Proof-testing

tac foley

As a matter of interest, how does a gun-builder in the Republic proof a gun that he has assembled from parts acquired for that purpose? The Republic of Ireland, with no firearms' industry of its own, is not a member of the CIP, and the Institute of Industrial Research and Standardsoffice in Dublin does not appear to be set up for gun-proofing of any kind, although I'm happy to be corrected on this sticky matter.

True that the action - made by SAKO [Finland is a CIP member] - may have been proofed, but only as a complete action + barrel + stock. Finding a SAKO action by itself is going to be very difficult as the factory do not sell items like this individually.

tac

Jonty

tac foley wrote: »

Finding a SAKO action by itself is going to be very difficult as the factory do not sell items like this individually.

tac

There was a thread here about an old sako rifle for sale in Connollys of Goresbridge for 500 quid. The only way to get an action would be through licensing a shot out rifle.

J

It wasn't me!

If a customer were to want a gun proofed, it can be shipped over to Birmingham for the work. Since it's not a requirement here, however, most don't seem to bother.

And yes, you'd buy a donor rifle for the action. If you happened to get anything you liked with it, such as a decent stock, bonus points! Otherwise break it down, junk or sell the barrel and stock and keep the action for your project.

Jonty

Is there actually any benefit to having a custom rifle proofed?

tac foley

Jonty wrote: »

Is there actually any benefit to having a custom rifle proofed?

Since you don't bother with such a trival matter in the Irish Republic as having a gun proofed as safe to shoot without disintegrating in your hands, I guess not.

It's just that just about everywhere else proof is required prior to the sale of any firearm to another person, either privately or commercially.

If the OP ever decides to sell it, then the buyer had better be in the RoI. It cannot be sold outside the country - say, to somebody in the north of Ireland, without having been subjected to proof.

Anyhow, for some reason this is a somewhat touchy subject for many here, so I'll shut up.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Since you don't bother with such a trival matter in the Irish Republic as having a gun proofed as safe to shoot without disintegrating in your hands, I guess not.
It's just that just about everywhere else proof is required prior to the sale of any firearm to another person, either privately or commercially.

Only in every country in CIP.

Countries like the US, where SAAMI is the standard used, do not require proofmarks before selling firearms because SAAMI isn't legally mandatory.

And given the origins of mandatory proofing laws (which had far more to do with seeking to establish commercial monopolies so that non-gunmaker-guild manufacturers would be driven out of business); and given that there have been a few injuries from people shooting CIP-proofed black powder firearms because CIP has loopholes (the firearms in question were CIP-proofed to the minimum 10,000 PSI for export from Spain but the manufacturer was recommending 25,000 PSI loads): I don't think you can reasonably say that proofing is the be-all and end-all of safety testing. It has its strengths and weaknesses, like any other testing mechanism, and you trust any test blindly at your own peril.

You sure shouldn't try slagging off an entire country because it doesn't do what another country does, purely on the basis of blind trust in such a test!

Jonty

Whats involved in the proofing process?

juice1304

They shoot a cartridge trough the gun %30 over the recomended saami pressure

tac foley

Jonty wrote: »

Whats involved in the proofing process?

Please read - as you can imagine, it does not involve tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away....

We are talking about LAWs here, not advice to handy home-proofers -

Purpose and brief history

Proof is the compulsory and statutory testing of every new shotgun or other small arm before sale to ensure, so far as it is practicable, its safety in the hands of the user. Reproof is the similar testing of a small arm which has previously been proved. Both necessarily involve the firing through the barrel of a considerably heavier load than is customary in the shooting field, thereby setting up pressure and stress on barrel and action much in excess of the pressure generated by standard load cartridges. Such pressure should, and is intended to, disclose weakness in guns, whether new or used, for it is preferable that weakness be found at a Proof House rather than in the field, where personal injury may result.

Link to Article.

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Please read - as you can imagine, it does not involve tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away....

We are talking about LAWs here, not advice to handy home-proofers -

Purpose and brief history

Proof is the compulsory and statutory testing of every new shotgun or other small arm before sale to ensure, so far as it is practicable, its safety in the hands of the user. Reproof is the similar testing of a small arm which has previously been proved. Both necessarily involve the firing through the barrel of a considerably heavier load than is customary in the shooting field, thereby setting up pressure and stress on barrel and action much in excess of the pressure generated by standard load cartridges. Such pressure should, and is intended to, disclose weakness in guns, whether new or used, for it is preferable that weakness be found at a Proof House rather than in the field, where personal injury may result.

Link to Article.

tac

Tac, Jonty asked what was involved in proofing; your post there tells a lot about what laws make it mandatory in the UK, but it doesn't actually tell you anything at all about what's involved in proofing. Proofing might as well be someone tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away for all you've written there.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Tac, Jonty asked what was involved in proofing; your post there tells a lot about what laws make it mandatory in the UK, but it doesn't actually tell you anything at all about what's involved in proofing. Proofing might as well be someone tying the gun to an old tractor tyre and firing it by means of a double charge set off by pulling a piece of string around the trigger from 20 yards away for all you've written there.

Sir, as the UK is signatory to the CIP, the standards of proof are the same in all those countries who are signatory. Only by having the same standards of proof throughout the CIP community can any sort of inter-operable standards be maintained.

Basically, it involves submitting the barrelled action to an inspection or 'view' prior to and after firing an excessively high charge relevant to that calibre. Depending on the nature of the firearm this might be done up to three times. Most guns, however, for sale to civilians, are only subjected to proof once.

After examination, visually and by actual measurement and, often, by fluoroscopic test, proding it has passed the test, the firearm is stamped accordingly -

Proof stamps in the UK also notes the size of the cartridge case in inches, and the authorised/recommended safe loading pressure commensurate with that particular calibre expressed in tons per square inch (.308Win - 20TONS PER IN sq). This is stamped on the breech of the firearm.
The bolt and any pressure-bearing parts are also stamped with a cypher - BNP - Birmingham Nitro Proof - or LP - London Proof.

All CIP nations use this proof-house cypher (Ulm, for instance, uses a half-antler sign) and date code, which may be obvious - as in 09 [2009] or cryptic, as in the Italian Roman number/Capital letter code. The gun will also be stamped NITRO or BP, and, if a shotgun, with details of the choke and actual cartridge dimensions - in metric, of course.

Shotguns and their ilk have a convenient set of flat surfaces under the barrels and on the water-table of the breech for a whole scad of letters and numbers.

Guns made in the USA are subjected to factory proof, which, having been successfully undertaken, get stamped with a very small cryptic letter or number or combination - have a look at your Remington 700 and see if you can find it. However, on arrival in the EU, every US-made gun has to be proofed before it can be sold. Obviously this would not apply to any firearm entering directly into the Republic of Ireland from the USA, but such a firearm cannot be sold to anybody else outside the RoI without being proofed.

I hope that answers the question in a better way.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Basically, it involves submitting the barrelled action to an inspection or 'view' prior to and after firing an excessively high charge relevant to that calibre. Depending on the nature of the firearm this might be done up to three times. Most guns, however, for sale to civilians, are only subjected to proof once.

After examination, visually and by actual measurement and, often, by fluoroscopic test, proding it has passed the test, the firearm is stamped accordingly -

*That* was more what Jonty was asking about.
Got any more details?

However, on arrival in the EU, every US-made gun has to be proofed before it can be sold.

No, just on arrival in any CIP signatory country in the EU (ie. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom), which is less than half the member states of the EU. Though to be fair, states may have their own proof laws; I just don't know what those might be.

Jonty

It just seems a bit pointless to me, afterall, there is probably a considerable factor of safety engineered into firearms. I have heard that UK guns that have been screwcut after proofing, require reproofing.




Just my 2c.

juice1304

I would rather have my firearms proofed then have it explode in my face. There are many thing which could affect the pressures and it could be fine with %99 of ammunition but what if you tried some new hot ammo and it went kaboom?
I think saying that they don't need it is a bit silly.:rolleyes:
Everyone makes mistakes even someone doing the same thing day in day out.

Sparks

juice1304 wrote: »

I would rather have my firearms proofed then have it explode in my face. There are many thing which could affect the pressures and it could be fine with %99 of ammunition but what if you tried some new hot ammo and it went kaboom?
I think saying that they don't need it is a bit silly.:rolleyes:
Everyone makes mistakes even someone doing the same thing day in day out.

Counterarguments include the point that destructive testing in mechanical engineering has been superceded by better testing methods; and the point that you might introduce a weakness in the barrel with the proof test that may later fail with a normal load; the proof test is unable to detect a weakness like this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

rowa

Not this crap again , what has it to do with the chap looking for a lh 7mm mag ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Not this crap again , what has it to do with the chap looking for a lh 7mm mag ?

Fair point. Splitting it out...

juice1304

Sparks wrote: »

Counterarguments include the point that destructive testing in mechanical engineering has been superceded by better testing methods; and the point that you might introduce a weakness in the barrel with the proof test that may later fail with a normal load; the proof test is unable to detect a weakness like this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

Do all Irish gunsmiths implement all of these high tech testing methods? I would think not, Which is why i would rather have it proofed. Other than the fact that all the major firearms manufacturers still proof test their firearms before they leave the factory, they would'nt do it if they thought they were going to damage it.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Counterarguments include the point that destructive testing in mechanical engineering has been superceded by better testing methods; and the point that you might introduce a weakness in the barrel with the proof test that may later fail with a normal load; the proof test is unable to detect a weakness like this.

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

Hi Sparks, since you not convinced about proofing methods .....whats your understanding on how/what is involved in proof testing in the uk ?
Regards ,Tomcat.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Personally, I'm not convinced that proof testing is automatically superior to other testing methods we've developed in engineering since the 1600s.

Hence my earlier point about the 180 degree opinions on gun proofing.

Here in the CIP countries we live with it.

I'd like to point out that I shoot a considerable number of guns made in the US of A actually IN the USA and have not been overly worried. All were made by reputable manufacturers, and have been tested at the source of manufacture. Blow-ups are, thankfully, very rare.

As the topic seems to have either worn itself out or disintegrated into argument for and against (again), I don't believe that I have anything more to add to it.

tac

Croppy Boy

Anyone know what the fail rate is in proofing new guns?

rowa

I done a course in heavy pipeline welding a few years back, every weld for the test had to pass a visual , which was simply a once over by the examiner , then it was taken away and the weld is x-rayed. The testers are able to pick up a fault smaller than the size of a grain of sand , which obviously means a fail.
Parts of aircraft engines are worked on in places like airmotive and pwa, they are also x-rayed and crack tested regularly. boilers and compressor receivers also have to be tested by law.
I doubt it would be difficult to have gun parts or completed guns x-rayed or crack tested and then do a proof test. Anything is better than nothing which we currently have.

CJhaughey

Wasn't there a proof house here in the ROI a long time ago?

tomcat220t

rowa wrote: »

I done a course in heavy pipeline welding a few years back, every weld for the test had to pass a visual , which was simply a once over by the examiner , then it was taken away and the weld is x-rayed. The testers are able to pick up a fault smaller than the size of a grain of sand , which obviously means a fail.
Parts of aircraft engines are worked on in places like airmotive and pwa, they are also x-rayed and crack tested regularly. boilers and compressor receivers also have to be tested by law.
I doubt it would be difficult to have gun parts or completed guns x-rayed or crack tested and then do a proof test. Anything is better than nothing which we currently have.

Hi Rowa, my understanding of rifle proofing is there is more to it than cheaking for metal flaws .
Just as important and dangerous is the consequences of improper Head-Space.!
Regards,Tomcat.

rowa

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Rowa, my understanding of rifle proofing is there is more to it than cheaking for metal flaws .
Just as important and dangerous is the consequences of improper Head-Space.!
Regards,Tomcat.

Excess headspace in rifles is dangerous , some rifles such as the lee enfields have interchangeable bolt heads , if excessive headspace is detected a tighter bolt head can be fitted easily enough. Headspace in shotguns is not considered dangerous (i don't know why that is) but it does lead to heavier recoil. Headspace can be measured by go no-go gauges so proofing wouldn't really be neccessary to detect it and it might be careless to proof a gun you know to have excessive headspace.

tomcat220t

rowa wrote: »

Excess headspace in rifles is dangerous , some rifles such as the lee enfields have interchangeable bolt heads , if excessive headspace is detected a tighter bolt head can be fitted easily enough. Headspace in shotguns is not considered dangerous (i don't know why that is) but it does lead to heavier recoil. Headspace can be measured by go no-go gauges so proofing wouldn't really be neccessary to detect it and it might be careless to proof a gun you know to have excessive headspace.

Hi Rowa, that im aware ..headspace with rifles is measured/cheaked and is an important part of the proofing process .
Its not just Excessive headspace but also Insufficient headspace that would cause problems with a rifle.
Regards ,Tomcat.

rowa

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Rowa, that im aware ..headspace with rifles is measured/cheaked and is an important part of the proofing process .
Its not just Excessive headspace but also Insufficient headspace that would cause problems with a rifle.
Regards ,Tomcat.

Headspace maybe a proofing requirement but i don't know why that would be. It is after all a physically measurable dimension, if there was insufficient headspace the bolt would not close on the go gauge and it would be instantly noticeable to the smith or proofing tester.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSU2zBQvM8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

tomcat220t

rowa wrote: »

Headspace maybe a proofing requirement but i don't know why that would be. It is after all a physically measurable dimension, if there was insufficient headspace the bolt would not close on the go gauge and it would be instantly noticeable to the smith or proofing tester.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSU2zBQvM8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Hi Rowa,how many rifles turn up to be proofed with improper headspace ....no idea, but i guess it must happen and thats why it part of the proofing process .
Im sure by tomorrow maybe someone will have contacted a uk proofing house to find out weather or why they cheak headspace or not, on rifles .
Regards,Tomcat.

juice1304

If the headspace is wrong it will cause a pressure spike and could lead to the gun exploding it would also mean the gun is'nt within the safe saami pressures. Which is what i was getting at in an earlier post it might work fine with %99 of the ammunition you fire and then you try some +p or some hot stuff and boom you need a new face.

tomcat220t

juice1304 wrote: »

If the headspace is wrong it will cause a pressure spike and could lead to the gun exploding it would also mean the gun is'nt within the safe saami pressures. Which is what i was getting at in an earlier post it might work fine with %99 of the ammunition you fire and then you try some +p or some hot stuff and boom you need a new face.

Hi juice, if for any reason a new factory rifle was found to be defective and caused injury or worse in the normal course of using it ,then the manufacture of the rifle could be held to task or maybe personal insurance would cover you .
But what if you found yourself in the above situation with a altered/built unproofed rifle ?If you had personal insurance ..would you be covered ...would any third party be insured ?Would the person who altered/built the gun have product liability insurance ?
Dont get me wrong ....the chances of anything like that happening is very unlikely .

Regards ,Tomcat .

rowa

The birmingham proof house is supposed to be a great place to visit, some other information.

http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html