I might agree if proof was a required component of all work on firearms, however proof isnt required as a matter of course when you reload, and to suggest that it is common practise to take handloads to dangerous levels is to invite more restrictions/ban on handloading ! Gas cylinders and steam vessels for example do require periodical testing, however, I'm pretty sure that semi destructive tests are not a part of modern testing, and most testing is visual/non destructive, if you are a responsible shooter you already do a visual inspection each time you pick up your rifle, you are looking for corrosion damage and physical signs of damage in the same way as an inspection of an air tank is done.artiglio wrote:Whilst the system is antiquated and has its flaws, i think we’ve all seen or heard of some very poor examples of gunsmithing over the years.
If gunsmiths worked to the standards of the aircraft,medical implant, motor industry etc. Had the various controls and quality standards in place then , self certification would no doubt be applicable. As far as i’ aware just about every pressure vessel has to go through a test procedure that includes a test over and above its working pressure , and in the case of gas cylinders this is repeated at intervals.
Given that many shooters handload, it is quite likely that some loads exceed the design parameters for the cartridge/chamber in question.
The gunsmiths i’ve used are usually far more concerned with the physical damage the proof house inflict on firearms through careless handling and packing rather than the effects of proof.
Also in the unlikely event that a firearm failed catastrophically causing injury to anyone close by, a lack of proof would give any insurer instant wriggle room in the event of a claim.
Though must be said if i owned an old gun i cared about, not sure i’d be too keen putting it through proof again.
as to the proof houses and damage, I have personally met at least one person who has had a perfectly good firearm blown up during proofing, a rifle action that was imported and one of a production run, none of the others of which ever showed any problems! now it may have been a faulty item, or.. it may have been a faulty proof round how would you ever know ? if they cannot take good care of what can be expensive items, can you really trust their proofing loads ?
the proof houses are a monopoly set in place for a good reason in a world vastly different than the one we live in, they protect their monopoly vigorously.
you make the point that you would not be keen to subject your old rifles to reproof, what if the law changed to "you have to present your rifle for reproof before sale, and at regular intervals even if not sold (MOT) " ?
metals change with use and age, are you suggesting that safety demands testing ? the proofhouse are!
it would certainly increase the number of old guns being deactivated as repeated proof loads would not be beneficial to their longevity!