someone an unproofed gun.

[Bewsher500]

No it does not need proofing either cut or thread

The proof house will argue differently but then they make money on proofing!

 

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm

 

Counsel's Opinion on the British laws of Proof relating to sound moderators and other muzzle attachments

Legal Counsel has now confirmed that:

1. A sound moderator is not a “part” of a “small arm” for the purposes of the Proof Acts.

    

2. There is no requirement in law for a sound moderator to be subject to proof.

    

3. The cutting of a screw thread on a barrel in order to affix a sound moderator is most unlikely to “unduly reduce it in substance or strength”, although each case will depend on its own facts.

    

4. The pronouncement made by the Proof Authority in October 2001 is misleading and wrong in law in a number of important respects.

The full text of Counsel's Opinion may be downloaded and read here:

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/proof-counsels-opinion.pdf

On 31 August 2000, the London and Birmingham Proof Houses issued a circular entitled "Screw cutting of rifle muzzles and the fitting of sound moderators and other items". A further circular entitled "Conversion of Barrels and the Fitting of Muzzle Accessories" was issued by the Proof Houses in October 2001.

The contents and inferences of these circulars have been hotly disputed by the gun trade, and we consider that they are misleading to the extent that they convey the impressions:

(a) that there may be a legal requirement to submit all sound moderators for proof and,

(b) that there may be a legal requirement to submit all rifles for proof or re-proof after the cutting of an external screw thread at the muzzle.

Section 122.(3) of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 ("the 1868 Act") creates an offence of selling or exchanging, or attempting to sell or exchange, a Small Arm the Barrel or Barrels of which are not duly proved or marked as proved.

However, the terms "Small Arm" and "Barrel" are separately and distinctly defined in the Act and from these definitions it is clear that there is no offence of selling, etc. an unproved "Barrel" on its own. Therefore, even if sound moderators were deemed to be "Barrels" as defined by the 1868 Act (a suggestion which is hotly disputed), there is no legal requirement to have them proved unless they are sold as part of a "Small Arm".

Similarly, with regard to the cutting of a screw thread on a rifle muzzle (or for that matter any other repair, replacement or modification of a Barrel), there can be no offence committed unless or until the entire Small Arm is subsequently offered for sale, exchange, export etc. Even if/when this were to happen, the requirement to submit a barrel for re-proof only arises if the barrel has been "unduly reduced in Substance or Strength".

As professional engineers, we reject any suggestion that a threaded rifle muzzle with a factor of safety against failure of more than four (as in the extreme case of a 1/2" UNF thread on a typical 7.62 mm rifle) is "unduly reduced in Substance or Strength", just as similar suggestions were dismissed in written evidence for the case of Regina v Beatham (see R-v-Beatham_evidence.pdf - 986 kB Adobe Acrobat file). We note that on receipt of this evidence, the Crown abandoned its case and the Defendant was duly discharged with his costs awarded from the public purse.

[1066]

Well done Bewsher - It's interesting to read the whole case. The proof house will fight tooth and claw to keep and expand their little empire.

[bullet dodger]

Bewsher500, what a brilliant reply ! Thank you. All printed and to be kept with the rifle.

 

Gaz

[activeviii]

If you do need/want is proofed then its £65

[Redgum]

If you do need/want is proofed then its £65

Crikey mate, you have expanding your shed engineering enterprise, reproofing as well now. ( though I have told you before putting a cork in the end doesn't proof anything. )

[bluesj]

Bewsher500

[activeviii]

Crikey mate, you have expanding your shed engineering enterprise, reproofing as well now. ( though I have told you before putting a cork in the end doesn't proof anything. )

Lol, I'll proof anything me, as long as the piece of string is long enough.

 

just has one back from proof last week. Little cz527 chambered in 222 just need to finsh it now

Edited March 12, 2017 by activeviii