Are We Boycotting Wildcat Moderators?

[Dalua]

Just like any other pressure bearing part.

I don't believe that a moderator is a 'pressure-bearing part' in law - or, indeed, in fact.

I can't help but think having them proofed can only be counter-productive. None of the ones I've bought new is - and the s/h ones I've got that have been manifest no indicators as to whether they are still in proof or not.

Better, I'd say, to leave it to manufacturers to offer a safe, reliable and effective product - at the hazard of being held accountable under conventional consumer law should it prove otherwise.

 

[308tikka]

No.

 

[Heym SR20]

I don't believe that a moderator is a 'pressure-bearing part' in law - or, indeed, in fact.

I can't help but think having them proofed can only be counter-productive. None of the ones I've bought new is - and the s/h ones I've got that have been manifest no indicators as to whether they are still in proof or not.

Better, I'd say, to leave it to manufacturers to offer a safe, reliable and effective product - at the hazard of being held accountable under conventional consumer law should it prove otherwise.

The whole point of a moderator is capture the high pressure gas coming out of the end of the barrel and to slow it down. If that’s not pressure bearing then I am not sure what is.

Besides in the definitions of the proof regulations articles 3 and 4 state.

“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:
Barrel also includes every Barrel welded, forged or cast, finished or unfinished, or in any progressive State of Manufacture, and any or every Part of a Barrel.” For further interpretation, see Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, Section 4.
3

(4) Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged.

So given that a moderator is attached to the barrel and the load is discharged through it I am not sure how a moderator is not covered within the regulations.

And before anybody cites the Jackson rifles QC opinion which was written in 2002, these regulations were updated in 2006.

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/rules-proofing

 

[VSS]

The whole point of a moderator is capture the high pressure gas coming out of the end of the barrel and to slow it down. If that’s not pressure bearing then I am not sure what is.

Besides in the definitions of the proof regulations articles 3 and 4 state.

“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:
Barrel also includes every Barrel welded, forged or cast, finished or unfinished, or in any progressive State of Manufacture, and any or every Part of a Barrel.” For further interpretation, see Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, Section 4.
3

(4) Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged.

So given that a moderator is attached to the barrel and the load is discharged through it I am not sure how a moderator is not covered within the regulations.

And before anybody cites the Jackson rifles QC opinion which was written in 2002, these regulations were updated in 2006.

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/rules-proofing

If a moderator is sold together with a rifle as a "package" then both the mod and the rifle need to be proofed. However, if a moderator is sold as a separate item it does not.
(I heard that directly from a custom mod manufacturer).

 

[Dalua]

The whole point of a moderator is capture the high pressure gas coming out of the end of the barrel and to slow it down. If that’s not pressure bearing then I am not sure what is.

I'm not suggesting they're not pressure-bearing - though in truth they don't bear the pressure of firing in the same way the barrel does - i.e. to contain it so as to allow it to drive the projectile.

However the fact that there is no requirement in to law for detachable moderators to be proofed suggests that although pressure-bearing (in one sense or another), they are not actually a 'part' of any barrel - something that seems to make sense if you consider:
1. The firearms works fine without them - which is not usually true of things considered a 'part'.
2. The Firearms Act makes it clear that they are considered 'accessories' - and it seems odd that they could be both a part of something and an accessory to it.

 

[Sharpie]

We don’t expect a barrel to let go after a few hundred rounds or a few thousand or a few tens of thousands, so why should we expect any part of a moderator, or the thread etc. to only last a few hundred rounds?

Because that would be totally unrealistic in the real world. Mods are not like barrels. Don't confuse yourself, they do an utterly different job. If you want one to last forever and have an idea how to do it and still be practical, go ahead.

Even then, say I shot out a barrel and had it replaced, would I try to still use the same mod on the new barrel. Well of course I would. Providing it still looked fit, why ever not.

If I was super-cautious, maybe I'd send it back to London (established 1675) or Birmingham (1813, the new boys) for re-proof according to their established methodology. I am being sarcastic BTW.

Really they understand nothing about anything except barrels and the other pressure bearing parts of say a rifle's action. Not that that stopped them from trying a grab at insisting that mods were something that fell within their remit.

That said, our military do insist on it, not just for mods but even muzzle brakes and other muzzle devices. But these are used in specific applications, with specific ammunition so it's not comparable with the randomness of the civilian market.

I've even observed a shipment of GPMGs being proofed at one of our ranges. 25 ISTR, each supplied with two barrels, which were matched to each and accuracy tested before the proof man put two oiled proof rounds through each, gave them a look over and some gauging, then took out his hammer and punches and declared them good. That was the mornings work. Then came the proofing of a shedload of spare barrels, one at a time on a different gun (not one of the new ones for delivery) Fit barrel, two oiled proof rounds. Take off, inspect stamp. Quite a rhythm going, the proof man was kept continuously busy all day.

Not really a job for say Birmingham Proof House.

Might be a silly question but here it goes - What could go wrong if an ultrasonic cleaner was to be used to clean those moderators that cannot be disassembled. Would it ruin it completely or is it worth a try in case of a mode which has only metal parts? Just cuirous and probably better to ask in here than ruining a good mod.

Quite possibly, if it was an aluminium thing, anodised, you could ruin the anodising. Used to work in motorsport at a high level. There were parts that were US cleaned, and others that were verboten. Such as anything anodised aluminium. Mind you the US cleaners were mightily powerful, nothing remotely close to what you might read about on here for case cleaning etc.

Whole engine blocks, cylinder heads, gearbox casings, then all the smaller bits, cranks, conrods, gears, and so on. Used to be that we would do this after every race. Nowadays the F1 lot are only allowed so many engines/season so can't rebuild them after every race. As we used to do.

Lots of HSE stuff for anyone going near one, or operating it.

If made of steel throughout, go for it. Mind you I wouldn't expect much to happen on the inside of one of those with a typical mincy little US cleaner that can barely get crud out of primer pockets on more than a handful of brass.

 

[Heym SR20]

If a moderator is sold together with a rifle as a "package" then both the mod and the rifle need to be proofed. However, if a moderator is sold as a separate item it does not.
(I heard that directly from a custom mod manufacturer).

If you actually the proof regulations- and admittedly they are somewhat cumbersome what the manufacturer said is probably not correct:

a) in the definitions - para 3 and 4 a Moderator is a barrel attachement through which the load is discharged and this requires proof.

b) in part 1 paragraph 6 - that if any barrel is converted for example from a barrel into a sound moderated barrel it will be out of proof from date of conversion - ie needs to be reproofed.

c) the section II para 12 a) it states

12.— As to any barrel or arm submitted for Definitive Proof, or Definitive Re-proof, or Special Definitive Proof, or Special Definitive Re- proof:—

……. Any barrel attachment requiring proof shall be fitted, unless it is detachable and has been previously proved and marked accordingly.


So when you buy a rifle and then screw on a moderator you are converting the barrel to a sound moderated barrel and it is now out of proof. It would only be in proof if either it had been prooved with the moderator attached, or if the moderator had previously been proved and so marked.
This is what the proof regulations say and when a moderator lets go and somebody is seriously injured or killed and a coroner looks at this closely I suspect he would come to a similar conclusion. The fact that most don’t abide by the regulations is another matter entirely.

 

[Dalua]

a) in the definitions - para 3 and 4 a Moderator is a barrel attachment through which the load is discharged and this requires proof.

It actually says it required proof if is 'an attachment forming a part of a barrel'. I really can't see that a moderator (or flash-hider or muzzle-brake for that matter) fits that definition.

There are moderators that arguably form 'part of a barrel' - I think the Hushpower-converted shotguns, DeLisle carbines etc have these - but they are not the detachable accessories that we're considering here, surely?

 

[Heym SR20]

It actually says it required proof if is 'an attachment forming a part of a barrel'. I really can't see that a moderator (or flash-hider or muzzle-brake for that matter) fits that definition.

There are moderators that arguably form 'part of a barrel' - I think the Hushpower-converted shotguns, DeLisle carbines etc have these - but they are not the detachable accessories that we're considering here, surely?

The proof definitions are very clear

A barrel is defined as “part of a small arm through which any part of the charge is exploded or discharged” (full definition is in Italics in post #43)

And a

Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged.

So you screw a moderator onto the end of the barrel, and when you squeeze the trigger the Load ie the propellant, and wadding and the projectile is fired through it. The words “ through which” are the key.

Because of this a moderator, or a muzzle break is in fact defined as a barrel or part of a barrel.

The fact the a moderator is detacheable is irrelevant- it is deemed to be a barrel attachement because of how it is used.

Have a read of the regulations.

 

[Dalua]

The words “ through which” are the key.

I think the words 'part of' and 'forming part of' must be key - otherwise sale of unproofed accessory-type moderators, muzzle-brake, flash-hiders would not be lawful.

Such items are clearly not 'part' of anything - they are accessories to things, if fitted to them, at the whim of their owner.

Because of this a moderator, or a muzzle break is in fact defined as a barrel or part of a barrel.

You are in the true sense 'begging the question'.
The question is "are detachable moderators 'part of' a barrel?" You are saying that they are on the basis that the charge and the bullet pass through them, and they bear pressure.

The rules, however, say that to require proof they must also be part of the barrel - and that they are clearly not, since they do not do the same job as the barrel in any sense. Rather, they do then opposite, in that they allow the the pressure behind the bullet to fall to a negligible level (as far as propulsion goes - which is the barrel's job), and in fact allow it (once it has passed into them) to begin free flight.

I suggested some things that might in law require proof because they are 'part of' a barrel - but detachable moderators, flash-hiders and muzzle-brakes do not seem to me to be among them.

 

[charlie222]

I've a wildcat Evo that a swap between .222 and .204 I think is great. I've had reason to call wildcat on a couple of occasions and they've always been very helpful, great customer service in fact. I may be wrong but it might be a materials shortage that's affecting thier production? A phone call would avoid undue speculation. C

 

[Heym SR20]

I think the words 'part of' and 'forming part of' must be key - otherwise sale of unproofed accessory-type moderators, muzzle-brake, flash-hiders would not be lawful.

Such items are clearly not 'part' of anything - they are accessories to things, if fitted to them, at the whim of their owner.

My point entirely - I do not understand why they are not proofed.

Every day somebody walks into an RFD with a nice freshly printed FAC with permission to acquire a new rifle and moderator and walks with a rifle and a moderator for that rifle. And as I have argued above, as soon as the moderator is attached it forms part of the barrel because the load is discharged through it.

And as soon as it is attached the rifle is out of proof.

And the RFD has knowingly sold the moderator to the FAC holder for use on the rifle acquired and it will have been entered into the police record and on the FAC as such. And it can not be acquired on a whim, because the FAC holder has only been able to acquire such a moderator by getting a variation to his FAC to do so. You will acquire a moderator because you intend to use it on the rifle. If you had no intention then you should not have been granted permission to acquire one.

You cannot just walk into a gun dealer and buy a moderator because you fancy as a desk ornament!

But like most things in firearms legislation it is just a mess.

 

[Dalua]

I do not understand why they are not proofed.

...and I cannot fathom why you think there's anything in the Rules of Proof or the Law that suggests they should be.

You cannot just walk into a gun dealer and buy a moderator because you fancy as a desk ornament!

In law, there seems to me to be no objection. Just a lump of metal until installed on a S1 firearms as 'an accessory to it' - according to the Firearms Act, at least. The retailer might prefer to act according to other considerations, though.

 

[Heym SR20]

...and I cannot fathom why you think there's anything in the Rules of Proof or the Law that suggests they should be.


In law, there seems to me to be no objection. Just a lump of metal until installed on a S1 firearms as 'an accessory to it' - according to the Firearms Act, at least. The retailer might prefer to act according to other considerations, though.

Well clearly you use a moderator very differently to me and I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I attach mine to the end of my barrel. I then fire it and the “Load” containing the propellant and bullet is discharged through it, and it is subject to plenty of pressure. It is part of pressure bearing components of a firearm but is detachable. No it is not the same 60,000 psi pressure as the breech end but it will be subjected to very significant pressure as the bullet passes through. Mention has been made in this thread its probably 10,000 psi - that’s the sorts of pressures in a shotgun barrel.

 

[Sharpie]

Was just about to splash some cash on a Wildcat Evolution in .25 but then recalled a thread that berated the Company for not selling even direct replacement spares. That alone could be enough to make me change my mind but wondered if the SD consensus was to avoid Wildcat products in the hope of bringing the Owners to their senses?

K

Back to the OP.

No. cut them some slack. Their Great British products are just as good as they ever were. Well made, well finished, sensibly priced.

If what they offer suits you, in price, performance and aesthetics, go right ahead. Who knows, talk to them nicely and maybe they'll even make you a special, engraved with "Klenchblaize" instead of Wildcat.

Just that nowadays they have to toe the line and may not sell "direct replacement spares". Tell me of any other manufacturer who still may, or ever did, do so.

"bring their owners to their senses" ? That's a remarkable piece of of inverted nonsense.

The proof definitions are very clear

A barrel is defined as “part of a small arm through which any part of the charge is exploded or discharged”

And a

Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged.

So you screw a moderator onto the end of the barrel, and when you squeeze the trigger the Load ie the propellant, and wadding and the projectile is fired through it. Because of this a moderator is in fact defined as a barrel or part of a barrel.

The fact the a moderator is detacheable is irrelevant- it is deemed to be a barrel attachement because of how it is used.

Have a read of the regulations.

You really are nit-picking most tediously and seem consummately familiar with chapter and verse of whatever, picking out points that seem to you to suit your own argument. This is not a balloon debate.

I'd suggest that you do not contemplate buying nor using any moderator , nor even a muzzle brake or other such device, with that mindset.

Don't even watch this highly entertaining destruction test of rifles, and an (Aimsport, as it happens) moderator. It might set you all of a quiver, screaming at the sheer horror of what they were doing, and maybe there should have been a warning not to watch, if easily offended.

Mind you, I'm not so sure e.g. a Freyr & Devik would have survived so well. Would a Wildcat have either ? All those fancy fine pitch shallow threads trying to hold them together. Instead of simply screwing the barrel straight into the baffles (via of course the thread adapter) with no "bridge piece" etc intervening, nor ultra lightweight thinned down outer sleeves. We shall never know.

OK I'm biased because I know some of the chaps involved.



On the subject of Aimsport mods, not sure whether they are still distributed here. Alan Rhone used to be the man, but then it moved to Highland Outdoors. who don't do them anymore. A shame. BTW I found an old webpage from McAvoy guns when they were still selling them (maybe they still are) when you could buy them plain, or pay an extra £20 to have one with proof marks. BTW they were always serialised, so no funny business.

AimSport sound moderators

"Available in proofed or unproofed options" You pay your money and make your choice I suppose. I daresay you would be one to pay the extra £20 because you wouldn't trust anything that had not been "proofed" in whatever manner.

Price competitive with a Wildcat also. Some steel bits inside, where it matters.

 

[3.5mag]

Another fact is the Wilcats do leak gas quite noticeably around the rear bushing

Never noticed any sign of this on mine or my 3 mates? Any problem with the shoulder of your thread?

 

[Klenchblaize]

So what would be the response if you requested a spare rear bushing at the time of purchasing a moderator?

K

 

[paulbshooting]

I am in the queue for another EVO. Lead times at the moment due to proof house. Happy with the mod, good service and always buy British if I can.

 

[Dalua]

Well clearly you use a moderator very differently to me and I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I attach mine to the end of my barrel. I then fire it and the “Load” containing the propellant and bullet is discharged through it, and it is subject to plenty of pressure. It is part of pressure bearing components of a firearm but is detachable. No it is not the same 60,000 psi pressure as the breech end but it will be subjected to very significant pressure as the bullet passes through. Mention has been made in this thread its probably 10,000 psi - that’s the sorts of pressures in a shotgun barrel.

So, would you say that your actual barrel is longer with the moderator attached?

My view is that the moderator/rifle combination is longer than the rifle - but that the 22" barrel I attach the mod to does not suddenly become a 26" barrel just because the mod sticks out by 4". This observation seems to be concordant with the absence of MV increase from the extra 4" - suggesting that whatever the moderator is doing, it isn't forming 'part of a barrel'.

It seems clear that to require proof, a thing must be both pressure-bearing and part of a firearm. If one focuses less on the pressure-bearing aspect, it is difficult to see how a detachable item whose absence in no way impairs the function of the rifle can be considered as a component part of the barrel.

 

[Heym SR20]

So, would you say that your actual barrel is longer with the moderator attached?

My view is that the moderator/rifle combination is longer than the rifle - but that the 22" barrel I attach the mod to does not suddenly become a 26" barrel just because the mod sticks out by 4". This observation seems to be concordant with the absence of MV increase from the extra 4" - suggesting that whatever the moderator is doing, it isn't forming 'part of a barrel'.

It seems clear that to require proof, a thing must be both pressure-bearing and part of a firearm. If one focuses less on the pressure-bearing aspect, it is difficult to see how a detachable item whose absence in no way impairs the function of the rifle can be considered as a component part of the barrel.

It has feck all to do with my view on the matter or nit picking. It has everything to do with the drafting of the proof regulations which were re drafted in 2006.

A Barrel is any part of a firearm through which the load is discharged,

So in other words anything on a firearm through which a bullet is fired is considered to be a barrel under the proof regulations.

A barrel attachment requiring proof means a device forming part of the barrel, removable or otherwise, through which a load is discharged.

A moderator is a device. “Device” is a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, and it forms part of the barrel when it is attached and the bullet is fired through it thus it is a barrel attachment requiring proof.


It doesn’t matter whether or not muzzle velocity is increased or that bullet is engaged in rifling, the way that the regulations are drafted is a moderator is a device that is attached to barrel and the load is discharged through it.

A scope, a stock or a trigger by contrast doe not require proof, because whilst they all attached to the barrel or in many cases to the receiver (which contains part of the charge) they are not considered to require proof as they do not contain any part of the charge nor have any part of the load discharged through them.