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

1066 wrote:

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.

But the rules say the marks of proof should be as close to the receiver as possible.

Mattnall wrote:

1066 wrote:

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.

But the rules say the marks of proof should be as close to the receiver as possible.

They are stamping the muzzle end , so that if you want it to be threaded , you have to have it reproofed because you have removed the proofmark while cutting the thread .

MistAgain wrote:

Mattnall wrote:

1066 wrote:
I think a perfect example of this is when they started stamping proof marks on the muzzle of rifles.

But the rules say the marks of proof should be as close to the receiver as possible.

They are stamping the muzzle end , so that if you want it to be threaded , you have to have it reproofed because you have removed the proofmark while cutting the thread .

I'm fully aware of what they are doing and why, but I believe it goes against their own rules.
When the vast majority of the Proof Act concerns money and the control of the money it does make me wonder if safety is not the Number One Priority.

The proof house doesn't always mark the correct calibre. My Siamese Mauser has the calibre engraved as '8x57 SIAM'. It should read '8x52 SIAM'. They did hide the proof mark on the barrel under the top hand guard though.
I agree that proof is over-rated these days. Most of the world seems to get by with out a proof house, without blowing themselves up with dodgy guns. I think that proof can actually make a gun less safe. An old gun may be quite happy using standard pressure loads, but could be made weaker if subject to an over pressure proof load and subsequently fail later on when it would not have done if left alone. A bit like an old chap quite happily pottering about and going for steady walks, being given a fitness test by making him do a hundred yard sprint uphill. His ticker would cope quite happily with normal activity but could fail if subject to sudden unnecessary over stress. In the days of guns being made in blacksmiths forges, proof was probably a good idea to identify faulty work, but in modern factory production I don't think it is required beyond what the manufacturer does.
Regards
Peter.

I've seen a couple of examples where the proof house have marked the wrong cartridge chambering and one where they marked the wrong calibre. Just plain carelessness on their part. I've also seen when they corrected it by just crossing out the wrong markings, very annoying when the gunsmith has taken great care to get the finish just right in the first place.

[quote="Chapuis"I've also seen when they corrected it by just crossing out the wrong markings, very annoying when the gunsmith has taken great care to get the finish just right in the first place.[/quote]
Have you ever seen the marks on some of the older Enfields after a refits, returns to the factory and other general movements?

Mattnall wrote:[quote="Chapuis"I've also seen when they corrected it by just crossing out the wrong markings, very annoying when the gunsmith has taken great care to get the finish just right in the first place.

Have you ever seen the marks on some of the older Enfields after a refits, returns to the factory and other general movements?[/quote]

Yes I have but those were on military weapons and not sporting arms which were some one's pride and joy. In any case collectors of military weapons often appreciate the various markings as they provide a history of the firearm.

PeterN wrote:The proof house doesn't always mark the correct calibre. My Siamese Mauser has the calibre engraved as '8x57 SIAM'. It should read '8x52 SIAM'. They did hide the proof mark on the barrel under the top hand guard though.
I agree that proof is over-rated these days. Most of the world seems to get by with out a proof house, without blowing themselves up with dodgy guns. I think that proof can actually make a gun less safe. An old gun may be quite happy using standard pressure loads, but could be made weaker if subject to an over pressure proof load and subsequently fail later on when it would not have done if left alone. A bit like an old chap quite happily pottering about and going for steady walks, being given a fitness test by making him do a hundred yard sprint uphill. His ticker would cope quite happily with normal activity but could fail if subject to sudden unnecessary over stress. In the days of guns being made in blacksmiths forges, proof was probably a good idea to identify faulty work, but in modern factory production I don't think it is required beyond what the manufacturer does.
Regards
Peter.

Agree entirely , however the correlation btween blacksith and overenthusiastic amatuer makes me think that "proof" should at least include a thorough inspection by a gunsmith.

waterford103 wrote:]
Agree entirely , however the correlation btween blacksith and overenthusiastic amatuer makes me think that "proof" should at least include a thorough inspection by a gunsmith.

Some of the practices I've seen in the Proof House would scare many safety concious shooters.
It has been neither scientific nor repeatable at times but I understand they are now trying at least make it repeatable.

this is why my sec7 pistol in 356TSW that needs proof before it can be sold to me, is going to be proofed as a standard 9mm powder load in a 21.5mm long case, not the full power load for the actual cartridge. I don't need my rare gun exploding at their pleasure.