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

Just out of interest I wondered how many people have had their rifles re-proofed after threading for a moderator, and how much they paid for the threading and re-proofing.

Funnily enough, just this morning been talking to a chap about the Jackson/proof house court case about this topic.

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm

The problem comes now if the cutting of the thread removes all the marks relating to the proof. It is then not in proof no matter what's been done to it.
If they have also marked the barrel near the receiver (like they should do according to the Proof Act) and there are still some marks left that show the correct proof status then it most likely doesn't need reproofing (depending upon if you agree with Jackson's Council or not).

When My .22rifle was reproofed after threading, they put the new proof mark about 6mm from the newly cut thread so that it would most certainly disappear if a new thread was cut.
The trouble with the Jackson case is that it is the councillors opinion and therefore is not law. And as we all know if you sell a gun that is not proofed you are committing an offence.
I know that no gun dealer will accept such a gun in PX as they wouldn't legally be able to sell it on.
The main reason I asked was because I have three rifles that were cut for a moderator and because the gunsmith wanted to charge around £40-£50 for re-proof (this was over 10 years ago) I decided not to get it done. Some gunsmiths won't do this as they consider it part of the cutting process, whilst others are quite happy to do it.
I don't know what these gunsmiths would charge these days but I bet it's more than £40-£50.

Graham, if your rifles still have a valid proof mark near the receiver then I would argue they are still 'in proof'.

According to the Proof Act the marks need to be on the barrel close to the receiver [...the definitive Proof Mark and View Mark shall be impressed at the Breech End of the Barrel...]. If they follow their own rules then there will still be a valid proof mark representing the proof status of the barrel.

The original proof marks are untouched, but when they thread a barrel they put the new proof mark right up at the end of the barrel where the thread has been cut. If you look at any new rifles that have come into the country already threaded, they will have the proof mark already there (if they come in from a country that is recognised by our own proof houses.) If you then have it shortened for some reason, such as a .22RF and you want it taken down to 16" and a moderator put on, then it will need that proof mark put back otherwise it becomes illegal to sell it.
There is no way in hell that a .22rf barrel is going to fail at the muzzle after re-threading and the proof house knows this, but it makes a great way of making money.
At 72 I'm just thinking of the future and if in the worst case scenario the rifles need to be sold. The last thing I would need is for family to be told that they can't sell them because they are out of proof. I'm frikkin' certain that a dealer would take them "Off their hands" and then reproof them and sell them on, but I would like to think that SWIMBO would at least get something for them.

I agree Graham - the proof house is, like NABIS, a sort of government sponsored monopoly pseudo business, always looking to expand their empire.

Stamping the proof marks at the end of the barrel is nothing about safety and all about control and making money.

1066 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 3:41 pm Stamping the proof marks at the end of the barrel is nothing about safety and all about control and making money.

145 paragraphs of the Proof Act and over 2/3 of them are about who controls the money, you have to read past the first 100 or more until you get to the bits about actually proving a firearm. That should tell you everything you need to know about Proof.

1066 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 3:41 pm I agree Graham - the proof house is, like NABIS, a sort of government sponsored monopoly pseudo business, always looking to expand their empire.

Stamping the proof marks at the end of the barrel is nothing about safety and all about control and making money.

Ah, NABIS. Worse than that, they are directly funded by police forces:


'Who are we?'

NABIS plays a crucial part in UK policing as part of the NPCC's portfolio, and is funded by the police forces of England, Wales and Scotland as well as partner law enforcement agencies:

British Transport Police (BTP)
Ministry of Defence Police (MODP)
MI5
National Crime Agency (NCA)
UK Border Force (BF)
Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

NABIS is an independent national policing organisation but hosted by West Midlands Police (WMP) for financial and legal purposes.

David TS wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 1:40 pm

1066 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 3:41 pm I agree Graham - the proof house is, like NABIS, a sort of government sponsored monopoly pseudo business, always looking to expand their empire.

Stamping the proof marks at the end of the barrel is nothing about safety and all about control and making money.

Ah, NABIS. Worse than that, they are directly funded by police forces:


'Who are we?'

NABIS plays a crucial part in UK policing as part of the NPCC's portfolio, and is funded by the police forces of England, Wales and Scotland as well as partner law enforcement agencies:

British Transport Police (BTP)
Ministry of Defence Police (MODP)
MI5
National Crime Agency (NCA)
UK Border Force (BF)
Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

NABIS is an independent national policing organisation but hosted by West Midlands Police (WMP) for financial and legal purposes.

May 2021 .....

Forensic scientist Martin Parker has been appointed as BASC’s new head of firearms.
Martin, whose most recent post was as chief scientist at the National Ballistics Intelligence Service, started his new role last week.



No need for more comments .