I guess you`ve read
Jackson Rifles take on it ?
edit I think a few Arrse moderators are consonantly at risk of exploding.
I hadn't as a matter of fact...! Thanks for that.
It still however goes back to "what is it we are trying to do..", and Peter getting a Silk involved really does not deal with the matter apart from illustrating the mess we are in with this. The Proof Acts are a mess and are still operating in the context of muzzle loading (..hence the concentration on "barrels".. they are just getting their heads around the concept of breech loading!)
The problem is that in many ways, firearms legislation has not really been addressing the core issues, and has simply been pecked away at by a number of interested parties.. the Police being the main one...!
The whole point of Proof is to protect the end user from what is a potentially very dangerous bit of machinery. The reason that the Proof acts were introduced was because of problems caused by back door gunsmiths making guns in their sheds without any need for competency or testing. As engineering practice improved over the centuries, it can be argued that objective proof testing is less necessary because materials and methods are more predictable and better understood.
However.. modern materials and methods are only predictable when implemented correctly, and subjective assessment of quality only works when the rest of the system works.. I give you Grenfell as an example! The problem we have in UK is that the core competency of the gunsmithing business has all but collapsed with the breakup of the established firms and the fragmentation of the skills base. I am seeing significant numbers of firearms which have been modified by individuals who clearly have no idea what they are doing! If you own a crane over a certain weight, you need to test it at regular intervals by hanging a weight off the end of it and seeing if it collapses..!
Despite what my learned friend says in his document, if you put a drunken thread on a barrel or do not ensure the lineup of whatever you bolt on the end, there is a significant risk of an avoidable event which could result in an injury. A bullet, particularly a monometallic one, striking a badly fitted muzzle attachment will follow a significantly deviant flight path, and if used on a limited danger area range, may not be captured by the designed butt stop...!
I am trying to be objective about this.. the whole thing is a bloody mess with narrow interests driving issues down some really deep rabbit holes....!
Grrrr