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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,463
Posts545,036
Members14,409
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
Will it be possible for British gun owners to sell or ship guns to the USA? Avoid all that nonsense about proof. Who is to say that a gun is out of proof if it is shipped overseas? There can't be a requirement for every gun leaving the country to undergo reproof. Am I mistaken? This situation may have a silver lining for Americans. I think you figured out the real reason behind proof, there are requirements.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,544 |
If a gun in the UK is out of proof it is illegal to offer it for sale. It is illegal to export it or otherwise trade it.
This is partly due to unscrupulous US dealers buying out of proof guns and selling them in the USA. Because of a number or reported failures, the US authorities took steps to redress the issue and the no export clause was enforced.
Don't misunderstand me. I think proof laws can and have in the past helped the Gun Trade by ensuring that every gun made is tested as fit for purpose.
My current argument is about whether the CIP adoption is an improvement to the old system or whether it is imposing standards that are less useful in practice.
Also, the other issue has been lack of communication and the timing of the adoption of new shotgun gauges this year.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,034 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,034 Likes: 47 |
So the end result is we end up destroying good guns attempting to obtain certification for export to the US, while the shit coming in from Turkey is simply assumed to be safe.
What a great system.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264 Likes: 23
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264 Likes: 23 |
It has been my experience that British proof houses have done a poor job of examining chamber dimensions for compliance for the last 80 yrs or so.I have imported many used Brit guns and have found the majority to be undersized. There are a number of reasons for this but most must have been overlooked at initial proof and any subsequent re-proof.The issue is as follows:- 1954 Rules of Proof Table 1 p 26 clearly states 12 bore forward chamber dia to be Min.0.800"Max 0.810", should be clear but...... Note at bottom of table states" To allow for polishing of chamber after proof dia shall be gauged as if such minimum dimension were 0.003" less". I speculate both proof houses only used a .797" go gauge, I also believe they didnt always check even with that Thus we can see at least on new production guns, barrels and sleevers a forward dia of 0.797" was permitted (with the presumption that it would be polished up to 0.800")CIP no longer accept this and require chambers to be to finished dimension i.e. .800"-20,3mm SAAMI picked up on this and have set forward dia min as .797".in their standards Any Brit gunsmith getting reamers from Brownells or other US sources will end up below the now enforced std Brit CIP dia. I had Clymer custom make me a 3" 12chamber reamer with .802" forward dia, .005" per inch chamber taper and a pilot after an @ 1/2" forcing cone. It cleans up chambers beautifully. I must sympathize with Digs second point about lack of a heads up to the trade,effectively that last weeks accepted practice will be prohibited on Monday. To do that the Proof House would have to admit to not doing their job , at least since 1954, which as we see from gunmans rules isn't going to happen.
Hugh Lomas, H.G.Lomas Gunmakers Inc. 920 876 3745
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,736 Likes: 96
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,736 Likes: 96 |
Turkish guns, Russian guns and American guns imported into Britain have to go through the Proof House before they can be offered for sale. I wonder if there will be problems for those countries wishing to export to Britain. Lagopus.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3 |
Turkish guns, Russian guns and American guns imported into Britain have to go through the Proof House before they can be offered for sale. I wonder if there will be problems for those countries wishing to export to Britain. Lagopus..... I wonder too. FWIW, this is how proof laws/houses work as trade barriers. Gun makers from outside the proof law zone (read, here, “C.I.P.”) have the expense of proof at point of manufacture as part of the basic cost of production. The same guns are then assessed an additional cost for proof in the destination proof law zone. And somehow guns from outside the proof law zone have proof laws vigorously applied while guns from inside the proof law zone have lax application of the proof laws. The intent is not to prevent the entry of foreign made guns. Rather the intent is to raise the cost of foreign made guns above the cost of local product. Not hard to do if many foreign made guns fail proof (and are a total loss.) England has been infamous for this kind of trade chicanery for generations. Anyone old enough to remember when England tried to discredit guns from foreign countries that passed English proof? For the young fellows, England required all foreign made firearms to be marked “Not English Make” (i.e. “Made By Wogs”). Here is an example, a Czech made .22 target pistol that was imported into England during that period:
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,831 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,831 Likes: 13 |
I think The Rock has the perfect response to that post: Oh BrotherOWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 11/20/14 07:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Having grown up in the UK and started my hunting and target shooting "career" there I cannot see any advantage the British could have gained over imports through the proof process. Their products were already priced out of the mass market or non existent, as in the case of clay specific guns.
A look at the Gunmark catalogs of the time, probably the largest importer, is revealing of the market dominace of imports. And it was not a matter of price either. At a time when a new Auto 5 cost about the same as a used Dickson Round Action more UK buyers preferred the Auto 5.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
[quote=Kyrie]
The intent is not to prevent the entry of foreign made guns. Rather the intent is to raise the cost of foreign made guns above the cost of local product.
[quote]
The United States did the same thing via tariffs, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
....this is how proof laws/houses work as trade barriers....
....England has been infamous for this kind of trade chicanery for generations.
Anyone old enough to remember when England tried to discredit guns from foreign countries that passed English proof? For the young fellows, England required all foreign made firearms to be marked “Not English Make” (i.e. “Made By Wogs”). Here is an example, a Czech made .22 target pistol that was imported into England during that period:.... Very interesting example. Correct me if I'm wrong, the significant requirement for any firearm to be in proof is to be lawfully registered and subject to ownership, possession and transfer laws. I hope the British gunsmiths can figure this issue out, rather than give up.
|
|
|
|
|