Forums.NitroExpress.com

This is an extremely interesting thread!

I am a member of the South African Proof House’s Technical Committee , the Standards generating body for Gunsmiths and South African Firearms Manufactures Forum as I would rather be part of the solution than have some “idiot” make a decision for me.

We defiantly have two camps regarding proof testing: Those in favour and those who think it is an outdated and archaic practice (with most of the firearm importers and dealers being in this camp).

In South Africa according to the Standards Act we are required by law submit all nitro firearms for proof testing at the Firearms Proof House at the South African Bureau of Standards (S.A.B.S.) in Pretoria. We have our own proofing standards but they are essentially an overwrite of the C.I.P. Standards (we are not members of C.I.P. though we have applied on numerous occasions to become members).

As a small manufacturer and gunsmith I am in favour of proof testing as our production runs are small or one offs and we do not have the luxury of qualifying the design as one would in say a military production or a large civilian production run (say like Remington would). I believe that all firearms that are built (or have had structural repairs, rebarrels, etc) should be proof tested as part of your quality control, it helps identify problems like occlusions in barrels, poor headspace, etc and helps ensure that you put out a safe, quality product.

There are many dealers, gunsmiths and individuals here who do not agree with me being in favour of proof testing and would love to have me “hung drawn and quartered” for being in favour of it. I am of the opinion that the primary reason they do not like it is that it adds costs and is inconvenient to do.

When we started manufacturing our muzzleloaders we wanted to submit them for a VOLENTARY superior proof along with our nitro firearms to the S.A.B.S. it created a massive negative wave from a certain sector of our firearm society as if I (an alleged well known and respected gunmaker) thought it was a good idea to proof test our muzzleloaders (not a current legal requirement) the powers that be (read South African Police’s Firearm Registry) would possibly consider amending our Standards Act to include the proof testing of new and used muzzleloaders.

The S.A.B.S. proof testing procedure is basically as follows:

• Undertake a visual inspection, including chamber and bore dimensions.
• Fire two proof cartridges (30% above maximum commercial). If they do not have proof cartridges they will add 10% more of the same powder to a cartridge or use a bullet that weighs 10% more.
• Fire a commercial cartridge
• Undertake a visual inspection, including chamber and bore dimensions.

If the firearm is still within the required specification they will apply their proof mark if not it is rejected. If the firearm is damaged or destroyed during proof testing bad luck you lose and if you feel they erred take them to court (been there done that).

As they, the S.A.B.S. feel it is imposable (?) to blow up a muzzleloader along with said negativity they have to date refused to voluntarily proof test our muzzleloaders, despite our Standards Act allowing for it as they claim not to have the expertise so we do a factory proof on them which comprises of the following:

• Visual inspection
• Fire a maximum recommended load e.g. 500 gr FFg and a patched 4 oz ball in the 4 bore
• Fire a proof load; 500 br FFg and a DOUBLE 4 oz ball in the 4 bore
• Fire a maximum recommended load e.g. 500 gr FFg and a patched 4 oz ball in the 4 bore
• Visual inspection

If the gun or rifle is still within specification we complete it.

This will always be a controversial topic but manufactures and gunsmiths do need to test their product and services in order to keep you the shooting public safe and themselves safe from the lawyers mentioned so I for one will always be in favour of proof testing.

--------------------
Life is too short to shoot ugly guns

Post Extras