Bradley Arms

[Maggot]

If you had a spanner and the barrel on your FAC you could have done it yourself in 20 minutes.

But if you didn't you might need someone in the know to do it for you....then get it proofed

[Mattnall]

Wouldn't need proofing if you did it yourself until you wanted to part with it.

[Thorney]

Lets face it, his PR and marketing need desperate help but his workmanship and turn around time do not. Pays yer money n all that.

[Maggot]

Wouldn't need proofing if you did it yourself until you wanted to part with it.

Fire it next to me it would........

[Swamp Donkey]

Wouldn't need proofing if you did it yourself until you wanted to part with it.

Fire it next to me it would........

Don't shoot next to me then. Neither of my TRG's have seen the inside of a UK proof house, and it's staying that way too.

Just because a gun has had a couple of seriously over-pressure rounds through it, doesn't mean it's any safer than one that hasn't.

[FredB]

i am sure i have posted this before, but it is worth repeating. i spent 40 yrs in the motor industry, working on vehicle design, testing and development. If we created a new, highly stressed part, such as a stub axle, then the first representative prototype would be subjected to a proof test---usually when covered in strain gauges. After this, that part was never allowed to be fitted to a road going vehicle. The proof test had been shown, many times, to dramatically reduce the fatigue life of the part when subject to service stresses. These were mainly commercial vehicles which spend much more time fully loaded than cars do.
Proof originated with forged iron barrels which could, and often did, have inclusions of slag in them. The over pressure test caused them to fail and be rejected. The chances of this happening today are very, very small indeed and to avoid it we reduce the srvice fatigue life of all the good barrels. Proof demonstrated that your barrel will take an overload pressure---ONCE. It may later fail when subject to a service pressure. We are protected by the low useage that our guns see in practise---they are not fired continuously every day. I still do not like the process of proof.
Fred

[Swamp Donkey]

Me neither. It's destructive testing. Nothing else routinely gets tested [almost] to destruction then used. Even dive cylinders aren't subject to the stresses a gun goes through (relatively)

[dromia]

Firearms proofing is just legalised theft, as has been said here on many occasions it is a redundant process that only proves that the firearm withstood an over pressure charge at that point in time possibly to the detriment of the shooter in the future.

I wonder if proof is ever considered a contributory factor when NRA/MoD are investigating gun blow ups.

I've just had a batch of firearms back from the proofhouse and two of them although stamped had the barrels as clean when they were sent.

They proof houses are on a monopolised gravy train and the only justification for them is their vested interest in ripping of the gun trade and gun users.

Don't get me going on proof houses.

[Maggot]

It has always seemed a bit odd to me, coming from the background I have....ok, it does not blow that time...but it increases the push towards that point.

So why do it at all then?

And more to the point, are there not better NDT methods available these days?

Aircraft parts always had the destructive tests done then a much reduced service life put on them (and that did not always work, you need to check the state of the expired parts as well, just in case you missed womething), this then always carried many caveats such as good recording of hours (rounds fired recorded and the barrel/action scrapped when it reaches that point) good maintenance (yes, you clean and check the bloody thing) and correct fitting by a qualified engineer within EMERs etc (You, the gun plummers).

Talking of cars, you need a rifle MOT. I can hear the howls of derision there, but can everyone that shoots say they really know?....of course not.

Has proofing just become a baseline that is accepted without the production of a better moustrap then?

Clearly proofing has no real bearing but what are the ramifications should a rifle blow up, maim or kill the firer and the poor sod next to him, and it not be proofed?

Not that it matters with the loads some are shoe horning into some rifles these days to somehow mitigate the wind tesnews

[dromia]

you need a rifle MOT.

sign01