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

Without doubt laws surrounding proof could do with modernising and certainly clarifying, however, when you see some of the work today carried out by some people who have a lathe, an ISP and a business plan, having a proof facility/requirement may not be such a bad thing at all...

Steve E wrote:The loads that the proof house use are 150% so 50% more than so called factory. You are deluding yourself if you think that they are only 10% more than so called max loads.
Go do some proper research you guys.

I was only reporting what I was told by Birmingham proof house.

Sim G wrote:Without doubt laws surrounding proof could do with modernising and certainly clarifying, however, when you see some of the work today carried out by some people who have a lathe, an ISP and a business plan, having a proof facility/requirement may not be such a bad thing at all...

No one has addressed my question though, with today's technology are there not better, safer, more reassuring, intelligent ways of proving an arm is fit for purpose?

If we were to have a proper proof system what would that consist of other than trying to destroy the gun?

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

why would you need a proof on the end of the barrel? its not like if you cut it shorter you can add it back on again... pointless.

as for better ways of testing, i would think if xrays and ultrasound are good enough for testing parts on landing gear of planes for defects, that would be good enough for barrels.

i pick up a rifle with a proofed barrel, ring it, then sell it as it's still in proof

I was told the CIP proof load is around 15% to 25% over maximum charge (Source, London Proof House) as opposed to 50% however the second Proof round fired is oiled before being loaded into the chamber, something I was always told never to do under any circumstances.

I woulda thought that the facts speak for themselves, really. This whole proofing thing is only used on a tiny tiny fraction of the World's civilian guns, and yet, those of us in the huge majority of non-proofed folks are NOT blowing our faces off every second Saturday or whatever. In over 55 years of messing about with hundreds of non-aftermarket-proofed guns, sporting and military, I have never ever had a barrel or chamber issue. It's a complete boondoggle that y'all should be working hard at erasing. I shudder to think of what could happen if the whole anti-gunner crowd over 'ere got hold of this looney idea.....

Unfortunately we have no representative mechanism to champion our cause in the UK and question such absurdities as the proof legislation. We just have factionalised, vested interest, discipline based groupings working against the best interests of gun ownership and shooters, due to their competitive divisiveness and their refusal to see, accept and act upon the fact that championing gun ownership is the absolute fundamental issue that all other shooting activity flows from and is the single issue that binds all shooters regardless of interest or discipline.

Browning_grrl wrote: boondoggle

awesome word!

dromia wrote:Unfortunately we have no representative mechanism to champion our cause in the UK and question such absurdities as the proof legislation. We just have factionalised, vested interest, discipline based groupings working against the best interests of gun ownership and shooters, due to their competitive divisiveness and their refusal to see, accept and act upon the fact that championing gun ownership is the absolute fundamental issue that all other shooting activity flows from and is the single issue that binds all shooters regardless of interest or discipline.

Huh. I find that a bit strange, seeing it from afar. We too have some divisions amongst gunners - the hunters (me... :) ), the pistoleros, the black gun folks, etc etc. BUT, when it comes to an issue like this one, which affects darn near everybody, those divisions would be, and have been, set aside. That's how we got rid of the useless gun Registry system (took 20 years, but still, we did it... ). The anti-gunners can be beaten back where reason and logic are on your side, and there is unanimity across the common front. Somebody needs to wake up some folks & light a fire under their collective arse.