Holts and proof house idiocy

Apparently Holts had a bunch of Schmidt-Rubin 1889's that it withdrew from sale because they sent them for proof, and the proof house proofed them for modern 7.5x55.

Which probably takes them out of s.58 cos they're stamped with a modern calibre, and has wrecked them, since a 7.5x55 proof load will be about 200% of service pressure for 7.5x53.5, instead of about 150%.

These rifles * do* break after a certain number of modern rounds, so the entire stated point of proof has been counter productive here - the rifles have been rendered less safe by this "proof ".

Numpties
 
Just for the record, I would recommend NEVER to fire an 1889 with a 7.5x55 proof mark on it *except* with light cast loads. Anything approaching a service load? Nope.
 
It's high time the proof laws were subject to some serious revision. The proof houses need to be subject to some proper oversight too because neither fill one with confidence.
 
Apparently Holts had a bunch of Schmidt-Rubin 1889's that it withdrew from sale because they sent them for proof, and the proof house proofed them for modern 7.5x55.

Which probably takes them out of s.58 cos they're stamped with a modern calibre, and has wrecked them, since a 7.5x55 proof load will be about 200% of service pressure for 7.5x53.5, instead of about 150%.

These rifles * do* break after a certain number of modern rounds, so the entire stated point of proof has been counter productive here - the rifles have been rendered less safe by this "proof ".

Numpties

Swiss firearms always need a proof in another EU country - which I find surprising as this is not the case for any other country in mainland Europe, or Sweden. Any idea why?
 
Swiss firearms always need a proof in another EU country - which I find surprising as this is not the case for any other country in mainland Europe, or Sweden. Any idea why?

Because CH does not have a civilian proof law, so is not a member of CIP. If NL still made firearms in any real numbers, it would be the case for them too.

CH has the military proof (the reversed-B-P mark), which in the case of 7.5x55 is below the CIP proof pressure so is not recognised as equivalent by CIP. Don't know if it holds for 5.6mm, but the only 5.6's with the BP stamp in civvy hands will be downconverted fullautos, so Verboten in DE anyway, as well as most everywhere else.
 
It's high time the proof laws were subject to some serious revision. The proof houses need to be subject to some proper oversight too because neither fill one with confidence.

Are there proof laws? As opposed to guidelines/regulations.

If it's felt an error has occurred, surely as shooters (with safety the utmost consideration) you are duty bound to follow it up.

If you don't and an incident occurs, you will possibly be faced with arbitrary regulation that makes your life harder.
 
It's high time the proof laws were subject to some serious revision. The proof houses need to be subject to some proper oversight too because neither fill one with confidence.

My "special" proof was a story of ineptitude - they took at face value the dimensions I gave, and guesstimated a proof load that was almost certainly WAY below CIP (like I complained ;) ). And they showed no real understanding of the physics and mechanics behind what's going on - measuring what they were claiming was pressure in a suppressor with a transducer 1" BACK from the muzzle, for instance. Jesus wept. And claiming that muzzle brakes were pressure-bearing components. Seriously.

They seem to specialise simply in making up or buy in CIP-specified loads, and chucking them down rifles. If it doesn't blow up, it gets stamped.
 
Are there proof laws? As opposed to guidelines/regulations.

If it's felt an error has occurred, surely as shooters (with safety the utmost consideration) you are duty bound to follow it up.

If you don't and an incident occurs, you will possibly be faced with arbitrary regulation that makes your life harder.

Yes, there are the proof acts. Which came in in the era when barrels were normally made by forging a plate around a mandrel by hand in a furnace.

The number of perfectly good and safe rifles destroyed by incompetent proofhouses is quite considerable.

But they are immune, and you have no comeback.

And then you get situations like the one in the opening post where the consequence of an incorrect proof is actually dangerous.
 
If you have paid them to do the work then you are protected by contract law, and the Supply of Goods and services act s13.
 
If you have paid them to do the work then you are protected by contract law, and the Supply of Goods and services act s13.
They're a law unto themselves mate. Completely inept, unscientific idiots. Instead of non-destructive x-ray, and other capabilities used elsewhere in the world they still maintain that the method to test medieval cannons is sufficient.

The Gun Trade Association is the avenue of complaints for those wishing to take the proof houses to task on this issue, but as the proof houses are cunningly membersof the GTA there is no support.

It's a bloody nightmare. Only personal relationships with individuals in the proof houses can save your custom-chambered, unique, or antique firearms from their destructive 'testing'.

I shit 'em.
 
Even more that you should use the law to support yourself and show that nobody is a law unto themselves.
 
If you have paid them to do the work then you are protected by contract law, and the Supply of Goods and services act s13.

I am unaware of any case of anyone successfully suing the proof house for doing it wrong. But you're welcome to try. I suggest submitting them a Schmidt-Rubin 1889 and simply saying "7.5 Swiss. The old one", and suing them if it comes back with a 7.5x55 stamp.

Seriously, they have caused tens of thousands of pounds of damages when blowing up fine guns, and don't give a shit.
 
Even more that you should use the law to support yourself and show that nobody is a law unto themselves.
Completely agree mate, but they're part of the system,and there is little appetite to force a judicial review from traders, particularly as the trade body is in cahoots with the proof house.

A case in point. They insist that a sound moderator, being a pressure vessel when fitted to a firearm, requires proofing. I have seen moderators, stamped .308/7.62 whose exit diameter is 6mm and clearly not proofed. They are charging for work they are not carrying out. I have seen expensive barrels ruined because they forgot to take their cleaning rod out before firing one of their proof charges! They are protected by law in so many devious ways that the trade simply cannot afford to jump through the hoops.
 
Even more that you should use the law to support yourself and show that nobody is a law unto themselves.

But the Proof Houses unfortunately are. As has been demonstrated repeatedly.
 
I am unaware of any case of anyone successfully suing the proof house for doing it wrong. But you're welcome to try. I suggest submitting them a Schmidt-Rubin 1889 and simply saying "7.5 Swiss. The old one", and suing them if it comes back with a 7.5x55 stamp.

Seriously, they have caused tens of thousands of pounds of damages when blowing up fine guns, and don't give a shit.

I personally could not as I don't have a contract with them.
 
Previously posted - Peter Jackson's submission to the Court agains the Proofmaster. Case was thrown out on the basis of this document: http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/R-v-Beatham_evidence.pdf

An interesting read showing the depths of their incompetence and lack of undergraduate-level engineering knowledge

This is a good read too:
http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/proof-counsels-opinion.doc
 
I personally could not as I don't have a contract with them.

Yes you could.

Buy the rifle (they're off ticket).

Submit it for proof.
 
Some of the examples above show that the proof house is contrary to S13

13Implied term about care and skill.
In a contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill.

I hear what you are saying about proof houses thinking they are above the law, but these things often need someone to start the ball rolling.

And if you have an association that is in cahoots, start your own association.

Has any ARRSEr been effected by proof incompetence?
 
Yes you could.

Buy the rifle (they're off ticket).

Submit it for proof.

That would be an action of folly and not guaranteed with success.
 
Has any ARRSEr been effected by proof incompetence?

The incompetence in my case was luckily in my favour. Had they tried a standard 7.62x39mm proof load, it could have gone the other way.... (174gn .312" rnsp @ max COL, 20gn N110 - seems like an awfully round number to me... PLus, I doubt it would even have chambered in my rifle, so if I hadn't been there they'd probably just have failed it there and then)
 

Latest Threads

Top