Firearms proof house issues
Discussion
Had a Shotgun taken to a proof house recently (won't say which one for now) by an RFD and it failed proof on the visual inspection before even fireing a cartridge!
When I saw the gun (pre war germanm, quality make, side by side) the action was tighter than a nun's... no tell-tale firing ring on th breach and looked like it had hardly been used. To my half educated guess, it looked like it had not been fired more than a few hundred times, but had sat unused in the back of a farmer's pick up getting the odd knock on the wood here and there. I didn't check the barrels for wave, so can't comment on that, but visual inspection came back as Action - too much play and barrels have a slight wave in them. FAIL.
The barrel ripple can be sorted, no big deal, but I'm miffed about the action comment. It was stiff with no discernable play anywhere and lockd up nice and crisply and tight.
Someone I know also saw the gun also had the same view, so much so that he's considering writing an article on the proof process and the vagaries of it.
Anyone got any similar stories, or general comments?
Cheers,
Virgil.
When I saw the gun (pre war germanm, quality make, side by side) the action was tighter than a nun's... no tell-tale firing ring on th breach and looked like it had hardly been used. To my half educated guess, it looked like it had not been fired more than a few hundred times, but had sat unused in the back of a farmer's pick up getting the odd knock on the wood here and there. I didn't check the barrels for wave, so can't comment on that, but visual inspection came back as Action - too much play and barrels have a slight wave in them. FAIL.
The barrel ripple can be sorted, no big deal, but I'm miffed about the action comment. It was stiff with no discernable play anywhere and lockd up nice and crisply and tight.
Someone I know also saw the gun also had the same view, so much so that he's considering writing an article on the proof process and the vagaries of it.
Anyone got any similar stories, or general comments?
Cheers,
Virgil.
virgil said:
Had a Shotgun taken to a proof house recently (won't say which one for now) by an RFD and it failed proof on the visual inspection before even fireing a cartridge!
When I saw the gun (pre war germanm, quality make, side by side) the action was tighter than a nun's... no tell-tale firing ring on th breach and looked like it had hardly been used. To my half educated guess, it looked like it had not been fired more than a few hundred times, but had sat unused in the back of a farmer's pick up getting the odd knock on the wood here and there. I didn't check the barrels for wave, so can't comment on that, but visual inspection came back as Action - too much play and barrels have a slight wave in them. FAIL.
The barrel ripple can be sorted, no big deal, but I'm miffed about the action comment. It was stiff with no discernable play anywhere and lockd up nice and crisply and tight.
Someone I know also saw the gun also had the same view, so much so that he's considering writing an article on the proof process and the vagaries of it.
Anyone got any similar stories, or general comments?
Cheers,
Virgil.
Well, Proofing like MOTs are there for a reason. Firearms can be exceptionally dangerous if not maintained or when damaged. And you are talking about a pre-war weapon here. Anything could have happened to it in 60 years.When I saw the gun (pre war germanm, quality make, side by side) the action was tighter than a nun's... no tell-tale firing ring on th breach and looked like it had hardly been used. To my half educated guess, it looked like it had not been fired more than a few hundred times, but had sat unused in the back of a farmer's pick up getting the odd knock on the wood here and there. I didn't check the barrels for wave, so can't comment on that, but visual inspection came back as Action - too much play and barrels have a slight wave in them. FAIL.
The barrel ripple can be sorted, no big deal, but I'm miffed about the action comment. It was stiff with no discernable play anywhere and lockd up nice and crisply and tight.
Someone I know also saw the gun also had the same view, so much so that he's considering writing an article on the proof process and the vagaries of it.
Anyone got any similar stories, or general comments?
Cheers,
Virgil.
YOu've had an expert opinion, it has failed, you say yourself you're only "half-educated" (I'm "uneducated BTW!"
and yet you're disputing a verdict that the weapon could be inaccurate/inconsistant at best and lethally dangerous at worst?Am I missing the point? Would you argue with an MOT station that told you your brake lines were corroded and needed replacing, or would you trust their judgement and let them do the work or scrap the car as a loss?
WeirdNeville said:
virgil said:
Had a Shotgun taken to a proof house recently (won't say which one for now) by an RFD and it failed proof on the visual inspection before even fireing a cartridge!
When I saw the gun (pre war germanm, quality make, side by side) the action was tighter than a nun's... no tell-tale firing ring on th breach and looked like it had hardly been used. To my half educated guess, it looked like it had not been fired more than a few hundred times, but had sat unused in the back of a farmer's pick up getting the odd knock on the wood here and there. I didn't check the barrels for wave, so can't comment on that, but visual inspection came back as Action - too much play and barrels have a slight wave in them. FAIL.
The barrel ripple can be sorted, no big deal, but I'm miffed about the action comment. It was stiff with no discernable play anywhere and lockd up nice and crisply and tight.
Someone I know also saw the gun also had the same view, so much so that he's considering writing an article on the proof process and the vagaries of it.
Anyone got any similar stories, or general comments?
Cheers,
Virgil.
Well, Proofing like MOTs are there for a reason. Firearms can be exceptionally dangerous if not maintained or when damaged. And you are talking about a pre-war weapon here. Anything could have happened to it in 60 years.When I saw the gun (pre war germanm, quality make, side by side) the action was tighter than a nun's... no tell-tale firing ring on th breach and looked like it had hardly been used. To my half educated guess, it looked like it had not been fired more than a few hundred times, but had sat unused in the back of a farmer's pick up getting the odd knock on the wood here and there. I didn't check the barrels for wave, so can't comment on that, but visual inspection came back as Action - too much play and barrels have a slight wave in them. FAIL.
The barrel ripple can be sorted, no big deal, but I'm miffed about the action comment. It was stiff with no discernable play anywhere and lockd up nice and crisply and tight.
Someone I know also saw the gun also had the same view, so much so that he's considering writing an article on the proof process and the vagaries of it.
Anyone got any similar stories, or general comments?
Cheers,
Virgil.
YOu've had an expert opinion, it has failed, you say yourself you're only "half-educated" (I'm "uneducated BTW!"
and yet you're disputing a verdict that the weapon could be inaccurate/inconsistant at best and lethally dangerous at worst?Am I missing the point? Would you argue with an MOT station that told you your brake lines were corroded and needed replacing, or would you trust their judgement and let them do the work or scrap the car as a loss?
The point is the action WAS tight. No movement. No slop, tight and solid. And I accept the point of barrel ripple, which I am happy to have remedied.
To put it into your perspective, if my car had failed for bald tyres when I'd checked it and seen they had 4mm of tread across the whole width, then yes I would ask why it failed. Like anything in life, people make mistakes. We should all be allowed to question the opinion of authority (even an expert) or we'd live in a police state not a democracy.
It really was a case of I thought they'd proofed the wrong gun, such was the difference between the gun I saw and the comment that came back...
Likewise though, if I'd already owned that gun for 60 years and had put a million cartridges through it, at no point does it NEED to be proofed. Only when it comes to change owners...
I'm not personally against proofing, just the whole process seems a little vague/closed...
Hello !
I am an RFD.
Why did you feel the need to have it proofed? Is it only proofed for black powder cartridges?
Given that it is already your gun, there is no legal requirement for you to have it proofed.Are you concerned that it may be unsafe to fire it?
If you are unhappy with the outcome, you can always send it to the other proof house for a second opinion or have a good gun smith check it over, effect any necessary repairs and then send it back for proofing.
I am an RFD.
Why did you feel the need to have it proofed? Is it only proofed for black powder cartridges?
Given that it is already your gun, there is no legal requirement for you to have it proofed.Are you concerned that it may be unsafe to fire it?
If you are unhappy with the outcome, you can always send it to the other proof house for a second opinion or have a good gun smith check it over, effect any necessary repairs and then send it back for proofing.
Atom said:
Hello !
I am an RFD.
Why did you feel the need to have it proofed? Is it only proofed for black powder cartridges?
Given that it is already your gun, there is no legal requirement for you to have it proofed.Are you concerned that it may be unsafe to fire it?
If you are unhappy with the outcome, you can always send it to the other proof house for a second opinion or have a good gun smith check it over, effect any necessary repairs and then send it back for proofing.
I am an RFD.
Why did you feel the need to have it proofed? Is it only proofed for black powder cartridges?
Given that it is already your gun, there is no legal requirement for you to have it proofed.Are you concerned that it may be unsafe to fire it?
If you are unhappy with the outcome, you can always send it to the other proof house for a second opinion or have a good gun smith check it over, effect any necessary repairs and then send it back for proofing.
WR.
(RFD)
Hi guys. Sorry was away for the weekend.
Not my gun yet, and as you will know, as not yet proofed, can't be transfered to me without.
The guy who took it is a gunsmith and I think it would be obvious to him if it looked at all dodgy...he was more than happy to take it and was surprised as well...
Someone else is taking a look at it for me and I'll get their opinion and see if it's worth submitting to the other house, as is, to see what they say.
If not, I can get the barrels honed and action tightened if needed I belive.
Will keep thee informed..
Not my gun yet, and as you will know, as not yet proofed, can't be transfered to me without.
The guy who took it is a gunsmith and I think it would be obvious to him if it looked at all dodgy...he was more than happy to take it and was surprised as well...
Someone else is taking a look at it for me and I'll get their opinion and see if it's worth submitting to the other house, as is, to see what they say.
If not, I can get the barrels honed and action tightened if needed I belive.
Will keep thee informed..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff