|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,552
Posts562,648
Members14,593
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 931
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 931 |
Could an English maker for the trade, e.g. Webley and Scott, between 1884 and 1924, sell to a FOREIGN customer (from a country where there were no proof laws) a gun in the white which wasn't submitted to proof?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115 |
No, not as far as I know. Under the proof laws any gun made for sale or export must be correctly proofed. Not to say something may slip through by way of an unscrupulous dealer. The Birmingham Proof House http://gunproof.com/ are always helpful with any proof law questions. Lagopus....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 270 Likes: 31
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 270 Likes: 31 |
There is a loophole which was exploited in the trade for imports as well possibly for exports.If the chambers and rims are left uncut the Gun or barreled action is not considered a gun as it is not capable of discharging a projectile and thus is a non gun.
Could this cover your situation??
Hugh Lomas,
H.G.Lomas Gunmakers Inc.
920 876 3745
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Provisional proof was done prior to assembling or chambering the tubes. Would not these guns with uncut chambers still be required to carry the provisional proof. I know that on some USA made guns the bbls will sometimes have Belgian Provisional Proof stamps, on others it seems the tubes were thick enough the stamp was lost in finishing. I believe that in the UK a maker importing an unfinished/unchambered gun would still have to submit it for definitive proof before he could "Legally" sell it. This of course did not apply to US makers.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,768 Likes: 115 |
The Provisional Proof is not mandatory. It is just a simple stress test on a barrel tube; usually submitted singly, that shows any possible weakness before more expensive work starts. Any gun imported from a Country that does not have a recognised Proof House such as from the U.S. or Russia has to go for Definitive Proof before it can legally be offered for sale. I have come across quite a few American guns here that have never been Proof tested. It is my opinion that they came in with American Servicemen who then sold them on direct to some local person by way of private trade rather than take them back home. I have had an L.C.Smith a Winchester Model 12 and a model 1893 like this. I still have the 1893; the others I submitted before sale. Technically the 1893 is valueless here until I submit it. I intend to do so some time but only for Black Powder Proof. It is then saleable. I commit no offence by using it or owning it but cannot sell it as it is. I suppose an uncut and un-chambered tube is just that. The Proof House will answer that question I'm sure. Always most helpful. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 931
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 931 |
lagopus - thank you! I'll sure write to BPH to make sure. Hugh Lomas - Yes! That would explain everything. Thank you! treglig1958 - thank you! Enjoy it  if there is an area of Russian Hunting Shotguns you'd specifically want to read about, don't hesitate to comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
