Why have a firearm inspected by a qualified gunsmith?

[Der Stro]

Whenever I purchase a used firearm from a 3rd party, it usually comes with the warning to have a qualified gunsmith inspect the firearm to be sure it is safe and won't turn into a grenade when you pull the trigger. I understand this is probably just there as a legal disclaimer, however short of using x-ray/ultrasound technology to check the receiver strength, checking the headspace, and visually inspecting the firearm for obvious damage, is there any thing I'm missing? I'm not a professional gunsmith, but if I can do all that minus the x-ray from the comfort of my workbench and feel confident in my work and opinion, is there any real need to have a professional inspect the weapon?

Always sort of wondered, thanks for any information

 

[Old Fuff]

You are right about it being a legal disclaimer, used by sellers to protect themselves when selling used guns, especially older ones is less then perfect shape.

A gunsmith is unlikely to go as far as x-raying, but they can sometimes spot problems - real or potential - that an ordinary buyer might not notice.

Sort of like having a good mechanic check out a used car before you buy it.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think it has come in with the Internet Age.
The majority of posters are very conservative in their advice.
Perhaps they are concerned that an adventurous post will be tracked down and they will be sued.

For example, before the Internet, none of us thought it necessary to check the headspace of a surplus rifle to be shot with surplus ammunition. I never heard of injury or demolished $19.50 Slobbovian Mausers.

 

[06]

Have always thought that a man should be able to look carefully, check closely, and inspect for deformaties himself.

 

[Telekinesis]

It is just a legal disclaimer as more of a CYA than anything else. I've never really understood it because unless they say something about it being an "antique" or "non-firing prop", there is the implied warranty of serviceability that the gun is actually useful for its intended purpose, shooting things.

I think its more of a "it makes me feel better" kind of thing as a seller.

 

[simmonsguns]

Inspection?

It helps the shooters that don't know how there gun works or even how to take it appart without breaking the poor thing. to most of us it's a simple thing to figure out what's wrong and fix it.
Now in 15 years working for simmons with thousand's of repairs under my belt i have never had a gun explode when test firing, i have had my share of locked up actions, swelled cases and bic lighter springs used anywhere they would fit.
While most of this is simple to repair or at least there is a plan there for repair, if anything it helps the new owner not spend a lott of money on fixing what does not need to be fixed in the first place.
At least here people ask questions if they don't know how to fix it or if they want to modifiy there firearm.

 

[bigedp51]

Der Stro

I collect British .303 Enfield rifles and in the process learned a great deal about how the British and Commonwealth countries handle the sale of firearms.

Here in the U.S. a importer is not required to inspect or reproof a milsurp rifle like the military .303 Enfield rifle. In the U.K. a milsurp or commercial rifle would have to be inspected and proof fired before the weapon could be re-sold.

"The Proof Acts lay down that no small arm may be sold, exchanged or exported, exposed or kept for sale or exchange or pawned unless and until it has been fully proved and duly marked."

The Proof and Testing of Firearms, Birmingham Proof House, U.K.

http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html

Under the older British proof testing system two proof rounds would be fired, one dry proof round to proof the barrel and a oiled proof round to proof the bolt and action. Note, an oiled cartridge delivers twice the bolt thrust as a dry cartridge to put maximum pressure on the bolt and receiver. (Maximum thrust on locking lugs and receiver lug recesses)

Under the new system only a dry proof cartridge is fired when reproofing firearms because repeated use of the oiled proof cartridge was over stressing and damaging the firearms causing lug setback and excess headspace.

So there you have it, some might call it overkill in the U.K. and here in the U.S. its Caveat emptor - "Let the buyer beware".

Below, this rebuilt 1916 Enfield below was re-proofed by the British before it was exported to the U.S. for sale.



Caveat emptor and stupidity below.

An American bought two deactivated non-firing drill purpose Enfield rifles (sold as wall hangers) and took the bolts to a local gunsmith who replaced the welded bolt head and firing pin.



Then this American took these two Enfield rifles to the local gun store and had his buddy sell one of them. The problem was the kid who bought the Enfield rifle blew his thumb off the first time he fired the rifle.



Two half inch holes had been drilled into either side of the chamber on these British "deactivated" drill purpose rifles and this idiot put them back into firing condition. Caveat emptor - "Let the buyer beware".

When buying a used firearm you have "NO" idea what the owner before you did to the rifle you are going to buy, so "YOU" better know what you are doing or find someone who does.
(and any idiot can hang a Gunsmith shingle up)

 

[Jim K]

I agree with both views. I have owned, collected, and worked on many guns. I have been a professional gunsmith. I think (OK, OK) I am as well qualified as anyone to determine if a gun is safe to fire, and I would hardly need to "take it to a gunsmith."

Yet, as Biged51's post shows, not everyone is capable of evaluating a gun for safety. Not only did the owner not understand what he had, but a so-called "gunsmith" reactivated those bolts and bears most of the responsibility for what happened. I would not consider him a "qualified" gunsmith; he should have realized that the bolts were deliberately made inoperable and either not done the work or checked further.

Just one note: The original purpose of the English proof laws was not so much to protect the customer as to protect the monopoly of the London Gunmakers guild. Only members could submit arms for proof, and without proof an arm could not be sold. That froze out imports as well as "county" gun makers. Things changed later, but the original law had little relation to consumer protection. Of course they got that monopoly the old fashioned way - they bribed the King.

That SMLE was not proved before it was exported. It was proved when it was sold out of government stores. As the wording of the law says, it had to be proved before it was offered for sale, either to an exporter or for sale within the U.K. Military arms, unless altered, did not require reproof if they had been proved by the military, but it was often done nevertheless, and it is common to see commercial proof marks right beside the crossed pennants.

Jim

 

[bigedp51]

That SMLE was not proved before it was exported. It was proved when it was sold out of government stores. As the wording of the law says, it had to be proved before it was offered for sale, either to an exporter or for sale within the U.K. Military arms, unless altered, did not require reproof if they had been proved by the military, but it was often done nevertheless, and it is common to see commercial proof marks right beside the crossed pennants.

Jim

When my 1916 Enfield was made it was proofed with two proof test rounds, one dry and one oiled. After proofing the Enfield was checked with a .067 headspace gage, if the bolt closed on the .067 gage the Enfield failed proofing due to excessive lug setback. It was again proofed in 1953 with two proof rounds and stamped 18.5 tons for its rated chamber pressure of 46,000 cup or 49,00 psi for export as required by law. It does not mater if the military proofed the rifle, when exported it had to pass civilian proofing standards.

I also had a 1950 unissued Canadian Long Branch Enfield rifle that was exported to Turkey, this Enfield rifle was proofed in Canada when made and reproofed again in the U.K. on its way back to Canada. The Enfield was proofed twice and was never issued and was kept in storage in Turkey, BUT as required by British law it was reproofed before it could return to Canada for sale on the surplus market.

On the other hand I had a 1943 Maltby No.4 Enfield rifle the British gave to the Turkish military. This Turkish Enfield never had a British armourer touch it and it was used hard and put away wet meaning repaired by unemployed Turkish hammer and chisel bicycle mechanics.(Untrained Enfield armourers) This Enfield was "Caveat emptor" and it was purchased by a importer and sent to the U.S. without being inspected or reproofed. It was gone over with a critical eye by me and test fired with low powered reloads with the chamber pressure increased gradually with 20 test rounds.

Bottom line, I would rather have the British 18.5 Tons re-inspection and proof marks for peace of mind and knowing it had been checked by experts than no proof marks at all.

Jim K, if the rifle changes hands in the U.K. it is re-inspected and reproofed before the sale to protect the buyer by British law, here in the U.S. a firearm is only proofed once when made and is not required to be inspected or functionally tested before it is re-sold. To go a little further the linseed oil or BLO used to oil the stock in the U.K. is non-toxic, BUT here in the U.S. 95% of all American made BLO is toxic and rubber gloves must be worn to apply it. This is called "deregulation" in the U.S. so the big boys can make more money at our expense under health and safety regulations that are much stricter in Commonwealth countries.

 

[Jim K]

I don't think you are correct that a gun has to be re-proved every time it changes hands, and the law does not say that. It says an unproved gun can't be sold. It doesn't say a gun has to be proved every time it is sold; that would be nonsense and older guns would have dozens of sets of proof marks on them. A gun does have to be re-proved if it is altered in a way that would affect safety (rechambering to a different caliber, for example.)

And again, the law says nothing about proving for export. Those ex-military guns were proved when they were sold by the government. The government didn't care whether they were to be sold in the UK or exported - if they needed proved, they were proved. U.S. guns sent over under Lend Lease were routinely proven when sold out of depots, because the U.S. has no recognized proof law or proof marks, so the guns were considered as unproven.

Jim

 

[bigedp51]

Jim K

Until you contact and ask someone in the U.K. then your doing nothing but guessing and making assumptions. I also stated that they stopped reproofing with the oiled proof round because damage was being done to firearms that were being resold and re-proofed multiple times.

Reread below and understand the words exchanged, sold, pawned, etc.

"The Proof Acts lay down that no small arm may be sold, exchanged or exported, exposed or kept for sale or exchange or pawned unless and until it has been fully proved and duly marked."

If an individual sells or pawns one of their firearms the firearm must be inspected and reproofed before the firearm can be resold to another individual.

I will say it again, they stopped reproofing mutable times with oiled proof cartridges because repeated proofing in this manor was damaging the firearms being tested. This damage from oiled proof cartridges can't be done unless the firearms are being reproofed.

The British Government along with the British NRA just past a ruling that converted No.4 Enfield to 7.62 NATO and the 7.62 L42 Enfield sniper rifles and civilian Envoy rifles were to be reproofed to CIP standards before they can be continued to be used in competition. These are not rifles that have changed hands, they are still owned by the same people. The main controversy on this is because many of these rifle were re-barreled by their owners and were not proof tested when re-barreled.

 

[aminyard]

Just another example of a repressive government trying to restict firearms ownership by the "common man".

 

[Jim K]

Well, I did spend some time in the UK and once knew quite a few gun owners there. It is possible things have changed, but I don't think so. It seems your information is coming from your erroneous interpretation of that single sentence. The statement is true. A gun cannot be sold unless it has been proven, but it need be proven only once, at manufacture; it need not be proven again unless altered.

As in the U.S. many guns in the UK are sold and re-sold; older guns might have had a dozen owners. Could you show us some pictures of guns with that many sets of proof marks?

Jim

 

[aminyard]

Having a gun "proven" or "reproven", whether by the manufacturer or as a result of modification (all of my guns have been "modified" at one point or another) is a costly and onerous legal hoop that they are forced to jump through. It goes back to the days when the idea of an armed "commoner" was anathema to the "upper crust". A government that still has "royalty" and a "house of lords" can never be trusted!!!

 

[rocky branch]

While a lot of smiths might not have a broad knowledge of rare or unusual pieces, it won't hurt to get an examination of a piece that has been modified or you are unfamiliar with.

Sorry to say I often ignore my own advice.

 

[bigedp51]

Jim K

If you would read the links I provided you would be better informed and not doubt what I'm talking about. One individual I have corresponded with is British living in German and had to wait while his No.5 Enfield was reproofed after he bought it. I will say it one more time, when a firearm is resold or changes hands the firearm MUST be reinspected and reproofed for the safety of the new buyer.

The firearms proofing and inspections standards for reproofing are much stricter in the U.K. and Europe. A used milsurp can not be sold in the U.K. and Europe until it is inspected and reproofed.

The Proof and Testing of Firearms

Purpose and brief history

Proof is the compulsory and statutory testing of every new shotgun or other small arm before sale to ensure, so far as it is practicable, its safety in the hands of the user. Reproof is the similar testing of a small arm which has previously been proved. Both necessarily involve the firing through the barrel of a considerably heavier load than is customary in the shooting field, thereby setting up pressure and stress on barrel and action much in excess of the pressure generated by standard load cartridges. Such pressure should, and is intended to, disclose weakness in guns, whether new or used, for it is preferable that weakness be found at a Proof House rather than in the field, where personal injury may result.

Birmingham Proof House
http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html

 

[CraigC]

Some idiots do need to be saved from themselves. I'm not one of them.

 

[killertom]

bigedp51,

I'm sorry to say you are misinformed. I live in Europe and I can tell you that according to CIP regulations proof marks and certificates have a validity. Where I live for example, proof certificates are usually valid for 10 years. After that, the gun in question has to be submitted for inspection, or if deemed necessary, re-proofing. But there is absoluetely no need to reproof a gun every time it changes hands, and this is valid in all CIP member states (Great Britain being one of them.).

 

[gamestalker]

Wow, I am so glad I live in a free country that doesn't insist on knowing when I buy a firearm from another law abiding citizen. In my home state we don't have to do any paper work to buy, carry, or even conceal a firearm. I wonder what restrcitions are placed on those who reload in the UK, if reloading is even legal without proofing the loads first by the Government, and then placing a stamp of approval on the head of each round?