Shortening A Rimfire Barrel

[riflehunter583 58]

I spoke to another smith this morning as I am looking at getting my centre fire shortened.

 

he said the same as the two rifle shops and the smith before: if you keep it you don't need to proof. if you sell it then you need to proof the new work.

 

I will not be re proofing the 'cut' unless I plan to sell the rifle in the future. then I will be.

[dadioles 68]

Sorry riflehunter583 but although you are stubbornly sticking to your point of view, you are wrong about the requirement for proof testing. The "two rifle shops and the smith before" that you refer to are also wrong. The law is quite clear and there are some interesting articles on the internet that are also worth reading.

 

One article on the ChuckHawkes web site does raise some serious concerns about the worth of the test http://www.chuckhawks.com/big_deal_about_proof.htm but that is another story.

 

More specifically, addressing the issue you raised (Deker mentioned Jacksons), is the legal advice given to Jackson Rifles by Nicholas Doherty.

 

You can read it here... http://jacksonrifles.com/zz-silencers/files/proof-counsels-opinion.pdf

 

Incidentally, Nicholas Doherty, a highly respected Barrister, is co-author of The British Firearms Law Handbook. I put it to you that he is probably a more learned source of opinion than someone in a shop who is interested in covering their back by selling you an unnecessary service.

 

Hopefully that will put your mind at rest and may also save you, or the potential purchaser of a rifle that you sell, quite a few quid. But then again........ did I say stubborn?

[riflehunter583 58]

certainly the second link and author seems quite credible.

 

I think you may have referenced some less reliable and not so relevant information in the first link which is focused on Spanish/American trading and proofing mishaps also showing that once something is imported it is the importers responsibility to sort the mess out. however the first link is not very relevant.

it seems you are getting confused with the word stubborn and persistent as I have in fact looked at your comments and taken them on board.

 

the second link is more relevant. here are a few paragraphs out of it:

 

'It would only be if an owner later

decided to sell the weapon that any liability could begin to arise, and then could only do so if

the item had been so reduced in substance or strength since the original proof marks were

applied, in accordance with Section 111.'

 

'It is important to emphasise that simple possession

of a small arm that has been altered is not an offence. The owner cannot begin to commit an

offence (even if the reduction was ‘undue’) until he comes to sell the item, and, as I set out

below, giving it to a dealer to carry out the work does not constitute an offence either.'

 

these are out of your own links and INDICATE that selling after 'altering' has some probability of LIABILITY.

 

did you see the word liability above? out of your own link.

 

that's what I am saying when I say cover your back.

that's why I will not be taking any chances, and would advise the same.

 

have you any idea how much even small legal disputes can cost financially / time wise / stress even before they get to a hearing in a court??

 

 

 

'As I have indicated, in my view this Pronouncement is misleading in a number of respects. I set

out below the passages I take issue with:-

i) “the barrels of small arms fitted with sound moderators ....... etc. require to be proof tested”.

All barrels will already have been proof tested, including those with a screw-cut in the barrel.

ii) “....any barrel of any small arm already previously proved but subsequently converted by a

manufacturing process, resulting in a reduction in substance or strength, to accept the fitting of

sound moderators......etc., will require the arm to be re-proved.”'

 

above the respected author is basically saying he disagrees with the current legislation because it is outdated.

the whole proofing system does seem outdated and unhelpful at times. and people are paid to challenge it like our author above.

but the law is still the law and must be followed.

 

 

[dadioles 68]

... I think you may have referenced some less reliable and not so relevant information in the first link which is focused on Spanish/American trading and proofing mishaps....

 

Yes, I thought I had made it clear that this was just a bit of interesting added reading, the comments by Chuck Hawkes had nothing to do with your particular problem but do raise issues about the worth of proof testing as applied in some circumstances.

 

 

it seems you are getting confused with the word stubborn and persistent as I have in fact looked at your comments and taken them on board.

 

Fair comment, a point happily conceded. You are persistent to the point of being unreasonable in your interpretation of the law and I do not want others reading this thread to think that they have to follow your advice about proof testing "because it is the law" - it is not the law. If, however, you wish to have a rifle proof tested before a sale that is entirely up to you.

 

 

'It would only be if an owner later decided to sell the weapon that any liability could begin to arise, and then could only do so if

the item had been so reduced in substance or strength since ....

 

these are out of your own links and INDICATE that selling after 'altering' has some probability of LIABILITY.

 

Now you are making it up and the link is not "my" link, I am simply the messenger. The link is to a copy of the original and full document written by a Barrister specialising in Firearms legislation.

 

The whole point is that shortening a barrel and screw threading it for a moderator does not detrimentally affect the barrel.

Are you really arguing against the learned opinion of a Barrister who specialises in Firearms legislation and co-authored the book which is used as a definitive guide to UK firearms law by other members of the legal profession?

 

have you any idea how much even small legal disputes can cost financially / time wise / stress even before they get to a hearing in a court??

 

Absolutely. Even a high street solicitor is looking at £220 per hour plus vat. I know because I have just paid a bill for nearly £3000 because I needed to "look serious" by employing the services of a significant law firm. The person who caused me grief withdrew as it was clear that I would not be bullied. It was a stupid dispute over an inconsequential right of way. Clearly documented and beyond contention. My neighbour, however, was not rational or logical (just wealthy) and of course their solicitor, their surveyor and their land agent were all happy to accept payment from them to prepare a case that was doomed to fail. Even though I won, I still lost (my solicitors fees) but sometimes you just have to do what is right.

 

 

... the respected author is basically saying he disagrees with the current legislation because it is outdated.

 

No he is not. The Barrister is not disagreeing with the legislation. He is, however, pointing out that a statement "Pronouncement" put out by the proofing house is incorrect in law. The legislation is clear, you are not required to re-proof if all you do is shorten a barrel and screw cut the end to fit a moderator. If the wording clumsily put out by the proofing house was followed, we would all have to have our rifle tested when fitted with a moderator. Change the moderator and that would require re-proofing as it will have changed the barrel. The moderator is not a part of the barrel. No moderator is required to be proofed.

 

... the law is the law and must be followed.

 

Yes, and it does not need over zealous interpretation and proof houses do not make the law.

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2013 by dadioles

[riflehunter583 58]

 

... I think you may have referenced some less reliable and not so relevant information in the first link which is focused on Spanish/American trading and proofing mishaps....

 

Yes, I thought I had made it clear that this was just a bit of interesting added reading, the comments by Chuck Hawkes had nothing to do with your particular problem but do raise issues about the worth of proof testing as applied in some circumstances.

 

 

it seems you are getting confused with the word stubborn and persistent as I have in fact looked at your comments and taken them on board.

 

Fair comment, a point happily conceded. You are persistent to the point of being unreasonable in your interpretation of the law and I do not want others reading this thread to think that they have to follow your advice about proof testing "because it is the law" - it is not the law. If, however, you wish to have a rifle proof tested before a sale that is entirely up to you.

 

 

'It would only be if an owner later decided to sell the weapon that any liability could begin to arise, and then could only do so if

the item had been so reduced in substance or strength since ....

 

these are out of your own links and INDICATE that selling after 'altering' has some probability of LIABILITY.

 

Now you are making it up and the link is not "my" link, I am simply the messenger. The link is to a copy of the original and full document written by a Barrister specialising in Firearms legislation.

 

The whole point is that shortening a barrel and screw threading it for a moderator does not detrimentally affect the barrel.

Are you really arguing against the learned opinion of a Barrister who specialises in Firearms legislation and co-authored the book which is used as a definitive guide to UK firearms law by other members of the legal profession?

 

have you any idea how much even small legal disputes can cost financially / time wise / stress even before they get to a hearing in a court??

 

Absolutely. Even a high street solicitor is looking at £220 per hour plus vat. I know because I have just paid a bill for nearly £3000 because I needed to "look serious" by employing the services of a significant law firm. The person who caused me grief withdrew as it was clear that I would not be bullied. It was a stupid dispute over an inconsequential right of way. Clearly documented and beyond contention. My neighbour, however, was not rational or logical (just wealthy) and of course their solicitor, their surveyor and their land agent were all happy to accept payment from them to prepare a case that was doomed to fail. Even though I won, I still lost (my solicitors fees) but sometimes you just have to do what is right.

 

 

... the respected author is basically saying he disagrees with the current legislation because it is outdated.

 

No he is not. The Barrister is not disagreeing with the legislation. He is, however, pointing out that a statement "Pronouncement" put out by the proofing house is incorrect in law. The legislation is clear, you are not required to re-proof if all you do is shorten a barrel and screw cut the end to fit a moderator. If the wording clumsily put out by the proofing house was followed, we would all have to have our rifle tested when fitted with a moderator. Change the moderator and that would require re-proofing as it will have changed the barrel. The moderator is not a part of the barrel. No moderator is required to be proofed.

 

... the law is the law and must be followed.

 

Yes, and it does not need over zealous interpretation and proof houses do not make the law.

 

 

 

 

 

it is not for you to control what people say on forums.

 

and it is you who is being unreasonable, with your comment that I am being unreasonable in expressing an opinion.

 

that's what a forum is for.

 

dadiolis your wrong.

[Deker 3,478]

riflehunter583.

 

".. the law is the law and must be followed".

 

Which Law would you be referring to?

[rimmer 33]

I have to admit i have heard some crap about proofing over the years, mostly it is RFD`s tring to get more money off you. one guy even told me i would need to re-proof my rifle if i added a moderator!!!!

[riflehunter583 58]

ok deker I see your point. its not law that it MUST be done. unless the barrel is weakened, which we know if a good job is done the barrel will not be weakened. in most cases there will never be a problem.

 

but I think I have a valid point about covering ones back after a cut and thread and crown because we live in a world of law suits. when/IF the s**t hits the fan people will try anything to make a bad situation good if something were to go wrong; anything go wrong. and we are dealing with 50-60k psi here.

 

i'm talking about anything to go wrong relaed to a cut or otherwise. and if one has had the job proofed before sale there is abloslty no come back or a question of come back, no question and no come back on the seller. and yes the sell can just show the proof slip and tell the buyer; well it cannot be my fault or anything I have done as all work has been proofed.

 

in other words your completely covered.

 

and yes I have seen people and businesses go bankrupt before it got to the court because lawers and barristers can rack up large bills in the tens of thousands before it even gets there NO MATTER WHAT THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF IT WAS.

 

any yes the proof houses are looking for a fight at the moment when it comes to newer guns not being proofed after cut.