Jerry, none of the individuals you quoted are ATF employees. The problem is not what the law _says_, it's how the ATF "interprets" the law. That is where the lack of clarity comes into play, since their "interpretation" is often in direct contradiction to the law.
Well WTF is that???
Then the agents should be fired. No??? Hello? Who the hell is in charge of this? I mean really.
Perhaps. But the law is the law. And that trumps any freaky thing they have going...
The blasting industry, I believe.
Why mess with someone who doesn't want our business? Oxral and others are more than happy to provide us a quality product.
-Kevin
CAUTION!!!!! DO NOT TAKE REGULATORY ADVICE FROM "BIG FINE IRVINE!!!" He earned his name by listening to himself.
I do not see you offering other advise, especially since it would be CONTRARY to LAW.
Jerry
Apparantly you feel your own advise is superior to all and you are exempt from your own advise.
A conundrum indeed.
Jerry
ATF will only "tell you" if you are in contact with them via the lisence and permit system. Something not even needed for "exempt" goods.
Such as Propellant Actuated Devices.
Therefore you are proffering bad advise. Of course and as usual.
True, but Ray Dunakin disagrees and is "living the lifestyle".
Insert umteenth repost of Federal firearms BP exemption language here.
But only after illegally demanding a LEUP. Unhelpful indeed.
Solar igniters are exempt of course (too).
It is ENTIRELY about what the REGS say.
Even a JUDGE said so!!!
Which you cheerfully ignore. Moron.
It is NEVER about that. They do not have that authority and never did.
You are so busy reflexively posting the opposite of what I say (the regs), you are always wrong, and quite proud of it.
Jerry
"What I find "typical" about this is here they have an expert they could learn from and ask useful questions, but instead they attack you. Over and over. In an infantile fashion. Remind you of anything??"
- Jerry Irvine
"The devil is the author of confusion."
Which makes those deliberately misinterpreting the law criminals, subject to prosecution.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
On at least one count, we have a clear ruling from the court. Hobby rocket motors are exempt from regulation. Now, who do we call to arrest any one who trys to enforce illegal rules?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Ok, how do we use a shotgun shell to shoot out a recovery system? ANd how do you fire one electrically?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
-----snip-----
I poked at this a few weeks ago during the initial design phase of my Level-1 project, a 5.5x upscale of the Estes Streak. Various ejection charge calculators indicate the need for 1.25 (averaged) grams of BP to eject the nose cone and parachute by altimeter at 400 feet.
Since the corner of southeastern Georgia where I live practically qualifies as a Third-World country there is no local source of FFFg black powder within practical driving distance.
I've constructed a test rig with leftover body tube (even at 5.5x a Streak uses less than half of a 48 inch tube) a bulkhead plate and my nose cone. I filled the empty space with dog barf to simulate the parachute and harness. When ignited, the nose cone did come off, but the wadding stayed in place because the exhaust stream of the motor simply punched a hole roughly the size of a pencil through the mass of wadding.
Apparently (and I have no instrumented readings to back this up but it passes the TLAR test) a BP ejection charges fires in a few dozen milliseconds generating copious amounts of gas instantenously. Even though the 1/2A3T-2 I used burns for less than half a second the slowly rising pressure curve lets too much gas escape around the nosecone shoulder to provide the 'kick' required to reliably get the laundry up and out.
A piston design *might* work, but there is no way to fit a piston into the Streak. Some googling returned a few pages where people have had success with Pryodex and some smokeless powders and I will try to duplicate their results and see what happens. I hesitate because the level of constraint required to generate the pressure necessary to insure complete combustion makes the divide between an ejection charge and a firecracker pretty narrow.
John
There primary customer is the motion picture industry..
Fred
"Big fine" also paid lots of money for his own "Regulatory" advise..
I figured that I would open a can of worms when I posted this question. I thank everyone for the input.
Let me break this down and put it in more simple terms.
I know that the law is a bit "gray" at best. Depending on whom you speak with. And I know some dealers will sell "Easy Access" reloads to anyone and some will only sell to people who have shown them proof of a LEUP. I also know that being L1 or L2 really has no relation to having a LEUP.
So, here are some more direct questions.
Again, I'm not concerned with whom or how to get reloads. But rather the storage and transportation of the stuff. And if it is as easy as spending $100.00 to ensure I'm within the law I want to do that.
Oh yea another warning - Big Fine doesn't pay his consultants.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required