Legal answer with ref to proof

[hobbesy]

Hi,

I'm having a rifle barrel cut and threaded, simple question. By law do I need the rifle sent to the proof house for testing?

If the answer is 'yes' where in law does it say so?

Thanks in advance

[Sandgroper]

Hi,

I'm having a rifle barrel cut and threaded, simple question. By law do I need the rifle sent to the proof house for testing?

If the answer is 'yes' where in law does it say so?

Thanks in advance

Read this link and make your own decision... http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/ukproof.htm

[The Gun Pimp]

Basically, you are removing metal from a pressure bearing part so yes, in theory, it should be re-proofed.

[Alpha1]

If you are having it cut and threaded by a pukka gunsmith he will be the one to advise you weather or not it requires re proofing.

[Robert303]

From the Birmingham Proof House:-
The Law

The present law on the subject is to be found in the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868, 1950 and 1978 and various Rules of Proof, but particularly those of 1925, 1954, 1986 and 2006 when the metric system of measurement was introduced. Copies of the Several Acts and of Rules of Proof of 2006 may be obtained from either Proof House.
The Proof Acts

The provisions of the Acts apply to all small arms, whether of present use or future invention, within certain fixed limits of bore size and projectile weight (with the exception of some military arms made for the use of H.M. Forces). Air guns, are exempt from proof by Proof Act.

The Proof Acts lay down that no small arm may be sold, exchanged or exported, exposed or kept for sale or exchange or pawned unless and until it has been fully proved and duly marked. The Maximum penalty is £5000 for each offence, but with provision for higher penalties where, for instance, the sale of a number of guns constitutes one offence. Alteration to or the forging of proof marks is a more serious offence.

Arms previously proved and bearing apparently valid proof marks are deemed unproved if the barrels have been enlarged in the bore beyond certain defined limits or if the barrel or action has been materially weakend in other respects.

The offence in dealing in unproved arms is committed by the seller, not by an unwitting purchaser.
Foreign proof marks

Until June 1980, there was reciprocal agreement for recognition of certain foreign proof marks by international agreement. Since June 1980 when the United Kingdom became a member of the International Proof Commission ( the CIP), the United Kingdom has recognised all the proof marks of other member nations and reciprocally they all recognise United Kingdom marks.
Rules of Proof

Rules, Regulations and Scales of Proof, a schedule to the Proof Act, are the working instructions of the two Proof Houses. The rules specify the pressure to be used in proof, standards of view and the marks to be impressed on guns which pass proof, together with much detail as to bore and chamber dimensions, proof and service pressure.

The latest Rules of Proof, those of 2006, were approved by the Secretary of State to come into force on the 1st August, 2006, but proof under earlier Rules of 1875, 1887, 1896, 1904, 1916, 1925, 1954, 1986 and 1989 remains valid provided that the barrel or action has not been materially weakened or altered so that it no longer conforms with the proof marks.
Submission to proof

Any individual may submit arms for proof or reproof direct to either of the Proof Houses, but it is more usual and generally more satisfactory for all concerned that arms be submitted through a gunmaker.

Primarily this is because the majority of old guns require attention prior to proof. Proof regulations require that shotgun barrels shall be “struck-up” and smooth and that insides shall be clean. Pitting should be removed so far as is practicable, bulges knocked down and dents raised. Actions should be in good, safe working order and tight on the face to resist the increased strain of proof pressure. Since stocks, and particularly those with unusual “bend” or “cast”, are not designed to withstand the heavy recoil of proof, it is customary for the wood to be removed. Indeed, the Proof House do not accept responsability for damage to stocks resulting from proof.

It will be apparent that to fulfill these requirements the preparation necessary will best be undertaken by a gunmaker who is accustomed to submitting to proof.
Rejection

In the event of a proof reject, or failure to withstand the proof test, guns may be repaired if possible and resubmitted. On final rejection, that is when the submitter accepts that further attempts at repair are unlikely to succeed, the existing proof marks upon the barrels and/or action will be defaced or barred out. It is unlawful for a weapon to be sold with defaced proof marks, except where later reproof marks have been impressed. It is recommended that such a gun be deactivated, to ensure that it can never be used by some person unaware of its unproved condition.

[breacher]

Regina v Beatham tests the "unduly weakened" wording.

Reproof is required if the barrel is unduly weakened.

It was demonstrated to the court that removing a SUBSTANTIAL amount ( counter boring ) did not unduly weaken the barrel. So, I would submit that removing the much smaller amount when threading, would also not unduly weaken the barrel.

Things to bear in mind.......
R v Beatham did not specifically cover threading but counterboring.
Proofing is only required if selling or offering to sell the firearm - there is no offence of just possessing an out of proof firearm for your own use.

[Sandgroper]

As Breacher has pointed out, the key question relates to this -

The latest Rules of Proof, those of 2006, were approved by the Secretary of State to come into force on the 1st August, 2006, but proof under earlier Rules of 1875, 1887, 1896, 1904, 1916, 1925, 1954, 1986 and 1989 remains valid provided that the barrel or action has not been materially weakened or altered so that it no longer conforms with the proof marks.

So does the act of shortening and/or screw cutting a barrel result in it being "materially weakened?" IMHO I think not for two reasons:
1) If it did we would have heard of rifles failing at the threaded end - which is subject to pressures lower than the breach.
2) The Proof Houses only fairly recently started proof marking the end of the barrel - which makes it virtually compulsory to reproof a barrel as the proof mark will have been destroyed.

These two points lead me to conclude that it is not required or a legal necessity to have a barrel re-proofed after shortening and/or screw cutting but the proof houses have marked barrels in such a way to require it - but this is only my opinion.

BTW I had my 222 screw cut by a local RFD (about 12 months ago) without being sent for re-proofing, yet others I have spoken to will insist that it needs re-proofing - at a sizeable mark up I might add.

[the running man]

I had extensive proof law tralling a while ago.... Some person in our club was selling martini henrys as sec 58 to avoid proof, people were getting them out on their sec 1 and shooting them, until we picked up that they were originally only bp proofed and pribably out of proof now anyhow..... All nitro was banned in them unless reproofed and all were told bp only......

With regards to reproofing a barrell after screw cut ut will only apply if you re sell it, if u keep it untill you die theres no problems as far as my knowledge goes, i also know of a members who manufactures his own bp barrells for his own use and as such requires no proof...

[ovenpaa]

I recently heard within the trade of a sound moderator ending half way down the range on the third shot with a centre-fire rifle. Upon inspection it had taken the threaded section of the barrel with it which would suggest to me it had been 'materially weakened' What I do not know is what the moderator was designed for, nor the cartridge in use so it could have been down to many factors however one thing is for sure, the threaded portion as not up to the job. If I had to hazard a guess I would be looking at hand cut threads not concentric with the bore and excessive undercutting at the shoulder could be contributing factors. Somehow I doubt it had been sent to Proof after the job however I was recently made aware of a UK produced and Proofed sound moderator splitting lengthways after very few shots and I probably still have the picture I was sent, hopefully the manufacturer replaced it without any fuss.

What does this tell us? Well not a deal really, things in and out of Proof fail and things out of Proof also go on for seemingly ever. Common sense or logic is never a replacement for what the Law states however if in doubt a degree of empathy for the item and its use goes a long way.

[bradaz11]

I recently heard within the trade of a sound moderator ending half way down the range on the third shot with a centre-fire rifle. Upon inspection it had taken the threaded section of the barrel with it which would suggest to me it had been 'materially weakened' .

Would proof even look at that? They are worried about the barrels integrity not the quality of machining to add a mod