Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

Recommended Posts

Apparently there are some moderators being sold on Deer related forums that are purported to have been made by Liquid Steel Design 

These moderators are sold as firearms rated and are basically a cheap carbon fibre tube with end caps and 3D printed internals 

They are NOT manufactured by Liquid Steel Design and are not safe to use with firearms 

The owner of Liquid Steel Design who is not a member here has asked that this me made known in the event you should come across a Carbon Fibre Moderator advertised as being made by them 

LSD do not make firearms rated moderators 

Don’t Buy If offered and please report the advertiser to the moderators of whatever forum of social media page it’s seen 

Many thanks 

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating the obvious here, but any moderator rated for firearms should have official proof stamps on them.  Without a proof stamp it should be assumed that a moderator is for airgun/airsoft/display use only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup that may be

 

but there are unwitting people who will buy anything because its cheap or has a name, 

 

Never assume anything - TNF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kwakkerjack said:

Stating the obvious here, but any moderator rated for firearms should have official proof stamps on them.  Without a proof stamp it should be assumed that a moderator is for airgun/airsoft/display use only.

No.

There is no requirement to proof sound moderators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baldie said:

No.

There is no requirement to proof sound moderators.

You may be right but that isn't what I said.  My statement was "should have official proof stamp" and "assumed for", erring on the side of caution.  That way you know it won't melt or set on fire after a quick flexing of the trigger finger.  Which would happen with 3D printed moderators (or for example would also happen with a 22LR rated moderator on a 5.56/.223 rifle, etc) which Ronin was warning people about.

I should draw your eye to this part of the legislation though, the proof of rules state "...Barrel attachment requiring proof means a device forming any part of barrel, removable or other wise, from or through which any part of the load would be discharged needs to be proofed."

That may suggest you can buy them as unproofed, but it would need to be proofed before it can be used legally.  As the law is interpreted differently by each licensing Police force it maybe wise to check with them before use.

For me, if I was buying a moderator for a high-powered rifle, I would want to know that it would be safe to use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, kwakkerjack said:

Stating the obvious here, but any moderator rated for firearms should have official proof stamps on them.  Without a proof stamp it should be assumed that a moderator is for airgun/airsoft/display use only.

Don't think that's true.

DPT don't have a proof stamp nor does the Freyer. As far as I am aware there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever.

Share this post


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

For me, if I was buying a moderator for a high-powered rifle, I would want to know that it would be safe to use.

 

Proof doesn't prove that the moderator will be safe, only that it was safe at the time of over charge (much like a car's MoT). The substance of the moderator could have been sufficiently weakened by the over pressure that although it held together during proof the next or later normal service charge could cause a failure. The way proof is carried out in this country is not very scientific or safe - 'definitive' in name only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mattnall said:

Can you give me a citation for the quoted 'Rule of Proof'? I am really interested, the Proof Act is 145 Sections long and only about a dozen cover the actual proving of barrels, the rest are all about money and the control of money.

I took it from this document:

https://www.gunmakers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Rules-of-Proof-2006.pdf

Top of page 4 (page 6 in the pdf)

   "(4) Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged."

 

It then quotes this in relation to it at the bottom of page 8 (page 10):

   "Any barrel attachment requiring proof shall be fitted, unless it is detachable and has been previously proved and marked accordingly."

 

 

All firearms imported from the USA would need to go through the proof-house, and this would probably apply to moderators being imported from there as well.  The above statements may legally only apply to the processing of proofing a firearm when it is at the proof-house and  UK/EU may have a different position on local manufacture.

 

From the shooter's point of view "if it's on my FAC, it is legal" but fom my point of view if I had a moderator for a 50BMG, I would want to know it could handle that before pulling the trigger.  Which the proof marks would show.

 

Note in my initial response I used the words "should" and "assume", and we should err on the side of caution.  Your analogy to an MOT is apt, as that too would not show that a car is road-worthy despite being tested for road-worthyness.

Share this post


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

Lets not have a debate about proofing again, the last one ended in tears 😂

Amen to that!

we should have a sidebar showing subjects that have been flogged to death in ranked order 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the scary thing is the legislation is clearly so badly worded that each and every police force can interpret it in any way they see fit!!

Share this post


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

That is a proof house document, not legislation.

Section 117 of the original Act and Section 4 of the 1978 Act allow the Companies to make up rules as they see fit with the approval of the Secretary of State.

But are these rules enforceable? I will leave that for brighter and better informed minds to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that someone pays for legal advice to get a definitive answer, which will be as above, proof houses are a commercial enterprise and will be looking at bottom line.

not required for a sound moderator as not an integral part of small arms.

End of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I got into a debate about proof I upset someone when I referred to them as a small song bird, they took real umbrage and had quite a hissy fit.

Share this post


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

Last time I got into a debate about proof I upset someone when I referred to them as a small song bird, they took real umbrage and had quite a hissy fit.

What .. you don’t mean the 

Fluffy-backed Tit-Babbler ? 
 

bang out of order matey . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This very subject was proved in court by Jackson rifles. The proof house lost, so you therefore have a legal ruling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of my mods bare proof marks , as the man above has just said the ruling regarding this and threading the end of the barrel was made years ago and can even download and read all the legal bits and bobs . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 3:58 PM, Jager said:

i think the scary thing is the legislation is clearly so badly worded that each and every police force can interpret it in any way they see fit!!

That covers a large portion of the legislation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, One on top of two said:

What .. you don’t mean the 

Fluffy-backed Tit-Babbler ? 
 

bang out of order matey . 

 

It was very close to that.

Share this post


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

It was very close to that.

....sans fluffy-backed & babbler perhaps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 6:34 AM, baldie said:

This very subject was proved in court by Jackson rifles. The proof house lost, so you therefore have a legal ruling.

 

I don't believe that it went to court. The opinion on their website is just that; their expert's opinion. Also the opinion on their website is dated 2001, the Proof Houses made up new rules in 2006 (from Kwakkerjack's link above, whether these rules have force of law or not is another matter), I wonder if these new rules were to try and stop this 'loophole' curtailing their revenue stream.

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