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

Just to remind you of the original statement I made:

ovenpaa wrote:Do remember that (in theory at least) the suppressor fitted to a firearm should be in Proof. I say in theory as there are many which are not. The Proof of suppressors is a matter of much discussion between the manufacturers, Proof Houses, FET's and RFd's.

Under the Gun Barrel Proof Act (amended 1978), proof is required for all guns sold in the United Kingdom, and for guns that have undergone structural modifications to their barrels – for example by re-sleeving worn shotgun barrels or adapting a rifle barrel to accept a sound moderator or muzzle attachment. Imported guns also need to be proofed, although that can be done at the proof house in the country of origin, provided it meets the standards laid down by the Commission Internationale Permanente pour l’Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (CIP)

Mr_Logic wrote:Ovenpaa - got to disagree. there is no requirement to have ANY firearm in proof, much less a mod. You only need to do so upon sale, because the offence is the sale of an unproven firearm, not the ownership thereof.
Remember that an FAC dictates the ownership of the listed items, not, unless on conditions, their use. A SAK mod without serial number, so all of them, can be used on an air rifle because there is no restriction on air rifle moderators. Used in conjunction with a S1 gun, the mod is at that point covered, but nothing says it can't also be used in a de-restricted context.

Not quite right... Yes you can both personally import or manufacture/assemble your own firearms and use it without a requirement for Proof however you will almost certainly be uninsured if you are shooting at a club range unless there is specific dispensation for a firearm out of Proof to be shot.

The importation of unproved arms into the United Kingdom is subject to control. See Section 122 (4) of the 1868 Act, amended by the Act of 1978.
Notification of importation has to be given to both Proof Houses within 7 days and/or the arms have to be submitted to proof within 28 days of arrival in this country. These regulations do not apply to small arms imported by any person for his own personal use while their remain his own property.

Mattnall wrote:I believe there is no requirement to have sound moderators proved before sale, or at any other time.

Legal Counsel has now confirmed that:
A sound moderator is not a “part” of a “small arm” for the purposes of the Proof Acts.
There is no requirement in law for a sound moderator to be subject to proof.
The cutting of a screw thread on a barrel in order to affix a sound moderator is most unlikely to “unduly reduce it in substance or strength”, although each case will depend on its own facts.

LINK TO ARTICLE

I know Peter Jackson took it upon himself to have this checked and it used as fact by some RFD's however to the best of my knowledge it has not been tested and would probably be deemed to be conjecture at best in a court of law. The Proof Houses are here to protect the manufacturers/makers as much as the shooters. The testing is a momentary act and cannot allow for the further use of the firearm however it is a test that is accepted in law.

I raised this question with Richard Mabbitt, London proof Master and he is of the opinion that a suppressor when attached to a firearm should be the subject of Proof testing based on the following:

“Barrel” includes every Barrel of every Small Arm, and every Breech of every Small Arm, and every Part of every Small Arm which would in the User of the Small Arm contain all or any Part of the Charge of the Small Arm, and every Part of every Small Arm in, from, or through which Part in the User of the Small Arm all or any Part of the Charge thereof would be exploded or discharged

What this means is if a suppressor is sold with a firearm it must be in Proof. The vague get out clause is if an RFD chooses to sell a suppressor separately he could argue it was not sold as part of a firearm therefore does not require testing, this does however mean if the suppressor is then sold with a rifle at a later date it will need a Proof stamp.

That would be the same proof master who refused to answer my simple question "did firearm X which I'm told passed through your house between dates Y and Z actually do so" and instead wanted me to pay for a "technical examination".

It's all money for them. The Proof Houses are commercial businesses with monopolies guaranteed by law. Nobody heard of a monopoly turning down the chance to gain extra revenue.

Gaz wrote:That would be the same proof master who refused to answer my simple question "did firearm X which I'm told passed through your house between dates Y and Z actually do so" and instead wanted me to pay for a "technical examination".

It's all money for them. The Proof Houses are commercial businesses with monopolies guaranteed by law. Nobody heard of a monopoly turning down the chance to gain extra revenue.

Concur!

Proof house = greedy b@stards.

About as useful as petrol to put a fire out.

So based on that ... I'm gonna use the sak on my air rifle ...

Just as an aside........you do realise that .22 moderators are usually batch-proofed.
In other word a batch of them are sent in for proofing....

one of them is tested.......



And the whole lot are stamped with their proof mark.


So much for safety eh.


G.M.

Graham M wrote:Just as an aside........you do realise that .22 moderators are usually batch-proofed.
In other word a batch of them are sent in for proofing....

one of them is tested.......



And the whole lot are stamped with their proof mark.


So much for safety eh.


G.M.

Where did this information come from Graham? Surely that would be no more than type approval rather than proving?

It was something that was seen years ago when a batch of PH moderators were sent to the proof house in Birmingham to be proofed.
One of the moderators had be put through the test and was clearly dirty. The rest of them were still wrapped in their protective cling-film wrappers and had been stamped through the cling-film.

On a separate test one of the members of the GT forum knew of a moderator that was sent to be proofed and when it came back the moderator had been laser etched with the .308WIN proof mark.
Upon being questioned about the validity of this .308WIN mark the proof house was adamant that a .308 rifle had been fired through the mod with a .308WIN proof round and that it had been inspected thoroughly before the .308WIN proof mark had been etched.

The moderator had a 6.5mm hole in it..................


And finally Esther, here's my .243Win moderator that was proofed together with my Tikka when I had to have it all proofed after it was shortened and threaded by the lads at Webley and Scott (they used to have their shop on the local trading estate just down the road from me)

As you can see they originally etched .243REM which then had to be struck off when I enquired as to "What clown had done that" and .243WIN had to be re-etched underneath.................what a botch-up that was

G.M.