The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Thanks for the chip in everyone. Obviously, I'm aware of the the 1868 Act, but, I should have been more specific in my OP, supposedly, there is something, legislation/case law, that confines the Act to commercial?

As said, I'm sceptical as to whether anything does exist outside of the bloke's imagination, but, as we all often know, not everything is as it seems...

So, consensus is, private or commercial, there is no difference?

As an aside, does anyone know if a .22 rifle that has a bulge in the barrel is deemed to be "out of proof" as a result of the damage, and therefore not legally saleable?
I nearly got caught out with a .22LR some years ago..................discovered it before parting with the readies, fortunately.

H/man

FWIW, I sent a M91 Carcano off to Birmingham for re-proof last year; it took about 4 weeks to get it back and it cost £25 plus shipping if I remember correctly.
You have to send it via a RFD as carriers will not deal with individuals.
The Proof House only want the barreled action and bolt, so remove the timber (or plastic) before shipping.
The rifle had been recently re-blued and it came back in unmarked condition, so full marks to Birmingham for showing it some TLC.
ukrifleman.

It will make no difference weather you firearm is proofed in Birmingham, London or Liege or St Etienne. They are all proofed to the same CIP standards. After speaking to a very reputable gunsmith this morning (who provides powder and bullets to the Birmingham proof house), he has no hesitation in using either of the UK proof houses. The Birmingham proof house makes the proof loads for both themselves and London. Both UK proof houses have very comprehensive ballistic laboratories.

The proof process in Europe although formally recognised by the UK proof houses is very different. The UK specially loaded rounds as you say from Birmingham, Europe uses standard rounds that are cooked, same end result as such just a different approach. Both the UK proof houses also use strain gauges for specific applications.

Measuring strain, we presume...

ukrifleman wrote:FWIW, I sent a M91 Carcano off to Birmingham for re-proof last year; it took about 4 weeks to get it back and it cost £25 plus shipping if I remember correctly.
You have to send it via a RFD as carriers will not deal with individuals.
The Proof House only want the barreled action and bolt, so remove the timber (or plastic) before shipping.
The rifle had been recently re-blued and it came back in unmarked condition, so full marks to Birmingham for showing it some TLC.
ukrifleman.

David,

Please, allow me to cprrect : The CIP proof protocole (I have it somewhere) is exactlu the same for all CIP countries...

When proof ammuniyion exist, or is worth making, proof ammunition developping a know pressure out of a proof barrel is used, and the Piezo value is recorded (Some proofhouses also deliver a certificate indicating the proof pressure.

When it comes to a calibre for which no proof ammunition exist (obsolete or wildcats for instance), the procedure you mention is exerted and no pressure is recorded; as it has not been measured.... The firearm is also, I think to remeember; differently stamped in this case. It is the 'epreuve speciale' or "sonderbeschuss''.

R.G.C

Slight diversion - a interesting legal opinion on the proofing of moderators and screw cut barrels.

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/ukproof.htm

http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/proofcounsel.htm

Legal Counsel has now confirmed that:

1. A sound moderator is not a “part” of a “small arm” for the purposes of the Proof Acts.

2. There is no requirement in law for a sound moderator to be subject to proof.

3. The cutting of a screw thread on a barrel in order to affix a sound moderator is most unlikely to “unduly reduce it in substance or strength”, although each case will depend on its own facts.

4. The pronouncement made by the Proof Authority in October 2001 is misleading and wrong in law in a number of important respects.

R.G.C wrote:David,

Please, allow me to cprrect : The CIP proof protocole (I have it somewhere) is exactlu the same for all CIP countries...

When proof ammuniyion exist, or is worth making, proof ammunition developping a know pressure out of a proof barrel is used, and the Piezo value is recorded (Some proofhouses also deliver a certificate indicating the proof pressure.

When it comes to a calibre for which no proof ammunition exist (obsolete or wildcats for instance), the procedure you mention is exerted and no pressure is recorded; as it has not been measured.... The firearm is also, I think to remeember; differently stamped in this case. It is the 'epreuve speciale' or "sonderbeschuss''.

R.G.C

Robert, I was under the impression the European proof houses cooked the rounds for which proof ammunition does not exist whereas the UK proof houses over pressure by powder load?

As I think RGC said, the process by which the proof load is generated is secondary. The primary issue is that it its done to a recognised standard. In Europe (and the Masters of the two UK Proof Houses accept this) that is the CIP standard.