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

breacher wrote:The Proof Act states it clearly.

It makes it an offence to sell, exchange, expose or keep for sale, or export, or keep for exportation,
or to attempt to sell, exchange or export, or to pawn or pledge, or attempt to pawn or
pledge, or to take in pawn or pledge, an arm, the barrels of which are not duly proved and
marked as proved, (Section 108 and 109 of the 1868 Act);

Sorry guys,

Didn't read it properly, so the only real sticking point is whether any parts have been 'unduly weakened'

Glad to see British law is as clear as mud, as usual.

Ovenpaa wrote:A couple of test rounds and a visual inspection to the best of my knowledge.

So once a firearm has been shortened (for example) and used many times, it has actually been proofed by the very firing just hasn't got a stamp.
aaarggh

You're keeping it, so I don't see it as requiring re-proof at this time. Dispose of it, or make moves to pass the rifle on, then it will need proofing to ensure you stay within legislation.

Proof House ...................... HAH!!!!!

My gunsmith sent my Tikka .243WIN and moderator into Birmingham Proof House after it had been threaded. Apparently the dipstick who did it didn't know the differnce between a .243WIN and a .243REM

This is what came back...........

[/quote]


That's without throwing proof house mistakes into the mix - http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofwarning.htm

Edit: Forgot to add even though it's an old warning a mate of mine got sold a new 223 Moderator that was proofed for 308 Win about 18 months ago - fortunately he hadn't fired it on his 308 Howa when he discovered it. The RFD was not happy, replaced the mod and was going to chase up the Proof House - I'll need to ask if he heard any more about it...[/quote]

but that suggests that it's just jobs for the boys and of no real benefit !

So taking 5mm off a damaged muzzle, and re-crowning it, means it needs re-proofing before it could be sold on at some later date?
I don't see how that could materially affect the pressure tolerance of the firearm.

And here's one for the smiths: How would you drill/tap a hardened receiver to take a scope rail?


Pete

the running man wrote: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...

No I would suggest that the reason was that's it's easier to buy a sell a qualifying firearm as S58(2) rather than a section 1. It then falls the purchaser to add to his fac if he wants too. It the gun was proofed at the time making even if that was in 1880 it's still in proof unless there's some obvious signs of material weakening ie serious corrosion. I do take your point about of only using black powder loads only though.
I happily shoot my Snider with a MkII breech even though it was Birmingham proofed around the late 1860's.

I imagine that most dealer/smiths would insist on reproofing to cover themselves on insurance.

channel12 wrote:

the running man wrote: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...

No I would suggest that the reason was that's it's easier to buy a sell a qualifying firearm as S58(2) rather than a section 1. It then falls the purchaser to add to his fac if he wants too. It the gun was proofed at the time making even if that was in 1880 it's still in proof unless there's some obvious signs of material weakening ie serious corrosion. I do take your point about of only using black powder loads only though.
I happily shoot my Snider with a MkII breech even though it was Birmingham proofed around the late 1860's.

What could happen if the seller was peddling reloading cases,powders, dies and primers as well as doing paper patching lessons all for that caliber?

[quote=What could happen if the seller was peddling reloading cases,powders, dies and primers as well as doing paper patching lessons all for that caliber?[/quote]

He'd be running the risk of getting banged up. As if he has reason to believe that the person acquiring the Sec 58 intends to shoot it it should be entered on the buyers FAC in the relevant slot. Now you can argue about when the buyer intends to shoot it, next day next week next year but do you really want to be banged up for a few months before you and your expensive lawyer can argue your case in court? Ask Mick Shepard if you're not sure.