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

Proof is just a money making scam by thieving monopolists and in no meaningful way guarantees the safety of a firearm.

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.

Hard to disagree :)

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.

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?

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?

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.

Technically proof invalidates the manufacturers warranty of any new imported US made gun.

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.

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.