Re-proofing "old" guns

[channel12]

From time to time the topic of having a newly acquired old gun re proofed comes up on here. The usual context is that the gun is in an obsolete calibre held by virtue of s58(2) and now they want to shoot it.

Let us consider this, you have just bought a LE No4, that rifle is about 70 years old, or how about a SMLE which could be over a 100 years old or maybe you buy a Long Lee or Lee Metford. All those guns have been in regular use during their lifetime and maybe some have had a "hard" life.

Would any of you think that just because the rifle is old you want it re proofed before you shoot it? And yet I see on here questions about say a Martini Henry which isn't that much older that say a Lee Metford having to be re proofed before being put on their fac.

Just for the record I was happy to shoot my Pattern 1856 short rifle and my Snider Enfield (dated 1867) without feeling the necessity of a trip to the Birmingham Proof House where they passed proof 150 years ago.

[Andy632]

Why deliberately subject an older gun to an excessive charge???????

[Rarms]

Why deliberately subject an older gun to an excessive charge???????

Probably so you know it is not going to blow up in your face when you shoot it with a lesser/normal charge!

That said I have not proofed any of my antiques, although primarily because I am loading on the low side and not using gas checks so have no need/desire to push the velocity up. I probably would though if I were to use 'factory' loadings.

You will probably find most ranges will be limited by their liability insurance to only allow proofed guns also.....

[Mattnall]

Why deliberately subject an older gun to an excessive charge???????

Probably so you know it is not going to blow up in your face when you shoot it with a lesser/normal charge!

Or the proof charge could have pushed the structural limits of the firearm and the next light or service charge would cause a catastrophic failure.

Generally, there is no need to have a firearm on your FAC proofed. You need to have it proofed to transfer it to another person but not if you want to shoot your own rifle.

[FredB]

I have posted this before, but it looks like it may be needed again. I spent my working life in the automotive industry in design, research and development. I am a Chartered Engineer. When we built a prototype of a new safety critical structural item---a stub axle would be a good example---it was first subjected to an overload test, similar to proofing a gun. Further prototypes were subjected to fatigue testing, on rigs and on vehicles, but that first, overloaded part was never allowed on a road going vehicle. This was because experience had shown that the proof test would radically reduce the fatigue life.
Proofing of guns came about when the iron and steel materials used were highly variable in composition. Damascus barrels in particular contain long strings of impurities, which the continuous folding and twisting of the metal reduces. A good damascus barrel is very good indeed, but cheap ones can be lethal. Proof testing eliminated guns with built in failure points and possibly still does with new production, but it is unlikely.
Proof shows that the guns will take an overload---ONCE. It does not guarantee that it will do it again and it has a detrimental effect on the fatigue life of the gun. Since the 1860s, steel quality has need very good with laboratory examination of samples to ensure consistency.
MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP WHETHER YOU WANT TO SUBMIT YOUR VALUABLE OLD GUN TO VANDALISM.

Fred

[The Gun Pimp]

I have posted this before, but it looks like it may be needed again. I spent my working life in the automotive industry in design, research and development. I am a Chartered Engineer. When we built a prototype of a new safety critical structural item---a stub axle would be a good example---it was first subjected to an overload test, similar to proofing a gun. Further prototypes were subjected to fatigue testing, on rigs and on vehicles, but that first, overloaded part was never allowed on a road going vehicle. This was because experience had shown that the proof test would radically reduce the fatigue life.
Proofing of guns came about when the iron and steel materials used were highly variable in composition. Damascus barrels in particular contain long strings of impurities, which the continuous folding and twisting of the metal reduces. A good damascus barrel is very good indeed, but cheap ones can be lethal. Proof testing eliminated guns with built in failure points and possibly still does with new production, but it is unlikely.
Proof shows that the guns will take an overload---ONCE. It does not guarantee that it will do it again and it has a detrimental effect on the fatigue life of the gun. Since the 1860s, steel quality has need very good with laboratory examination of samples to ensure consistency.
MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP WHETHER YOU WANT TO SUBMIT YOUR VALUABLE OLD GUN TO VANDALISM.

Fred

Wise words!

[TomEnfield]

There's lots of information out there about UK proof and it's worth, a search on here and google in general will bring up endless amounts of info. From reading this and my own experience my personal opionion is that UK proof is pretty dam worthless and I would not submit any of my guns for proof, unless ablsolutley required to by law.

A top tip is to know what makes old guns dangerous to shoot. SIMPLY BEING OLD IS NOT ONE!

Here's a good starting article about old shotguns https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/articles/proof-law/

[RDC]

...

Fred

I agree Fred, I was going to comment the same but you summed it up perfectly.

[snayperskaya]

I know of someone who sent an old rifle for proofing, which came back with new proofmarks, and on taking it to the range they couldn't chamber a round.On closer inspection it was found that the chamber had a broken case inside it that had been there for donkeys years and took a considerable amount of effort to remove so it makes you wonder how the proofhouse managed to chamber a round to test it!.

[ukrifleman]

I have a model 1889 Schmidt-Rubin circa 1892, which I had transferred from Section 58 (2) to section 1 in order to shoot it.

It is in all round excellent condition with a superb bore and I am quite happy to shoot it with suitable loads, without subjecting it to the rigours of putting a 125 year old rifle through proof.

ukrifleman.