Would you buy it...?

[snaggletooth]

Probably at a cut down price!!

 

T

 

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

 

Very good

 

 

Pmsl I think he was asking £600 for it!

 

 

A bit optimistic. I wonder if at any point did think "maybe I shouldn't"

[SWShooter]

I`d give £200 for it and have it re barrelled , job done.

[snc_2010]

 

snc_2010

 

You're missing the point here, I believe taking a grinder to a barrel in the garden shed is the primary issue = gun is out of proof. Your illustrations of cuts and machining, all be it help, would either be covered by the original proof or would require re-proofing. The gun in that condition would be illegal to sell in the UK. (even if you could find some *uckwhit stooped enough to buy it?)

 

As to your last sentence, well, bit of an 'assumption' - and you know what they say about 'assumptions'

 

Brgds Terry

 

But has it been rendered out of proof?

 

What about drilling a hole for a scope mount (on a barrel or on a receiver)? What about engraving? What about knocking off a burr? What about threading a muzzle (there's an argument...)? It's all removing metal. Where is the line drawn? What alteration makes the original proof invalid? Is it when substantial change has been made? What is classed as substantial? Who decides what is substantial? Is the change on the rifle in the OP substantial?

 

And of course I assumed. I don't know who here knows what. If you or anyone has some engineering knowledge, I'd be interested to hear it. The issue seems to be predominantly legal though.

[gunner]

Iv done this to my weobly longbow barrel

[gbal]

But has it been rendered out of proof?

 

What about drilling a hole for a scope mount (on a barrel or on a receiver)? What about engraving? What about knocking off a burr? What about threading a muzzle (there's an argument...)? It's all removing metal. Where is the line drawn? What alteration makes the original proof invalid? Is it when substantial change has been made? What is classed as substantial? Who decides what is substantial? Is the change on the rifle in the OP substantial?

 

And of course I assumed. I don't know who here knows what. If you or anyone has some engineering knowledge, I'd be interested to hear it. The issue seems to be predominantly legal though.

 

The legal question is whether any alterations have weakened the barrel such that it might fail proof,rendering the seller liable;the answer is in the opinion of suitably qualified engineers (or repeating the proof test).

 

Put that way,it is a legal question with an engineering answer. "The issue" includes both. Does that help? Perhaps "ultimately" ,.the proof test decides what is/isn't "substantial".

 

(I 'assume' most factory rifles go for proof after sight slots etc have been cut,as these are done in eg USA,and proofing is done in UK subsequently. If so,then the outcomes of such cuts and proof tests would be relevant evidence for engineering opinion on 'subtantial weakening'-ie such processes have not proved to be substantial weakeners,asthe rifles pass proof;so a reproof woud not be mandatory. But there won't be satisfactory,comparable precedents for the OPs example,as,hopefully,it is rare!

 

gbal

[Akeld]

 

But has it been rendered out of proof?

 

What about drilling a hole for a scope mount (on a barrel or on a receiver)? What about engraving? What about knocking off a burr? What about threading a muzzle (there's an argument...)? It's all removing metal. Where is the line drawn? What alteration makes the original proof invalid? Is it when substantial change has been made? What is classed as substantial? Who decides what is substantial? Is the change on the rifle in the OP substantial?

 

And of course I assumed. I don't know who here knows what. If you or anyone has some engineering knowledge, I'd be interested to hear it. The issue seems to be predominantly legal though.

The seller has a choice, sell as is, as a donor because I don't think anyone would buy with his recommendation theres plenty of metal there, or spend £90 and get it proofed and hold out for his asking price, which I still think he'd struggle to get. For the sake of saving a few quid on different rings he's effectively made his rifle worthless

[terryh]

But has it been rendered out of proof?

 

What about drilling a hole for a scope mount (on a barrel or on a receiver)? What about engraving? What about knocking off a burr? What about threading a muzzle (there's an argument...)? It's all removing metal. Where is the line drawn? What alteration makes the original proof invalid? Is it when substantial change has been made? What is classed as substantial? Who decides what is substantial? Is the change on the rifle in the OP substantial?

 

And of course I assumed. I don't know who here knows what. If you or anyone has some engineering knowledge, I'd be interested to hear it. The issue seems to be predominantly legal though.

The rifles in the OP has been 'materially weakened' (as per 2006 proof act.) so 'yes' it is out of proof. Threading muzzles, drilling barrel or receiver also the same. De-burring (sensibly) no, engraving - not a clue. But as I do not make a living from gunsmitihng or being an RFD I do not need to fully understand each, if I did I would.

 

Who has the say, the proof house or a court of law should something go wrong.

 

Do I think that the rifle would 'let go' = probably not, would I buy that rifle, no, would I use it or expose others to it being used - no. But that is my personnal choice, you might choose otherwise?

 

As to my engineering understanding I'm the CTO of a company which designs, builds and deploys systems in harsh environments globally that contain significant high pressure fluids and stressed handling components - to say that our QHSSE is rather good is an understatement . Also being an Exec Director fully understand my responsibilities to my staff (and secondly the implications of corporate manslaughter), if one of my staff did something similar to a piece of stressed kit they would be shown the door, no place for playing around.

 

Brgds Terry

 

Ps as pointed out, the owner destroyed a perfectly good rifle rather than buy another set or rings, bit like sitting on a bicycle, saying the seats too high and letting the tyres down FFS! And this person has a firearm!!!

[chaz]

I was thinking of another word beginning with C

+1. How did someone so dumb get an fac! Shocking!

[chaz]

 

But has it been rendered out of proof?

 

What about drilling a hole for a scope mount (on a barrel or on a receiver)? What about engraving? What about knocking off a burr? What about threading a muzzle (there's an argument...)? It's all removing metal. Where is the line drawn? What alteration makes the original proof invalid? Is it when substantial change has been made? What is classed as substantial? Who decides what is substantial? Is the change on the rifle in the OP substantial?

 

And of course I assumed. I don't know who here knows what. If you or anyone has some engineering knowledge, I'd be interested to hear it. The issue seems to be predominantly legal though.

Probably has something to do with the fact it's so close to the chamber.

I don't see how you can compare engraving, or muzzle threading with removing such an amount of material near the chamber.

[gbal]

+1. How did someone so dumb get an fac! Shocking!

There is no statutory cognitive competency test for the issue of a FAC.

 

Nor is it clear whether such tests should be used quite generally,nor what valid ones would be or the qualifying 'score'.

Tests of shooting competence are controversial in the UK (even among shooters-for example).

 

I'm not questioning the (lack of ) common sense of the case in point,just suggesting there isn't an easy solution.

"Darwin" is too drastic,and indeed unreliable-at best it's only statistical probabilty in the very long run of multiple generations.

 

Meanwhile,the laws of proof/sale do help.

We may have to live with human errors of judgement-lets hope 'live' is the word. :-)

 

gbal

[Gandy]

Don't necessarily disagree with any of the comments made but, to go back to the opening comment; would you buy this rifle, no. Why, due to the fact it may be unsafe. Ultimately how do we establish safety, via physical testing at the proof house, that is what I understand the law requires.

 

I'm no legal expert but ignorance is no legal defence and to try and sell the rifle would likely put the seller in breach of the law.

 

Questions about the parties intellect and Darwinian behaviour, whilst all understood I don't feel are helpful. I can't believe his friends RFD etc. etc. have not pulled him to one side and had a quiet word.

 

Surely the question should be how has the shooting community let this happen?

[MJR]

Gandy, not following your tack on that one old friend? How is this anything to do with the wider shooting community? This is an example of an individual with tunnel vision focused on the fitment of an optic with a larger diameter objective bell onto a rifle using existing mounts that are not suitable. In doing so said person thought it a good idea to scallop the top of the barrel, probably without pausing to consider the possible consequences of such action....

[terryh]

I'm no legal expert but ignorance is no legal defence and to try and sell the rifle would likely put the seller in breach of the law.

 

Questions about the parties intellect and Darwinian behaviour, whilst all understood I don't feel are helpful. I can't believe his friends RFD etc. etc. have not pulled him to one side and had a quiet word.

 

Surely the question should be how has the shooting community let this happen?

Re. Breach of the law - precisely, the rifle's been changed significantly since it was proofed/built e.g. Out of proof re. The 2006 proof act. : caveat - it might have gone back to proof since being butchered, we do not know?

 

Re. Comments about the guys possible intellect - well I suppose it's a free world and this is and open forum, people can make comments in the same way as complimenting someone on a good score or nice rifle - this is the 'ying' to that 'yang'. BTW I'm not hiding behind a keyboard, if I saw that I'd be quite happy to say they he was a muppet to him or if it was on a range I was RCO'ing I'd ask to see some form of proof evidence otherwise he'd not be using it. Sort of 'duty of care' (although the culprit was probably more into 'Call of Duty' - there ,slipped into Benard Manning mode again )

 

Re. How could you or I stop someone going into their own shed and having at it with a grinder - you got me there, not a clue how to stop this happening again?

 

T

[terryh]

Mike, apologies, you beat me to it!

 

T

[snc_2010]

The rifles in the OP has been 'materially weakened' (as per 2006 proof act.) so 'yes' it is out of proof. Threading muzzles, drilling barrel or receiver also the same. De-burring (sensibly) no, engraving - not a clue. But as I do not make a living from gunsmitihng or being an RFD I do not need to fully understand each, if I did I would.

 

Who has the say, the proof house or a court of law should something go wrong.

 

Do I think that the rifle would 'let go' = probably not, would I buy that rifle, no, would I use it or expose others to it being used - no. But that is my personnal choice, you might choose otherwise?

 

As to my engineering understanding I'm the CTO of a company which designs, builds and deploys systems in harsh environments globally that contain significant high pressure fluids and stressed handling components - to say that our QHSSE is rather good is an understatement . Also being an Exec Director fully understand my responsibilities to my staff (and secondly the implications of corporate manslaughter), if one of my staff did something similar to a piece of stressed kit they would be shown the door, no place for playing around.

 

Brgds Terry

 

Ps as pointed out, the owner destroyed a perfectly good rifle rather than buy another set or rings, bit like sitting on a bicycle, saying the seats too high and letting the tyres down FFS! And this person has a firearm!!!

 

http://www.gunproof.com/Proof_Memoranda/RULESOFP.PDFare the 2006 rules to which I assume you refer. Which bit is relevant? There were some shotgun barrel specs but nothing on rifle barrel wall thickness. I can't find the phrase 'materially weakened' in the rules. Where did that come from?

I can't find any caselaw with expert evidence on this sort of thing (but it could be out there and I've missed it). Do you know of any?

 

If there's a test (e.g. 'substantially changed', 'materially weakened'), I can't find it. Without that, we're all guessing.

My gut feeling is that it would be deemed out of proof but I've got no evidence to support that. But you haven't shown you do too.

 

 

The point I make is that this thread is mainly people making assumptions and assertions without evidence.

[brown dog]

The point I make is that this thread is mainly people making assumptions and assertions without evidence.

I think most of us have pretty well developed intuition and common sense, based on training and long experience in a variety of fields. If you're really arguing that without full scientific or legal evidence, you believe that experience, intuition or common sense cannot be brought to bear; well.....

 

Alternatively, if you're not just arguing against trained intuition for the sake of arguing, could you crystalise your point by clarifying whether you would or would not buy the rifle in that condition. A simple 'yes/no'

[snc_2010]

I think most of us have pretty well developed intuition and common sense, based on training and long experience in a variety of fields. If you're really arguing that without full scientific or legal evidence, you believe that experience, intuition or common sense cannot be brought to bear; well.....

 

 

I think that most people on here have very little scientific or legal knowledge and have more interest in being one of the gang by jumping on something that looks bad.

 

"This looks shít." would have been fair comment based on intuition and common sense.

Claiming that things will blow up or people are breaking the law are very specific assertions, which demand appropriate scrutiny.

[MJR]

Well that wasn't a simple yes or no?

Snc, who are using to rebarrel it for you?

[Gandy]

Mike / Terry,

 

Having re read my post and I've not made my point well; we are agreed it has the potential to be dangerous, is likely to be in breach of the law and hasn't been thought through.

 

I certainly didn't mean to suggest there is any keyboard warrior attitude to this but, terry takes up my point. If he were RO'ing and saw this he would address it with the shooter.

 

I suppose I was trying to say I don't know many / any parties who wouldn't have their rifle seen by a fellow shooter at some stage of the year / life span of the rifle. I was trying to get across badly was how had this not been picked up. You are both quite right that you cannot stop an individual isolated modifying his rifle but, surely the first people to see this weren't on the forum it was posted. Possible but unlikely.

[MJR]

Ok see what you are saying.

[SWShooter]

Time to close this thread I think , its becoming very boring.

[ejg223]

Shocking. even more shocking is that some don't see the wrong...that is bad.

I wouldn't take that rifle even if for free, what other things were possibly done unseen.

edi

[activeviii]

The seller was trying to tell on a well known airgun forum. He said the previous owner had done the work to get a scope to fit and it had now been reproofed since.

 

As far as I'm aware, any modification made to the structure of the pressure bearing areas of a rifle or shotgun put the item out of proof. You there for can not sell.

If this is wrong then why if the proof house saying screw cutting need reproofing. I know I for one can afford a long and costly court case just to prove them wrong.

Also, now knowing that there might be an issue with the proof, would or could someone still live with themselves if the breech let go and injured someone.

 

Not worth the hassles in my mind, I did tell him so and the sales thread was removed. Unknown by whom but the right thing to do until steps have be made to assure the general public

[gbal]

Thank you ,activeviii:

 

"it had now been reproofed since"..........post 48

 

If true-and please,no more speculation on this-that might have obviated quite a bit of 'comment/asumption' etc etc

At least it's out of the public domain....hopefully....and any naughtyness in the seller ..well,'not proven'!!

 

 

Incidentally,your question about human morality/ethics and plain indifference to others has plenty of precedents-"caveat emptor's is just the mild legal position,though proof law helps in these cases.....if applicable...

 

" man's inhumanity to man " (let's include the fair sex too) is well established,ongoing and unlikely to be curbed anytime soon.

 

Lock thread soon,and .....errrr 'file it away' somewhere. :-)

 

gbal

[furrybean]

When I messaged him he was going to send it for reproof....