|
|
|
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
Topics38,537
Posts546,033
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 206
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 206 |
Rob
It sounds a good idea but it would have to be backed by the law as it is in the UK. No one would have their guns proofed if they did not have to by law. In the UK it is illegal to offer a gun for sale if it is out of proof or unproofed but you can own and use a gun that is out of proof.
I don't know about Canada I have never been there on gun business. I just go there salmon fishing to BC.
John Foster
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,688 Likes: 31
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,688 Likes: 31 |
Hey guys, these Proof masters are not Green Martians with Super Powers you know.
The Proof loads data that they subject the barrels/actions to are readily available in a DVD available from The Birmingham Proof House. You reloaders could then conjure up your own proof loads, subject your guns to the pain and then inspect for signs of damage.After all you guys don't have proof laws so it makes good sense to be happy you are not going to get a finger full of barrel next time you shoot your little beauty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16 |
No offense to anyone in particular, but the thought of govenment mandated proof testing of used guns is offensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,041 Likes: 49
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,041 Likes: 49 |
Chuck, it's my understanding that firearms are specifically excluded from consumer protection laws in the US.
Your feelings on the subject are not unique.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Personally I think the Proof Laws always have been & still are more for the benefit of the "Maker" than the consumer.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
Personally I think the Proof Laws always have been & still are more for the benefit of the "Maker" than the consumer. Why do you think this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021 |
Post deleted, it was a stupid thing to say anyway!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
As I understand it they were originated by the "Gunmakers" in order to weed put "Cheap" shotguns which were cutting into their market. They I think felt these cheap guns would fail proof & be removed from the market. In this they were only marginally successful I believe as many did pass proof. Further any gun which had successfully passed proof limited the maker's libility in case of a failure.
Having lived my entire life in a nation sans proof laws I will have to say the vast majority of "Questionable" guns as to safety & integrity, have been imported from nations which does have proof laws. I in no way feel handicapped because the US does NOT have them.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
