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

Incompetent RFD

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, simgre said:

 

So, after having a 26" barrel proofed and then shortening it to around 20", or over 20%, is not reducing its substance? But reducing its outside diameter, say by screw threading, is....? Think before typing.

Despite the Gun Barrel Proof Act being nonsensical by today's standards and very well redundant, it has not been repealed or amended. It remains in force, which is my point and nothing more. I am not an advocate for it and nor am I promoting it. It is what it is.

If you recrown a rifle barrel does it need re-proofing? Its been reduced in length, albiet by 0.000"s of an inch, has its strength been reduced? No

By screw cutting you are reducing substance (wall thickness) so it could be argued that a barrels inherent strength, by virtue of its wall thickness (or substance) has been reduced, by shortening its length this reduction in strength does not happen, peak pressure is generally experienced in the barrel chamber/breech not at the muzzle.

Does shortening a barrel reduce its ability to contain a peak pressure? No.

Are you an engineer or a lawyer? If you profess to be either you're a dud, no disrespect intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Gun Barrel Proof Act still live legislation? Yes. Hence, it has to be abided by. 
 

It’s a matter of fact, that shortening a barrel may actually provide for a stiffer and hence stronger barrel. But removing say 20% has reduced its substance. Agree with it or not, it will require reproving. Not because it’s integrity is compromised, and certainly not by today’s standards of steel, but because the law says it has to be. 
 

That is the only point I’m making. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, simgre said:

Is the Gun Barrel Proof Act still live legislation? Yes. Hence, it has to be abided by. 
 

It’s a matter of fact, that shortening a barrel may actually provide for a stiffer and hence stronger barrel. But removing say 20% has reduced its substance. Agree with it or not, it will require reproving. Not because it’s integrity is compromised, and certainly not by today’s standards of steel, but because the law says it has to be. 
 

That is the only point I’m making. 

Well you are wrong and, as BD has highlighted, its not really that important but wrong nevertheless.

Stiffer and stronger by shortening, show me 'your' calculations.

Shortening by 0.000005" is still shortening in law just as much as 26" down to 20" is shortening in law.

The law maybe an ass.

BD, someone is wrong on the internet and nuclear submarine refitting and commissioning is really slow ATM so I have the time 😁.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did post but decided to keep out after all..

Share this post


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

Well you are wrong and, as BD has highlighted, its not really that important but wrong nevertheless.

 

So, just ignore the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, do not ignore the law, just don't follow your wrong interpretation of it.

Are you either a engineer or a lawyer?

I would add that being either or both does not actually mean you know what you are talking/typing about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof house lost two cases against a gunsmith I believe, who counterbored a barrel many years ago, and also against a moderator importer, who is a qualified engineer, and proved in court that shortening and screw cutting, does NOT weaken a barrel.

On the 1st of Jan, 2013, the proof house decided to stamp muzzles, threaded or not, simply to stop people threading them and not proofing. Removal of the mark means the gun has to be re proofed before sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, baldie said:

The proof house lost two cases against a gunsmith I believe, who counterbored a barrel many years ago, and also against a moderator importer, who is a qualified engineer, and proved in court that shortening and screw cutting, does NOT weaken a barrel.

On the 1st of Jan, 2013, the proof house decided to stamp muzzles, threaded or not, simply to stop people threading them and not proofing. Removal of the mark means the gun has to be re proofed before sale.

The 'Self Licking Lollipop Theory".

Maybe simgre is actually wrong, who'd of thunk it?

Share this post


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

wp-PPYR-doubt-115-duty_calls.png.3d50dd270c4e187dc46c8a183205346c.png

 

😂😂😂

Share this post


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

 

Maybe simgre is actually wrong, who'd of thunk it?

 

The Jackson Rifles case which goes back nearly 20 years, centred on the incorrect marking by the Proof House as well as the requirement for the submission of sound moderators for proving. There was a further submission concerning screw cutting, which didn't even see a court. But was it not  you who stated there was an argument that screw cutting could weaken the barrel?

You've flip-flopped a couple of times now, where as my point has remained constant, that the law remains in force. You're poking and prodding to provoke. And judging from posts you made early on, it was evident you hadn't even read the Act, and so devalued your opinion on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, simgre said:

 

The Jackson Rifles case which goes back nearly 20 years, centred on the incorrect marking by the Proof House as well as the requirement for the submission of sound moderators for proving. There was a further submission concerning screw cutting, which didn't even see a court. But was it not  you who stated there was an argument that screw cutting could weaken the barrel?

You've flip-flopped a couple of times now, where as my point has remained constant, that the law remains in force. You're poking and prodding to provoke. And judging from posts you made early on, it was evident you hadn't even read the Act, and so devalued your opinion on it. 

I did not mention screw cutting you did. I've been consistent, you have not, are you a Laywer or Engineer?

If you have read the Gun Proof Act of 1868 and subsequent revisions and wholly and comprehensively understand and comprehend them against modern standards you must be both a Lawyer and an Engineer (a materials and finite element analysis, structures and strength, Phd Engineer) so if that is the case I bow to your erudite knowledge.

You come across, and now I'm being rude, as a Tit. Prove me wrong.

Share this post


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

 

...By screw cutting you are reducing substance (wall thickness) so it could be argued that a barrels inherent strength, by virtue of its wall thickness (or substance) has been reduced...

 

 

We also seem to have a different opinion on what constitutes consistency...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you mentioned screw cutting first. I have not denied that screw cutting reduces wall thickness. What is your point and where have I been inconsistent?

And do not be afraid to state whether you are either a Lawyer (Arm Chair or Barrack/Lower Deck or recognised by the Law Society)  or Engineer (Chartered by the Engineering Council or not, but preferably a professional engineer recognised by an appropriate institution).

 

Share this post


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

 

..If you have read the Gun Proof Act of 1868 and subsequent revisions and wholly and comprehensively understand and comprehend them against modern standards...

The Law may very well be amended due to modern standards and is done so through precedent, Statutory Instrument, or by being repealed through the virtue of a subsequent Act. The Gun Barrel Proof Act has not been so. So whether by the standards of 1868 or the standards of 2020, it remains in force till otherwise.

Share this post


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

Are you a Lawyer?

I give up.  This is tedious indeed.

Judging from the posts, Mr. or Ms. simgre is clearly not a lawyer or an engineer,  just a rather facile internet expert not able to "give it up".

I suggest saddler's problems are exacerbated by poor communication and will resolve once fulsome explanation has been given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Popsbengo said:

I give up.  This is tedious indeed.

Judging from the posts, Mr. or Ms. simgre is clearly not a lawyer or an engineer,  just a rather facile internet expert not able to "give it up".

I suggest saddler's problems are exacerbated by poor communication and will resolve once fulsome explanation has been given.

👍

Share this post


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

Are you a Lawyer?

In all honesty, does that matter? No, it doesn't. 

Despite Popsbengo weighing with the insults, it makes not one ha'peth worth of difference. I'm aware of the legislation, I'm aware of the Guidance. I'm also aware of Jackson's counsel and I'm aware of a number of arguments against the Gun Barrel Proof Act. But all of them are superfluous until there is a legislative change. That not to say those arguments can't be utilised to bring about that change, for they are valid.  But until they do, I'm afraid you can't ignore it, or dismiss it with a "Rubbish".

You've got yourselves all worked up over this. Just because I haven't resorted to challenge and/or insult, then please don't take that as a sign to just wade in, for indeed I can trade with the best in that regards.

But, I quite like this forum. And I suspect as soon as I did rise, then someone would wield the "banning hammer". ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i take my gun to an RFD to have a replacement barrel 

so the gun is rebuilt and now needs reproofing (so its not proofed ) in Durham they would confiscate it from the RFD or demand the RFD to hand it in . must remember not to move there

Share this post


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

In all honesty, does that matter? No, it doesn't. 

Despite Popsbengo weighing with the insults, it makes not one ha'peth worth of difference. I'm aware of the legislation, I'm aware of the Guidance. I'm also aware of Jackson's counsel and I'm aware of a number of arguments against the Gun Barrel Proof Act. But all of them are superfluous until there is a legislative change. That not to say those arguments can't be utilised to bring about that change, for they are valid.  But until they do, I'm afraid you can't ignore it, or dismiss it with a "Rubbish".

You've got yourselves all worked up over this. Just because I haven't resorted to challenge and/or insult, then please don't take that as a sign to just wade in, for indeed I can trade with the best in that regards.

But, I quite like this forum. And I suspect as soon as I did rise, then someone would wield the "banning hammer". ...

"In all honesty, does that matter? No, it doesn't." Totally agree.

No insults intended, other than saying you were a Tit.

I'm not worked up and have time on my hands, you are quoting opinion and not fact, your engineering understanding is flawed.

What, either, Engineering or Law, qualification do you have that adds weight to your internet research and interpretation?

What more can you can find about Jackson vs whoever that has any relevance on shortening a barrel?

No "Ban Hammers here", I don't shy away from a disagreement and have never banned anyone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dellboy said:

So i take my gun to an RFD to have a replacement barrel 

so the gun is rebuilt and now needs reproofing (so its not proofed ) in Durham they would confiscate it from the RFD or demand the RFD to hand it in . must remember not to move there

It's 'Rubbish' isn't it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, simgre said:

Despite Popsbengo weighing with the insults, it makes not one ha'peth worth of difference

Well I didn't mean any insult;  I used "facile" as in superficial knowledge. Isn't that true?  You state an engineering principle that's wrong,  you quote regs that anyone can read for themselves.   From your comments you're not either a lawyer, material scientist or engineer I suspect. Superficial.

Sorry you were insulted, it wasn't meant that way.

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