Originally Posted By: El Garro


--- snip ---
Is there any evidence to back up the statement that sub standard guns were being passed ?
No messenger shooting, just wondered


From Small Bore's post:

Originally Posted By: Small Bore


--- snip ---
The Gunsmiths’ Tale
A well known dealer, with a busy repair shop recounted the sad story of his ‘sleevers'. He told me he has, for years, been submitting sleeved guns for re-proof after completing the necessary work. He has up-to-date chamber reamers from the USA and is sending his work to the proof house now, as he has done for over a decade, expecting the proof process to be carried out without mishap and have the guns returned with new proof marks. Last month a batch failed. He re-submitted them and they failed again. The first reason cited was shorter chambers than required, then they failed again because the diameter was deemed outside of required tolerances.

He has had identically prepared guns passed on a regular basis until now, using the same reamers and gauges. Suddenly, it is all change at the proof house and what was passable in June is a fail in September. Something has apparently changed. What?

Another long-established Birmingham gun-smith has totally given up on re-proof jobs due to recent failures and what he considers inconsistent regulations. “It is simply not worth the hassle anymore”, he said. Now he simply turns away any work that requires re-proof.

Another gun smith told me the “newly dogmatic application of CIP rules” was a hindrance to doing the job correctly, in his opinion. He had delivered a rifle with the rim cut precisely for the headspace he wanted and thought optimal for striking but had it rejected as ‘too shallow’, despite the head fitting exactly flush, as befitting best work.
--- snip ---


This last bit is especially demonstrative:

“Another gun smith told me the “newly dogmatic application of CIP rules” was a hindrance to doing the job correctly, in his opinion. He had delivered a rifle with the rim cut precisely for the headspace he wanted and thought optimal for striking but had it rejected as ‘too shallow’, despite the head fitting exactly flush, as befitting best work.”

C.I.P. sets the minimum and maximum range of headspace. The gunsmith quoted/paraphrased above was accustomed to substituting his judgment for C.I.P. required dimensions and having the proof house aid and abet his failure to adhere to C.I.P. standards.



Last edited by Kyrie; 11/19/14 03:13 PM.