March 31, 2015 at 6:36 am #280
Considering that ‘Proof’, when applied to guns, is an assured mark, I wonder how the rules are interpreted.
Whilst Proof refers to the internal measurements of the bore and the barrel wall thicknesses, there’s also the question of the Proof Master’s ‘Viewing’ of the barrels. Should a gun which has barrels so badly rivelled that the Proof Master would dismiss it as a failure at the time of his initial viewing, and before any measurements are taken or pressure testing carried out, should such a gun be considered in Proof, and therefore fit to sell and within the Law?
Does anyone have any thoughts or knowledge? I’ve e/mailed the question to the London Proof Master, but as yet have received no reply.
T.H’K.April 2, 2015 at 6:13 am #301
We now understand that the Authorities are well aware of the anomaly in question, and that by way of both clarity and correction, it’s a case of ‘Work in progress’!
Clear, and as far as it’s possible, concise legislation, is the best route to protect both parties when buying and selling arms. The requirements which are demanded of the Motor Trader are such that it behoves them to be familiar with the Laws of our land, and so we might reasonably expect a Registered Firearms Dealer to be familiar with the requirements of a Proof House, regarding the likelihood of a weapon being rejected at the ‘viewing’ stage, and should they be in doubt, then the facility to submit the gun and await an authoritative opinion should be their way forward. As far as we are aware, there are no such requirements currently in place.
T.H’K.April 26, 2015 at 7:00 am #371
There is no individual aspect of a gun, perhaps, which is of greater importance than the barrels. The simple point of safety has to be of paramount importance. There are guns extant which with barrel walls of .0017″ are considered in proof and so their sale to the unsuspecting buyer, is legal. This really isn’t good enough. We only have to apply a set of callipers and open them to the point of .0025″ to see how woefully thin the barrel walls will be to consider that the Laws are overdue for an overhaul.
It would seem to me to be lunacy that whilst it’s illegal to sell a gun to anyone but a RFD, which is not in proof, it’s quite acceptable to sell a weapon which by its wafer thin barrel walls will have that reflected in its value. The facility to have barrel flats clearly stamped ‘Failed Proof’, would permit a truly collectable but UN-usable gun to be relegated to the ranks of being ‘collectable’ alone. A ‘Failed Proof’ stamp on the flats would also render the gun unfit for future sleeving work, but then that in itself may well be a good thing!
There would be no need for the barrels to be rendered to the state of being vandalised, and would permit the weapon to retain its own integrity as a truly collectable piece. It happens with those guns which are of a caliber which is considered obsolete, so why not some of the astonishing weapons which whilst being of particular interest to the student, are rendered worthless?
Led by the GTA and the Proof Houses, august bodies both of them, there needs to be a major re-think. It’s overdue!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.