APCP into the fire



<snip>
You shouldn't. You should stop telling people what you don't know like you do know.
We use pyrodex in small arms. It is a component of ammunition. We buy it without a permit because it is exempt.
Nothing in the exemption states it has to be used as a component of ammunition to be exempt.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hyphlight wrote:

I don't see where that is happening.

So. I still do not believe you.
--
Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"The exemption for components of small arms ammunition is for components whose "intended purpose" is to be used in small arms ammunition. If you use Pyrodex for anything other than small arms ammunition, then is NOT exempt. The same as the 50 pound exemption for black powder. It is exempt for use in antique firearms -- any other use, regulated. "
You do not know, yet you are stating that as fact.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darrell D. Mobley wrote:

Pyrodex is exempt even when not used in small arms. Check the Hodgdon web site for the MSDS sheet on Pyrodex. Hodgdon states" Regulatory Information: Pyrodex is Extremely Flammable. Pyrodex is not an explosive regulated by Federal Explosive Law, but may explode if misused. "
I don't see a part that says, "Pyrodex is not an explosive regulated by Federal Explosive Law, when only used in small arms ammunition". I believe their lawyers would most definitely have added, "When only used in small arms ammunition", if that were the law. As most people know, MSDS sheets are the product of a company's legal department now.
John Wickman
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Wickman wrote:

Yeah, I read that after reading your Pyrodex information.
I found some interesting information in:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Implementation of the Safe Explosives Act
(http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0505/final.pdf )
Page 73:
"Black Powder and Smokeless Powder. The ATF licenses manufacturers and sellers of black powder, an explosive commonly used in muzzle-loading firearms. However, other than requiring that purchasers be at least 21 years old, the ATF has no authority to regulate sales of less than 50 pounds of black powder. Because black powder is relatively inexpensive (between $5 and $15 per pound), it is the most common explosive used in pipe bombs. Additionally, the ATF does not regulate smokeless powder, a more expensive explosive used in the manufacturing of firearms ammunition. Developed in the late 19th century to replace black powder, smokeless powder leaves minimal residue in a gun barrel following its use. Approximately 10 million pounds of commercial smokeless powders are produced in the United States each year. The powder is about eight times as expensive as black powder."
Could this be why we see no prosecution of people in possession of small amounts of black powder?
The rest of the document is an excellent read on the ineptness of ATF.
--
Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe the answer is yes. The original law passed by Congress states Black Powder is exempt when only used in antique firearms. However, no matter what you buy it for, if an agent asks what you intend to use it for, you would simply answer - to be used in antique firearms. They would have to see you using it for another purpose to have a case against you. On a practical basis, that is not going to happen.
I think this incident with Scott Fintel has been blown way out of proportion. The ATFE position has been for years that any oxidizer/fuel mix is an explosive. They added the "potassium nitrate explosive mixture" and "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture" to the Explosives List a few years ago. Were they correct in doing so? Of course. Take out potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate from the phrases and what do you get? Explosive mixture. Any explosive mixture is by definition an explosive as it is defined as an explosive in the description. What is the significance of the "potassium nitrate explosive mixture" and "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture" being on the Explosive List? None! The only thing that is significant is what specifically is a "fill in the blank" explosive mixture".
Scott called me on the phone a few days ago about the incident. He flew a large sugar propellant rocket motor and someone living around the launch area called the sheriff. The sheriff then called the ATFE, which is how they got into the loop. The ATFE was now on the hook to do something. So, they tell Scott he needs an ATFE permit, but they are not going to prosecute. He then asks for clarification on the classification of sugar propellant as a potassium nitrate explosive mixture. It comes down from ATFE HQ in Washington that yes, sugar propellant is a potassium nitrate explosive mixture.
Folks, what else could the ATFE say. If the ATFE says, "No, sugar propellant is not an explosive even though it contains a fuel and oxidizer", what do you think will happen to their case with TRA/NAR? Right out the window it goes. TRA/NAR lawyers would be on that like hair on a gorilla. What is more revealing is the lack of prosecution of Scott by the ATFE. Do you think the ATFE is not prosecuting out of the goodness of their heart? Of course, not. They know they have no case. The only reason the ATFE even added the "potassium nitrate explosive mixture" and "ammonium nitrate explosive mixture" to the Explosives List was to scare amateur rocketeers in applying for ATFE permits when they do not need them. Guess what? It is working, because people are panicking.
The courts have already ruled that the ATFE cannot arbitrarily add things to the Explosives List without test data to back it up. That is where the lawsuit is right now. The ATFE had to provide APCP burn rate data and a rationale for classifying it as an explosive. Where is the ATFE data for sugar propellants? It doesn't exist. Where was the procedure and public comment period for adding sugar propellants to the explosives list? No procedure and no public comment period. Sugar propellant is not on the explosives list as proper procedure were not followed for adding it to the list. That says nothing of the burn rates for sugar propellant, which would be low like APCP. So even if they follow proper procedures at a later date, sugar propellant will not met the requirements for being on the Explosives List.
John Wickman

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Wickman wrote:

This is all true, but who is going to sue the ATF to prove that Potassium Nitrate composite propellant isn't an explosive. Compared to APCP, the PNCP lobby has even less organization and funding.
--
Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darrell D. Mobley wrote:

Once the court rules against the ATF on APCP it shows precedence. Then every compound on the list can be challenged individually. IIRC, damage settlements in civil cases can include legal fees. I'll bet it gets easier to find a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's why I'm surprised the ATF hasn't suddenly decided that the 62.5g limit should be much higher (or something like that to try to get us to drop the lawsuit). The ATF must understand that there is a lot more at stake to them than just regulation of APCP.
-- Roger
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Smith wrote:

Either they're too stupid to realize that (high probability given the caliber of "expert" data they've submitted), they hope the Judge will defer to their "expert" opinion in this subject, or they're playing a stalling game hoping to exhaust our resources before the court makes a final ruling (which might not happen next summer and could take several more years). Or maybe "negotiate" isn't in their playbook.
I'm guessing it's a combination of stalling and a no negotiate stance. That's why I think the best approach for people who want to fly APCP is to get a permit. I detest the idea, but accept the reality. At least for the interim.
I am more than a little concerned about the new leadership in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I don't expect a lot of help there.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex Mericas wrote:

You're right about the LEUP issue. If one wants to fly now they should get a permit and go. Some folks are in the situation though where they can't meet the requirements and have no one they can use for contingency. I'm continuing to maintain that it is safe for joe average modeler to keep some HPR grains about but for those hardcore folks who want to keep a sizable amount around, there needs to be some rules. I don't think the ATFE realizes that if they lose completely, they lose complete control if APCP is taken off the list. I suspect as others have stated that the ATFE thinks it is a slam dunk and they can squash rocketry like a bug.
I think the lawsuit has an uphill climb and hope rocketry prevails. I also hope there are plausible experts who are going rebut that piece of tainted garbage submitted to the court. If the judge simply glances at it and assumes it's gospel, we're in trouble.
Kurt
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
These guys seem to be inclined to take on the BATFE: http://jpfo.org/alert20061211.htm
wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Not to be stereotypical, but the JPFO is probably way better funded than TRA/NAR's lawsuit.
--
Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Whenever I have seen propellant bjurned, it has been very hard to light. When I've done it myself, it has taken several matches almost every time.
Brian Elfert
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Elfert wrote:

That's been my findings as well. However, I was able to ignite a Blue Thunder grain one time with one wooden match.
Remember that time up in Fargo when Dave lit that green flamed propellant grain? The grain actually hovered for a few seconds! Very cool and surreal.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you would have thrown a small piece of C-4 in there it would have behaved much the same way. What is your point?
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com / (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Cesaroni wrote:

The point is if the rules weren't so restrictive concerning propellant you might gain a little more in sales on the hobby rocketry side. C4 may burn in a fire but you of all folks should know it is capable of nefarious explosions. APCP is a flammable solid that sometimes over pressurizes in a casing leading to rupture.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
With the odd exception in low NEQ shipping configuration approvals, APCP is not a flammable solid (class 4), it's a class 1 material and meets DOT/UN/ERD recognized definitions as such. Whether or not it needs to be regulated by the BATFE and at what level seems to be the issue is it not?
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com / (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony Cesaroni wrote:

Yep. That's what my beef is. The ATFE is not willing to negotiate a fair possession limit for modelers so the NAR/TRA lawsuit is a necessity. Many a more experienced, long term modeler pointed this out to me in the past.
Kurt
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FWIW, I've been told that the BATFE were prepared to negotiate something up to the K level but the idea was shot down by at least one sanctioning organization. The players and citations seem credible enough but who knows and some dispute it. There's a bit of history and some politics but it's all water under bridge and before my time in HPR.
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com / (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.