Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

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
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: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#11 Post by dromia »

Proof is just a money making scam by thieving monopolists and in no meaningful way guarantees the safety of a firearm.
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/
poll007
Past Supporter
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:55 am
Home club or Range: Deal & District
Location: canterbury
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#12 Post by poll007 »

Jorden wrote:I agree that legally you only need proof to sell an unaltered firearm, but I am quite fond of my fingers and eyes I would like to make sure.
There isn't anything particularly special about what they do at the proofing house. you can set up the gun to remote fire yourself for testing and try it with overpressure ammunition to match what they would to at the proofing house.

There are already plenty of examples of guns being damaged by the proofing house I know of at least one example of them proofing a gun as the wrong calibre.

Proofing is a leftover relic from an attempt at quality control when non destructive testing was not possible(the proofing process counts as destructive testing). Only a handful of countries seem to still have it as a legal requirement. At the end of the day it should be down to the individual manufacturer to sufficiently test their product.
User avatar
Ovenpaa
Site Supporter Since 2015
Posts: 24680
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Årbjerg, Morsø DK
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#13 Post by Ovenpaa »

Hard to disagree :)
/d

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

Shed Journal
User avatar
Dark Skies
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:02 am
Home club or Range: NRA
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#14 Post by Dark Skies »

Jorden wrote:I agree that legally you only need proof to sell an unaltered firearm, but I am quite fond of my fingers and eyes I would like to make sure.
OK. But ... suppose it didn't blow up during the proofing stage (using ammunition exceeding what you would ever use yourself) but sufficiently stressed the pressure bearing areas so that something may let go some time hence?

Something for you to worry about.
"I don't like my job and I don't think I'm gonna go anymore."
Laurie
Posts: 650
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:20 pm

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#15 Post by Laurie »

Jorden wrote:I agree that legally you only need proof to sell an unaltered firearm, but I am quite fond of my fingers and eyes I would like to make sure.
Fair do - your choice. Just bear in mind that the largest shooting nation on the planet whose numbers of participants and firearms exceeds everybody else aggregated somehow manages fine without proof. I refer to the USA of course.

There are engineers and metallurgists who are appalled by the idea of proof testing - deliberate overloads. In other circles, it's called 'destructive testing', and it will certainly destroy some firearms if they are rebarreled and repeat proof tested often enough.

Statistically, driving a privately owned motor car is vastly more dangerous than shooting a rifle. If proof is such a necessary requirement for a firearm, why aren't individual tyres, wheels, brake pipes, engine turbos over-pressure proof-tested before sale and fitting. The answer is that a combination of careful design, rigorous pre-launch testing, materials and production QC combine to reduce material failure. Proof is a hangover from the days when firearms were made from brass and cast iron, strips of metal bound together and they were frankly weak and often dangerous. The same thing applied to railway bridges made from cast iron sections sometimes with poor factory and site inspection QC (cf Tay Bridge disaster 1879), but modern steels and other materials have long made these risks things of the past despite much lighter modern designs. Don't technical and manufacturing improvements apply to firearms - virtually uniquely?
The Gun Pimp
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#16 Post by The Gun Pimp »

Totally agree with Laurie's (and Dromia's) opinion. I've owned actions that have had half a dozen different barrels fitted - every time you take it to the Proof House they stress the action - time and time again. Stress any piece of metal enough times and it will eventually fail - but who's pulling the trigger when it does?
User avatar
Alpha1
Site Supporter Since 2020
Posts: 8553
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#17 Post by Alpha1 »

The Gun Pimp wrote:Totally agree with Laurie's (and Dromia's) opinion. I've owned actions that have had half a dozen different barrels fitted - every time you take it to the Proof House they stress the action - time and time again. Stress any piece of metal enough times and it will eventually fail - but who's pulling the trigger when it does?
Yep totally agree the proof house is an absolute con.
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: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#18 Post by dromia »

Technically proof invalidates the manufacturers warranty of any new imported US made gun.
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
Mattnall
Site Supporter Since 2016
Posts: 2858
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:32 pm
Home club or Range: Harlow TAC, NRA, BSRC
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#19 Post by Mattnall »

poll007 wrote:One claimed that he got the relevant slots (for each receiver, barrel and bolt) and got them 90% complete before inviting the FEO around to make the final cut and have them sign the parts onto there FAC. Another that they would just inform the licensing department once they had made a part.
If you have all the relevant slots then you don't need to involve the FEO any further.
Once each part is finished you sign them individually onto your ticket as the transferrer or if you acquire them through retail the seller will sign them on (and if you have a 'rifle' slot as well you can transfer the licensed parts to the firearm slot and free up all the little slots).
Then let the FLD know via email as you would any other acquisition.
Arming the Country, one gun at a time.

Good deals with Paul101, Charlotte the flyer, majordisorder, Charlie Muggins, among others. Thanks everybody.
1066
Site Supporter Since 2015
Posts: 2158
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Manufactuing a firearm as an FAC holder (without RFD)

#20 Post by 1066 »

dromia wrote:Proof is just a money making scam by thieving monopolists and in no meaningful way guarantees the safety of a firearm.
I think a perfect example of this is when they started stamping proof marks on the muzzle of rifles.
TARGETMASTER
an altogether better trickler
www.targetmasteruk.com
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 13 guests