mchughcb
Well-Known Member
And I reckon this would be close to the best one. 20G and the weight of a 20g shotgun.
http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=6981061
http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=6981061
Kafkaesque events put my drilling in a coma: it may never wake up.
- Thread starter Pine Marten
- Start date
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
I remember when you first got this Drilling PM and followed with interest . I'd be gutted if it was mine . You've taken it far better than I would've . Hopefully , you'll find a way to get it back up and running . You have my sympathies .
AB
AB
Yes, you can. You can give it away. The Proof Act ONLY applies to guns that are sold or displayed for sale. Always was and still is the law. In the 1980s it was common to see a revolver or pistol invoiced as "Grips sold - gun given". For the very reason that this mess has arisen to stop old guns...especially black powder Webley revolvers usually the .455 Mk IV from being destroyed by proof firing.
The deer man
Well-Known Member
Does anyone understand why the proof houses came about? No, OK well it was because so many guns blew up and something had to be done to stop people being injured and dodgy gunmakers selling shoddy wares.
PM's experience is heartbreaking but the simple fact is the proof houses are there as a safety net against you and me getting injured. If a gun gets damaged in proof testing then it's simply not fit for purpose without it being dangerous.
I can just imagine what you'd all be saying if there was no safety net. Blaming it on 'them' or 'they' if something went wrong!
No. That's wrong. Many totally safe guns fail proof that are still totally fit for purpose. Because the methodology is flawed. Additionally what ridiculous system accepted Imperial German Proof for a time before WWII, then in WWII said it wasn't valid, then some time after WWII said it was once more valid and now, apparently, says it isn't valid again?
It's now the 21st Century. Not the 19th Century. The proof test is an antiquated and outdated method of testing. In was designed in the beginning as a measure to protect the consumer but then developed into a measure to protect not the public but the gun trade from foreign competition. And now seems to many not far removed in sme aspects of its work to just a make work scheme for the two Proof Houses to strangle legitimate competition to their monopoly.
Indeed imagine Britain if the law permitted only two vehicle MoT Testing Stations that set their own fees with no-one else allowed to offer a rival (but equally regulated and controlled) MoT Testing Station. Why in Heaven's name is no-one allowed, for example, to set up a Proof House in Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Etc.?
It costs me what 35.00 to MoT my car as a "walk in". With complex expensive emissions machinery, hydraulic ramps, two employees for one part of the test, a rolling road and other equipment besides. I pay no more for a "walk in" MoT than for a pre-booked one.
Yet a De-Activation Certificate is how much? For what? Five minutes examination and a tool no more complex than a stout sharp spike ended screwdriver? And as a "walk in" at 50% extra with a so called minimum charge. No the current protected and self-regulating Proof House regime is no longer fit for purpose. It has become a monopoly that abuses that monopoly power.
A perfectly safe gun can fail proof and become "out of proof" without a single proof round being fired through it. If I take a Greener GP, for example, the barrels of which are a good thickness yet I remove but 10 thousandths of an inch from the internal bore then that Greener GP is out of proof. It is perfectly safe to fire yet it is now under the nonsense of the Proof Act out of proof.
On the other hand if I take a fine Purdey, Holland & Holland and etc shotgun and strike off the barrels on the outside to re-black it and I do that two, three times over its life that gun if the internal bore remains as when proofed despite the fact that the barrel thickness may now be eighteen or sixteen or fifteen thousandths of an inch and so dangerously thin that gun remains in proof.
It is a stupid system. Remove metal from the inside and it is out of proof if the internal bore measurement enlarges by a mere ten thousandths of an inch regardless of the remaining barrel thickness. Remove metal from the outside and regardless of how dangerously thin they now are it remains (if the internal bore dimensions have remained the same) in proof. It is beyond commonsense it is a nonsense.
Last edited:
can someone explain why you simply couldn't take your allegedly out of proof gun back from AR?
it wasn't being sold or displayed for sale and had had no work done to it that involves material weakness to any pressure bearing part particularly barrel or action.
"The Proof Acts lay down that no small arm may be sold, exchanged or exported, exposed or kept for sale or exchange or pawned unless and until it has been fully proved and duly marked."
If every RFD had to impound and/or force owners of every peice of tatty old small arms to send them to proof there wouldn't be time in the day!!
Owning a firearm out of proof is not an offence.
bringing it to a 3rd party RFD for checks to confirm such does not automatically result in confiscation if it is deemed to have failed.
some questions need to be asked here am afraid
the proof system in th UK is a broken one already
making it worse unnecessarily is a tragedy
I think I would get it back and carry on using it. Doesn't sound to me like it's going to blow up with normal usage and normal ammunition. There's plenty of battered old shotguns in regular use around the country, no problem. It's only brand new 177HMRs that explode in your face!
Problem now is that the barrels are rivelled. In effect they now need to be re-bored (which can be done) to remove the rivelling. Personally I'd advise the OP to go and take his property...ALL of it...back from Alan Rhone or wherever else it is and go and see another gunsmith. A gunsmith who has the facility to measure a 16 bore. He will measure the wall thickness of the shotgun barrels and tell you what that would be once he's bored the rivelling out and if it is feasible. Also was your gun struck off when it was submitted to re-proof? AFAIR it is now a requirement of the Proof Houses here that a shotgun submitted for re-proof be struck off. But I may be wrong. As Edinburgh Rifles has helpfully cut and pasted there is no authority for the property not to be returned to the OP.
Last edited:
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
No-one is saying I can't have my gun back. I have chosen to leave it there to see if another set of barrels can be found. For all that it's a lovely gun that I'm very attached to, I didn't actually spend a lot of money on it. So I'm not going to chase after super expensive repairs that may still fail proof when I could just buy another identical drilling with the same budget. But I would prefer it if new barrels could be found and I could complete the project as intended.
Good luck with that...and I mean that sincerely. It isn't that simple. If you've been advised such I'd take it with a big pinch of salt. It's easy words to say. It isn't to then do it.
On break open guns especially something like a side-by-side or a drilling barrels taken from another gun rarely fit and certainly not just by a simple swap over as, say, putting a replacement clutch housing or replacing a cylinder head on a car with another one.
It'll be likely a lot more work with, at least, a full re-joint. If you are lucky! Plus even after that the strikers may not centre on the chambers on the replacement barrels. And if the thing gets then re-submitted to proof who is to say that the replacement barrels (as they are presumably the "brothers in arms" of the current barrels) won't also succumb to the issues that have brought you to today's situation?
So the solution you've been offered rarely works. If it did and it was as simple as that then gunsmiths would have been taking sound barrels from now unfashionable non-ejector guns to replace defective barrels on out of proof ejector guns from the same maker and of the same model for at least the last two or three decades. That they haven't speaks volumes.
It's like chasing the Grail. I hope you do get lucky. But as I wrote earlier. I'll post again. "I'd advise the OP to go and take his property...and go and see another gunsmith."
Last edited:
New legislation came in a couple of weeks ago apparently. It never used to be a problem, in fact this car has passed four or five MoT's with this light on.
lawrence
mistake no.1 - have anything to do with Alan Rhône! I would walk a million miles around that guy or his shop. He has this ability to threaten people with needing reproofing, even for a stock polish basically. Fit scope mounts, re-proof, aso! I reckon it’s because he knows he will get paid for the work, then charge for the proof exercise which might fail, then sell you a new gun, then sell your old gun as parts.
have your gun re proofed in Spain! Many smiths will sort it for you, and it will probably pass just fine as is
mistake no.1 - have anything to do with Alan Rhône! I would walk a million miles around that guy or his shop. He has this ability to threaten people with needing reproofing, even for a stock polish basically. Fit scope mounts, re-proof, aso! I reckon it’s because he knows he will get paid for the work, then charge for the proof exercise which might fail, then sell you a new gun, then sell your old gun as parts.
have your gun re proofed in Spain! Many smiths will sort it for you, and it will probably pass just fine as is
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
He didn't charge me one penny for any work. He asked me if I wanted to submit the gun to proof first. I did. I paid the proofing fee. Alan Rhone made not a penny on that. They haven't made any money at all on this whole sorry business. I have found the advice, transparency and communication superb throughout, in rubbish circumstances. And indeed, I could have just gone to another gunsmith who would have circumvented the proofing nonsense. But I chose to take that risk. I lost. It happens.
Alan Rhone
Well-Known Member
I have to take issue with one or two quite surprisingly hostile comments on this post. Especially PKL. If a gun does not need submitting to proof we would never recommend that it should be. If the proof requirement is for a technical marking error and there is no apparent weakness that would pose a danger to the user, my advice, as in this case, is to not submit to proof.
We are a professional company and will not work on a gun that is considered out of proof. I do not care what the opinion of some "experts' is. If certain work on a gun requires submission to proof that is what we do. We always advise the owner and he has the absolute option to take his gun elsewhere. If another gunsmith wants to break the law that is fine with me but we will not do it. The Proof House states clearly that drilling holes in the top of the action requires reproof. So we cannot drill and tap for bases unless we send it for proof. Screw cutting for a sound moderator requires reproof. In this case it was the lack of a bore size on the shotgun barrels that necessitated submission to proof. I have it in writing from the Deputy Proof Master as follows:
However the simple answer is that the UK regards any arm that does not bear a valid bore size, regardless whether it has come from a CIP Member State, as insufficiently marked.
That seems clear enough to me.
Whenever we submit a customer's gun for proof we charge exactly what it has cost us. We add no margin to the proofing charge and charge only our carriage and insurance costs to and from the proof house. We do the absolute minimum work required for submission to proof so that the customer does not have a big bill if it should fail. I thank Pine Martin for stating that clearly.
I offered to hold the gun in storage here for 12 months free of charge so that other options could be sought. If another drilling with the same action was purchased it would have been useful for spare parts. If a compatible barrel set could be found at reasonable money we are quite capable of fitting them and have done similar work before.
I resent the implication that my motive was to somehow profit from the misfortune of proof failure. That is not how I work but I will not flout the law. You can criticise the Proof Act and Proof Houses if you like and some things do appear nonsensical but they are there for our safety.
We are a professional company and will not work on a gun that is considered out of proof. I do not care what the opinion of some "experts' is. If certain work on a gun requires submission to proof that is what we do. We always advise the owner and he has the absolute option to take his gun elsewhere. If another gunsmith wants to break the law that is fine with me but we will not do it. The Proof House states clearly that drilling holes in the top of the action requires reproof. So we cannot drill and tap for bases unless we send it for proof. Screw cutting for a sound moderator requires reproof. In this case it was the lack of a bore size on the shotgun barrels that necessitated submission to proof. I have it in writing from the Deputy Proof Master as follows:
However the simple answer is that the UK regards any arm that does not bear a valid bore size, regardless whether it has come from a CIP Member State, as insufficiently marked.
That seems clear enough to me.
Whenever we submit a customer's gun for proof we charge exactly what it has cost us. We add no margin to the proofing charge and charge only our carriage and insurance costs to and from the proof house. We do the absolute minimum work required for submission to proof so that the customer does not have a big bill if it should fail. I thank Pine Martin for stating that clearly.
I offered to hold the gun in storage here for 12 months free of charge so that other options could be sought. If another drilling with the same action was purchased it would have been useful for spare parts. If a compatible barrel set could be found at reasonable money we are quite capable of fitting them and have done similar work before.
I resent the implication that my motive was to somehow profit from the misfortune of proof failure. That is not how I work but I will not flout the law. You can criticise the Proof Act and Proof Houses if you like and some things do appear nonsensical but they are there for our safety.
While I have no business these days with Alan Rhone, I have to take a small stance with Pine Marten. Some time ago I bought a very nice Mauser actioned 'Gentleman's ' stalking rifle from a dealer, made by Daniel Fraser around the time of the first world war. It had a Tasco scope mounted on it....enough said. It would not put rounds on paper even at 70m.
Apart from the scope, it was in very fine condition and still had its bolt mounted aperture sight. The trigger was superb. I spent a LOT of time trying to figure out what was amiss, but it was my youngest who rattled the father's cage...., "Dad, that rifle doesn't look right. The scope's not level." He was right...whoever fitted the scope had not taken into account the 4mm difference between front and rear bridges.
I decided to take the scope and mounts off. That revealed that Numpty was alive and well. Holes not aligned...just a mess. It also raised the question about whether it was legally sold, since there were no recent proof marks, despite the drilling of the bridges.
I took it to Alan Rhone....more specifically Erwin Peumans. I had talked to Erwin previously and was aware of the depth of both his engineering knowledge and love of rifles. We discussed the options open for this lovely old rifle, and we opted for laser welding of Numpty's horrific work, and then a scope installation with the correct gear, then re-proof.
To trim the story a wee bit, the rifle was beautifully laser welded and you could not see the work. The new Recknagel mounts were properly installed and a scope fitted ( of the approximate age) and the rifle (after re-proof) came home. It is a lovely rifle. I have shot roe out to 180m+ with it with no concerns.
Throughout the whole process, I was kept fully informed of what was required, and what my options were. As an engineer, and a picky barsteward, I checked every option which had been offered out. They were all on the money, both in terms of engineering integrity and legality.
So....while not everyone has a perfect experience with a dealer, I don't agree with the scatter-gun approach of some without specifics of their complaint. Remember...you're writing this down in a public forum.
Apart from the scope, it was in very fine condition and still had its bolt mounted aperture sight. The trigger was superb. I spent a LOT of time trying to figure out what was amiss, but it was my youngest who rattled the father's cage...., "Dad, that rifle doesn't look right. The scope's not level." He was right...whoever fitted the scope had not taken into account the 4mm difference between front and rear bridges.
I decided to take the scope and mounts off. That revealed that Numpty was alive and well. Holes not aligned...just a mess. It also raised the question about whether it was legally sold, since there were no recent proof marks, despite the drilling of the bridges.
I took it to Alan Rhone....more specifically Erwin Peumans. I had talked to Erwin previously and was aware of the depth of both his engineering knowledge and love of rifles. We discussed the options open for this lovely old rifle, and we opted for laser welding of Numpty's horrific work, and then a scope installation with the correct gear, then re-proof.
To trim the story a wee bit, the rifle was beautifully laser welded and you could not see the work. The new Recknagel mounts were properly installed and a scope fitted ( of the approximate age) and the rifle (after re-proof) came home. It is a lovely rifle. I have shot roe out to 180m+ with it with no concerns.
Throughout the whole process, I was kept fully informed of what was required, and what my options were. As an engineer, and a picky barsteward, I checked every option which had been offered out. They were all on the money, both in terms of engineering integrity and legality.
So....while not everyone has a perfect experience with a dealer, I don't agree with the scatter-gun approach of some without specifics of their complaint. Remember...you're writing this down in a public forum.
Highlandsjohn
Well-Known Member
PM, You may be a "Wishy washy hand-wringing diversified all encompassing liberal" but that is an honest and honorable post. No less than I would expect from you of course.
john.PS good luck with the search for your new drilling...
mchughcb
Well-Known Member
I have bought firearms off these guys before. They are good to deal with. They will export outside the EU which is what Brexit is going to mean.
this is an excellent price for an excellent drilling that you shouldn't need to ever tinker with.
http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=6910320
Similar threads
