Ronin
Distinguished Member
Yes - your correct in that Proof now use CIP - up until approx five years ago SAAMI was the accepted standard
Agreed re over pressure - my mistake
Proof house loads.
- Thread starter Bavarianbrit
- Start date
Yes - your correct in that Proof now use CIP - up until approx five years ago SAAMI was the accepted standard
Agreed re over pressure - my mistake
I'm sure given enough resources it can be done.
But that doesn't change the fact that a shock overload test is dangerous.
Perhaps a type test. Many countries don't have a standard proof requirement and some produce/sell many firearms in a highly litigious climate.
No, you wouldn't want to do that - it would always fail at the muzzle. The breech area sees much higher pressure than the muzzle. The muzzle only sees roughly 10-20kPSI.
The Proof Act has about 150 sections, the first 100 or more are all about who controls the money.
tackb
Well-Known Member
it's 5500 bar , the cranes i work on top out their hydraulics at about 380-400bar 5500 bar is some pressure !
referencing cranes again , some years ago now the F96 4 yearly testing was stopped where we did overload tests to 25% over the safe working load every 4 years to ensure there was no hidden fatigue the thinking was that regular overloading was detrimental to the machine
Scary how much pressure can be in some systems. The HP system on many aircraft I worked on was 3000psi, we used to static test to near 4500psi.
Last edited:
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
To howeever speak in their defence the proof marks for the barrel on the No4 Lee Enfield was usually always stamped at the muzzle as this was, once the furniture was put back, the only part of the barrel visible.
The Rules of Proof state the proof marks are to be marked on the barrel as close to the receiver as possible.
As long as they do this, any extra marks are fine, just remove them as you want, the remaining marks must clearly show the correct proof status.
Changing the marks to show a different proof state or remove the marks altogether and the barrel is deemed unprooved (and in some cases could also be illegal).
As long as they do this, any extra marks are fine, just remove them as you want, the remaining marks must clearly show the correct proof status.
Changing the marks to show a different proof state or remove the marks altogether and the barrel is deemed unprooved (and in some cases could also be illegal).
When I was arranging to have a barrelled action assembled last year, I was asked by the gunsmith if I'd like it presented as "Non-Std" to avoid the possibility of chamber surface damage, which I did.
This had happened about ten years ago with another rifle (and another smith). There were very noticeable marks on the fired cases from a new barrel.
I sent it back and it was rectified. Been fine ever since.
D.
This had happened about ten years ago with another rifle (and another smith). There were very noticeable marks on the fired cases from a new barrel.
I sent it back and it was rectified. Been fine ever since.
D.
Similar threads
