Combining a DP Enfield, a Shooter and a Gunsmith ended up with catastrophic failure!

[Thunderbox]

Just a historical question for our US cousins:

Proof testing & marking of firearms seems such an obvious precaution that it has been law across most of Europe and Russia since the 17th/18th centuries - I'd guess it must be one of the oldest forms of government quality certification still going. Most countries also made certification of the firearms the legal liability of the vendor.

How is it that the US - especially with its huge firearms market - never introduced either a federal compulsory testing regime or specific liability to gun dealers? Early US administrations quickly copied virtually all other aspects of government controls, so it seems strange that firearms proof wasn't included. It doesn't even seem to be an issue of State or personal freedom - the common-sense need for proof has never been contentious in any kind of society across the rest of the world.

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.

[Peter Laidler]

I know it's off track a bit Thunderbox, but this case wasn't to do with proofing, but (and sorry to say it again Joe.......) but all to do with what we call ' the bleedin obvious.....'

[Old Joe]

but all to do with what we call ' the bleedin obvious.....'

I believe to many "The bleeding obvious" is defined by their familiiarity with the situation or item in question. No doubt your expertise and passion for the Enfield and perhaps fire arms in general has made you a poor choice for the "bleeding obvious" when it comes to an amateur Milsurp enthusiast and his thoughts when he handles an Enfield for the first time. I do feel confident as I lay my weary head on the pillow each night that the 'The Bleeding Obvious" was not obvious to the old gun smith who worked the weapon before me, or the middle man who had them militerized, or even the gunshop owner who handled the weapon before me..all of which together must have some 120 years of fire arm exsperience. As the middleman blathered his false pedigree about DP Enfields, and I stuffed the bore light in the chamber peering down the muzzle at an incredible bore it never came to my mind.."Hey I bet someone drilled through the chamber of this nice rifle." And looking down the muzzle with a bore light you cannot see the holes. I also cannot recreate the stock and its partial coverage of them before the weapon fired or my utter confidence in the people who had handled the weapon before me. Bringing it home the next day I simply ran a bore brush through a spotless rifle and sprayed the action with a little Remington oil, after all a competent gun smith had just worked the weapon and I had two more rifles to get ready for the range. I may have handled this weapon a half hour at most before I fired it. You were not there when I handled the weapon,you are not in the least familiar with the qualifications or lack there of of the people I interacted with, and last but not least you are unfamiliar with the lighting and length in which I handled the weapon. I think what is obvious is that with a little bad luck and mis information this Dp Enfield could have bitten a few more people than me. Don't worry Peter your still special in this little forum without tearing people down...Old Joe

[Badger]

Thread Closed to Posting !!

Ok, so I'm going to close this thread down now, as I think that after 8 pages, everything that could have been said, has been said .... and we're now into repeating ourselves ....

Good thread and good lessons to be remembered by everyone ....

A big thank you to everyone for contributing their questions and opinions to the thread's content ...

Regards,
Doug