And these will have been sent by the importer to a British Proof House before they were sent on to a dealer.
Re-barreling UK
- Thread starter Uncas
- Start date
Section 120 Act not to apply to Barrels above specified Size.
Provided always, that this Act shall not apply to any Barrel adapted for the Discharge of a Ball of a greater Weight than One Pound and Three Quarters, or to any Barrel of a Bore exceeding in every Part thereof the Diameter of Two Inches.The internal diameter of barrels on main battle tanks are generally above 50.8mm these days (think 105m or 120mm), so are not required to be proofed by the Proof Houses before being taken into service. They would of course go through a proof process at the manufacturer, and that would be reviewed as part of the purchase contract with the MOD.
And I suggest the proof rounds would defeat the snail drum bullet catchers, assuming you could even fix the gun into a vice.................
gonzo
Well-Known Member
Given modern manufacturing and materials, the whole issue of proofing is indeed an outdated and mostly pointless exercise.
But it's a legal requirement.
I can't see it changing though. As it would need a change in the law, and to ask politicians to remove something that they will be told is there for public safety. And that affects such a tiny percentage of the population.
So we are probably stuck with it, till they ban private firearms ownership alltogether.
But it's a legal requirement.
I can't see it changing though. As it would need a change in the law, and to ask politicians to remove something that they will be told is there for public safety. And that affects such a tiny percentage of the population.
So we are probably stuck with it, till they ban private firearms ownership alltogether.
BS.
Say a gunsmith builds a rifle using a second hand action of unknown history, new barrel, maybe chambered for something quite different, higher pressure, even modifies the bolt face and/or machines it for a different extractor or bushes the firing pin hole. All bets are off until it has been re-proofed.
Point of information, a club member had a brand new Remington 700 which lost a chunk of the bolt head on first usage with factory ammo. It had passed proof, but there must still have been an inherent weakness there. New bolt and re-proof was needed, that's all that was offered by the importer. Personally I'd have insisted on a brand new replacement of the whole thing, but at the time that was going to be a long wait. ISTR she got rid of it once repaired, and not for another Remington.
Complacency as in "it's a strong action, it'll cope just fine" is not an option, nevermind when used by reloaders who insist on pushing things much further. To the extent that every round fired might be equal to or even above the proof test load.
I see your point but wonder if people would agree with the same opinion but applied to a different product.................
I've seen 50 cal machine guns being proofed on a military range. A big export order, each was supplied with two barrels, the proof house chap turned up with a big box of proof rounds, which were also oiled, he was kept busy proofing them all and stamping the marks on before they were then test fired for accuracy and interchangeability without re-sighting before being exported to the customer.
Together with a load more spare barrels.
So, no, proofing does not have to take place at a proof house, other arrangements can be made. Tank barrels included.
Yes, been there, done that. Hythe is always a lovely day out, especially when it is horizontal rain.
But as I wrote earlier, tank barrels are generally not proofed by the Proof Houses, as they are over 2" in bore diameter.
Proofing is a waste of time in this day and age. Especially when you consider that metal fatigue can be present, and still survive proofing (near term) and fail (long term) later.
As to second hand action of unknown history, the 'smith can turn away work if they are uncomfortable doing it. Otherwise, like here in the US, the gunsmith can fit the barrel to the action, document the dimensions and keep on file, and cut another replacement barrel later, without the action in hand (hey, and build a repeat customer in the process...what a novel idea). It's been done this way for over 10 years now in the US, for those actions that are not made precisely enough (or consistently I should say) for pre-chambered barrels to be offered.
"Proofing" really doesn't "prove" anything other than surviving an over pressure cartridge however many times they do it (it's an anecdotal test). Total waste of time and money these days....
interesting. So that would exempt many punt guns which I didn’t think was right
Ie a 2 gauge or bigger
S
Punt guns tend be proofed with black powder. Some modern punt guns I have seen have been put together more robustly than artillery pieces and it would be extremely difficult to overload them with black powder!
harrygrey382
Well-Known Member
Back to the original post - how much are lother walther prefits in the UK? They’re about AU$550 here, they couldn’t be more then 300GBP surely? They’re profiled, crowned, long chambered and threaded for your action (assuming they offer them of course). Then all the gunsmith has to do is cut the correct amount off the chamber end and screw it on. The only cartridge specific tools needed are go/no go gauges, although many people use a fire formed and sized cartridge.
I don’t know typical hourly rates of gunsmiths in the UK, but just the barrel fitting process shouldn’t be more than a couple of hours. Obviously if you then want sights fitted, bluing and wanted the action trued first, bolt face opened etc. costs would escalate very fast.
I don’t know typical hourly rates of gunsmiths in the UK, but just the barrel fitting process shouldn’t be more than a couple of hours. Obviously if you then want sights fitted, bluing and wanted the action trued first, bolt face opened etc. costs would escalate very fast.
Last edited:
kenbro
Well-Known Member
So what is the point of the proof house....you pay your money, your gun passes, but then it fails you?
As said before, millions of Americans don’t need their guns to be proofed, why do we?
Cars and lots of other things we buy have to conform to safety standards, but they don’t make manufacturers send every one for testing, do they?
Why should a gun be any different?
A gunsmith should know if his work is safe, assuming there’s not a problem with materials used that can’t be foreseen (And proof houses can’t get that right according to you) and I think gunsmiths test fire guns before spending money on proofing.
Ken.
Last edited:
So how would a spare barrel be proofed..
Grandhubert
Well-Known Member
By fitting it to a universal receiver 
No such thing.By fitting it to a universal receiver
Grandhubert
Well-Known Member
Well, yes...
A perhaps misplaced attempt at humour.
A perhaps misplaced attempt at humour.
No such thing as a universal receiver?
Ahem, Universal Receiver, Universal Receiver Barrels, Single Point Cut Rifled Barrels
My RFD has one in the back, where they do the armour plate testing etc.
You really are bored aren’t you, I’ve never seen you on here so much (or so well behaved on a forum!)Well, yes...
A perhaps misplaced attempt at humour.
Grandhubert
Well-Known Member
I’m the model citizen
Similar threads
