Pyrodex & Gunpowder - Is Pyrodex Uncontroled???
Arnold Roquerre
consensus that the BATF (note: change the A to U and you get an interesting
word) isn't controlling Pyrodex. My problem is that the ingredients in
Pyrodex minus the additives are identical to the ingredients in gunpowder. I
know the BATF is loaded with ignoramuses, but can they be that stupid not to
include Pyrodex? If they don't that is a good thing for amateur rocketry,
but it speaks volumes to their level of incompetence.
Arnold
Bruce Kirchner
--
Bruce Kirchner
TRA L2 #5888
Michigan Team 1 HUVARS
Visit My Rocketry Home Page - http://members.aol.com/balthezar/index.html
Proud Gun Owner!
Jerry Irvine
balt...@aol.com (Bruce Kirchner) wrote:
On what basis was it determined to not be an explosive. Specifically?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
RayDunakin
If BATFE had their way, it would be regulated. Thank God they don't -- Congress
exempted Pyrodex and other smokeless powders.
Bruce Kirchner
Beats the sh*t out of me. maybe it really isn't, just like APCP.
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
APCP in powdered form is a smokeless powder BTW.
Just Jerry
Jim Yanik
news:20030604204728...@mb-m12.aol.com:
I believe it's classed as 'smokeless PROPELLANT'.Although you can make it
go boom as with BP.
I guess BP used to be used as a blasting agent,and that's why it was
controlled and considered an 'explosive'.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me
Jerry Irvine
Jim Yanik <jya...@nullkua.net> wrote:
Then why isn't it a 1.5 blasting agent instead of 1.1D?
Jerry
Bruce Kirchner
>I believe it's classed as 'smokeless PROPELLANT'.Although you can make it
>go boom as with BP.
Smokeless can detonate under the right conditions. BP can't. Neither can hobby
grade APCP.
Yet we can buy unlimited quantities of smokeless. And store it in ashtrays next
to the 30 pound LP tanks for the RV in the garage. Right next to the 5 gallon
cans of gasoline.
I don't think you can make Pyrodex go "boom". It tends to not burn very well
unconfined and is non detonable.
Also is lousy for rocket applications.
Bob Kaplow
> On what basis was it determined to not be an explosive. Specifically?
Exactly the same way that APCP was tetermined to be an explosive.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Jerry Irvine
kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
> In article <01rocket-91B261...@news.bellatlantic.net>, Jerry
> Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> writes:
> > On what basis was it determined to not be an explosive. Specifically?
>
> Exactly the same way that APCP was tetermined to be an explosive.
Seriously. They are treated legally differently. There must have been
some basis or general suggestion leading to adding that provision to
smokeless.
Jerry
Steve Whitman
> Pyrodex is not considered an explosive and therefore, is not regulated.
Hmmm... The ATF website has a "list of explosives" that contains the
following under the "S" category:
Safety fuse.
Salts of organic amino sulfonic acid explosive mixture.
Salutes (bulk).
Silver acetylide.
Silver azide.
Silver fulminate.
Silver oxalate explosive mixtures.
Silver styphnate.
Silver tartrate explosive mixtures.
Silver tetrazene.
Slurried explosive mixtures of water, inorganic oxidizing salt,
gelling
agent, fuel, and sensitizer (cap sensitive).
*Smokeless powder.*
Sodatol.
Sodium amatol.
Sodium azide explosive mixture.
Sodium dinitro-ortho-cresolate.
Sodium nitrate explosive mixtures.
Sodium nitrate-potassium nitrate explosive mixture.
Sodium picramate.
Special fireworks.
Squibs.
Styphnic acid explosives.
Isn't Pyrodex just a brand name for a type of smokeless powder? If
so, it certainly is an explosive and would therefore be regulated. In
fact even more so, since it doesn't get the BP exemption for "sporting
use in antique firearms" or whatever.
Which makes one wonder why people are going to great pains to try to
use it as a substitute for BP in ejection systems (although it may
make less of a mess of your rocket, unless it doesn't burn completely
and you end up with ballistic recovery).
Steve
David Weinshenker
I believe there's a specific exemption for "smokeless powder and components
for reloading small arms ammunition", somewhere in the US code or the ATF
regs.
-dave w
Joel Corwith
"(4) Small arms ammunition and components of small arms ammunition."
Joel. phx
55.141a8
"(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant
actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their
intended purposes."
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3EDEB8CF...@earthlink.net...
Gary
> In article <20030604204437...@mb-m06.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
>
>><< I am somewhat confused over the use of Pyrodex.>>
>>
>>If BATFE had their way, it would be regulated. Thank God they don't --
>>Congress
>>exempted Pyrodex and other smokeless powders.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> APCP in powdered form is a smokeless powder BTW.
>
> Just Jerry
>
>
I think there's a semantics issue between two disciplines here. I run
into it a lot being a reloader and a rocketeer.
Here's my understanding as a reloader:
As exempted for firearms, but classified by the ATF as an explosive,
smokeless powders are normally single and double base nitrocellulose
compounds (IMR powders, etc). In the firearms world, they are called
smokeless gunpowders or just gunpowders, to distinguish them from Black
Powder, another explosive exempted for firearm propellant use, but in a
category all it's own.
Pyrodex is not a smokeless powder (not nitrocellulose based). I
understand it as a "burn rate inhibited black powder". It does have
different ignition and burn rate (Kn) characteristics from BP due to
additives and manufacturing processes; it does not ignite as easily or
burn as fast as BP at atmospheric pressure (in an unconstrained ejection
charge or flintlock flashpan). I believe it contains Kn/S/C like BP and
some other additives; you can smell the sulfur in it, at least. It is
labeled "smokeless powder" on the can because the DOT has classified it
as such, and NOT as an "explosive", for shipping purposes (from the
Hodgdon site: http://www.pyrodex.com). That fact generates a LOT of
confusion with newbies in the BP reloading world since you NEVER put a
smokeless (nitrocellulose) powder in a BP firearm (instant CATO).
Confusing? Yeah. I don't know the legal details, but it seems like the
DOT's use of "smokeless powder" (a shipping classification) is different
from the BATFE's use (a particular explosive type).
--
Gary Bolles
BAR
To contact me; bollesg at attbi dot com
David Wallis
> >On what basis was it determined to not be an explosive. Specifically?
>
> Beats the sh*t out of me. maybe it really isn't, just like APCP.
My understanding is that it's exempt from ATF regulation because it's
a propellant, not an explosive.
--
David Wallis
David Wallis
> balt...@aol.com (Bruce Kirchner) wrote in
> news:20030604204728...@mb-m12.aol.com:
>
> >>On what basis was it determined to not be an explosive. Specifically?
> >
> > Beats the sh*t out of me. maybe it really isn't, just like APCP.
>
> I believe it's classed as 'smokeless PROPELLANT'.Although you can
> make it go boom as with BP.
>
> I guess BP used to be used as a blasting agent,and that's why it was
> controlled and considered an 'explosive'.
If I remember correctly, there are conditions under which BP can be
made to detonate. Even though normally it's a propellant, it was
classified as a low explosive because of that.
--
David Wallis
Marcus Leech
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> Pyrodex is not a smokeless powder (not nitrocellulose based). I
> understand it as a "burn rate inhibited black powder". It does have
> different ignition and burn rate (Kn) characteristics from BP due to
> additives and manufacturing processes; it does not ignite as easily or
> burn as fast as BP at atmospheric pressure (in an unconstrained ejection
> charge or flintlock flashpan). I believe it contains Kn/S/C like BP and
> some other additives; you can smell the sulfur in it, at least. It is
> labeled "smokeless powder" on the can because the DOT has classified it
> as such, and NOT as an "explosive", for shipping purposes (from the
> Hodgdon site: http://www.pyrodex.com). That fact generates a LOT of
> confusion with newbies in the BP reloading world since you NEVER put a
> smokeless (nitrocellulose) powder in a BP firearm (instant CATO).
one of the benzoates. It's a little like whistle mix, but designed
very specifically for use in a BP firearm.
It lights very easily, but burns somewhat slower than BP if unconfined.
It's not something you can lay a string of, and watch it burn lazily.
When confined, it's quite powerful. I did some experiments using Pyrodex
for lift for micro-shells. Most times, it either burned too slow to
lift the shell, or blew the (convolute wound paper) mortar to bits.
This is classic behaviour for KClOx-based compositions...
RayDunakin
propellant, not an explosive.>>
The point of the original question was, why is smokeless powder exempt and APCP
is not? They may call smokeless powder a propellent, but that is not why it is
exempt. As someone else pointed out, smokeless powder _is_ on the list of
explosives. The only reason it is exempt is because "small arms ammunition and
components" are exempted by Congress.
David Wallis
It was interesting to see that smokeless powder was on the explosives
list... I had thought that it was not regulated because it was
classified as a propellant, rathat than an explosive. Does anyone know
when smokeless powder was added to the ATF's explosives list>
--
David Wallis
Starlord
--
In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and
along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again.
Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"
SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/
Starlord's Personal Page
http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
"David Wallis" <wal...@jedi.aps.anl.gov> wrote in message
news:d9znkwf...@jedi.aps.anl.gov...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/03
Terry Moore-Read
You'll love this one Jerry.
They decided it's not an explosive because its a PROPELLANT
I'm sure there's some logic here somewhere but I can't find it.
Terry
Jerry Irvine
te...@mooreread.com (Terry Moore-Read) wrote:
I actually get it.
It was exempted back when common sense and industry skill and knowledge
had merit.
Now that the only issue is administrative procedure, law and citations
of law (ignoring any field practice of course), we have to use
exclusively legal arguement to make changes. The time for industry
experience is "past the statute of limitations".
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
> > On what basis was it determined to not be an explosive. Specifically?
>
> You'll love this one Jerry.
>
> They decided it's not an explosive because its a PROPELLANT
On a purely personal note, I have to admit it. You're right!
>
> I'm sure there's some logic here somewhere but I can't find it.
>
>
> Terry
--
David Wallis
> why not make rocket engines from it then?
given that:
"rocket engines are made from propellant"
"pyrodex is a propellant"
it does not necessarily follow that
"rocket engines can be made from pyrodex"
That's twice this month that I've justfied the symbolic logic class I
took more than 20 years ago :-)
Seriously, I'm not a propellant expert, but it's likely that pyrodex
or smokeless poweder is suitable for rocket motors. I'm sure there are
others on this forum that are more qualified to adress this issue.
--
David Wallis
Jerry Irvine
David Wallis <wal...@jedi.aps.anl.gov> wrote:
In a pinch I could make a product from those materials. But it would be
a really bad idea forced by bad law. Let's roll!
Jerry
Tom Binford
"Starlord" <star...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:wIKDa.518$tz2...@news.inreach.com...
> why not make rocket engines from it then?
They do. The Nike motor uses about 700 lb. of smoleless double base
propellant.
Tom
RayDunakin
I'm sure there's some logic here somewhere but I can't find it. >>
Not quite. They decided it's an explosive (note that it is on the list of
regulated explosives along with APCP) despite the fact that they also call it a
propellent. Why do they call it a propellent if it's an explosive? I have no
idea. But that's all irrelevant to the issue -- smokeless powder is exempted
only because Congress provided an exemption for "small arms ammunition and
components".
Jerry Irvine
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
I suppose APCP even in powdered form is not a "small arms ammunition and
components". Unless we want to weaponize rocketry to get exempted!!!
How sick is that? The law makes reverse sense.
Jerry Irvine
"Tom Binford" <tbin...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Only 700 pounds? What a wimp :)
robert heninger
because I was using it in a replica firearm and had it on hand. I have not
had any problems. I used it on my level I and II cert flights with drouge
and main deployment. I generally static fire all my ejection charges in the
rocket prior to the first launch to verify the rocket will separate and will
deploy the recovery components.
Bob Heninger
Glendale,AZ
Arnold Roquerre <arnold....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:IDpDa.34817$ca5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> I am somewhat confused over the use of Pyrodex. There seems to be a
> consensus that the BATF (note: change the A to U and you get an
interesting
> word) isn't controlling Pyrodex. My problem is that the ingredients in
> Pyrodex minus the additives are identical to the ingredients in gunpowder.
I
> know the BATF is loaded with ignoramuses, but can they be that stupid not
to
> include Pyrodex? If they don't that is a good thing for amateur rocketry,
> but it speaks volumes to their level of incompetence.
>
> Arnold
>
>
Paul Britton
"RayDunakin" <raydu...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030605211415...@mb-m05.aol.com...
I bet you'll find that the NRA had something to do with it. (Note that is NRA not NAR, ie 'Rifles' and not 'Rockets')
--
PaulB
UKRA#1266 L1
EARS#1034
David Wallis
> In article <20030605211415...@mb-m05.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
> > << They decided it's not an explosive because its a PROPELLANT
> > I'm sure there's some logic here somewhere but I can't find it. >>
> >
> > Not quite. They decided it's an explosive (note that it is on the list of
> > regulated explosives along with APCP) despite the fact that they also call it
> > a
> > propellent. Why do they call it a propellent if it's an explosive? I have no
> > idea. But that's all irrelevant to the issue -- smokeless powder is exempted
> > only because Congress provided an exemption for "small arms ammunition and
> > components".
>
> I suppose APCP even in powdered form is not a "small arms ammunition and
> components". Unless we want to weaponize rocketry to get exempted!!!
> How sick is that? The law makes reverse sense.
Hmmm...I wonder what would happen if we started reloading small arms
ammo with APCP? <evil grin>
--
David Wallis
Fred Shecter
home-made ejection charges or any other home-made device.
And again, how much is OK/legal to use in an ejection charge? Can I fill an Alpha and call
it an ejection charge? Can I fill a toilet paper tube and install that in my "really big
hobby rocket" and call it an ejection charge? Is 1 pound too much?
I still don't see why a manufacturer does not make and certify ejection charge modules.
It's already in the NFPA (even for Model Rockets).
How about a Costco sized coffee can full to make really cool mushroom clouds (or to launch
a Honeydew melon)?
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Paul Britton" <nifty...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:aa1Ea.2179$0d7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> I still don't see why a manufacturer does not make and certify ejection
> charge modules.
> It's already in the NFPA (even for Model Rockets).
>
Because the only ones willing to are banned and discriminated against.
> How about a Costco sized coffee can full to make really cool mushroom clouds
> (or to launch
> a Honeydew melon)?
There is a NAR 62.5g limit. I have asked them to make it 125g unified
(they refused), but your coffee can story is implausible.
RayDunakin
because I was using it in a replica firearm and had it on hand. I have not had
any problems. I used it on my level I and II cert flights with drouge and main
deployment. >>
Yes, it works fine for electronic deployment as long as it is tightly sealed.
Won't work for as a replacement for BP in motor ejection though.
RayDunakin
not exempted for
home-made ejection charges or any other home-made device. >>
Wrong. It's not exempted _for_ ammunition, it is exempted _as_ ammunition. In
other words, it is exempt because it is used in ammunition. But unlike BP,
there's nothing saying it has to be used in ammunition to be exempt.
<< Can I fill an Alpha and call it an ejection charge? Can I fill a toilet
paper tube and install that in my "really big hobby rocket" and call it an
ejection charge? >>
You can call it whatever you want, but it's not an ejection charge unless it is
used solely to safely deploy the recovery system. (And no, a rocket is not
really "recovered" if it floats gently down in confetti-sized pieces.) ;)
<< I still don't see why a manufacturer does not make and certify ejection
charge modules. >>
The result would be overpriced and unnecessary, and would require a wide range
of sizes.
David Weinshenker
>
> In article <20030605211415...@mb-m05.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
> > << They decided it's not an explosive because its a PROPELLANT
> > I'm sure there's some logic here somewhere but I can't find it. >>
> >
> > Not quite. They decided it's an explosive (note that it is on the list of
> > regulated explosives along with APCP) despite the fact that they also call it
> > a
> > propellent. Why do they call it a propellent if it's an explosive? I have no
> > idea. But that's all irrelevant to the issue -- smokeless powder is exempted
> > only because Congress provided an exemption for "small arms ammunition and
> > components".
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I suppose APCP even in powdered form is not a "small arms ammunition and
> components". Unless we want to weaponize rocketry to get exempted!!!
> How sick is that? The law makes reverse sense.
>
> Jerry
I guess it's because the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and
bear "arms", which are intended to attack people, but not to keep and
bear rockets, fireworks, and similar materials intended only for more
peaceful purposes...
-dave w
Arnold Roquerre
storage magazine, I was told that FFFF is not on their list unless it
exceeds 50 pounds. Pyrodex is also in the same boat. Now, most states don't
get concerned unless you have more than 16 oz. of the stuff. It would seem
that this is not going to be a ball buster for now. I think the ATF is well
aware of just how easy it is to make gunpowder and isn't going to try to
stop the acquisition of small amounts of it. I would consider the liberals
who vote for the likes of people like Kennedy, Barney Frank, the senator who
is a socialist and a traitor who violates her oath of office daily from
Oregon, the rent control socialists from California and New York to be more
dangerous. They want us stripped of our ability to resist their forcing
their vision of the AmeriKa they have in store for us. One should never
forget that Hitler was a socialist.
Perhaps we should all be concerned why senators who push political systems
that require the dismantling of the Constitution which is in direct
violation of their "oath of office" are not stripped of their position.
Flying rockets in NAZI Amerika isn't going to be all that pleasant. Yet,
this is what these socialists slugs are pushing us into every day. A soldier
can be thrown out of the service for espousing views that espouse
dismantling the U.S. Constitution. Yet, senators and congressmen cannot be
touched. This is far more scary than anything the BATF can do to us.
Arnold Roquerre