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
|
|
|
2 members (dogon, 1 invisible),
271
guests, and
5
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,518
Posts545,710
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3 |
What it seems to be is this:
Governments sign up to CIP (which, you are correct, is primarily interested in safety).
The Proof Houses were set up by Act of Parliament to govern the safety of small arms.
--- snip -- Permit me a dissention. The primary goal of national proof laws, and national proof houses, is to establish trade barriers that protect local industry. The secondary goal of proof laws/houses is to provide income to the agency that establishes/controls the proof houses. The tertiary goal of proof laws/houses is prevent dangerously shoddy products from reaching the market. The primary goal of C.I.P., as an organization, was and is the removal of the Euro zone trade barriers that were imposed by the creation of proof laws/houses. The establishment of a common and enforceable set of commercial firearm and commercial ammunition manufacturing standards is purely the mechanism by which C.I.P. eliminates any technical reason for trade barriers between C.I.P. signatories.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,383 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,383 Likes: 106 |
The problem with CIP is that you have a bunch of countries, many of which have had proofhouses for a very long time, but all have continued to use their own proofmarks.
The British continued to use their own system of measurement for proofmarks (tons, which was actually service pressure rather than proof pressure) and could not be converted to anything anyone could really understand if you multiplied by either regular or long tons). CIP converted to the metric system and started expressing proof pressure in kg or bars (although most CIP countries, with the exception of the UK and Spain, didn't use a proofmark with a numerical value). However, at that time, they were still taking their pressure readings via the old lead/copper crusher method. And even though they converted to electronic transducers, they continued to use the same (crusher value) proofmarks. A bit confusing, to say the least.
As a result of the most recent change in CIP proof rules (2006), there are no longer any numerical proofmarks denoting either proof or service pressure. You have STD (standard), the old 850 bars as measured by crusher but 960 bars as measured by transducer, or SUP (superior) which is the old magnum proof.
Which proofhouse does it better? Well, I am aware of a new Spanish sidelock, from one of that country's top makers, which suffered a "catastrophic failure" in the form of a burst barrel, doing some damage to the shooter. Again, new gun with new factory ammo appropriate for the gun in question. Seems that gun passed Spanish proof with a wall thickness in the thin spot, where it blew, of well below .020. I own and have owned both Spanish and British doubles, and have no ax to grind one way or the other. But based on that alone, I certainly wouldn't go overboard acting as a cheerleader for the Spanish Proofhouse.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Interesting fact is that shotguns from non CIP member countries, some very cheap and rough shotguns, make it succesfully through proof in all CIP jurisdictions.
Which sort of raises questions about those that are made by prestigious makers but fail view or proof, and the effectiveness of Proof as a trade barrier.
Some familiar makes are Boito, Norinco, Miroku, Rossi, Magtech and all US made shotguns. Somewhat surprising that the above factories have the latest tooling and procedures that guarantee first time success in the Proof houses.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 388 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 388 Likes: 4 |
Who sets the manufacturing standards? C.I.P.? Or every gunsmith from a town large enough to have a crossroads?
Who came up with the C.I.P. standards, and why are those better than the gunsmith's, who may or may not be from a town large enough to have a crossroads?
“I left long before daylight, alone but not lonely.”~Gordon Macquarrie
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3 |
Who came up with the C.I.P. standards, and why are those better than the gunsmith's, who may or may not be from a town large enough to have a crossroads?
Google it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 388 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 388 Likes: 4 |
Who came up with the C.I.P. standards, and why are those better than the gunsmith's, who may or may not be from a town large enough to have a crossroads?
Google it. That's what I thought your reply would be. Good luck with your Spanish shotgun forum.
“I left long before daylight, alone but not lonely.”~Gordon Macquarrie
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 497 Likes: 3 |
Who came up with the C.I.P. standards, and why are those better than the gunsmith's, who may or may not be from a town large enough to have a crossroads?
Google it. That's what I thought your reply would be. Good luck with your Spanish shotgun forum. Thank you :-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,733 Likes: 492
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,733 Likes: 492 |
Is the problem with reproofing old guns going to make it very hard to get a gun reproofed at all? It sounds like more than a few gunsmiths are so disgusted by the number of failures of what they do not consider to be marginal guns that they are going to stop even offering to have them reproofed if not strictly required. I understand the law is the law but if smiths do not want to take on jobs which will require reproof then many old guns may become wall decorations.
I have bought a few guns at auction and from dealers over the years which I had reproofed after purchase, mostly black to nitro type reproofs. Each was done on a case by case basis and all passed. Old Damascus barrels are not to be under estimated in quality and strength. From the horror stories I have heard lately I would either not even buy them in the first place or just not risk a reproof.
As to the small town gunsmith remark I would never underestimate the quality of the work based on address. I knew a "small" town gunsmith who took a 20 Ga. POS, Spanish double and converted it into a .444 double rifle. It would cut figure eights at 100 yards with the first two shots with a cold barrel using a decent scope. Ten shot groups were in the three inch range as they started to open up the grouping when the gun heated up. Right barrel and left barrel were perfectly converged at 100 yards and he had the load figured out that it was as deadly as the man behind it. And the .444 is no varmint gun.
It showed me that if you took care to get the gun setup right, match bullet to rifling and velocity, accuracy can be greatly improved. That gunsmith worked out of a small shop, with what we call outdated equipment in the backwaters. It is the arrow not the Indian or the size of his tent.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 364 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 445 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 445 Likes: 47 |
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. Ship them over here. If I'm satisfied that the barrel wall thickness is appropriate from breech to muzzle I'll shoot it. Another reason to get government out of as many facets of our lives as possible. As for the new Spanish gun that passed proof and still blew a barrel - ask Takata about their airbags that have killed several people - airbags as mandated by government. I'll be 66 in 6 weeks and I have very many hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) miles of driving and have a history of spelunking, rock climbing, solo backpacking, SCUBA diving, skydiving, and I still fly airplanes for fun. Everything we do has risks - firearms blowing up are among the least of them. Get government out of my life and let me decide on the risks that I'll take.
Last edited by FlyChamps; 11/19/14 11:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|