Storage and security of Section 58 (2) Firearms

[dromia]

Why would you want to proof test them?

[ovenpaa]

To make sure they are 'safe'?

Actually this raises a very good question, am I correct to assume an black powder burning obsolete calibre rifle does not need proofing to be shot, simply moved on ticket? If so what is the view of different ranges and organisations to people shooting potentially untested firearms, especially the insurance issue with other shooters at or near the firing point? My NRA insurance covers me for all of my rifles both at home and on the range but what would the insurers view be on a rifle that had not been proof tested that chose to come apart at the wrong time...

Just thinking out loud really.

[dromia]

All proof testing means is that a gun withstood an over pressure round at the time of the test.

I have seen many guns with proof marks on them that I wouldn't shoot. So proof means very little to me.

Common sense must prevail with the use of any gun.

I always give any gun a strip down clean and inspection before deciding whether or not to shoot it.

If it passes muster then I will fire it but only with the loads it was designed for and appropriately loaded.

Personally I wouldn't want to trust any of my obsolete collection to the vagaries of the proof house.

To me proof testing is more about confirming designs and cartridges rather than proving a gun safe, no doubt the proof houses will disagree but that is my view and approach.

[FredB]

Ovenpaa: If read up on the rules of proof, then virtually all of my antique guns are actually still in proof. I would not shoot a damascus barreled gun which had never been proofed: I do not believe that proof has any relevance to guns made of modern steels.
I am a retired Chartered Mechanical Engineer who spent 40 years in the motor industry working in design, development and research. Using the results from fatigue testing of structures was once a speciality of mine.
If we use a stub axle as an example, we would design this part to be as light as possible within the known strength and fatigue characteristics of the material. The first prototypes would undergo a proof test---an overload test similar to that given to a gun barrel. The difference is that, after the test, the part would never be allowed to be fitted to a road going vehicle. If we needed it for purposes such as proof build, it would be painted yellow and stamped as scrap. We knew that the overload test would have severely affected the in-service fatigue life of the part and could not take the risk of actually using it.
Proof shows that your gun would take an overload test----once. It does not say that it will do it again and you have over-strained the barrel and other pressurised parts and affected their life in service. Go back 140 years, and most barrels were forged welded together from wrought iron, a material which can and does have "strings" of slag in it. This is what proof was developed for.
Fred

[huntervixen]

Happy New Year all,

Interesting isn't it.....I sold a beautiful Sec58(2) S&W Model 3 chambered in .44 American. Heres the thing, you can imagine Plod rocking up for an inspection and setting eyes on a "massive revolver" you just know he won't believe it's allowed!!

I think it is a very good and indeed prudent practice to download and have a printed off copy of the Home Office guide "Firearms Act 1968: Antique Firearms" to hand. This contains an extensive list of all Calibers considered obsolete by the Home Office... IT might just help prevent an unscheduled visit to the Police Station "to help with further inquiry's"

It is a swine to find these days, but I last tracked down a copy here http://www.david-squires.org.uk/Antiques.htm

[huntervixen]

Ovenpaa: If read up on the rules of proof, then virtually all of my antique guns are actually still in proof. I would not shoot a damascus barreled gun which had never been proofed: I do not believe that proof has any relevance to guns made of modern steels.
I am a retired Chartered Mechanical Engineer who spent 40 years in the motor industry working in design, development and research. Using the results from fatigue testing of structures was once a speciality of mine.
If we use a stub axle as an example, we would design this part to be as light as possible within the known strength and fatigue characteristics of the material. The first prototypes would undergo a proof test---an overload test similar to that given to a gun barrel. The difference is that, after the test, the part would never be allowed to be fitted to a road going vehicle. If we needed it for purposes such as proof build, it would be painted yellow and stamped as scrap. We knew that the overload test would have severely affected the in-service fatigue life of the part and could not take the risk of actually using it.
Proof shows that your gun would take an overload test----once. It does not say that it will do it again and you have over-strained the barrel and other pressurised parts and affected their life in service. Go back 140 years, and most barrels were forged welded together from wrought iron, a material which can and does have "strings" of slag in it. This is what proof was developed for.
Fred

I think the best approach, for piece of mind (and to prevent your mind being blown to pieces) is to have an Antique firearm checked over by a trusted Gunsmith first before firing, believe me, they will spot possible safty issues you didn't even know existed!

[Rarms]

.........
To me proof testing is more about confirming designs and cartridges rather than proving a gun safe, no doubt the proof houses will disagree but that is my view and approach.

So might your liability insurance, and that of the range you were shooting on

[wildrover77]

.........
To me proof testing is more about confirming designs and cartridges rather than proving a gun safe, no doubt the proof houses will disagree but that is my view and approach.

So might your liability insurance, and that of the range you were shooting on

You are correct but this just proves how stupid the world we live in is. I with my limited engineering training wondered how it could be sensible to stress a gun beyond its design and then suggest it was safe to fire within its design. The explanation about why proof was originaly required(slag in the barrels) at least sets my mind at rest that it was not always a scam.