Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts
saddler

Incompetent RFD

Recommended Posts

I have to disagree. That’s exactly the same principle that’s applied in gun proof, except that by definition a firearm is dynamically rather than statically pressurised. I believe that CIP specifies that the proof test should be set at 125% of the maximum specified design pressure.

As with boilers, the proof pressure is always selected to remain within the elastic region of typical barrel and breech steels, e.g. 416R stainless, so no permanent weakening of the material will occur. If something fails proof, it will be down to a crack, or improper heat treatment etc. that has taken the yield strength of the material way down into the normal elastic region.

 

D22D8C43-EC77-4512-A151-961A9B500F5A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that,  my point was it's a rather crude method.

Blimey, we do have some esoteric conversations own here!  Excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t that the joy of UKV? 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2020 at 10:17 AM, simgre said:

 The apparent lack of knowledge around legislation and procedure is worrying. I do wonder how many of their own interpretations have been applied to the detriment of someone who has seen this dealer as the "expert".

And the lack of knowledge of some FEOs and many more FAC holders who spout 'laws' like they actually know what it's all about.

It is a very complex issue, 1 Act, 1 Rules, at least 5 Amendments just for firearms and air weapons (their term not mine) and then you get to the VCRA, WCA, GBPA and many more and it all becomes so confusing. Many only know about the small part that they usually concern themselves with and when something unusual or out of their ordinary turns up and they turn to the Licensing Authority who should advise them properly but fails to do so they are called all sorts of things.

We even have differences on here about whether it is illegal to shoot unproven firearms on 'licensed' ranges. I have not found any mention of firearms needing to be proved for any range I have shot on, including Bisley. I know many who have shot there in individual and team matches with unproven firearms, it may be a large minority of the shooters but it is not insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very first thing an Insurance company would investigate, upon an accident happening, is whether a gun was in proof or not. If there wasn't enough of it left to see, the serial number would, or would not have gone through the proof house.

I think we can all take a pretty good guess as to whether they would pay out or not.

I dont believe anyone shooting an unproved gun on a public range is covered by the range insurance, and until someone shows me it in black and white, I will continue to insure myself for such un proofed used, which quite frankly, I never use anyway.

I dont have to proof my own guns, but I do, because I would not put other people in uninsured areas of risk.

The ranges turn a blind eye to it, I know they do. One day it will bite them on the arse.

Proof is not an oiled round anymore.

Specifically designed loads working up from a computer, and through test barrels with pressure monitoring equipment.

Book a tour of the Birmingham proof house chaps. Its absolutely fascinating, and dispels all the usual rubbish about the process.

The loading rooms are a real eye opener.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your theory about proof and insurance is an assumption. If it were a requirement US competitors would not be able to shoot their own rifles in the UK and that is not the case. If a gun blows up on a range its probably not because it was not proofed its usually because the nut on the butt has messed up either hand loading or has used the wrong ammo and the rifle chambered it i.e. 300 Blackout in a .223

But you are free to assume what you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with everything you say John. It is an assumption, but its one I would not have to defend in court.

Accidents happen these days, and people get dry bummed because they didn't cover their arses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't disagree with being careful and insurance companies will always try to wriggle out of paying out if but its not written in black and white in a schedule or T&Cs of an insurance policy that proof is a requirement then its not and yet they still pay out for negligent hand loading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had this discussion before re proof or not to ( because the law lets you).

It is down to personal choice I.e. you can import a rifle and use it yourself without putting it thru’ proof, only having to proof it if you sell it.

You know the proof test is available, not expensive or particularly hard to arrange ( last one I had a coffee in the place opposite while parked in a dedicated slot outside the proof house) so why not have it done?

Regadless of the method ( and it is a lot more thorough than deciding if they use 15W oil as opposed to 30W on the case 😉😂) you have done as much as you can.

Interesting that MOT’s are mentioned, if you have a new car no MOT for 3 years. So applying the same logic, you know garages are available to fix anything, your new car’s brakes feel a bit off but you do not legally have to have the car checked for another couple of years so why bother. Your insurance would still pay out should you have an accident - yes?

Agree international shooters come and go with no U.K. proof but what has the actions ( no pun!) of others to do with how you act - non sequitur.

Also, while we’re at it, do not agree with the comparison of avoiding proof vs reloading error. One is not doing something that you know is available ( conscious decision) the other is an error ( unconscious decision) . Caveat ‘avoiding’ is probably not the right word but you get my meaning?
 

At the end of the day it is as I said, your choice. Me I have any rifle proofed it is not costly and I’ve done what I can. If it let go and injured someone I knew I had at least made some effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... gosh well off OP, apologies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, terryh said:

..... gosh well off OP, apologies 

???
Not OP as such - still keeping to the theme regarding Proofing - just in my case the RFD decided that Proof was not was needed, but destruction by/surrender to the Police WAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John I suspect that the insurance policy will say something along the lines of using the firearm within the range rules and safety regulations in their terms and conditions. The range rules and regs will say only proofed guns are permitted to be used, even if they do not enforce it. The user agrees to abide by the rules and regs that the range has in place to use the range. By using an unproofed gun they have willfully broken those. I may be wrong but it is a financial risk you may be placing upon yourself without realising. There maybe a legal requirement for the insurance company to payout to anyone injured, but they may come after the shooter for to recover their costs.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saddler,

Recorded letter asking under what authority they handed in you rifle was when they were instructed ( and accepted) to ship it to proof - the result of which would have been binary , a proofed rifle or not.

If no satisfactory result then you’d need to pursue by a means balanced against the value of the item. The law in general can not be relied on to do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Webley said:

....The range rules and regs will say only proofed guns are permitted to be used, even if they do not enforce it. The user agrees to abide by the rules and regs that the range has in place to use the range. By using an unproofed gun they have willfully broken those....

Matt

Why do you think that?  I've read Kingsbury and  Whittington Range Orders - no mention of proof that I can see.   DIO license does not mention proof.   Thorpe Cloud - no mention of proof.   Three other ranges I use  - no mention of proof.  I'm willing to wager that there's no more than an outlier that mentions this.

The Bisley Bible (2016) does not mention proof, with this exception:

"Ammunition - Dangerous Loads Competitors must ensure that their firearms are safe for the load used; generally smokeless loads should only be used in firearms so proofed. See Appendix VI concerning Dangerous Loads".

What everyone says or implies is that firearms (or weapons) are to be safe to use, or words similar.  That's not just "is the gun proofed".

Persons that shoot with clubs are generally insured for third party risk only (by the club).   That should not be at risk should a person be injured by a third party's faulty gun without a proof record.  Our insurance makes no mention of proof.

If it could be proved that a person negligently, wilfully used a faulty firearm - that would be very different to using an un-proofed firearm that failed 'accidentally'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Webley said:

John I suspect that the insurance policy will say something along the lines of using the firearm within the range rules and safety regulations in their terms and conditions. The range rules and regs will say only proofed guns are permitted to be used, even if they do not enforce it. The user agrees to abide by the rules and regs that the range has in place to use the range. By using an unproofed gun they have willfully broken those. I may be wrong but it is a financial risk you may be placing upon yourself without realising. There maybe a legal requirement for the insurance company to payout to anyone injured, but they may come after the shooter for to recover their costs.

Matt

Never seen it in any range rules or regulations, not at Bisley or on any MoD Range Standing Orders nor in any JSP for that matter, maybe it’s an urban myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just searched the Defence Safety Authority Defence Code of Practice (DCOP) and Guidance Notes for Ranges and JSP 403 and all the Range Safety Policy Letters no mention of a requirement for a firearm to be subject to 'proof' before use on a MoD Range. Image below is all that a Club Chairman has to assure before being granted a 'Licence' to use any particular MoD Range. So can people stop talking and writing tosh.

1075738693_Screenshot2020-09-20at12_38_43.thumb.png.57cef67fa00406cd06787cbeec01d42f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John MH said:

Just searched the Defence Safety Authority Defence Code of Practice (DCOP) and Guidance Notes for Ranges and JSP 403 and all the Range Safety Policy Letters no mention of a requirement for a firearm to be subject to 'proof' before use on a MoD Range. Image below is all that a Club Chairman has to assure before being granted a 'Licence' to use any particular MoD Range. So can people stop talking and writing tosh.

1075738693_Screenshot2020-09-20at12_38_43.thumb.png.57cef67fa00406cd06787cbeec01d42f.png

I used to be in regular contact with someone who worked at a large MoD Range facility, er, to the East of Bristol....

This has reminded me of one conversation with him.
There were range users there, doing some test firing etc. on a batch of guns that had been delivered from the Proof House, AFTER Proofing, but said batch were devoid of Proof Marks = seems there was a requirement within UK.GOV/MoD-SF circles to have access to Proof tested guns of various foreign pedigrees, that could be lost or otherwise, on ops elsewhere, without said items showing evidence of time on UK soil.

So not only was the range happy to allow guns without Proof marks to be used on site, that was their specific brief in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell, this is all getting a bit unnecessary 

It is your choice if you feel ( by whatever reading into rules etc); you do not need to use a proofed firearm or not - period.

BD  you read ‘generally smokeless loads should only be used in firearms so proofed’  As meaning you do not need to have a proofed rifle to use smokeless powder, I read it as you do, or to put it another way ‘generally you should only use petrol in cars tests for such’  

Quoting all these range rules (NB ‘to me’) feels like justification of ‘what you can get away with’. Why work to the minimum common denominator, why not try to up your game. Perhaps it’s my background or the industry/ countries I have worked, doing ’just enough’ normally ends up not going so well 🙁
 

For the sake of the cost of a box of bullets why even go there, life’s too short FFS 🤔

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proofing is not a requirement of serviceability but a requirement of "sale, export, exchange, transfer or pawn, or the attempted or offering such". If none of the above are the intent, a gun does not need proofing. "Shorten, weaken or remove marks" puts the gun "out of proof" but that means you can't sell it etc, not keep or use it. 

Its like an EPC when building, renting or selling a house. Almost the first 100 sections of the 1868 Act cover the establishment and conduct of the Proof Companies as a business! 

There is nothing in military regulations on ranges, or elsewhere for proved firearms because military/government guns are exempted from proof until released from service!

This thread shows perfectly why the OP had this happen to him. Ignorance. This ignorance may cost the OP his rifle because a dealer chose not to avail himself of the regulations that govern his business.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, terryh said:

Bloody hell, this is all getting a bit unnecessary 

It is your choice if you feel ( by whatever reading into rules etc); you do not need to use a proofed firearm or not - period.

BD  you read ‘generally smokeless loads should only be used in firearms so proofed’  As meaning you do not need to have a proofed rifle to use smokeless powder, I read it as you do, or to put it another way ‘generally you should only use petrol in cars tests for such’  
 

????    Who's BD? and if you mean me,  I wasn't reading anything into the quote,  that's your misinterpretation.

I think it's you that needs to calm down 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 'Proofing' not proving a firearm is such a good idea why do they not do it in the most litigious country in the world? It's because with properly designed and quality controlled modern firearms its not necessary.

UK gun proof laws, the ultimate 'self licking lollypop'. 

There are no loop holes the law is very clear, but don't make up 'Rules or Laws' that fit your version of what you think might be the case when it is not. 

No need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

????    Who's BD? and if you mean me,  I wasn't reading anything into the quote,  that's your misinterpretation.

I think it's you that needs to calm down 😉

??? BD = Brown Dog. misinterpretation , no just take.

Me, I’m as calm as *uck, I have nothing to decide or worry about , I’m more than happy with my life/ shooting ,  actually that’s a lie, I’d like to do more 🤔😂

its all the other buggers trying to prove / disprove crap that in the end , in real terms, means nothing as those who will get their rifles proofed will, those that won,t, well , won,t, so it’s handbags on the inter web 🤦🏼‍♂️😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folk need to go out more not necessarily shooting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, terryh said:

??? BD = Brown Dog. misinterpretation , no just take.

Me, I’m as calm as *uck, I have nothing to decide or worry about , I’m more than happy with my life/ shooting ,  actually that’s a lie, I’d like to do more 🤔😂

its all the other buggers trying to prove / disprove crap that in the end , in real terms, means nothing as those who will get their rifles proofed will, those that won,t, well , won,t, so it’s handbags on the inter web 🤦🏼‍♂️😂

Err, I've not posted in this thread?! 🤔 you OK Tel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy