Sound moderators deregulation - FAQ

[enfieldspares]

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

Not with a Deactivation Certificate no. That's the one to certify that the barrels have been plugged, the firing mechanism rendered inoperable, the cylinder reamed out and etc.. A visual inspection and a check of the integrity of any weldments and the dimensions (length and/or width) of any slotting, drilling or plugging and the hardness of the metal or components used for any plugging or pinning.

 

[weblyish]

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.

Conversely the wording makes it obvious that if the item is removed from said barrel it may be sold unproofed. So mods sold separately don't need proofing

 

[M@tt]

proof house says otherwise.

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

Proof House are in the business of making money by proofing things. Of course they'll say that.

 

[Liveonce]

Proof House are in the business of making money by proofing things. Of course they'll say that.

but surly it comes down to what’s law and what’s not.

 

[M@tt]

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.

See my post above.

The whole proof system is more and more being seen as an outdated and dangerous practice that has had its day.
It makes sense if you are in a falling market to create a delusion that they are indispensable and 'there for the greater good' and increase the range of items they have to proof.
Makes the business more secure.

In this day and age, type testing should be the norm. Even push an example to destruction to get the full situation.

 

[Liveonce]

See my post above.

The whole proof system is more and more being seen as an outdated and dangerous practice that has had its day.
It makes sense if you are in a falling market to create a delusion that they are indispensable and 'there for the greater good' and increase the range of items they have to proof.
Makes the business more secure.

In this day and age, type testing should be the norm. Even push an example to destruction to get the full situation.

you are likely correct, however the law is the law and we cannot cherry pick it.

 

[M@tt]

but surly it comes down to what’s law and what’s not.

The Gun Barrel Proof Act doesn't mention moderators or flash hiders. It is down to interpretation and how far you can bend the meaning of words.

For example, the part about a reproof needed if the barrel is reduced in substance so that the proof marks do not accurately show the condition of proof. The 'reduced in substance' could be read as 'shortened' or 'weakened', and these are not necessarily the same. Shortening a barrel only makes a barrel stronger and the pressure of firing less, not requiring reproof.

Same with threading, it doesn't make the barrel sufficiently weaker to require reproof, which is why the Proof Houses now mark at the muzzle, despite the Law saying the proof mark must be affixed as near to the receiver or breech as possible. The act of removing the proof mark automatically makes it 'out of proof' requiring a reproof, hence the mark at the muzzle.
ETA: Ask them to mark at the breech end and they will do both, but as long as removing the muzzle mark leaves a mark that still accurately represents the proof state of the barrel it's OK.

Remember, the Gun Barrel Proof Act has around 150 clauses and the first 100 or so are all about who controls the money.

 

[jimmy milnes]

BASC has published some FAQs following the government's announcement that it will be removing sound moderators from firearms licensing controls.

Sound moderators: what you need to know

Following the government announcement in June on sound moderators being removed from firearms licensing, we answer some of your questions.

basc.org.uk

Any updates on the time frame for this coming into law please anyone ?
Jimmy

 

[ContinShots]

Any updates on the time frame for this coming into law please anyone ?
Jimmy

I'd put my money on it being done at the same time as they mess around with S2.

 

[ashray]

yes ,labour have confirmed :::::::: never !!

 

[Bowland blades]

Any updates on the time frame for this coming into law please anyone ?
Jimmy

I mentioned this to my FEO and they said in no way . The most dangerous thing on a moderator is if someone hit someone over the head with one ! The only reason they haven't been taken off ticket is likely the extra cash the government gain on the fees .

 

[jb1]

I'd put my money on it being done at the same time as they finish the HS2.

Corrected for you

 

[Canine]

Any updates on the time frame for this coming into law please anyone ?
Jimmy

No time frame - Currently on a list to be sorted in Parliament. But will definitely be sorted.

 

[Jeff8861]

This was considered around ten years ago then again last year. It takes absolutey no work to remove them. Nothing on paper at this time. In the meantime prices have gone up over 100 percent. Waiting times havent improved. More proposals ongoing is it possible they dont want to remove them as this will be a loss in regards to revenue.

 

[Elshad]

Countryside Alliance expects it to happen by May: 2026: What to expect from a shooting legislation point of view