|
|
|
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
Topics38,443
Posts544,800
Members14,405
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,982 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,982 Likes: 106 |
Larry Brown mentioned in a different thread that Kirk Merrington does not stamp his sleeving jobs as 'sleeved'. This would be illegal in England as the gun would be required by law to undergo reproof as a sleeved gun and would have to be stamped as 'sleeved'. Here in the USA it is perfectly legal and legitimate not to stamp the gun as 'sleeved'. Likewise, lenghthening chambers in the US is perfectly legal without reproof. In the UK by law this gun too would have to be submitted for reproof. The same applies to 'backboring'. Usually I will vote for smaller government for any issue but I think something like a proof house should exist in the US for safety reasons and to prevent fraud. Any thoughts?
Last edited by buzz; 12/07/11 09:59 AM. Reason: clarification
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 683
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 683 |
NO! It would cost for proof, take lots of time since we have more guns than anyone else, and add a level of government we currently do not have.
If guns were blowing up, I might consider it. But as is, I would be strongly opposed to putting proof of a gun in a vast government bureacracy. Look how well other gvt. agencies work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 714 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 714 Likes: 9 |
I was just hoping that old double guns would get more expensive for no reason.
CHAZ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,739 Likes: 97
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,739 Likes: 97 |
ifn hit aint broke...don fix hit!
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
 I thought we had a poof house 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,850
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,850 |
We do jOe. We just duct tape the SOB to a tire, tie a string on the triggers, and let someone else pull the string.
Practice safe eating. Always use a condiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021 |
If we had to send our guns to the government to prove that is was safe to shoot we would bore them out, modify them ourselves. Its none of the governments business what guns we have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,982 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,982 Likes: 106 |
Doug: I can see that this discussion regarding a proof house is unpopular with you and I knew prior to starting this thread it would be unpopular with many. But, the reality is there are UNSAFE guns out there. I am not worried about you or me or many others of this forum. We understand guns and know things (eg, barrel wall thickness less than .020 " is NOT terribly safe) that other more ignorant people don't know. Golly, there are people of this forum who think sleeving is synonymous with a monobloc. My point is there are people selling unsafe guns either because of ignorance or unscrupulous and unethical behavior. A proof house would serve to protect the unsuspecting consumer.
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
