An explosively dismantled Enfeld

[RobD]

OK, we all agree we "should be able" to see a deliberately-drilled hole. And it's our own lookout if we don't.
Most of the blown-up actions shown on this forum were those in which metal fatigue or other invisible processes were at work. We have been fortunate to have owned and shot WW1 and WW2 -era rifles in a strong condition, with obvious clues to how many rounds have been put through them. But our kids and their kids etc. may well still be bolt-action enthusiasts, and the rifles will be a lot older - maybe rebarrelled several times... but with pressure-bearing parts which have gone around the block an unquantifiable number of times.
So my Q is: At what point in a rifle's life is it prudent to re-proof? And how is that done? (both in the UK and elsewhere?)

[jmoore]

Most of the blown-up actions shown on this forum were those in which metal fatigue or other invisible processes were at work.

Really??? Show references to verify this statement.

[RobD]

Sorry, jmoore I wish I hadn't posted that question. Obviously I don't have references. I'll be careful not to ask such questions in future.

[jmoore]

I would be satisified with any example, because I just don't remember one. Broken firing pins, springs and bolt heads we have plenty of known examples? But a high cycle "fatigue" induced catastrophic failure for any milsurp? Probably would be US M1 carbine related, if I had to take a guess at a "prime suspect". Even when M16s shed locking lugs, they seem to keep running after the fact.

[jmoore]

Sorry, jmoore I wish I hadn't posted that question. Obviously I don't have references. I'll be careful not to ask such questions in future.

Your question is valid and worthy of discussion, but the lead-in statement is inflammatory enough to require substantiating evidence.

[Peter Laidler]

For several reasons, I don't think it's wise to EVER reproof something once it's been there already

[jmoore]

That's the simple answer! Maybe best left that way?