Sound moderators deregulation - FAQ

[M@tt]

Many countries do not have a mandatory proof test.

Shock loading an item to see if it fails only proves it can survive it once (or twice in the case of our system). What it could do is weaken the item so much that, although it survived the initial proof process, a standard service load will cause failure some short while after. A hydrostatic test would be better, if practical.

Proof was a necessary precaution when manufacturing and metallurgy wasn't as well understood, regulated and repeatable as it is now. Type testing would suffice.

The whole proof system is all about making money - the Proof Act is around 150 clauses and the first 100 or so are all about who controls the money.

 

[Dalua]

air gun mods are not proof tested which is a mandatory requirement for S1 and S2 mods, so if they have a proof mark they cannot be sold for air guns.

Proof-testing is not AFAIK mandatory for 'S1' and 'S2' mods. I think only one of my numerous mods carries a proof-mark, and all were bought from legit RFDs or from the importers directly.
Further, there is no definition of moderators in law, as far as I can tell, other than the bit which puts mods which are 'an accessory to' a S1 firearms under S1 control. So I'm not sure where the idea comes from that a proof-mark on a mod prevents its use on a non-FAC airgun?
There is no definition in law, as far as I'm aware, for 'S1' or 'S2' moderators - and it is difficult to see how there could be, given that mods designed for S1 will work fine for appropriate S2 or non-FAC airguns - and in many cases the reverse is also true.

Even now nothing stops someone buying an airgun mod and putting it on a S1 firearm, so that would also continue to be so.

It must be clear to everyone that making things unlawful by act of parliament doesn't stop people doing them.
However, if someone under current law did what you describe without having a appropriate variation for a moderator on their FAC they would be committing an offence: but only, as far as I can tell, at the point at which they fitted it to the rifle.

 

[3595wilk]

Shows how much of a nonsense the whole issue is that this thread has generated 40 posts discussing the need to define what is in effect a hollow metal tube......

That said any improvement in current management of moderators can only be a good thing.

In reality, a total refresh and review of what is an ancient in legal terms (1968) piece of legislation is needed.

Likelihood of it happening......pretty much zero......resource and time intensive, legislatively low on agenda and politically not good optics.

BASC and other organisations have to deal with what is in front of them and I applaud their continuing efforts in the face of a system not designed to move quickly........

 

[Dalua]

That said any improvement in current management of moderators can only be a good thing.

In reality, a total refresh and review of what is an ancient in legal terms (1968) piece of legislation is needed.

No-one's going to argue other than that improvement would be a good thing: but that is actually begging the question - since that is already the definition of 'improvement'

The problem arises when people equate planned, even carefully and painstakingly 'negotiated', change with 'improvement'.

The people who have the power actually to make the changes are in thrall to public opinion, regardless of the validity of its basis; and to the advice of the Home Office and the Police, who particularly since the Second World War have shown themselves to be patient, clever, persuasive and implacable enemies of lawful firearms-ownership.

Be careful what you wish for.

My take on this is relatively simple: it seems to me that the law as it stands to the letter could be clarified by codification (via the HO Guide, for example) of what it means in practice - namely that it permits free trade on unattached moderators of all kinds - but nevertheless restricts their use on S1 firearms to those with a variation on their FAC for a moderator for the specific rifle/s.

 

[3595wilk]

No-one's going to argue other than that improvement would be a good thing: but that is actually begging the question - since that is already the definition of 'improvement'

The problem arises when people equate planned, even carefully and painstakingly 'negotiated', change with 'improvement'.

The people who have the power actually to make the changes are in thrall to public opinion, regardless of the validity of its basis; and to the advice of the Home Office and the Police, who particularly since the Second World War have shown themselves to be patient, clever, persuasive and implacable enemies of lawful firearms-ownership.

Be careful what you wish for.

My take on this is relatively simple: it seems to me that the law as it stands to the letter could be clarified by codification (via the HO Guide, for example) of what it means in practice - namely that it permits free trade on unattached moderators of all kinds - but nevertheless restricts their use on S1 firearms to those with a variation on their FAC for a moderator for the specific rifle/s.

Moderators are relatively straightforward and can be an insert into a planned legislative Bill passing through.

You often see a Bill with some strange clauses that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the Bill passing through Parliament......

Potential opportunities exist in the Autumn with the Crime and Policing Bill.....but who knows?

 

[Dalua]

Moderators are relatively straightforward and can be an insert into a planned legislative Bill passing through.

That's the thing - I think the straightforward option would be properly to explain the current law and run with that.

I fear anything which alters the current law is likely to be anything but straightforward in its implications for all users of moderators - FAC and otherwise.

 

[Liveonce]

Proof-testing is not AFAIK mandatory for 'S1' and 'S2' mods.

proof house says otherwise.

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/conversion-barrels-and-fitting-muzzle-attachments

 

[enfieldspares]

proof house says otherwise.

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/conversion-barrels-and-fitting-muzzle-attachments

Was there not a rebuttal of some of this from a third party? As below:

For certainly recessing the muzzle of a gun and then internally threading that recessed muzzle (such that the result is a threaded hole of over the diameter of the bore) cannot beheld to weaken the barrel as at that part where the work has been done the barrel ceases to be a pressure bearing surface.

 

[webley701]

proof house says otherwise.

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/conversion-barrels-and-fitting-muzzle-attachments

With reference to the final paragraph of the linked note from the two Proof Houses which apparently was intended to clarify the status of a ‘muzzle attachment’

‘Under current Proof Legislation, the proof status of any muzzle attachment changes as soon
as it is fitted onto the barrel of a small arm. Thereafter it becomes part of the barrel of a small
arm and requires to be proof tested and marked accordingly prior to attempting to export, sell,
exchange, pawn or pledge the attachment together with the small arm to which it has been
fitted (see Section 4 of the 1868 Act and the 2006 Rules of Proof).’

It’s concerning that such two bodies use such woolly & imprecise language. If their clarification is taken at face value then apparently the factory supplied sight base extension tube clamped on the muzzles of some .22 LR target rifles are required to be proofed as would presumably the RPA & Fultons height adjustable foresights which were clamped around the muzzles of my Fullbore TR rifles. Nowhere in the Proof House note does it say that the accessory has to withstand pressure - so if I was to tie a piece of string around the muzzle of a rifle would that need to be proofed? It would appear so if the advice of the Proof Houses is to be given any respect.

Sadly the paragraph from the Proof House guidance is just an example of badly written definitions/clarifications - the same applies to parts of the current firearm act covering moderators/attachments.

 

[Dalua]

proof house says otherwise.

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/conversion-barrels-and-fitting-muzzle-attachments

I suppose it would. But it doesn't enlarge on how a thing screwed on to a barrel as an accessory to it can also be considered a 'part' of that same barrel. It can't be both a 'part' and 'an accessory', can it?
I'm not to what extent the Proof House's thinking has been founded on law rather than aspiration.

 

[Dalua]

With reference to the final paragraph of the linked note from the two Proof Houses which apparently was intended to clarify the status of a ‘muzzle attachment’

‘Under current Proof Legislation, the proof status of any muzzle attachment changes as soon
as it is fitted onto the barrel of a small arm. Thereafter it becomes part of the barrel of a small
arm and requires to be proof tested and marked accordingly prior to attempting to export, sell,
exchange, pawn or pledge the attachment together with the small arm to which it has been
fitted (see Section 4 of the 1868 Act and the 2006 Rules of Proof).’

It’s concerning that such two bodies use such woolly & imprecise language. If their clarification is taken at face value then apparently the factory supplied sight base extension tube clamped on the muzzles of some .22 LR target rifles are required to be proofed as would presumably the RPA & Fultons height adjustable foresights which were clamped around the muzzles of my Fullbore TR rifles. Nowhere in the Proof House note does it say that the accessory has to withstand pressure - so if I was to tie a piece of string around the muzzle of a rifle would that need to be proofed? It would appear so if the advice of the Proof Houses is to be given any respect.

Sadly the paragraph from the Proof House guidance is just an example of badly written definitions/clarifications - the same applies to parts of the current firearm act covering moderators/attachments.

It seems to boil down to the statement in the Act and Rules that something that is a 'part of any barrel' must undergo proof.
The proof-house has decided that attaching something to a barrel makes that thing part of the barrel - which I'm not sure makes sense. I don't think an item can be both an accessory to a thing and an actual part of it - and it takes quite a stretch of imagination to consider a separate detachable moderator as in any sense 'part of' a barrel.

'Built-in' moderator, such as on a DeLisle carbine, or a Hushpower-converted gun might be different matter?

 

[webley701]

It seems to boil down to the statement in the Act and Rules that something that is a 'part of any barrel' must undergo proof.
The proof-house has decided that attaching something to a barrel makes that thing part of the barrel - which I'm not sure makes sense. I don't think an item can be both an accessory to a thing and an actual part of it - and it takes quite a stretch of imagination to consider a separate detachable moderator as in any sense 'part of' a barrel.

'Built-in' moderator, such as on a DeLisle carbine, or a Hushpower-converted gun might be different matter?

Exactly.

 

[VSS]

With reference to the final paragraph of the linked note from the two Proof Houses which apparently was intended to clarify the status of a ‘muzzle attachment’

‘Under current Proof Legislation, the proof status of any muzzle attachment changes as soon
as it is fitted onto the barrel of a small arm. Thereafter it becomes part of the barrel of a small
arm and requires to be proof tested and marked accordingly prior to attempting to export, sell,
exchange, pawn or pledge the attachment together with the small arm to which it has been
fitted (see Section 4 of the 1868 Act and the 2006 Rules of Proof).’

It’s concerning that such two bodies use such woolly & imprecise language. If their clarification is taken at face value then apparently the factory supplied sight base extension tube clamped on the muzzles of some .22 LR target rifles are required to be proofed as would presumably the RPA & Fultons height adjustable foresights which were clamped around the muzzles of my Fullbore TR rifles. Nowhere in the Proof House note does it say that the accessory has to withstand pressure - so if I was to tie a piece of string around the muzzle of a rifle would that need to be proofed? It would appear so if the advice of the Proof Houses is to be given any respect.

Sadly the paragraph from the Proof House guidance is just an example of badly written definitions/clarifications - the same applies to parts of the current firearm act covering moderators/attachments.

So a mod only needs to be proofed if it's being sold/transferred already fitted to a firearm that is also being sold/transferred as part of the same transaction, according to the extract you've posted above.

 

[Liveonce]

Guess the proof house refer to the 1868, 1950 & 1978 Proof Acts as justification and a mod is an accessory until attached to the barrel when it then becomes an integral part of the barrel.

 

[Liveonce]

Was there not a rebuttal of some of this from a third party? As below:

For certainly recessing the muzzle of a gun and then internally threading that recessed muzzle (such that the result is a threaded hole of over the diameter of the bore) cannot beheld to weaken the barrel as at that part where the work has been done the barrel ceases to be a pressure bearing surface.

are threads on the barrel not external to the bore?

no of no third part rebuttal or who would have the legal authority to do so.

 

[enfieldspares]

are threads on the barrel not external to the bore?

no of no third part rebuttal or who would have the legal authority to do so.

Some moderators use a male thread on a spigot that screws into a female thread cut into a recessed muzzle. The rebuttal was a legal opinion that was commissioned by Jackson Rifles as far as I recall.

Reflex Suppressors UK Proof Counsel's Opinion

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

There is also this. Which resulted in an acquittal on the charges:

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/r-v-beatham_evidence.pdf

 

[Liveonce]

Some moderators use a male thread on a spigot that screws into a female thread cut into a recessed muzzle. The rebuttal was a legal opinion that was commissioned by Jackson Rifles as far as I recall.

Reflex Suppressors UK Proof Counsel's Opinion

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

There is also this. Which resulted in an acquittal on the charges:

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/r-v-beatham_evidence.pdf

interesting, so why do the proof house continue to have the document I linked on their website.

the Wildcat mod I purchased back in January carries a proof mark must be a good reason they do so.

 

[enfieldspares]

interesting, so why do the proof house continue to have the document I linked on their website.

I cannot speak for today but in the past I did once have an opinion that in the early 1980s that the a casual visitor to it could have been be forgiven for thinking that the Birmingham Proof House was a make work scheme for the otherwise unemployable.

 

[enfieldspares]

I'll close by asking this.

We all pretty much have our cars and vans subject to an annual MoT Test. This costs £55 for a car and £27 rounded up to the nearest whole pound. We will have seen the rolling road, the ramp, the exhaust emission machine, the headlight alignment device and that, at one point, two men are needed for the test (indicators and rear lights) which can take some twenty minutes or so.

Compare and contrast the special tools, equipment, measuring devices and associated items needed for the issue, by a Proof House of a Certificate of Deactivation. That costs £30 yet under the Proof House table of charges for a single gun would attract the "minimum charge" of £42. At most the tools needed would be what? A dental pick, a hardened point centre punch (to test hardness of a chamber insert) measuring stick marked in inches or centimetres and a hammer? So who's kidding who?

The British proof house system is a duopoly cartel that long ago needed reforming.

 

[Liveonce]

I'll close by asking this.

We all pretty much have our cars and vans subject to an annual MoT Test. This costs £55 for a car and £27 rounded up to the nearest whole pound. We will have seen the rolling road, the ramp, the exhaust emission machine, the headlight alignment device and that, at one point, two men are needed for the test (indicators and rear lights) which can take some twenty minutes or so.

Compare and contrast the special tools, equipment, measuring devices and associated items needed for the issue, by a Proof House of a Certificate of Deactivation. That costs £30 yet under the Proof House table of charges for a single gun would attract the "minimum charge" of £42. At most the tools needed would be what? A dental pick, a hardened point centre punch (to test hardness of a chamber insert) measuring stick marked in inches or centimetres and a hammer? So who's kidding who?

The British proof house system is a duopoly cartel that long ago needed reforming.

Do they not fire the gun to proof it with specially made proof ammunition.