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

I was looking into this the other day and some people say you don't need to get a barrel that has been proofed; re-proofed, since you are not changing the structural integrity of the barrel...

I just phoned up a gunsmiths and asked for a price on threading a barrel and they said they want the mod with the rifle when doing the work so they can make sure it fits up nicely, which is good to know, however, since I don't have a threaded barrel I haven't bought a moderator yet so it is a little backwards... But moreover, they mentioned that for threading and proofing they quoted me a price.

Is Proofing required, or is it, as I read, a myth that proof houses have circulated that you need to get the barrel proofed after threading?

Obviously if I never plan to sell the rifle/barrel it wouldn't need proofing anyway...

Thoughts?

When Edgar Brothers imported my gun (which was ordered threaded), I was told that the threading would be done in the UK and then the gun would be proofed again. In the end, the gun had taken so long to arrived that I cancelled the threading part of the order and the gun came straight to me.

So, at least as far as Edgar Brothers are concerned, threading does require a new proof to be performed.

AlieN

Seems like its a mine field to be honest.
Reading reports of gunsmiths getting taken to court by the proof house and winning. Some people believe that you only have to get it reproofed if selling on, others say you don't need to at all because the only thing the proof house have sent out is "advice" and has no legal standing.
Others say that some gunsmith insurers will only insure against threading jobs for the gunsmith if they get reproofed afterwards as per the proof house advice. I also read that this lost that particular insurer a lot of business.

i guess it comes down to whether the individual gunsmith would do it without and take the risk, and in the midlands its slim pickings... :(

Depends who you ask, there's some legal precedent for it not being required, Jackson Rifles I beleive?. As long as the threading (removal of material) doesn't weaken the barrel it shouldn't need it, also if you're not selling the rifle to anyone else it doesn't need to be proofed.

How could removing material from a barrel not weaken it???????

Mike A wrote:How could removing material from a barrel not weaken it???????

Are you saying anytime you crown a rifle it should be re-proofed...?

No No No . Why would you want to subject your rifle to extreme pressures again ? The pressure at the exit point of the barrel bears little relation to the chamber pressures - not even a little bit useful .

The Proof Act requires all barrels that "be unduly reduced in Substance or Strength" to be deemed unproved.

I would argue that reducing the diameter of the barrel at the last 1/2"-1" or so does not unduly reduce the substance or strength of that barrel. Most shooters will also only use the firearm with either a thread protector or moderator (or other device) threaded on thereby increasing the strength of the area that the thread covers.

The Proof Houses are running scared that they will be found out and the money making tree they sit under is going to be chopped down. We have seen that with their attention to moderators themselves and there has been much debate over that. Now when marking a barrel they also apply a small mark just back from the crown so that a re-threading can be spotted. This will also be removed when a barrel is shortened which does not need to be re-proved (shortening does not reduce strength of the remaining barrel just its length).

I used to work in the aircraft industry and destructive and non-destructive testing of parts, I have seen the proof process first hand and some of the practices have left me wondering if it would be safer to just do away with it altogether.
It has got a lot better in the last few years but before that the process was totally unrepeatable and certainly not empirical at all, I would go so far as to say in some instances it was dangerous. As it is now, the idea that an over charged load will prove the barrel is going to be safe in the future is ludicrous, it could even stress an otherwise good barrel to the brink of failure where the subsequent use of normal charged loads could initiate a failure.

Over the years I have had 7 or 8 rifles threaded by various gun smiths for the fitting of muzzle brakes/sound mods each one has been sent by the gun smiths for reproof as amatter of course.

As the proof house don't actually record anything there's no "proof" (geddit?) that the rifle wasn't threaded the last time it was proofed AFAIK