Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

Anything shooting related including law and procedure questions.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Message
Author
User avatar
kennyc
Posts: 2340
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:21 pm
Home club or Range: hunters NRPC
Location: Reading West Berks
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#31 Post by kennyc »

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.
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.
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!
FredB
Site Supporter Since 2019
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:33 pm
Home club or Range: stourport
Location: Wolverhampton
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#32 Post by FredB »

We are talking about steel. When subject to cyclic fatigue loads, steel has a limiting fatigue stress. When loaded to stress levels below this limit, the part will never fail---unless it has previosly been subjected to a severe overload.
Interestingly, this is not true of aluminium alloys which, when subject to cyclic fatige, will eventually fail. At this point, you should start worrying about your aluminium car wheels and the black rifle with an aluminium receiver. Most customers don't realise that car aluminium wheels are generally heavier than steel ones: by volume, you have a third of the weight, half the strength and a third of the elastic modulus (stiffness). By the time the designer has ensured that the wheel will last a hundred years or so, it is heavier than the steel unit that it replaced. We see a lot of failures of alloy wheels, due to massive overloads caused by pothole impacts and then a resultant short fastigue life.
Fred
artiglio
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:40 am
Location: KENT
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#33 Post by artiglio »

Kennyc,

I feel you’ve rather stretched the interpretation of what i wrote,

I certainly did not suggest that handloading to excessive pressures was commonplace, just that it is likely some loads have/will do.

My reference to gas cylinders / boiler vesel etc, is that they are testedto over their designed working pressure,.

As to the comment regarding older firearms , its you that has bought up the concept of mot style testing, i should imagine that the need to reproof an older firearm is pretty limited, if its seen as unlikely it’d be rebarrelled or screwcut ( though each is possible if the owner so chose)
User avatar
Pete
Past Supporter
Posts: 2947
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:48 am
Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#34 Post by Pete »

So assuming you proofing naysayers were scuba divers, you'd be quite happy to dive with a tank that was out of test/never been tested?

Pete
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum" Lucretius
You're offended? Please explain why your inability to control your emotions translates into me having to censor my opinions....
User avatar
kennyc
Posts: 2340
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:21 pm
Home club or Range: hunters NRPC
Location: Reading West Berks
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#35 Post by kennyc »

Pete wrote:So assuming you proofing naysayers were scuba divers, you'd be quite happy to dive with a tank that was out of test/never been tested?

Pete
Different items with different failure modes proofing is not required in many countries, where is the massive number of failures that result from lack of proofing?
User avatar
kennyc
Posts: 2340
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:21 pm
Home club or Range: hunters NRPC
Location: Reading West Berks
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#36 Post by kennyc »

artiglio wrote:Kennyc,

I feel you’ve rather stretched the interpretation of what i wrote,

I certainly did not suggest that handloading to excessive pressures was commonplace, just that it is likely some loads have/will do.

My reference to gas cylinders / boiler vesel etc, is that they are testedto over their designed working pressure,.

As to the comment regarding older firearms , its you that has bought up the concept of mot style testing, i should imagine that the need to reproof an older firearm is pretty limited, if its seen as unlikely it’d be rebarrelled or screwcut ( though each is possible if the owner so chose)
I was extrapolating your original thoughts to a possible conclusion, and strange to say it's not really helpful to quote testing procedures for one type of device as if it is comparable to another which in this case it is not, I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject read through the Jackson's rifles case linked to earlier in this discussion
Rockhopper
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#37 Post by Rockhopper »

Pete wrote:So assuming you proofing naysayers were scuba divers, you'd be quite happy to dive with a tank that was out of test/never been tested?

Pete
Absolutely, it'll only fail as its being filled, if it survives that then its perfectly safe to dive with it.
artiglio
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:40 am
Location: KENT
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#38 Post by artiglio »

Rockhopper wrote:
Pete wrote:So assuming you proofing naysayers were scuba divers, you'd be quite happy to dive with a tank that was out of test/never been tested?

Pete
Absolutely, it'll only fail as its being filled, if it survives that then its perfectly safe to dive with it.
Sorry Rockhopper, that’s just ludicrous, a test regime is designed to prevent a failure at any time in the cylinders use, the test pressure is done as a hydrostatic test as any failure results in a release of water under pressure which will have limited expansion and available energy.
Should a cylinder fail during a fill it could have gas at upto 350bar released. All very well saying you’d be happy to dive with it , what about the poor soul filling them?
User avatar
dromia
Site Admin
Posts: 19964
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:57 am
Home club or Range: The Highlands of Scotland. Cycling Proficiency 1964. Felton & District rifle club. Teesdale Pistol and Rifle club.
Location: Sutherland and Co Durham
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#39 Post by dromia »

I think if the proof house was a bit more professional in their approach, explained why they do what they do in the 21st century when other options are available, were less cavalier in their approach to other peoples property and actually did what they claim to do, I have had guns returned from proof that have never been fired, gun that have not been proofed because they have existing decades old proof marks and still was charged the full whack for them not to have been proofed. Then people might have a bit more confidence in them and they might start the long upward climb to gaining some respect.
Image

Come on Bambi get some

Imperial Good Metric Bad
Analogue Good Digital Bad

Fecking stones

Real farmers don't need subsidies

Cow's farts matter!

For fine firearms and requisites visit

http://www.pukkabundhooks.com/
User avatar
Ovenpaa
Site Supporter Since 2015
Posts: 24680
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Årbjerg, Morsø DK
Contact:

Re: Proof House.... Sneaky Ba$tards!!!

#40 Post by Ovenpaa »

A small point to consider. A firearm can be Proofed for a specific load as well as to CIP so you could specify Proofed for .308Win with 40 grains of N140 and a 155 grain #2155 and that is what it would say on the side of the barrel. A specified Proof load is usually applied to Black powder firearms however it could be for anything.
/d

Du lytter aldrig til de ord jeg siger. Du ser mig kun for det tøj jeg har paa ...

Shed Journal
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests