The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Sim G wrote:Thing is, there’s a lot of ‘smiths out there who after shortening/screw cutting won’t “transfer” the rifle back to you until re-proofed should a mark be removed. .

So what happens in that case? are they going to charge you for the proof, and was it in the quote attached to the actual shortening?
what are the ramifications of them refusing to give you your property back?
Is it a form of theft?
Is it even a transfer?
What can you legally do if they insist it must be proofed , at your extra cost, once they have performed the task, thus destroying the proof marks, and the RFD refusing to release the rifle until done?

in addition, can RFD's transfer items out of proof between themselves?

RDC wrote:

Born Again wrote:It seems silly to stamp a mark on part of the barrel that is not only the thinnest and most easily damaged, but also critical for accuracy.

Some would argue that the method of proof is also silly.

More then a few would argue that it is a silly method.

That Proof houses are still using a 200+ year old method that puts unnecessary stress on a barrel when there are superior more modern non-invasive methods available raises a few questions about the current monopoly held by these organisation!

bradaz11 wrote:

Sim G wrote:Thing is, there’s a lot of ‘smiths out there who after shortening/screw cutting won’t “transfer” the rifle back to you until re-proofed should a mark be removed. .

So what happens in that case? are they going to charge you for the proof, and was it in the quote attached to the actual shortening?
what are the ramifications of them refusing to give you your property back?
Is it a form of theft?
Is it even a transfer?
What can you legally do if they insist it must be proofed , at your extra cost, once they have performed the task, thus destroying the proof marks, and the RFD refusing to release the rifle until done?

in addition, can RFD's transfer items out of proof between themselves?

RFD's can transfer between themselves if the item is to be repaired and reproofed .

According to London PH , if I bulge the barrel on my rifle , take it to a dealer for a quote , and I am not happy with the quote , he has to return the rifle to me .
But if I wanted it threading and he removes a proofmark in the course of threading , he cant give it back to me until its proofed .

If you have say a Uberti modified to use Nitro Powder , it has to be re proofed according to the Proof House . But if you want to have the option to use Black Powder at some point , it has to be reproofed for Black Powder again . At extra cost of course .

Here's a transcript of the Jackson v proof house case:

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm


An interesting read and clearly shows how the proof house is purely trying to protect it's income stream by claiming that a shortened or screwcut barrel weakens a barrel in any significant way.

I just looked at a couple of rifles we've had re-barrelled over the last 3-4 years, and the muzzle proof marks are engraved, not stamped.
I guess someone explained to them that whacking a stamp into the barrel at that point was really not a good idea..............

Pete

I'm puzzled that the proof house could claim that having a barrel shortened could make it more hazardous, the part of the barrel that is no longer there can't fail, and the part that remains has already been tested. In fact, if you wanted to be pedantic, you could argue that the proof mark on the end of the barrel causes a stress raiser and thus weakens it, putting it out of proof, and requiring re-proofing, and marking, and then......oh dear..... ;-)

1066 wrote:Here's a transcript of the Jackson v proof house case:

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm
.

This is just the counsel's opinion, albeit a learned and expert one at that. I don't think it went further than this and therefore could still be taken to court.

Pete wrote:I just looked at a couple of rifles we've had re-barrelled over the last 3-4 years, and the muzzle proof marks are engraved, not stamped.
I guess someone explained to them that whacking a stamp into the barrel at that point was really not a good idea..............

Pete

Pete, they seem to use stamps, engraving or dot matrix dependant on who the rifle is for. London gun houses always used to have their actions hand stamped.

I think proofing following manufacture and after re-barreling is a good idea...........essentially, it's quality control.
However, if you're buying a used rifle, you still have no way of knowing if the previous owner has repeatedly overcooked it to the point where it's about to give up.
If a rifle is going to let go, it'll surely happen way before the bullet reaches the muzzle, so all the proof stamp at muzzle bollox is just that, and a nice little earner for the proof house.
IMHO, all these petty little regulations are designed to make shooting just that bit harder/pricier to deal with in the hope that it might just discourage people from taking it up..............

Pete

London has a pentagraph engraver, Ive watched them being done, and then they stamp some, it seems like a lottery

they have been doing the muzzle end for a long time, I had to laugh when they marked a muzzle thread cap on one barrel, on a revolver they stamped the underlug, are they now transferable proof marks