Proof-testing

Grizzly 45

It wasn't me! wrote: »

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.

Up to a point..Martini is a gunsmith par exellance.But the fact is if you handed him the raw materials he could certainly build the gun from scratch.And that is the difference IMVHO between a gun assembler and a gunsmith.

Of course there is nothing wrong with a gunsmith buying in or re working an action to their specs and re calibreing it.At least they will know what they are doing with headspacing ,blueprinting the action etc.

However, many people claim to be gunsmiths,because they buy a already set up action and barrel that is headspaced,slap it into a pre cut and inletted wood stock,put a finish on it,and mount a scope on it and claim they " custom hand made"that rifle!!:rolleyes:
Now unless they are going to do some very intricate engraving on it or add some personal detail that improves the rifle to make it somthing unique,you can hardly call it hand made.

That to me is the difference.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

However, many people claim to be gunsmiths,because they buy a already set up action and barrel that is headspaced,slap it into a pre cut and inletted wood stock,put a finish on it,and mount a scope on it and claim they " custom hand made"that rifle!!:rolleyes:

Doesn't that describe how Bleiker rifles are made?
Dunno about you Grizzly, but if a guy's making the rifles that are winning international matches all round them and whose rifles are being found up and down the line on an international match's range, I think you'd need some rather substantial evidence to back up the claim that he's not a gunsmith...

tomcat220t

Hi Grizzly 45,in fairness to any of the gunsmith i know over here they buy in barrel blanks and set the head-space through chambering .

One of todays worlds best .22lr rimfire builder/gunsmith had no formal engineering or gunsmithing training or certs to his name .

I dont agree that a gunsmith needs to certed to be good at his/her job .
It should be mandatory (imo) that trading gunsmiths here in Ireland should have insurance to cover their built/altered rifles .Instead of some gunsmith spending the first 20min telling people have much better they are over gunsmithX down the road, they should spend 5 mins explaining the pros of having their built rifle proofed and if the customer still doesnt want to spend the extra money to have their rifle proofed they should have some type of disclaimer singed (covers the gunsmith to some extent ,aswell).
An genuine open offer of proofing should be put to each customer to decide on ...and either way a copy of the gunsmith Product Liability Insurance Cert .
How many gunsmiths are trading here with-out correct insurance ?

The custom rifles i had was not proofed and did- not bother me in the slightest .
Regards,Tomcat.

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We have gundealers,and gun assemblers and repairers,but I doubt we have one genuine qualified gunsmith in the land.

Not strictly true grizz, the chap who runs the gunshop in lucan (his name i have forgotten) served his time with churchills in the uk, frank saunders who used to work in watts on the quays was also a qualified gunsmith and Tony curran who worked with him is also a gunsmith , he works in the gun gallery in drogheda now, they all seem to have served their times with the guntrade in england.

Half-cocked

rowa wrote: »

Not strictly true grizz, the chap who runs the gunshop in lucan (his name i have forgotten) served his time with churchills in the uk, frank saunders who used to work in watts on the quays was also a qualified gunsmith and Tony curran who worked with him is also a gunsmith , he works in the gun gallery in drogheda now, they all seem to have served their times with the guntrade in england.

Plus Walter Blacklaw in Wexford.

stick shooter

Half-cocked wrote: »

rowa wrote: »

Not strictly true grizz, the chap who runs the gunshop in lucan (his name i have forgotten) served his time with churchills in the uk, frank saunders who used to work in watts on the quays was also a qualified gunsmith and Tony curran who worked with him is also a gunsmith , he works in the gun gallery in drogheda now, they all seem to have served their times with the guntrade in england.

Plus Walter Blacklaw in Wexford.

i have used Walter quiet a bit on my shotguns , but he does not build rifles ,

Grizzly 45

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Grizzly 45,in fairness to any of the gunsmith i know over here they buy in barrel blanks and set the head-space through chambering .

I'll bet any money those blanks ,if they are chamberd and rifled are already in proof.??

One of todays worlds best .22lr rimfire builder/gunsmith had no formal engineering or gunsmithing training or certs to his name .

Neither did John Browning,or John Cassius Garand.
But Mikahal Klashnikov certainly does,as did Eugene Stoner. They were both mechanical engineers.
Thats not to say that as in the case of Browning that his designs were rubbish..Far from it...
But I bet the original design or working prototype he brought into Wincherste Arms or FN Leige was a far cry from the first off the production line in both materials,finish and metals.
Ergo your 22 builder...I bet his first prototype was somthing while mechanically sound was abit rough around the edges??

I dont agree that a gunsmith needs to certed to be good at his/her job .
It should be mandatory (imo) that trading gunsmiths here in Ireland should have insurance to cover their built/altered rifles .

Dunno about you,but I'd rather go to a qualified doctor or mechanic than the local backstreet chop shop or home cure herbalist witch doctor.
I'm sure both can and maybe do repair complex electronic gearboxes and cure diseases,but tBH where I'm dealing with my health,car or potential leathl firearm.I'd rather take it to a specialist and pay the difference.

As for product liability we are the second most litagatious country in the world next to the USA.How much do you think your product liability insurance premimiums will be here???
Ask any of the big arms makers in the US how many law suits they have had to field for a defective gun or product.They are usually in the Millions of dollars...
Simple fact is ,no disclaimer will cover you,and how long do you think it would be before the Govt recognises they might be onto a source of income and activates the proof house act,that makes it mandatory for you to take the guns to proof??Or our EU overlords decide its for our own good and issue an EU mandate that all guns in the EU must be proof tested...


Belive it or not,that was what the original idea and intent of proof testing was about.
To prove that the product was safe to use.

Not strictly true grizz, the chap who runs the gunshop in lucan (his name i have forgotten) served his time with churchills in the uk, frank saunders who used to work in watts on the quays was also a qualified gunsmith and Tony curran who worked with him is also a gunsmith , he works in the gun gallery in drogheda now, they all seem to have served their times with the guntrade in england.

I know Frank and Tony from along while back and yes they are the genuine article,point being however how many more replacements of people who served their time and have the scroll to prove that they are a qualified gunsmith are there out there,or are following in their footsteps???

I'm not saying lads that being a master gunsmith is the be and end all of all the problems.But I dislike the idea of a gundealer being able to work on a potentially dangerous item with no experiance,but can just because the Irish legislation gives them that right!!

Just recently we had a thread here about some lad who had the ribs on his Baikal O/U super glued for want of a better word and sold to him by a gun dealer!!!:eek::eek:.

Its the same as going to a car dealer and finding the dealer working away under the car himself,or the mechanic trying to sell you the car..
They are two different skill sets ,one is selling and one is making a firearm.

@ Sparks
I'm sure Herr Bleiker doesnt now make each rifle personally anymore???
Isnt he an engineer by profession?? And if I'm not mistaken Swiss firearms,right down to the air rifles are proof marked as well??

TBH the engineers will become the next gen of gunsmiths,IMO.
Guns will become a more mass machine produced item and with modern stress testing etc,proofing by firing over power charges will become unnecessary
The traditional gunsmith ala those who hand craft each and every piece of the gun wil still exist,but they will become a niche market of exclusivevness.
Finally and honestly,if you are building a custom firearm to your specs,you are into big enough bucks,are you going to balk at proably an extra 300 quid on a 10k to 30k and upward project to get it proof tested??????

rowa

Its not so much that the gun builders aren't qualified grizz , i am sure they are qualified in one of the engineering trades, its simply the fact that the final product is not independently scrutinised and tested.

tomcat220t

Hi Grizzly ,if insurance is out too expensive for some gunsmiths ,they should have their work proofed ,imo.

Regards,Tomcat.

Glensman

I don't agree at all lads.
I wouldn't want to buy a custom barrel just to have a 30% over-charged load sent down it, especially when that's something I woul never do myself.

My Dad is an engineer that builds tractor engines. He doesn't rev the guts out of them to prove the pistons are ok...

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

Doesn't that describe how Bleiker rifles are made?
Dunno about you Grizzly, but if a guy's making the rifles that are winning international matches all round them and whose rifles are being found up and down the line on an international match's range, I think you'd need some rather substantial evidence to back up the claim that he's not a gunsmith...

To the best of my knowledge he makes the actions and the stocks. It's only the barrels he buys in. Anyone who makes an action is comfortably into "gunsmith" territory in my book.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

@ Sparks
I'm sure Herr Bleiker doesnt now make each rifle personally anymore???

No, the company has several people working in it. It's not a big company, but it's not a one man shop either.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Isnt he an engineer by profession??

Yup, I'm not sure of his exact background but there's still an arm of the company that does precision machining work unrelated to firearms. (http://www.bleiker-feinwerktechnik.ch/)

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And if I'm not mistaken Swiss firearms,right down to the air rifles are proof marked as well??

Nope. If I had bought mine direct from Bleiker it would not have been proofed AFAIK. As it happens, I bought it via the good folks of Intershoot and since they're in the UK it had to be proofed. As far as I know, mine was proofed in Ulm. I'll double check the marks tonight.

I didn't mind it being proofed since it increases the resale potential if I'm forced by unfortunate circumstances to sell it for any reason.

tomcat220t

Glensman wrote: »

I don't agree at all lads.
I wouldn't want to buy a custom barrel just to have a 30% over-charged load sent down it, especially when that's something I woul never do myself.

My Dad is an engineer that builds tractor engines. He doesn't rev the guts out of them to prove the pistons are ok...

Hi Glensman, what reasons do you have with not wanting a 30% over-charge (proofing) on a custom barrel+action ?
What has an engine failure got in common with a rifle failure in this subject ?
Regards,Tomcat.

IRLConor

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Glensman, what reasons do you have with not wanting a 30% over-charge (proofing) on a custom barrel+action ?
What has an engine failure got in common with a rifle failure in this subject ?

It's hypothetically possible to create a rifle which will weaken but not fail during the proofing process and will fail after wear and tear with normal rounds. This hypothetical rifle would be perfectly safe if it had never been proofed but became faulty as a consequence of proofing. If I was buying such a rifle, I would not want it to be proofed.

It's also hypothetically possible to create a rifle which is accurate before proofing but not accurate after proofing. The rifle is perfectly safe and accurate before, but safe and inaccurate after. If I was buying such a rifle, I would not want it to be proofed.

I think the analogy that Glensman was going for is something like: "If you were buying a car, would you prefer to buy the one which was redlined for 10 minutes straight or would you prefer to buy one which wasn't?" In theory, the engine should be fine, but you don't really know and revving the nuts off it certainly won't have made it any better and could have made it worse.

I would prefer a proofing method that did not have any potential for damage, but I tolerate the system we have. It's a poorly conceived way of testing but it's cheaper and more convenient than a more rigorous and less intrusive testing method so it's what we'll be stuck with for the foreseeable future.

tomcat220t

Hi IRLConor,when you say Hypothetically Possible .....out of the 10,000s of rifles tested in the uk each year has there been any documented proof of this happening ?
How would proofing effect accuracy after-wards?
Not sure i buy into the hypothetical idea that a rifle failing some time after proofing would be attributed to the extra pressure exerted during testing .
If it could be explained more as to how/why a rifle would not show weakness during proofing but could fail some time after this and be solely down to the proofing process ,it would be good .

Regards,Tomcat.

Glensman

IRLConor wrote: »

It's hypothetically possible to create a rifle which will weaken but not fail during the proofing process and will fail after wear and tear with normal rounds. This hypothetical rifle would be perfectly safe if it had never been proofed but became faulty as a consequence of proofing. If I was buying such a rifle, I would not want it to be proofed.

It's also hypothetically possible to create a rifle which is accurate before proofing but not accurate after proofing. The rifle is perfectly safe and accurate before, but safe and inaccurate after. If I was buying such a rifle, I would not want it to be proofed.

I think the analogy that Glensman was going for is something like: "If you were buying a car, would you prefer to buy the one which was redlined for 10 minutes straight or would you prefer to buy one which wasn't?" In theory, the engine should be fine, but you don't really know and revving the nuts off it certainly won't have made it any better and could have made it worse.

I would prefer a proofing method that did not have any potential for damage, but I tolerate the system we have. It's a poorly conceived way of testing but it's cheaper and more convenient than a more rigorous and less intrusive testing method so it's what we'll be stuck with for the foreseeable future.

You're an articulate man!
But yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Rifles, like piston rings, have a bedding in process- one I would rather do myself. When a quality engineer is using quality parts and putting in the effort then the result in my mind will always be a quality (safe) rifle.

Lets face it lads, rifles are made way above the tolerances/strengths they need to be do do their every day job. Proof testing is unlikely to prove anything by the method suggested... In fact I would like to know the failure rate for custom rifles...

IRLConor

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi IRLConor,when you say Hypothetically Possible .....out of the 10,000s of rifles tested in the uk each year has there been any documented proof of this happening ?

I don't know. I don't have any data at all. That's why it was a hypothetical.

tomcat220t wrote: »

How would proofing effect accuracy after-wards? Not sure i buy into the hypothetical idea that a rifle failing some time after proofing would be attributed to the extra pressure exerted during testing .
If it could be explained more as to how/why a rifle would not show weakness during proofing but could fail some time after this and be solely down to the proofing process ,it would be good .

Regards,Tomcat.

This year I saw a bulged barrel (not from proof testing). There was no exterior bulge, it was only within the barrel. It was impossible to detect visually and could only be spotted by pushing a bullet through the barrel with a cleaning rod. The rifle had been extremely accurate before the bulge was created but was noticeably less accurate afterwards. Once the barrel was replaced it returned to its previous accuracy.

I don't know if the proof houses tests after proofing are good enough to detect such a bulge if they happened to create one while proofing a gun.

For a good estimate whether or not proofing increases the risk of failure you need to empirically calculate:

• The probability of failure of perfectly maintained firearms which have been proofed.
• The probability of failure of perfectly maintained firearms which have not been proofed.

and you need to calculate those values independently across every firearm make & model. I don't have those numbers, and I would rather suspect that the various proof houses don't either.

tomcat220t

Hi IRLConor, so its only a/ theory /best guess / opinion /hypothetically possible ect ...that proofing MAY or MAY NOT be harmful to some rifles .

Rifle failure Vs engine ring failure .....?Apples and oranges ,sorry.

By your theory ,unproofed irish rifles are stronger and more accurate than the uk proofed rifles :eek:

Sorry mate , to many facts and figures out there to show thats not right.
Regards ,Tomcat.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Sorry mate , to many facts and figures out there to show thats not right.

There's loads of facts and figures out there?
Well, it shouldn't be much of a problem to link to them then, right?
G'wan tomcat, wow us...

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

There's loads of facts and figures out there?
Well, it shouldn't be much of a problem to link to them then, right?
G'wan tomcat, wow us...

Hi Sparks, for a guy that was asked about proofing by me in post 19, 5 days ago(no reply:rolleyes: ....maybe you could now elaborate more on your opinion ,please ?
Remember im not the one with unfounded theorys of the possible damage to rifles and accuracy from proofing .
G`wan Sparks ,wow me.....;)
Regards ,Tomcat.

IRLConor

tomcat220t wrote: »

By your theory ,unproofed irish rifles are stronger and more accurate than the uk proofed rifles

Not at all. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that the probability of the proofing process damaging any given gun may be greater than zero. The probability of the proofing process damaging an unproofed gun is zero (obviously).

You seem to be arguing that proofing never damages a gun in a way not detected by the proofing process. That's equivalent to saying that the post-proof nondestructive testing has a zero false negative rate. There's no real-world test on the planet that has a zero false negative rate, it simply does not exist.

Now, let me be clear, I have said above that I tolerate the system we have. Some testing is better than no testing. However, I would prefer if the testing was provably non-destructive. Arguing that proofing is 100% nondestructive is impossible, since shooting a proof load that guaranteed no damage would not actually prove anything.

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks, for a guy that was asked about proofing by me in post 19, 5 days ago(no reply:rolleyes: )

You know it was answered in post 34, before I got back to the thread, right?

....maybe you could now elaborate more on your opinion ,please ?

My opinion which I outlined pretty clearly in post six when I first said anything at all about it?

Remember im not the one with unfounded theorys of the possible damage to rifles and accuracy from proofing .

Tomcat, if you think that hidden defects in manufactured metal items (whether from initial manufacture or later stresses) qualifies as "unfounded theory", you've missed about a century of mechanical engineering research and development, not to mention a very large number of famous and infamous accidents ranging from the silver bridge to the sioux city airline crash to our own railway bridges collapsing.

rowa

The people getting worried about the damage that proofing may do to their barrel should remember that there is normally a preliminary proof done first , in the case of shotguns anyway. The reason it is done is to test the steel before any work is put in the further manufacturing processes.
Also it appears that some manufacturers will not warranty their barrels unless a proof test is done, from the lothar walther website below :

Barrel warranty
The firm of LOTHAR WALTHER Predision Tool Manufacture GmbH, 89551 Königsbronn, Germany hereby warrants that its gun barrels and gun barrel blanks have been manufactured in accordance with the revelant guidelines on the Firearms Act and have left our premises in perfect conditions..

Full article.

tomcat220t

IRLConor wrote: »

Not at all. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that the probability of the proofing process damaging any given gun may be greater than zero. The probability of the proofing process damaging an unproofed gun is zero (obviously).

You seem to be arguing that proofing never damages a gun in a way not detected by the proofing process. That's equivalent to saying that the post-proof nondestructive testing has a zero false negative rate. There's no real-world test on the planet that has a zero false negative rate, it simply does not exist.

Now, let me be clear, I have said above that I tolerate the system we have. Some testing is better than no testing. However, I would prefer if the testing was provably non-destructive. Arguing that proofing is 100% nondestructive is impossible, since shooting a proof load that guaranteed no damage would not actually prove anything.

Hi IRLConor,what im saying is i dont believe that a rifle that passes the proof house and through time after this somehow fails..... can be simply put down to the proofing methods !
Even IF this were to happen in 1-5000 tests or 1-50,000 rifles tested it would it out weigh rifle proofing it self ?
I not trying to be smart mate ....I agree with you that proofing can only to a good thing for gun safety .
Regards ,Tomcat.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

You know it was answered in post 34, before I got back to the thread, right?


My opinion which I outlined pretty clearly in post six when I first said anything at all about it?


Tomcat, if you think that hidden defects in manufactured metal items (whether from initial manufacture or later stresses) qualifies as "unfounded theory", you've missed about a century of mechanical engineering research and development, not to mention a very large number of famous and infamous accidents ranging from the silver bridge to the sioux city airline crash to our own railway bridges collapsing.

Hi Sparks , Bridges,railways ,airlines ...ect
1...where are the facts about rifles been passed with hidden damages due to proofing ?
2 where are facts about rifles been passes with a loss of accuracy ?
If i missed a century of mechanical engineering ...HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST PROOFING RIFLES ????
Regards ,Tomcat .

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks , Bridges,railways ,airlines ...ect
1...where are the facts about rifles been passed with hidden damages due to proofing ?

Metal doesn't know whether it's in a turbine blade, a bridge support or a rifle barrel. Fatigue and manufacturing defects (and the means to detect them) are common to all of these. So when we point to historical occurrences of metal fatigue in bridge supports or hidden defects in turbine blades, it's proof that these mechanisms and problems occur in rifle barrels as well (the details differ; not the overall mechanisms)

2 where are facts about rifles been passes with a loss of accuracy ?

I think you're mixing up me and Conor.

If i missed a century of mechanical engineering ...HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST PROOFING RIFLES ????

I wouldn't suggest proofing them, I'd suggest another, non-destructive, more informative test. If you'd like a few examples of those tests (in two years of mechanical engineering courses, we didn't even get through half of them, so it's a chunk of reading), the wikipedia article is a reasonable attempt at a one-page summary of a century or more of R&D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing

IRLConor

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi IRLConor,what im saying is i dont believe that a rifle that passes the proof house and through time after this somehow fails..... can be simply put down to the proofing methods !

I'm saying that the reverse of that argument (that a proofed rifle will never fail after proofing but because of proofing) is impossible. Hence, it's possible that a rifle will be invisibly damaged by proofing.

tomcat220t wrote: »

Even IF this were to happen in 1-5000 tests or 1-50,000 rifles tested it would it out weigh rifle proofing it self ?

That depends on the effectiveness of proofing at finding defective guns and removing them from the market. Neither you nor I can make that calculation since neither of us have the data necessary (I don't think anyone has, tbh).

tomcat220t wrote: »

I agree with you that proofing can only to a good thing for gun safety .

That's not what I said. I'm saying that testing is a good thing for gun safety and that proofing is a pretty ****ty way to do testing but it's currently the best test that people are willing to pay for.

I suspect that we proof guns because either A) it used to be the only way to test guns and no-one's bothered to update the procedures since it involves legal changes or all the alternatives are more expensive, even if they're better or C) a bit of both.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Metal doesn't know whether it's in a turbine blade, a bridge support or a rifle barrel. Fatigue and manufacturing defects (and the means to detect them) are common to all of these. So when we point to historical occurrences of metal fatigue in bridge supports or hidden defects in turbine blades, it's proof that these mechanisms and problems occur in rifle barrels as well (the details differ; not the overall mechanisms)

I think you're mixing up me and Conor.


I wouldn't suggest proofing them, I'd suggest another, non-destructive, more informative test. If you'd like a few examples of those tests (in two years of mechanical engineering courses, we didn't even get through half of them, so it's a chunk of reading), the wikipedia article is a reasonable attempt at a one-page summary of a century or more of R&D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing

Hi Sparks ,what would you suggest as a better way of proofing a rifle ?
Have you an answer ?
Regards ,Tomcat .

Sparks

tomcat220t wrote: »

Hi Sparks ,what would you suggest as a better way of proofing a rifle ?
Have you an answer ?
Regards ,Tomcat .

Sorry, I thought I wrote it loudly enough...

Sparks wrote: »

I'd suggest another, non-destructive, more informative test. If you'd like a few examples of those tests (in two years of mechanical engineering courses, we didn't even get through half of them, so it's a chunk of reading), the wikipedia article is a reasonable attempt at a one-page summary of a century or more of R&D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondestructive_testing

tomcat220t

IRLConor wrote: »

I'm saying that the reverse of that argument (that a proofed rifle will never fail after proofing but because of proofing) is impossible. Hence, it's possible that a rifle will be invisibly damaged by proofing.



That depends on the effectiveness of proofing at finding defective guns and removing them from the market. Neither you nor I can make that calculation since neither of us have the data necessary (I don't think anyone has, tbh).



That's not what I said. I'm saying that testing is a good thing for gun safety and that proofing is a pretty ****ty way to do testing but it's currently the best test that people are willing to pay for.

I suspect that we proof guns because either A) it used to be the only way to test guns and no-one's bothered to update the procedures since it involves legal changes or all the alternatives are more expensive, even if they're better or C) a bit of both.

Hi IRLConor,im not the one questioning the effectiveness of proofing ..you are and without any data to back this up .Necessary Data would be for you to collect to back your ideas .Either way ,i like to hear someones better suggestion on how to test a rifle .
Regards ,Tomcat.

tomcat220t

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry, I thought I wrote it loudly enough...

Hi Sparks ,what exact NON-DISTRUCTIVE method of rifle proofing would you recommend .How hard is it to say you dont have an answer ?
Regards ,Tomcat.