UK Proof houses, a useless (and expensive) anachronism?

[dromia]

We are legally obliged to have our firearms proofed in this country if we wish to sell them.

All proofing is is a 10% over maximum charge being fired through the barrel and action.

This an exceptionally crude and potentially damaging way to treat firearms in the 21st century.

In days gone by when guns were produced locally from local made metals it was a way of ensuring there were no weaknesses in the metal like voids of slag pockets.

Things have moved on a lot since then and surely there have to be better and less crude and damaging ways of testing a gun metal safety than the current brutal and ineffective method.

Even in the early 20th century they were using magnetic analysis to check the integrity of metals to be used in firearms.

The US which has to be one of the worlds largest firearms producers and users, both military and civilian has no requirement for compulsory proofing of guns and seems to see no need to introduce it either.

I doubt that the current system we have proves anything about the safety of a firearm other than at that single point in time when it was proofed it was able then to take an over pressure load.

If we are truly interested in proving the safety of firearms there has to be better methods with the technology available to us today.

Please discuss.

[FredB]

Totally agree. The fatigue life of structures is affected by overloading. Unless the total system is analysed, this effect cannot be predicted. Proof is a hang over from wrapped iron barrels and revealed slag inclusions and poor forge welding. It has no relevance today.
Fred

[BamBam]

Yup, get rid of all these old useless institutions.

[The Gun Pimp]

Totally agree also. Many serious competition shooters will have a new barrel fitted every season - maybe twice per year in some cases.

Every time, the action is subject to 'proofing'. How many times can you safely overload an action?

[zanes]

Agreed.

If nothing else product liability concerns in the modern legal system negates the need for a statutory proof house system.

The recent "determination" re: screw cutting "requiring" a reproof shows it is just a "jobs for the boys" type of operation.

[Les]

Agreed.
If nothing else product liability concerns in the modern legal system negates the need for a statutory proof house system.
The recent "determination" re: screw cutting "requiring" a reproof shows it is just a "jobs for the boys" type of operation.

And there we have it in a nutshell. It no longer has anything to do with safety - it's just a money making scam.

[breacher]

Totally agree.

[Gaz]

Everyone says they're pointless, but what are the actual non-destructive testing techniques you can use nowadays?

[zanes]

I'd be very interested to see the proof failure rate for COTS rifles.

[tackb]

my rifle just failed proof , two thou too tight on the chamber which was made to tight tolerances for accuracy reasons.

my belief is that it's an out dated and unnecessary job for the boys organisation run along the lines of 1970's union cars production 'not my job mate'

the fact that they now stamp the end of the barrel so if you re-thread it you have to pay for proof again says everything about there organisation.