Testing of vintage rifles.

[bigfathairybiker]

Hi all,

When one obtains a vintage rifle, say a 19th Cent, Remington rolling block or simular, what is the procedure for getting it checked before taking it down the range and firing it?

I suppose this could be any firearm actually where youve not been assured it is safe.

Mark

[Sandgroper]

The answer will depend if the rifle is under Section 1 or Section 58 of the act.

If it's S1 then it should be in proof and in theory safe to fire.

If it's a S58 firearm that you're putting on you FAC (making it S1) then I'd be talking to someone like Dromia first.

Not much of an answer, I know, but it's best I can come up with!

[dromia]

Section 1 rifles do not need to be in proof to be shot, they only need to be in proof to be sold by a dealer to a private individual.

Personally I would not put a BP rifle through proof, from my experience the proof house are less than respectful of the firearms in their charge and I see no point in over stressing these older fire arms.

To me all proof means is that the firearm didn't let go at that time with that load. The origins of proof to look for any flaws in the metal of newly made firearms has lost its way in my view into a money making legislated monopoly.

My own personal regime is that I clean check the rifle fully all over looking for cracks, bulges, pitting or rusting, the barrel needs to be taken out of the wood as it is amazing what may be found there. The action is checked for function, lock up, and overall integrity, if all is well then I would consider shooting the firearm. I only use BP in BP rifles as that is what they were made for, I know some people who shoot reduced smokeless loads with success but that is not something I would choose to do.

Any obsolete calibre firearm must be put on ticket with an ammunition allowance before ammunition can assembled and the firearm fired.

If in any doubt at all seek professional help from a knowledgeable gunsmith if you can find one.

[Sandgroper]

Section 1 rifles do not need to be in proof to be shot, they only need to be in proof to be sold by a dealer to a private individual.

That's what I meant, as I assumed he would be buying from a dealer, but I should know by now never to assume anything!

[bigfathairybiker]

Hi again,

THanks for the info on giving the rifle a good check over.

I was thinking that the rifle may be purchased privately or from a dealer, but may even be sold as a obsolete calibre rifle with no warranty.

This Proof house stuff.. wouldnt a "proof" run out after 130+ years? ( Thinking metal fatigue )
Were firearms "proofed" that long ago?
Also If a dealer sells a firearm that old, are they liable for its usable condition? ( if sold as working ).

The Rolling block rifle I've been looking at is a large .50-70 calibre Remington which needs cartridges hand loaded with BP... oooo dont you just love that smell...

Mark

[SevenSixTwo]

A long piece of string?

[dromia]

I shoot a 12.7mm Remington Rolling Block along with a 50-70 Trapdoor and at least a dozen other original BP cartridge rifles none of which are in current proof.

String and a bed of tyres is good, for many however it is getting a safe and legal place to do it.

[FredB]

I think that I have posted this before, but if it saves a few old guns from the ravages of the proof hous it is worth repeating. Proof was developed when barrels were made of wrought iron and hammer welded together. Wrought iron contains strings of slag which are not visible to the naked eye and can cause a barrel to burst under pressure. Proof testing was the best thing available, but it has limitations. It demonstrates that a barrel will take a proof load---once. It gives no indication of what will happen if you do it again. Modern "clean" steels have few inclusions and can be checked by devices such as X-rays. The most likely cause of failure in a modern gun is a microscopic crack in the steel which propogates through continuous use---this is fatigue. Barrels are not particularly prone to fatigue failures because they are made from steels which are tough rather than hard and the cycle of use is not not continuous.
I am a Chartered Engineer and worked in the motor industry for 40 years on research, design and development. The forst prototype parts of a new, highly stressed system, such as a stub axle for a car, were strain gauged and subjected to a proof test to validate the design calculations. After this, other parts went on the be fatigue tested, but the proof parts were never fitted to a road going vehicle. They were often painted yellow and used in build validation exercises before being scrapped. Bear in mind that these early prototype parts had cost many thousands of pounds to produce.
The reason for not re-using the prototyps parts was that previous experience showed that the proof testing dramatically reduced the fatigue life in service.
Proof houses survive because there is no other way to detect srious manufacturing weakness in a new gun. Re-proofing an old gun which is in good condition is not a good idea.
I have been a member of my current club for 25years and have seen two guns blown up on the range----both modern ones.
Fred

[Christel]

FredB,

Very good post and please do not hesitate to repeat it on this forum. What us "old timers" on here very often forget is that new users may not have read the posts on the forum and doing a search is not always going to bring up what a new user is looking for. It is difficult to use the correct search string in order to get exactly what one is looking for.

Answering the same question several times over a time period is beneficial for all.

[450 Martini]

I have been told from a few "worthies" that rifle proofing stamps "run out" it was always my belief a gun is still in proof if there is no significant wear, pitting, or modification to pressure bearing parts., for example i have a mint condition mk III BSA Martini Henry dated 1885 that i use regulaly, Throughout its service history it was almost unused, what has changed since it left the factory and was accepted into service? how would it have become out of proof?
At the other end of the scale i have a nice mkII Martini Henry Artillery carbine on s58 that i purchased from a now sadly deceased gunsmith friend, this rifle had a saw cut made through the chamber for issue to cadets before ww1. My friend welded the cut up, reamed the chamber out and restored the rifle, clearly this rifle was out of proof but it was resubmitted and passed. It is a nice piece, i would shoot it but the variation paper work is a bit of a annoyance and my mate in the same club has the twin of my carbine on ticket so i have a go when he is around.
As was said before, proof means it didn't fail on the day and Common sense and experiance goes a long way.