Proof Marks......

[Peter5761]

CIP with Italian 2014 proof mark on my Longbranch probably imported from the Italian Navy stock they were given at the end of the war.Euroarms or Pedersoli (not clear who) tried to match guns to bolts and were successful about 50% of the time.
Looks newish with little or no useage marks.
If you buy a Longbranch from Henry Kranks it will in all probability have the CIP and a lettered date in a Square next to it.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[mrclark303]

Yep product liability Geoff, if people realised the personal liability they had
(even as an employee) they wouldn't sleep at night!

I remember being briefed on product liability when I worked for VAG 25 years ago, we were told several horror story test cases to drive the point home...

[Mk VII]

The Proof House has a vested interest in proving things as often as possible so that they get paid all over again. Recently they tried to persuade the government that everything should be reproved every time it changed hands so that they could make money out of it.

[Buccaneer]

Recently they tried to persuade the government that everything should be reproved every time it changed hands so that they could make money out of it.[/quote]

I quite agree about the proof house making money as they seem reject rifles that in the past would have flown through.
Their favorite is "headspace", a gunsmith friend of mine has recently had guns returned with "excessive" headspace given for the reason for rejection even though he double checks every gun before it goes and he uses exactly the same gauges as he has always done.
It is impossible to argue with the proof house as they hold all of the cards and there is always a danger that "trouble makers" will find themselves at the back of the queue when it comes to getting stuff through the system, the only thing to do is keep quiet and take it on the chin.
I am not sure where the little gem in the above quote came from, but this is the first I have heard of such a proposal and I am sure that it would have gone round the trade circles as it would have been impossible to implement as the proof houses can't cope with the workload they already have.
I think it was probably just a good rumour to start by someone who got very p155ed off with the proof house, but then again I could be wrong................

[Lee Enfield]

The Proof House has a vested interest in proving things as often as possible so that they get paid all over again. Recently they tried to persuade the government that everything should be reproved every time it changed hands so that they could make money out of it.

The fact of the matter is that over (standard) pressure "proof firing" weakens and damages firearms by reducing their service life.

There has been much discussion & study regarding this in US discussion forums, specifically relating the the USGI requirement to proof fire M16 bolts.

Any "requirement" to repeatedly expose a firearm to such treatment defies logic, and any "liability reduction" thereby is simply a figment of the imagination (and again a defiance of logic & sanity).

[Peter Laidler]

Rifles that have been gauged with calibrated gauges, submitted with the current/in date calibration certiificates issued by the calibration department have been failed. ........... Nope..., I don't understand it either! Maybe someone ought to ask to see their certified calibration certificates. It's like being booked for speeding and the cops refuse to allow you to see or verify the accuracy of the cop car speedo. It'd be laughed out of court. But when you are a law unto yourself................