New Rifles Failing Proof Commonplace?

[SWShooter]

A Q for the RFD`s here , Ive got a CZ527 , threaded , on order with a local dealer, four weeks down the road I`m being told it failed proof so it will be another week before I get it , is it commonplace for new CZ`s to fail proof or does it sound like he`s fobbing me off with BS?

[srvet]

If its failed proof do you really still want it?? Sounds like thats his problem

[The Gun Pimp]

It's not unknown - the Proof Houses do some silly things! But, if it has failed, it's not going to pass in another week!

 

To be honest, he's probably stalling for time because he's waiting for the gun to arrive and doesn't want you to go elsewhere.

 

Be patient - it's only the UK gun trade!

[marty]

CZ rifles aren't subject to British proof , CZ and other european manufactured arm's proof marks are accepted here . It can't "fail proof " because it doesn't need testing.

[Laurie]

CZ rifles aren't subject to British proof , CZ and other european manufactured arm's proof marks are accepted here . It can't "fail proof " because it doesn't need testing.

 

 

Yes true, but it depends if Edgar Brothers screwcut the muzzle in their workshop - if so, it'll have been resubmitted for proof.

[baldie]

CZ,s are factory screwcut and also subjected to CIP proof with the new chamber gauges in Europe.

 

Deduce from that what you will.

[1971silversurfer]

Thats why I bought an Anschutz this time for my .22LR...

 

CZ Importer (EB)once allocated a rifle (CZ Varmint, 527 .223) on its way to me elsewhere, I was told; I would have to wait many months before another would arrive into the country in the specification I requested.... I told them to stuff the order.

 

Its always better to be told to wait 6 months at order outset as with Anschutz, rather than an importer constantly revising dates pi$$ing off gun shops and its customers. RFD's are the ones which get the flack....not the importer. I am aware of other CZ's that have been on order for 12 months with no sign of delivery in sight.

 

 

Maybe its this importer at fault here?

 

 

Cancel order and buy an alternative....from a rival.

[SWShooter]

CZ,s are factory screwcut and also subjected to CIP proof with the new chamber gauges in Europe.

 

Deduce from that what you will.

 

 

Its coming via EB`s , my RFD says EB`s screw cut in house hence it needs re proofing , so this is more BS?

 

If EB`s do screw cut in house what the general view on thread quality?

[marty]

probably , more bullshit like some folks says you must reproof after threading - more proof house rubbish.

[Laurie]

 

 

Its coming via EB`s , my RFD says EB`s screw cut in house hence it needs re proofing , so this is more BS?

 

 

Maybe, maybe not. It may be that EB gets both screwcut and plain muzzle examples supplied from the factory and that this was one of the latter. If there were no screwcut examples in stock, they may have decided to do it in-house to speed up delivery.

 

EB definitely does this work - I've watched their guy doing it to Canadian and US manufactured rifles. (Because of the legal constraints on 'suppressor' use in the US which are only slowly being relaxed, American manufacturers don't normally offer this feature on rifles for the civilian market.)

[Big Al]

I thought that there was no need to reproof after screw-cutting the muzzle, wasn't there a trial case involving Jackson rifles?

[1971silversurfer]

 

Maybe, maybe not. It may be that EB gets both screwcut and plain muzzle examples supplied from the factory and that this was one of the latter. If there were no screwcut examples in stock, they may have decided to do it in-house to speed up delivery.

 

EB definitely does this work - I've watched their guy doing it to Canadian and US manufactured rifles. (Because of the legal constraints on 'suppressor' use in the US which are only slowly being relaxed, American manufacturers don't normally offer this feature on rifles for the civilian market.)

At the time my chosen weapon was available in factory cut or workshop cut.

[gbal]

I thought that there was no need to reproof after screw-cutting the muzzle, wasn't there a trial case involving Jackson rifles?

 

Jackson Rifles took expert barrister-and probably engineering advice-as I recall.

Proof law makes it an offence to sell a rifle not in proof.

'not in proof' could derive from anywork done on the rifle that substantially weakened it (ie might fail reproof).

So the issue seems twofold:

Does threading substantially weaken the barrel,and has the rifle been sold.

 

I don't think there has been case law established,but these are fine points,and individual of course,though screw cutting done properly seems not to have a history of barrel failure.

 

And there it rests-or at least did so some years ago-maybe a bit uneasily-but I am no expert in law,or engineering.

gbal

[marty]

To subject a rifle to an extreme pressure proof once is enough , doing it twice especially when it's not needed seems rediculous.

[Big Al]

Jackson Rifles took expert barrister-and probably engineering advice-as I recall.

Proof law makes it an offence to sell a rifle not in proof.

'not in proof' could derive from anywork done on the rifle that substantially weakened it (ie might fail reproof).

So the issue seems twofold:

Does threading substantially weaken the barrel,and has the rifle been sold.

 

I don't think there has been case law established,but these are fine points,and individual of course,though screw cutting done properly seems not to have a history of barrel failure.

 

And there it rests-or at least did so some years ago-maybe a bit uneasily-but I am no expert in law,or engineering.

gbal

 

A friend of mine recently purchased a rifle via Guntrader, it was supplied by a well known dealer down south. When it arrived at a well known local gun shop at first they wouldn't let him take it because they said it wasn't in proof as there was no proof marking at the muzzle. A quick call to the southern based supplier revealed that there was no longer any need to have the muzzle work proofed as per the case that involved Jackson rifles.

 

Was it not established that threading a muzzle was not considered significant weakening?

[gbal]

Al,very happy to be updated on this-as I said,when I last asked (JR,some years ago),there was no case law-though JR's position was clear. And as I said,there is no real actual evidence of screw cutting weakening barrels 'substantially,to the point of danger '-unlike eg pitting//heavy wear/thinning in shotgun barrels) .And as I said,individual- rifle by rifle - inappropriately done ,it might just.

But a solid case law judgement is always a good thing to have favouring your position,and in general,the result (reproof not needed) seems the sensible position here,especially with he proviso that it is when selling that the question arises,if at all. Moderators I am still unsure about,and might be a less clear cut issue....they do fail,though more in efficiency than to cause hazzard,but.....

Proof strictly is just that-rifle was in proof on testing day-but passing seems to safeguard the user more than not being tested.USA has no such mandatory proof requirement,a litiginous culture,but it seems no real problem with this.Barrels don't burst,properly used.

Be interested to see the actual case judgement ,and any conditions/precedents it set. But it seems a significant move in the right direction,if authentic.

g

[Leeman]

To subject a rifle to an extreme pressure proof once is enough , doing it twice especially when it's not needed seems rediculous.

Marty,

 

Imagine a competitive F open shooter with a 7mm WSM, he's going through a barrel every season with the attendant proof test.

[marty]

Marty,

 

Imagine a competitive F open shooter with a 7mm WSM, he's going through a barrel every season with the attendant proof test.

but that is a result of a barrell change , it must be proofed as it is a new barrel , the gunsmith's work has to corroborated by proof . When merely threading a muzzle or worse , shortening a barrel it's totally unnecessary .

[gbal]

but that is a result of a barrell change , it must be proofed as it is a new barrel , the gunsmith's work has to corroborated by proof . When merely threading a muzzle or worse , shortening a barrel it's totally unnecessary .

Correct-there is a case for primary proof testing new barrels for the UK market,(though the actual incidence of failed proof new barrels is very small--see US experience).

 

The balance of engineering expertise would probably go along with your opinion on threading,if competently done.Again there is not much contrary evidence of threaded barrel failure because of the threading.Ditto barrel shortening.

I think it is still true that the proof issue arises only if work has beed done on the barrel which is subsequently offered for sale-perhaps that could be confirmed/not. If it is so,that helps a little,though many rifles are subsequently sold after barrel work.Fluting,and especially slim profiling is less err 'clear cut'-or is it? One might see the simple solution that any work requires reproof,unless there is unequivocal evidence that no work can 'substantially weaken' a barrel,-but that cannot be completely true....can it?

 

Try rewriting the proof laws? As in many 'insurance' contexts, belt and braces rather than 'usually ok' has some merit,especially to safeguard the unwitting buyer of an 'altered after initial proof' firearm. Some will think not,hence 'rewrite a better rule' is their little task.

 

gbal

[Leeman]

but that is a result of a barrell change , it must be proofed as it is a new barrel , the gunsmith's work has to corroborated by proof . When merely threading a muzzle or worse , shortening a barrel it's totally unnecessary .

Marty,

 

My point was that the competitive F open rifle shooter's action is going to be proofed many times in it's life, do you think that is a good thing? Outside Europe, I think it's safe to say, nobody proof test's rifles, either new or on re-barreling and I don't hear of rifles blowing up because of the lack of a proof test and these rifles appear regularly at ranges like Bisley in International events.

[bradders]

Has anyone actually why said gun failed proof in the first place?

[banus02]

hi swshooter,go and buy your rifle from a better dealer who at least should be honest with you, try to avoid the sportsman gun centre as the really are unrealiable for anything,waited over 18 months for a replacement stock for a pro hunter as mine is faulty but no contact from them at all ,very very poor customer service. good luck.

[bradders]

 

 

I was actually in the London Proof house the other day and watching they proofing methods and discussing failures

[SWShooter]

hi swshooter,go and buy your rifle from a better dealer who at least should be honest with you, try to avoid the sportsman gun centre as the really are unrealiable for anything,waited over 18 months for a replacement stock for a pro hunter as mine is faulty but no contact from them at all ,very very poor customer service. good luck.

 

Funny you should mention SGC

[Alycidon]

When my builder and I took my 20BR to the Birmingham proof house it was the first one they had seen, they asked what our planned working load was then made up 2 proof rounds loaded only 2 grains above that. We had already gone 5 grains above the working load in testing !!.

 

So proof loads in my case and I assume others are not so much different from working loads.

 

A