Proof-testing

juice1304

To be honest I don't know but I do know who I would be holding accountable. The "gunsmith" for not testing it properly. If it went to court I would imagine that the judge would side with the person who's face it blew up in. If the gunsmith is payed to do a service and he messes it up and the rifle explodes then he has'nt done as he was paid to. We can't reload here so that argument can't be used against the person whos rifle blew up either.
I don't know though that is why i would rather be safe than sorry.

tomcat220t

juice1304 wrote: »

To be honest I don't know but I do know who I would be holding accountable. The "gunsmith" for not testing it properly. If it went to court I would imagine that the judge would side with the person who's face it blew up in. If the gunsmith is payed to do a service and he messes it up and the rifle explodes then he has'nt done as he was paid to. We can't reload here so that argument can't be used against the person whos rifle blew up either.
I don't know though that is why i would rather be safe than sorry.

Hi juice,if somebody had concerns about proofing or not, they could at least ask for a copy of the gunsmiths product liability insurance cert .
Regards,Tomcat.

EWQuinn

About everything you wanted to know about proof testing, including ye olde UK perspective. Bottom line for modern manufacturers is that if they were producing poor quality stuff they wouldn't be in business very long. Interesting aspect is that with modern technology more and more folks can be gun makers. Despite all the laws in the world, the old Roman saying still holds, caveat emptor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_test

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/01/testing-firearms-proof-test.html

http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/index.html

rowa

EWQuinn wrote: »

Bottom line for modern manufacturers is that if they were producing poor quality stuff they wouldn't be in business very long. Despite all the laws in the world, the old Roman saying still holds, caveat emptor.

buy any taurus revolvers lately ew ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftq9hNpvBc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

EWQuinn

Nope, nor would I ever buy a Taurus.

Grizzly 45

CJhaughey wrote: »

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

There was in Dublin castle I belive,and we have a proof testing act.
However,we never employed a competant master proof tester,and it really became superflous after the one and only commercial gun factory closed down in the 1970s.

Grizzly 45

juice1304 wrote: »

To be honest I don't know but I do know who I would be holding accountable. The "gunsmith" for not testing it properly. If it went to court I would imagine that the judge would side with the person who's face it blew up in. If the gunsmith is payed to do a service and he messes it up and the rifle explodes then he has'nt done as he was paid to. We can't reload here so that argument can't be used against the person whos rifle blew up either.
I don't know though that is why i would rather be safe than sorry.

1] NEVER assume a judge will go with what you expect in a court decision!!Lots of people including eminent barristers are regulary made aware of that fact.

2]
This is another reason I do belive that gunsmithing should be an apprenticed and qualified trade same as being a doctor or somthing of the like,to prevent somthing basic like excessive headspace or whatever being overseen by some of our "gun plumbers" over here.Being a gun dealer does not make you a gunsmith!!.
3]
If it was a qualified gunsmith building your custom rifle,there would be no way he could legally hand it out to you unless it was legally proof marked.
That is the proof houses job,so he would be coverd on things like barrel weakness,action failure,etc.All stuff the proof house should pick up on,and absolves the GS from liability.
So unless it was negligence in putting it together.IE he used inferior bolts for the stock bolts and the barrel flew back and walloped you in the head.Your arguement would be with the proof house not the GS.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.............. ,and we have a proof testing act..

The 1968 Firearms Proof Act.


Repealed before it came into effect.

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

1] NEVER assume a judge will go with what you expect in a court decision!!Lots of people including eminent barristers are regulary made aware of that fact.

2]
This is another reason I do belive that gunsmithing should be an apprenticed and qualified trade same as being a doctor or somthing of the like,to prevent somthing basic like excessive headspace or whatever being overseen by some of our "gun plumbers" over here.Being a gun dealer does not make you a gunsmith!!.
3]
If it was a qualified gunsmith building your custom rifle,there would be no way he could legally hand it out to you unless it was legally proof marked.
That is the proof houses job,so he would be coverd on things like barrel weakness,action failure,etc.All stuff the proof house should pick up on,and absolves the GS from liability.
So unless it was negligence in putting it together.IE he used inferior bolts for the stock bolts and the barrel flew back and walloped you in the head.Your arguement would be with the proof house not the GS.

I think you're being a bit harsh there griz , after all self regulation of your own work has been a great success in the building industry :rolleyes:.

Grizzly 45

I dont work in the building industry..
But then again,the building industry is a good example of unregulated cowboys in action.Were firearms built like some Irish houses..:eek:

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I dont work in the building industry..
But then again,the building industry is a good example of unregulated cowboys in action.Were firearms built like some Irish houses..:eek:

I was only takeing the whizz , but then again ......

EWQuinn

rowa wrote: »

buy any taurus revolvers lately ew ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vftq9hNpvBc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Research has turned up several instances barrel separations in S&W revolvers and Rugers Redhawks. In one instance some S&W 686 range guns, a scoped Ruger Redhawk, some S&Ws purchased by a state dept of corrections, and a S&W snubby titanium with cracked frame and separated barrel. Like the Taurus, the cases I found had no findings reported except for the Redhawk. Early in production Ruger used a faulty lube in barrel assembly, resulting in overtorquing the barrels, some of which then were then shot off by users.

As to the Taurus, note well how the shooter is covering the sides and cylinder gap with the range bag, not a safe practice. Did he impede the cylinder from fully indexing? Note also in the video the huge flame from the sides at point of ignition, larger than normal, with no apparent discharge at the muzzle. Would need to know if a bullet ever left the barrel, was the previous shot a squib? Also with a range gun, you never know what was shot in it before this, at least the shooter isn't out any of his own money, maybe just a pair of drawers.

Too many questions to conclusively pin the cause on Taurus. Common with these You Tube failures, you never get the final outcome, sometimes nobody wants to go there. In any event, I stand by what I wrote, not having guns "proofed" in US is fine with me and most other shooters. Of the very few failures, in turn very few of those result in any serious injury.

stick shooter

Grizzly 45
2]
This is another reason I do belive that gunsmithing should be an apprenticed and qualified trade same as being a doctor or somthing of the like,to prevent somthing basic like excessive headspace or whatever being overseen by some of our "gun plumbers" over here.Being a gun dealer does not make you a gunsmith!!.

In some ways i would agree with you Grizzly 45 , But that would be counter productive for Irish shooting as it would leave no gunsmiths building rifles here in the Rep Ireland .

Grizzly 45
3]
If it was a qualified gunsmith building your custom rifle,there would be no way he could legally hand it out to you unless it was legally proof marked.
That is the proof houses job,so he would be coverd on things like barrel weakness,action failure,etc.All stuff the proof house should pick up on,and absolves the GS from liability.

I cant see proofing becoming a legal requirement here in Ireland, As the DOJ are happy to leave well enough alone and not proof , and gunsmiths regard it as bo..ox and is one of the biggest legalised criminal activities available within the UK.

Grizzly 45

stick shooter wrote: »

In some ways i would agree with you Grizzly 45 , But that would be counter productive for Irish shooting as it would leave no gunsmiths building rifles here in the Rep Ireland .

How many actual qualified gunsmiths do we have here??
By that I mean people who have done a recognised and certified in some country like the UK,Austria,Germany,etc apprenticeship and master qualification???
With all due respects to those that are out there and have learned from experiance and time in real life and can call themselves gunsmiths in anyones parlance,bar a beuracratic one,as unless they can produce paperwork to say they are,they aint!!
Whats to stop them building the gun sending it to Birmingham ,getting it proof tested,then selling it to their customer??
Wouldnt you rather have somthing passed by a 3rd party that certifies your work,and can be blamed if it fails to meet the certified standard???
If I was a GS,I'd rather have that option..

I cant see proofing becoming a legal requirement here in Ireland, As the DOJ are happy to leave well enough alone and not proof , and gunsmiths regard it as bo..ox and is one of the biggest legalised criminal activities available within the UK.

Not unless we start mass production of firearms here which is about as likely as swine flying.Those that are made here can easily be proofed if wanted or needed in the UK.

Depends on which Gunsmiths you talk to.The Germans consider it a mandatory and welcome point of firearms production,to the point that it shows their handbuilt product[in some cases] is a safe & sound gun to use.

I'd certainly agree that it is a con on things like cutting threads for silencers or re choking a shotgun barrel,that it must be reprooved.

stick shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How many actual qualified gunsmiths do we have here??
By that I mean people who have done a recognised and certified in some country like the UK,Austria,Germany,etc apprenticeship and master qualification???
With all due respects to those that are out there and have learned from experiance and time in real life and can call themselves gunsmiths in anyones parlance,bar a beuracratic one,as unless they can produce paperwork to say they are,they aint!!
Whats to stop them building the gun sending it to Birmingham ,getting it proof tested,then selling it to their customer??
Wouldnt you rather have somthing passed by a 3rd party that certifies your work,and can be blamed if it fails to meet the certified standard???
If I was a GS,I'd rather have that option..

I am unaware of any gunsmith building rifles in the Rep Ireland with any qualification specific to rifle building . As far as i am aware they are virtually self taught with minimal if any training in gunsmithing , prior to receiving a RFD licence and starting business . Which would make all the more common sense, for these gunsmiths to have there rifles proofed .

Not unless we start mass production of firearms here which is about as likely as swine flying.Those that are made here can easily be proofed if wanted or needed in the UK.

Apparently the DOJ are happy with the way it is at the moment and have no intentions on reintroducing proofing .

Kinzig

I am unaware of any gunsmith building rifles in the Rep Ireland with any qualification specific to rifle building . As far as i am aware they are virtually self taught with minimal if any training in gunsmithing , prior to receiving a RFD licence and starting business . Which would make all the more common sense, for these gunsmiths to have there rifles proofed

.


Such a nonsensical post, what qualifications had John Moses browning or Eliphalet remington:rolleyes:

rowa

Kinzig wrote: »

.


Such a nonsensical post, what qualifications had John Moses browning or Eliphalet remington:rolleyes:

yes but they lived in very different times, every second ad on television now is an ambulance chasing solicitor looking for personal injury cases. The fact the gunmakers aren't qualified isn't so much an issue, the fact the guns aren't independently tested may be.

Witcher

If rifle makers here aren't proof testing their rifles and the buyer wants it they should have the stones to demand it..you're paying enough money for the rifle at the end of the day.

It wasn't me!

You're paying money for the rifle. If you want it proofed, I can't imagine any gunsmith telling you to go and shíte, they'll just add the cost of proofing, plus shipping both ways onto your bill. You're paying enough for the rifle, but you'll certainly pay more for proofing, since no gunsmith is going to absorb the extra costs themselves.

Kinzig

Blay wrote: »

If rifle makers here aren't proof testing their rifles and the buyer wants it they should have the stones to demand it..you're paying enough money for the rifle at the end of the day.

The guys here dont make rifles, they assemble them..

Witcher

Kinzig wrote: »

The guys here dont make rifles, they assemble them..

I'm well aware of that.

Grizzly 45

Kinzig wrote: »

The guys here dont make rifles, they assemble them..

Quite a pertinent point.... A gunsmith should be able to take a lump of metal,a barrel blank and a lump of walnut,and build for you your custom rifle out of those raw materials.

It wasn't me!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Quite a pertinent point.... A gunsmith should be able to take a lump of metal,a barrel blank and a lump of walnut,and build for you your custom rifle out of those raw materials.

I personally don't believe a gunsmith needs to be able to build their own action from bar stock. That is a rather restrictive definition. It would certainly exclude a great number of artist gunmakers, like Biesen and Martini. It would be crass to describe what they do as mere assembly. The stature of a gunsmith should be measured from the finished article, and a beautiful, flawlessly functional rifle built off an old military Mauser action is certainly as good as that art gets.

Kinzig

rowa wrote: »

yes but they lived in very different times, every second ad on television now is an ambulance chasing solicitor looking for personal injury cases. The fact the gunmakers aren't qualified isn't so much an issue, the fact the guns aren't independently tested may be.

The point I was making was that the gun Industry was built by guys with no qualifications..

Kinzig

Blay wrote: »

I'm well aware of that.

Then why call them rifle makers in the first place:rolleyes:

Witcher

Kinzig wrote: »

Then why call them rifle makers in the first place:rolleyes:

Becaue they form a rifle which otherwise does not exist...I don't consider loose parts on a shelf a rifle. You can call them whatever you like..the issue is with the proofing of the finished product.

rowa

Kinzig wrote: »

The point I was making was that the gun Industry was built by guys with no qualifications..

so was the medical profession , a long time ago.

Grizzly 45

Kinzig wrote: »

The point I was making was that the gun Industry was built by guys with no qualifications..

Think you might find John Browning's father was in the gunsmithing busisness in Utah

Hiram Percy Maxim the son of Hiram Maxim the inventor of the machinegun was a qualified mechanical engineer.He invented the silencer.

Sure they mightnt have had master gunsmith qualifications,as by rights they were garden shed inventors,but once their inventions or prototypes were bought Winchester,Remington and FN engineers,steel specialists etc,no doubt refined the designs into workable mass produced commodities.

I personally don't believe a gunsmith needs to be able to build their own action from bar stock. That is a rather restrictive definition. It would certainly exclude a great number of artist gunmakers, like Biesen and Martini. It would be crass to describe what they do as mere assembly. The stature of a gunsmith should be measured from the finished article, and a beautiful, flawlessly functional rifle built off an old military Mauser action is certainly as good as that art gets.

I see..So Holland& Holland,Purdey,Boss,Merkel,Ferlach,Bereatta etc,etc have been wasting their time for generations hand building their recivers and actions and barrells???? Wonder how they managed in the pre industrial age when every gun was handmade???Not to mind charging the Earth for the hand made part of the whole affair.

Just for a point to become a master gunsmith in Austria,that is your final test!! Build a gun from the raw bits handed to you...

Ok,its not every gunsmith that is a master engraver or wood stock turner,but you are required to do the fitting and the shaping to your customers requirements.Most gunsmiths will farm that work out to a stock maker,or engraver.BUT they must assemble the entire gun from these raw materials that they have orderd from the specialists.

The artwork isnt germane to the guns functionality or its accruacy.Its so much more value added.But does nothing to make it more accruate.

Piffle! Rebuilding a gun on a old action??Gun plumbing Sir!
Try taking two barrells of a SXS rifle and having to sweat weld and wedge them continously until they both shoot on point at a given distance!!Then add the double barrel shotgun barrels one of which must shoot slugs on point as well!! A so called "Vierling" one of the most expensive and hardest guns to build in Ferlach,which they specialise in.:)

Or build the action box and lockwork totally by hand with such precision of a thousandaths of an inch in the parts.Thats where the true craftsman ship comes in as to be found in any bespoke English shotgun.

THEN,take this to the proof house and possibly have X thousand Euros and work hours possibly blown to kingdom come???
Be intresting to hear the explanation to your customer that his beloved dream piece is now just so much valuable scrap metal and toothpicks.:eek:

IOW do we have anyone here who could do this kind of feat and has the scroll to prove it???
We have gundealers,and gun assemblers and repairers,but I doubt we have one genuine qualified gunsmith in the land.

It wasn't me!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I see..So Holland& Holland,Purdey,Boss,Merkel,Ferlach,Bereatta etc,etc have been wasting their time for generations hand building their recivers and actions and barrells???? Wonder how they managed in the pre industrial age when every gun was handmade???Not to mind charging the Earth for the hand made part of the whole affair.

I made no such statement or implication. Yes, there's a difference between someone who builds their own actions and someone who assembles rifles from existing parts. They're certainly both gunsmiths though. Let's say I buy two rifles, both .375s, both built on FZH actions, with the same components, but one is built in full by FZH and the other is built by the likes of Dorleac and Dorleac or Ralf Martini. Are you suggesting that the fact that the latter bought in the action rather than making it from scratch makes them an assembler, rather than a gunsmith? Surely the standard of the product they turn out is what determines their stature and right to define themselves as a gunsmith?

stick shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You're paying money for the rifle. If you want it proofed, I can't imagine any gunsmith telling you to go and shíte, they'll just add the cost of proofing, plus shipping both ways onto your bill. You're paying enough for the rifle, but you'll certainly pay more for proofing, since no gunsmith is going to absorb the extra costs themselves.

Irrespective of price it should be a service provided . I should not think any customer would expect the gunsmith to absorb the extra cost of proofing . My point about some kind of qualifications is whats the difference between these gunsmiths and joe public other than the fact they have an RFD licence :eek: .

In many cases they are recycling actions (some) 70 plus year old , opening bolt faces , fluting bolts , removing metal from bolt lugs , All in which is altering manufacturing specification and integral strenght of the components . my opinion is, that its quiet reckless to alter and remove metal from these components with out proofing .