unproofed rifle

[bewsher500]

+1


i also own a rifle that has not been proofed yet its ok to own but can't sell until it is .

not true
I have bought all manner of 2nd hand rifles with aftermarket screwcut jobs
not one was had secondary proofing

we live in fear of things that often don't exist

what threat is there when selling a rifle with a screwcut muzzle
it obviously worked fine when you had it

 

[User00003]

Bewsher is right,

Simple one, I'm talking to the proofhouse today anyway, so will ask them straight up from what the proofmaster says, job done.

 

[EMcC]

Bewsher is right, Simple one, I'm talking to the proofhouse today anyway, so will ask them straight up from what the proofmaster says, job done.

I can give you their answer now, a resounding yes it has to be done.
But if you approached all the guys that work there and asked them separately what was their opinion of this, you would probably get a different answer.

 

[nun_hunter]

Is it different if you have the barrel shortened too?

 

[Greener Jim]

Nope, not even a grey area. You do not need to get a rifle re-proofed if you get the barrel shortened.
It cannot weaken the rifle to shorten it at a part of the barrel which is (in all likelihood) thicker than the original muzzle.
As has been said, many places insist on proof if screwcutting but it is NOT law.

 

[Bilbo]

Nope, not even a grey area. You do not need to get a rifle re-proofed if you get the barrel shortened.
It cannot weaken the rifle to shorten it at a part of the barrel which is (in all likelihood) thicker than the original muzzle.
As has been said, many places insist on proof if screwcutting but it is NOT law.

not sure if this has already been mentioned but Peter Jackson obtained a QC's opinion with regard to the requirement for re-proofing of threaded barrels in 2001. As far as I know this opinion settled things in respect of the proof houses taking legal action on this basis.
However, I think they have put the proof mark right at the end of unthreaded barrels which a screw cut would remove.
Here is the link to Jackson Rifles web site and the QC opinion.
http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm

 

[billh]

I have just taken the letter below from the Proof House web site. It may not be what people want to hear but it will not help your case if anything happens to the rifle after you have sold it and it is illegal to give or sell an un-proofed weapon.

THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY THE GUARDIANS OF THE
OF GUNMAKERS OF LONDON BIRMINGHAM PROOF HOUSE




Conversion of Barrels and the Fitting of
Muzzle Accessories


The British Proof Authority wish to clarify the proof status of small arms converted to accept muzzle attachments and the proof requirements of the attachment.

The following advice applies to cartridge operated small arms of all calibres, not including air weapons and their accessories.

The Trade and the public are advised that the barrels of small arms fitted with sound moderators, screw in choke tubes, muzzle brakes, etc. require to be proof tested. In addition any barrel of any small arm previously proved but subsequently converted by a manufacturing process, resulting in a reduction in substance or strength, to accept the fitting of sound moderators, screw in choke tubes, muzzle brakes, etc., will require the arms to be reproved. This advice also applies to any alteration to the internal dimensions of the barrel affecting bore size or chamber lengths in excess of permitted tolerances.

Muzzle attachments through which any part of the charge would be exploded or discharged form part of the barrel and also require to be proof tested and marked accordingly.






The London Proof House or The Birmingham Proof House
48-50 Commercial Road Banbury Street
London E1 1LP Birmingham B5 5RH


October 2001

I have read the legal comment on the Jackson Rifles web site and agree with almost all of the legal argument given except the amount of metal removed from the outside of the muzzle due to thread cutting. It is much more than 1mm, sometimes it is as much as 1/4 of the muzzle wall thickness in light weight sporting weapons.

The argument does not look at stress raisers caused by sharp notches being created in the machining of the threads. Unless the threading work is polished to a good finish with adherence to the ideal design of threads, stress raisers could be a serious concern.
There is also no guarantee a sound moderator is going to sustain the pressure it is going to experience when the shot is fired unless it has been proofed.

To finish I would say to all of those whom do not like the idea of reproofing, 'do it to protect yourself' a visit to court can be a very humbling experience with no guarantee of you being declared the winner regardless of advice given outside court.

 

[palmer_mike]

Reading the proof house letter changes nothing from the legal position. Cut through the waffle and it says 2 things specifically.

1- barrels need to be proof marked (there is no argument here)
2- barrels which have been altered to accept a moderator need to be proofed (but only if the alteration weakens the barrel)

it it is generally accepted that screw cutting a barrel does not substantially weaken it, therefore (despite all the waffle from the proof house) they cannot force you to have a barrel re proofed after a screwcut.

 

[Bilbo]

Reading the proof house letter changes nothing from the legal position. Cut through the waffle and it says 2 things specifically.

1- barrels need to be proof marked (there is no argument here)
2- barrels which have been altered to accept a moderator need to be proofed (but only if the alteration weakens the barrel)

it it is generally accepted that screw cutting a barrel does not substantially weaken it, therefore (despite all the waffle from the proof house) they cannot force you to have a barrel re proofed after a screwcut.

Perhaps the only other thing to note is that in the 14 years or so since the QC opinion and The Proof House response, as far as I aware, there have been no court cases over the issue....

 

[billh]

I am trying to inject some common sense into this thread.

The proof house would not have published this memorandum without the opinion of their lawyers.

The memorandum could be likened to the highway code, not law, but break it and see where you stand in law.

How and who decides at what stage the barrel is weakened, when the end blows off and injuries occur or at some stage in between. The lack of action by the proof house I suspect means they are waiting for the right incident to happen.

Do we really want an incident to take place and then have the Proof Laws tightened to some unknown extent, causing world wide disruption to gun manufacture with its increased costs. Believe it or not proof is carried out at the point of manufacture by agreement usually. Proof could be extended to home loads think of the effects there.

Be careful when rocking the boat!!

 

[8x57]

Perhaps the only other thing to note is that in the 14 years or so since the QC opinion and The Proof House response, as far as I aware, there have been no court cases over the issue....

Wasn't there a test case some years ago involving the gunshop Barnett? The prosecution failed to make their case if my memory is correct.
I'm sorry but I don't have all the details and am only relying upon a very vague recollection of what I have read in the past.

P.S. I believe the case involved .22 rifles.

 

[palmer_mike]

I am trying to inject some common sense into this thread.

The proof house would not have published this memorandum without the opinion of their lawyers.

The memorandum could be likened to the highway code, not law, but break it and see where you stand in law.

How and who decides at what stage the barrel is weakened, when the end blows off and injuries occur or at some stage in between. The lack of action by the proof house I suspect means they are waiting for the right incident to happen.

Do we really want an incident to take place and then have the Proof Laws tightened to some unknown extent, causing world wide disruption to gun manufacture with its increased costs. Believe it or not proof is carried out at the point of manufacture by agreement usually. Proof could be extended to home loads think of the effects there.

Be careful when rocking the boat!!

the quoted opinion of the proof house is dated 2001. I will attach below the qc's opinion regarding the same subject. Seems to me if you're concerned about legalities you might take more notice of a QC's opinion dates 2002 (who gets paid either way) than that of the proof house (who stands to make money if one comes round to their way of thinking).

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/proof-counsels-opinion.pdf

makes interesting reading and categorically refutes the assertion on the proof house that re proofing after screw cutting is legally required.

 

[Whitebeard]

The trade do us no favours here many insisting on selling only proved moderators and rifles proved after muzzle threading.
I know of two RFDs who do exact opposites.

Ian.

 

[bewsher500]

The proof house would not have published this memorandum without the opinion of their lawyers.

unless of course they were a commercial entity with much to gain from the wholesale reproofing of all firearms ever having an aftermarket screwcut...

oh, wait......what..?

 

[NigelM]

I am just having the barrel chopped down on a .308, screwcut and a mod added.

Having read the QC opinion I spoke to the gunsmith doing the work who was complaining that the proof house are taking 4 weeks to turn around at the moment and suggested he didn't need to proof it. Even sent him the QC opinion.

He said that he had the conversation with his insurance company on a number of occasions but they insisted that he had all modifications proofed or he wasn't covered.

Bloody insurance companies. Just make all the customers pay more for absolutely no reason.

 

[Northwest]

I am trying to inject some common sense into this thread.

The proof house would not have published this memorandum without the opinion of their lawyers.

Would you care a wager on that? This is a commercial decision, not a legal one. The only "legal counsel" would be from Mssrs. Wriggle and Squirm. The letter has all the elements of a nebulous statement, and get out clauses you would care to have. I can hear it now: We didn't say he HAD to M'lud, merely he SHOULD have. Nebulous.

 

[Yorkie]

I suspect that had the Proof House been sure of their Legal Position they would have Prosecuted and Established Case Law Years ago? ( I am not a Legal Expert so not sure if that is the correct wording but hopefully you get my drift ). Think of the potential Revenue they have lost by not doing so had they been sure of their Case.

It begs the Question does the Proof House provide any valuable function other than existing for its own benefit?

Yorkie.

 

[billh]

For all of the foreign made rifles out there where the proof was done in the country of origin and bears foreign proof marks, see the following section of the Proof Acts.

It is quoted in the current Firearms Guidance to Police.

Section 130 of the 1868 Act also provides that barrels bearing duly registered proof marksof a foreign state shall be exempt from the liability to prove. If the barrel is altered by anymeans except user wear and tear so that it no longer represents the proof to which it wouldbe subject in the official proof house of the state in question, it shall cease to be exempt.

i.e. if your rifle has foreign proof marks and it has been screw cut since that proof it is 'out of proof' unless it has been through a UK Proof House since the screw cutting.

 

[Erik Hamburger]

Thanks for your information, I just need to find someone who wants to buy now!!

I may consider buying it, but of course I require you to get it re-proofed first!

 

[bewsher500]

F If the barrel is altered by any means except user wear and tear ..
so that it no longer represents the proof to which it would be subject ....
in the official proof house of the state in question, it shall cease to be exempt.

i.e. if your rifle has foreign proof marks and it has been screw cut since that proof it is 'out of proof' unless it has been through a UK Proof House since the screw cutting.

very vague and legally ambiguous statement there