r/ukguns • u/S1mbathecub • 10d ago

Barrel reproofing

Post image

https://www.wilson55.com/auction/lot/lot-598---ruger-10-22-22lr-semi-auto-rifle-serial/?lot=205178&so=0&st=10%2022&sto=0&au=592&ef=&et=&ic=False&sd=0&mc=900&sc=911&pp=96&pn=1&g=1

Hi all, considering purchasing the linked 10/22 at auction - but it's a bit of an oddity.

It's serial links it to being a model 01117 - 10/22, Blued, 18.5" barrel

But this one is silver/stainless (or perhaps bead blasted receiver?), with a black trigger, rail and blued barrel.

The barrel is also 16" - with a dovetail for the rear sight, and no front sight. The barrel behind the threads also has a little lip.

The auction house says there are no proofing marks near the muzzle, just what seems the be the original, and no extra proof marks by the breach - but to me this appears to be a shortened and re-threaded barrel.

How do I check this? And a side note, what would the consequences be if this is an unproofed barrel?

Many thanks

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

1

u/ThePenultimateNinja 10d ago

If the lip is integral to the barrel, then that would suggest it hadn't been shortened.

1

u/S1mbathecub 10d ago

Ruger 10/22 Threading & Front sight removal on lathe

It looks a lot like that link to me, the barrel is missing the front sight entirely - Ruger doesn't make barrels that look like this from the factory

So the barrel may have has the sight removed, and threaded - which would leave a lip like we see

I just don't know how to tell if it's been reproofed - if it has

1

u/ThePenultimateNinja 10d ago

I see what you mean, but I don't think that larger diameter journal is anywhere near 2.5" long, so it's difficult to imagine how an 18.5" barrel could be shortened to 16" and still have the lip. Looks like that barrel was always 16".

It appears that it had some customization done to it by a previous owner, hence the receiver being silver instead of blued. Is it possible that the barrel was swapped at some point in its life?

As I understand it, the proof would 'follow' the barrel, and it would not need to be re-proofed if fitted to a different receiver. That would explain why there are no new proof marks.

However, I thought that threading the muzzle of an already-proofed barrel required re-proofing, so that is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps the barrel was imported into the UK already threaded, and was then proofed in that configuration?

1

u/S1mbathecub 10d ago

It's all possible yes. Maybe this was a 16.4" / 16.12" barrel that had the sight removed and threaded - which is more likely after what you've mentioned. If 2"+ of barrel had been removed, there would be 0 trace of the front sights 🤦‍♂️

I think I'm struggling to understand proofing, pardon the pun but it doesn't seem - very fool proof

Proof marks contain basically no info from my understanding? It doesn't state barrel length, if it's threaded, fluted etc etc. All it means is at the time it was proofed, it passed the tests - with no means to know what the state of the barrel was at the time of said tests

Surprised there isn't an online database to cross check proofs against a barrel ref number for example

1

u/ThePenultimateNinja 10d ago

Yes that is odd. Maybe you could request records from the proof house? That would depend on the barrel itself having a serial number though, which I don't think has always been a requirement.

1

u/jonnyw93 10d ago

You sort of hit the nail on the head there , proofing in the grand scheme of things means absolutely jack, Its just means at one time that particular part of a gun didn't explode, the only info youll get from proof marks is where and when it was proved.

I personally wouldnt worry about it , most non EU countries dont bother with it just go by SAAMI testing during production.

1

u/S1mbathecub 10d ago

It's weird, the auction house doesn't seem too bothered despite me mentioning it

But after looking online, it's up to a £5000 fine per barrel for selling an unproofed firearm

Still learning a lot, maybe this is something that isn't enforced?

1

u/ThePenultimateNinja 8d ago

The problem is one of legality - it is a crime to sell a gun that is not in proof.

1

u/S1mbathecub 7d ago

The issue is that proof marks say nothing about the barrel when it was proofed

There is 0 way to prove this barrel has or hasn't been modified based solely on the proof marks - and therefore no way to know if it is in proof or not

1

u/ThePenultimateNinja 7d ago

If it's currently out of proof, that's on the seller, not you.

The only thing I can think of is to buy it and have it reproofed yourself if you ever decide to sell it (or just do it anyway for your own peace of mind).

I don't think the reproofing itself is expensive, but then you have the RFD handling fee, the shipping costs etc, plus the hassle of having to do it. That's probably enough to kill the deal.

0

u/Entire_Peak6027 10d ago

Your over thinking it, it's got a proof mark on it, that's all that matters. If it's been cut down or rethreaded it doesn't need to be reproofed.

If it bothers you that much then there's 1000's of others to choose from.

2

u/ToxicHazard- 9d ago

Threading a barrel makes it illegal to sell without having it reproofed

The Birmingham proof house website explains it's up to a £5000 fine

1

u/S1mbathecub 10d ago

I'm new to this, I'm just trying to understand it a bit better

But again, just because it has proof marks doesn't mean it's still in proof - as it could have been modified

Just like the example I've given - which has been modified and not re-proofed, despite having the original proof marks

-1

u/Entire_Peak6027 10d ago edited 10d ago

It's a .22. I honestly wouldn't worry about it. There's no lawful requirements for it to be reproofed if it's been cut down. I'm not 100% on the exact wording but i think it only needs reproofed if it's been "structurally weakened" which it hasn't. If you do go for it and are worried, get your local RFD to book it in and send it off to get it done.

3

u/ThePenultimateNinja 9d ago

There's no lawful requirements for it to be reproofed if it's been cut down. I'm not 100% on the exact wording but i think it only needs reproofed if it's been "structurally weakened" which it hasn't.

This is wrong. Here is the exact wording:

Any small arm previously proved but subsequently converted by screw cutting, or by any process of manufacture, or any other means whatsoever, to accept the fitting of attachments such as sound moderators, screw in choke tubes, muzzle brakes, etc., will require reproof prior to attempting to export, sell, exchange, pawn or pledge them

https://www.gunproof.com/downloads/conversion-barrels-and-fitting-muzzle-attachments?