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

Demonic69 wrote:But they have their original proof and possibly some service use?
Do you work for a proof house, is the Bentley due for replacement? ;-)

I read your comment first thing this morning (at about 10am) when my butler handed me the gold plated macbook along with my usual caviar and champaign breakfast.....I have to say, I was so taken back I dropped my monocle into the breakfast in shock.....another cleaning job for the domestic staff, I do hope you are happy with yourself!

I have never driven a Bentley in my life....poor mans Rolls old boy....wouldn't be seen dead in one...the very idea!!

Joking aside, I quite agree that proofing is largely irrelevant these days, modern materials render it a a relic (A Government owned cash cow of a relic...hmmm) it was a very good idea back in the distant past when iron barrels could (and did) go boom though!

I remember discussing this with a highly skilled aerospace engineer a few years back, a chap with no background in firearms, he had no idea such a thing took place and though it was completely bloody barking mad!!

However, it is a legal requirement, just like locking up your firearms and having an FAC for them!

I wonder what the legal implications are for for the private owner if it isn't spotted, I suppose you are breaking the law by selling it on out of proof?

Military rifles have been proofed and are so marked. We are told that these marks are "not acceptable" and re-proof is required. We are told by whom?
Fred

FredB wrote:Military rifles have been proofed and are so marked. We are told that these marks are "not acceptable" and re-proof is required. We are told by whom?
Fred

Big brother Fred, that's who, nice little earner for the government mate, you could justify the original military proof and acceptance markings as proof of...well proof, but that was 60,70,80 100 years ago in the case of Lee Enfields, since then, who knows who has butchered it.

There is a strong case for a sensible alternative I think, at least for existing firearms, something like a one off car MOT for a firearm, gunsmiths could apply to be registered inspectors and firearms would be submitted for inspection, head spacing, bore scoping etc, then a general "safe to shoot" certificate issued and rifle stamped accordingly.

In the case of new firearms, the Proof aspect could be put in the hands of the manufacturer, as it it is in the States.

Just an idea...

Well, not exactly, Huntervixen: you see I have 19th century rifles which were commercially proofed at that time. The proof marks are still acceptable. Back in the 1960s, when I was starting in this game, many foreign proof marks--including German---were "not acceptable". I can't remember when exactly, but an edict came out saying that these proof marks where now "acceptable". This was published in various shooting magazines, but not attributed to any source. Some of the Lee-Enfield rifles which started this discussion only bear military proofs. The law says that guns must be proofed in order to be sold "somebody" says that the military marks are no good. Has this been tested in a court of law? Proof houses are authorised by the Government, and this would have included the Military proof houses.
Fred

As a collector and shooter of military rifles, I think it is no bad thing that a firearm has to be proofed before being sold commercially.
The oldest rifle in my collection is an 1872 Mk2 Martini Enfield with a mint bore, that was converted to .303 in 1899.

It carries a 1993 Birmingham proof of 4160 bar! That for me is re-assurance when shooting this fine rifle.

I bought a 1918 vintage, M91 Carcano last year and sent it off to Birmingham for re-proof as there was some pitting in the chamber, just for piece of mind.

For change out of sixty quid, which included shipping, I have a rifle of nearly 100 years old that has been head spaced and pressure tested.
The original proof mark was from the German proof house in Ulm.

Long may we have access to proofing, much better to have an old rifle fail at proof than the firing point!

ukrifleman.

Sorry to disillusion you, ukrifleman:
I have posted this before, but some old and valuable guns could be saved if I repeat it from time to time:
I am a retired Chartered Engineer. I spent 40 years in the design, testing and development of vehicles, mostly commercial vehicles which have many highly stress components.
If we designed new, highly stressed parts such as a stub axle, then the first prototype would be subject to an overload proof test---as the Proof Houses do with guns.
That part would then not be used for fatigue testing and was not allowed to be fitted to a road going vehicle as we knew that the proof test would dramatically reduce its fatigue life----this is the opposite of what the Proof Houses make us do with guns.
The proof exercise shows that the stressed parts will take an overload---ONCE. They may then not take a normal commercial load again for very long.
Proof was developed in the days of wrought iron barrels. The manufacturing process for wrought iron---puddling--- incorporates strings of slag into the rolled out material. These areas containing slag could not be detected before the invention of X-rays and so proof was developed.
With todays materials, proof is neither needed nor desirable.
The thought of repeating the overload test on a valuable old gun which has already been subjected to it once, horrifies me.
Fred

I have over the last few months been selling off a few rifles, the first thing I'm asked is not is it still for sale "but when and where was it proofed" even 2 dealers have asked are they in proof and when, so this must be something thats needed I know if they are proofed then dealers can sell them on without having to spend money at the proof house. All the rifles sold have been recently headspaced and have recent proofs.

FredB wrote:Sorry to disillusion you, ukrifleman:
I have posted this before, but some old and valuable guns could be saved if I repeat it from time to time:
I am a retired Chartered Engineer. I spent 40 years in the design, testing and development of vehicles, mostly commercial vehicles which have many highly stress components.
If we designed new, highly stressed parts such as a stub axle, then the first prototype would be subject to an overload proof test---as the Proof Houses do with guns.
That part would then not be used for fatigue testing and was not allowed to be fitted to a road going vehicle as we knew that the proof test would dramatically reduce its fatigue life----this is the opposite of what the Proof Houses make us do with guns.
The proof exercise shows that the stressed parts will take an overload---ONCE. They may then not take a normal commercial load again for very long.
Proof was developed in the days of wrought iron barrels. The manufacturing process for wrought iron---puddling--- incorporates strings of slag into the rolled out material. These areas containing slag could not be detected before the invention of X-rays and so proof was developed.
With todays materials, proof is neither needed nor desirable.
The thought of repeating the overload test on a valuable old gun which has already been subjected to it once, horrifies me.
Fred

An excellent explanation of the proof process!

These days, re-barrelling is common. I remember a few years ago taking a 50 year old Tikka action to the proof house with three new barrels. God knows how often that rifle had been subjected to proof loads..........

Some of the rifles that the NRA is offering for sale in their "Grand Auction" are variously described as "scrap" or "failing headspace".

As such, they are highly likely to be out of proof and should not be offered for sale as firearms in that condition.

do they only need to be in proof if they are sold comercially? IE as a private sale it doesnt matter?

also, as someone that doesnt know a whole lot about firearm proof marks, are there any easy tips when looking for them? as i wouldnt know what a proof mark really looks like