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

[huntervixen]

Well this is a first ...... a five page thread and unanamous agreement, I think this is a first in the history of our forum, the proof system really is in serous trouble!

As for a replacement "safe to shoot" system, that will be tricky, just think of the hundreds that need to be submitted to proof every day!

The government won't agree to any rehash that farms out that responsibility to the builder of the firearm, because they won't get their wad of cash!

But I fully agree, its got to go, not fit for purpose and hasn't been for generations!

[Racalman]

Few weeks ago I was quoted by F.....s of B...y,ready?-195£ for cutting a tread on a barrel end of my marlin .22wmr....
And most of the cost was sending the barrel to proof house....I pointed out I am not selling this rifle in the near or distant future-but according to them it was the only way.Sorry simG-I have access to lathe and just got the rest of the tools from ebay...cest la vie,mate

That's a tad excessive. Just got one of my rifles back with a new barrel and the proof house charge was £47. It was away for five months and the gunsmith swore blind that for most of that time it was in the queue at the proof house.

I notice that the mark was right at the end of the barrel, I haven't seen that before. Is it to stop people threading for a moderator or muzzle brake?

[zanes]

Few weeks ago I was quoted by F.....s of B...y,ready?-195£ for cutting a tread on a barrel end of my marlin .22wmr....
And most of the cost was sending the barrel to proof house....I pointed out I am not selling this rifle in the near or distant future-but according to them it was the only way.Sorry simG-I have access to lathe and just got the rest of the tools from ebay...cest la vie,mate

That's a tad excessive. Just got one of my rifles back with a new barrel and the proof house charge was £47. It was away for five months and the gunsmith swore blind that for most of that time it was in the queue at the proof house.

I notice that the mark was right at the end of the barrel, I haven't seen that before. Is it to stop people threading for a moderator or muzzle brake?

As discussed and questioned earlier in this thread, yes.

[Swamp Donkey]

Few weeks ago I was quoted by F.....s of B...y,ready?-195£ for cutting a tread on a barrel end of my marlin .22wmr....
And most of the cost was sending the barrel to proof house....I pointed out I am not selling this rifle in the near or distant future-but according to them it was the only way.Sorry simG-I have access to lathe and just got the rest of the tools from ebay...cest la vie,mate

That's a tad excessive. Just got one of my rifles back with a new barrel and the proof house charge was £47. It was away for five months and the gunsmith swore blind that for most of that time it was in the queue at the proof house.

I notice that the mark was right at the end of the barrel, I haven't seen that before. Is it to stop people threading for a moderator or muzzle brake?

Yes, as it is illegal to deface a proof mark, or remove it.
Talk about having you by the short n curlies......

[Racalman]

As discussed and questioned earlier in this thread, yes.

Sorry, I didn't read it all. Life's too short sometimes ...

[lapua338]

Yes, as it is illegal to deface a proof mark, or remove it

If the rifle has been refinished who can prove that a proof mark on the muzzle ever existed?

[IainWR]

To answer the specific previous: the Proof House, who will have a record of the rifle and the marks made.

It is instructive in this to read the whole of the Gun Barrel Proof Act. Notwithstanding that it is UK Public legislation, it is in nature a Private Act (something not seen for a great many years) setting up a business monopoly for the supposed benefit of the public at large. The first hundred or so clauses enact into law the existence and administrative processes of the Proof Houses. It is only at clause 108 that the practical effect of the law becomes apparent.

There is nothing in the clauses of the Act that specifies the proof process. There is material in schedule B that does so, but it refers as far as I can see to firearm types that these days are obsolete. I think, therefore, that under S117 it is open to the Secretary of State to change the rules etc of proof for a new standard should she be persuaded to do so. Patently, modern non-destructive metullurgical methods would make more sense.

So:

Is there a metallurgist in the house who can propose a demonstrably valid process?
On the basis of such a process, should we be petitioning the S of S to change the rules?
Would we be better or worse off (in the literal financial sense) as a result?

[Marmite5]

Good point. gunlike

[tackb]

I can maybe help a bit here ?

Modern steels are made to various standards , very fine quality standards that are very traceable and documented , they have to be nowadays thanks to various regulations .

To join the steels requires welder certification plus depending on the application NDT with qualified certification. Very little if any welding is done during most gun smithing.

New rifles will be made from traceable quality steel , a re barrel will be done with traceable quality steel , all older rifles etc will have been proofed already , so I see no need for the proof house anymore ? If a rifle is in proof and is re-barreled the new barrel quality is easily traced and its strength and properties will be documented from its original data sheet.

If a barrel is shortened and threaded for a mod etc the steel type can be easily checked and then the strength ascertained , that will tell you if you have removed too much steel to still be safe. A light barrel may be smaller at the muzzle than a heavy barrel after threading so why do you need to re-proof if the steel is the same?

Modern manufacturing techniques are wrong or the antiquated proof house techniques ? I know what my money would be on !

[Robert303]

I agree that with the modern 'Type approval', Batch testing of steel, EU and BS standards etc that the need for 'Proof' is greatly reduced.
I suspect that the Deactivation market provides them with the bulk of their income.
I also believe that there is a place for a modernised and more efficient version of the Proof House as a test centre / expert witness centre.
It's probably outside the remit of the Law Commission review of Firearms legislation which is a pity as it could be useful in some sections of any new law.
It's been alluded to in some earlier posts, but the Proof House often gets the blame for delays and charges by one or two shall we say 'Less scrupulous'dealers.
The first change I would make is to do with Deactivation. There should be a LOT more 'Branch offices'that can carry out the work instead of dealers having to go to one or two places. In fact the Proof House should in some cases send 2 inspectors to the De Act premises to carry out the inspection / marking etc.