The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I have seen some very dubious proof loads being fired, very unscientific and non repeatable.
In my experience this went on for short while with a very popular calibre so I have no confidence that the proof mark on these rifles means anything other than; 'yes, it was fired in the proof house'. However I have every confidence that those rifles I made and had 'tested' were fit for purpose and none have come back because of a proofing problem.

But recently the process is slightly more scientific and repeatable. But they are still trying to create a future for themselves and stamping (engraving) the muzzles is one of those methods.

Bottom line as I see it, is that the UK is one of the very few places that even has a proofing requirement for privately owned firearms. Nobody else that I know of does this - once it leaves the factory - that's all she wrote. Frankly I find it hard to believe that the UK bureaucrats are right and virtually everybody else around the world is somehow wrong. To me it's a throwback to an earlier time, and of value only as a further, unwarranted control measure on legitimate firearms owners.

DaveB wrote:Bottom line as I see it, is that the UK is one of the very few places that even has a proofing requirement for privately owned firearms. Nobody else that I know of does this - once it leaves the factory - that's all she wrote. Frankly I find it hard to believe that the UK bureaucrats are right and virtually everybody else around the world is somehow wrong. To me it's a throwback to an earlier time, and of value only as a further, unwarranted control measure on legitimate firearms owners.

They certainly seem to think they are right and most everyone else is wrong when it comes to having an armed police force ! Another institution stuck in a bygone way of thinking............

DaveB wrote:Bottom line as I see it, is that the UK is one of the very few places that even has a proofing requirement for privately owned firearms. Nobody else that I know of does this - once it leaves the factory - that's all she wrote. Frankly I find it hard to believe that the UK bureaucrats are right and virtually everybody else around the world is somehow wrong. To me it's a throwback to an earlier time, and of value only as a further, unwarranted control measure on legitimate firearms owners.

I think that you may be mistaken there Dave as most European countries have proof houses, for instance Italy, Spain, Belgium. I understand that some of those proof houses may actually be inside the factories of the larger manufacturers such as Beretta.
Also you shouldn't forget that most of the European proof houses have reciprocal arrangements with the British proof houses so their recognise each other's proof arrangements.

The Proof Houses used to give out a booklet showing the foreign marks and which were recognised. I have one here from about 20 or so years ago, not sure if they still produce it.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/ ... nco_en.pdf

Page6-7

Pete

Chapuis wrote:

DaveB wrote:Bottom line as I see it, is that the UK is one of the very few places that even has a proofing requirement for privately owned firearms. Nobody else that I know of does this - once it leaves the factory - that's all she wrote. Frankly I find it hard to believe that the UK bureaucrats are right and virtually everybody else around the world is somehow wrong. To me it's a throwback to an earlier time, and of value only as a further, unwarranted control measure on legitimate firearms owners.

I think that you may be mistaken there Dave as most European countries have proof houses, for instance Italy, Spain, Belgium. I understand that some of those proof houses may actually be inside the factories of the larger manufacturers such as Beretta.
Also you shouldn't forget that most of the European proof houses have reciprocal arrangements with the British proof houses so their recognise each other's proof arrangements.

Never said other countries do not operate proof houses - I know better than that. Yes, certainly new firearms are proofed -I never suggested otherwise.

What I question is whether any other country requires proof or re-proof of privately owned firearms. It still seems to me that most countries do not require this. I think in most countries (those that actually allow private ownership of firearms) once the firearm passes into the hands of the first owner - that's the end of any record of proof. After that you can change anything you like on it, and no requirement to send it off to be proofed again.

Of course I could be wrong - as I have not done extensive research, but just off the top of my head, this level of ongoing government intrusion into private firearms is pretty much a UK thing, isn't it?

The legislation around proof, and still in force today, dates back to 1868, 150 years. This is not so much an intrusion into private firearms ownership but whether antiquated laws designed to test metallurgy of the day, are still valid given the the massive advances in steel production, testing and analysing that has evolved since Queen Victoria.

Start a petition Sim G, I would sign it.