Bradley Arms

[waterford103]

A vehicle mot is only valid until you take it from the test station , proof testing is the same .US gunmakers don't proof their products , just scrutinise a proportion for fit and function.

clapclap

[ovenpaa]

Denmark do not proof firearms either.

[Mattnall]

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

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

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?

Not quite sure where you are going with your posts here.

The first one seemed to say you would not like to be on the point next to an un-prooved firearm, then the next one changed track and suggests you never rated proof in the first place and consider it a waste of time.

Did I miss something?

[Maggot]

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

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

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?

Not quite sure where you are going with your posts here.

The first one seemed to say you would not like to be on the point next to an un-prooved firearm, then the next one changed track and suggests you never rated proof in the first place and consider it a waste of time.

Did I miss something?

Yes matt, I changed my opinion mate. Not in the face of a potential handbagging from you lot, I fat in teh face of handbaggings. I just gave it more thought and realised I was p*** up the wrong idleback. I am allowed or not?

Or should I just sit here and argue for the sake of it, when after all that common sense (and Ovenpaa) has told me it just seems to achieve bugger all positive.

I wondered, I neither rated or was opposed, I just thought proofing was a sensible legal requirement.

Obvioulsy anyone with half an ounce of common would prefer their neighbour to be using a safe rifle, however, when you look at it it makes little sense to potentially create or compound fatigue in an item when you cannot obviously quantify what has been "proved" other than it did not blow up on the first attempt.

It just seemed like the lesser of the 2 evils.

So what would be the answer? Blow ups are few and far between anyway, but should you own a rifle that you are unsure of or is perhaps getting on a bit, whats the best course?

Inspection, Xray, MCD, Bore inspection/examination or critical dims etc by a decent smithy who knows that marque?

All that has been contributed so far is derisory comments or what people dont do. The latter tells you that other countries (as usual) seem to have a more no nonsense approach to firearms safety.

The former just proves.....well you fill in the gaps.

[Mattnall]

That's OK Maggot, wasn't sure if I completely missed an edit or something.

But I agree with you that a firearm should be safe not only for the user but those around him/her, and the only way to prove that is to test it somehow. However I think to test each and every firearm beyond its safe working load could be dangerous later on (and I have seen how some of the proof loads were 'made' at the proof house - doesn't inspire any confidence in the process at all - but I think/hope it may have changed in the last year or so).
Maybe a type testing would be the way to go.