Several recent posts have discussed some "questionable" gunsmithing practices. Not necesarily unsafe - if done properly and within limits - but not textbook practices just the same. Quite a few have denounced the referenced practices with little actual information on exactly what was involved simply based (it'd seem) on it being unconventional. While not the best practice, some have been used by highly respected smiths - again, within limts but like anything can get Bubba into trouble when tinkering in the basement.

I try to keep an open mind but some of the comments on those threads bother me. Things like "I only do it on my own rifles." None of us are immortal, if you value your friends and family better to make sure your work is up to standards, guns have a way of finding their way into other people's hands. One of my peeves is rebarrling or re-chambering without marking the barrel. I'd be interested in some of the shortcomings and "creative solutions" enocuntered by others.

Along the lines of marking chambering, I think it ought to be required that the builder be ID'd on the rifle. I've seen some shops or smiths mark their work. I'd appreciate it because after reading some of his posts, I for one, would never want to mistakenly buy anything Jeffe has worked on.

Poleax, Truer words were never spoken........
I for one, would never want to mistakenly buy anything Jeffe has worked on.

Who's Jeffe?

quote:

Originally posted by GSP7:
Who's Jeffe?

Look at the top of this page where it says "Moderator."

quote:

One of my peeves is rebarrling or re-chambering without marking the barrel.

I believe this is also a peeve of the BATF.

What hasn't been discussed is that today there is no exam, proof of competency, or any other required training to become a professional gunsmith.....nor do I believe any of want this.

Simply stated.....safety issues seem to be minimal with the "extenuated" gunsmithing discussed.

I avoided those threads as I felt that criticizing was not in the best interest of the trade and I agree that there are practices that might be left to extremely competent practitioners and most professional smiths are extremely competent with very high standards of workmanship.

Let the buyer beware is still the motto of the firearms trade and it seems that it works fairly well....unless we want the feds to intervene and give is a bible (manual) to live up to!!! We already have far too much interference by the feds in the rest of our lives.

vapodog,

I couldn't agree more with your post above. Neither do I wish to see any more government intervention than we presently endure. The fact that SAAMI - a private group - has served the same purpose as government proof houses in most other countries is a good thing in my mind. Further, our arms freedoms here in the states are conducive to do-it-yourselfers tinkering with guns and finally, many are the highly accomplished and well respected smiths who were essentially self-taught or at least started out sans formal instruction.

That said when anyone who "works on" a device -be it firearms, automobiles or speed boats - that has the potential to cause harm to a user unaware of some piculiarity to that particular unit he must do everything possible to alert said (potential) user. One day each of us will die and thefts happen everyday. No matter how careful we are to control who handles our guns while we're in control of them, having some potential time bomb in the hands of someone else is something no conscienable person wants on their hands, especially if that "someone" happens to be one of your heirs - a son or grandson. An unfortunately common ocurance of this is building a high-pressure arm on a receiver designed for low-pressure, then down-loading your ammo. Fine while you have the gun and know it's limitations but what of your great-grandson who only knows whats stamped on the barrel? The easiest and best way to avoid such potential issues is to simply observe the existing standards. Don't use a M93 action for a .270 or a 311 Stevens .410 to build a .444Marlin double rifle.

Loading ammo to non-standard levels for use in particular guns is another example but I'm getting pretty far afield so I'll relinguish the soapbox.

quote:

Originally posted by Poleax:
Along the lines of marking chambering, I think it ought to be required that the builder be ID'd on the rifle. I've seen some shops or smiths mark their work. I'd appreciate it because after reading some of his posts, I for one, would never want to mistakenly buy anything Jeffe has worked on.

Poleax,
you would know it by the bore being larger than .366, and as you are not an evidenced big bore shooter, which is all I build, it is easy to understand your perspective, of course.

Remember Jack Belk? He once told me he never stamps the caliber on a rifle he's done. Reason? He didn't want a theif to know what he was getting. Go Figger??

As a newer member here I have noticed that much of what has been referred to as “questionable†work seems to be the result of someone trying to get something done cheap and fast, and by employing the services of just about anyone who happens to have a work bench and a few tools and gun magazines laying around.

Add to this the seemingly endless quest of some people to fit parts from Rifle “A†onto Rifle “Bâ€, even when the correct “A†parts are easily obtained. Never have understood that one, but it still seems to be a very popular trend among some people.

The minute you start “re-designing†an/or modifying any machine that has parts that must complement and interact with each other in order to function, you had better have an above average understanding of what you are doing and what possible outcomes may result from your handiwork.

While its not always the case, it has been my experience that people with that level of understanding and ability normally expect to be paid accordingly.