ROL NEWS--Missile Works Announces Type 4 Storage Magazine

It would have been so much easier to quietly go through life enjoying 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 and NOT poking the ATF giant in the balls with phone calls, letters (from every hick unsophisticated, uninformed TRA or NAR member), "easy access-sm" ads, "restricted access-sm" ads in a nationally distributed magazine (for a brief and sufficient time) on newsstands!!

Unlike amateur rocketry who followed government procedure. Don't ask, don't tell.

Now I have received an email from NAR President Mark Bundick all proud he has "contacted the DOT" to verify the ACS paperwork three people have verified is valid on its face but NOT on file with DOT because it is an "ON ITS FACE" document the vendor himself is responsible for lodging.

Get ready to donate yet another $300,000 to yet another lawsuit. This is likely to open the can of worms of the changes in AT manufacturing process (mandated by the insurance claim and accident).

Could it be any worse?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

I can dig around for it. Having a hint helps!

I know all about the pad issue. Problem is people like to keep all that flammable stuff in one place, and it becomes an issue storing an explosive like PB in your field box. Plus there's them ""explosive"" ematches, which depending on the interpretation, would require a separate magazine.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

First I've heard of that one. Site'm if ya got'm.

While I'd love to hear all about the merits of safely storing motors so that if the car is on fire the gas tank is a bigger issue than a bunch of motors, I think I will decline at this time. Besides, the only 'tunnel' in Phoenix is really just a bunch of bridges with dirt on top.

Assuming, of course, that the PAD rule does not apply. I would love to see a Q&A on one unattended can of BP.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Yes, and people would still be wondering about blackpowder and those now "explosive" ematches.

That sounds like a DOT issue, and there happens to be a DOT thread going on right now. "Storage" falls under ATF.

Like another thread being hijacked?

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Massive and gross overkill.

I've seen a gun locker at Farm & FLeet that should meet the rules for something like $70 on sale:

formatting link
It's got a tubular key and the 3 point mortise lock. Just plop in your attached garage. It would probably be more useful lying down for our purposes. Or install a bunch of wooden shelves.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

On what grounds do the JBGTs not allow them. Exactly what part of the type 4 specs do they fail to meet.

There is NO specification for metal type or thickness for a type 4 magazine. If you attach an appropriate hasp and lock, a cigar box or shoe box wrapped in tin foil meets the absurd requirements.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

PLEASE build one and make a detailed drawing! I want it on my website!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I've never seen that restriction in writing anywhere.

Do we have to seperate our "regulated" materials, and just put the grins in the magazine, and store the liners, nozzle, etc seperately.

Do I have to take the thermalite off the spool. Dump the BP out of the can? Get rid of all the baggies, instructions, parts bins, etc?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

AT has a "kit" approved as an "article". That article in its entirety goes into the magazine (if it were regulated by ATF which it is not).

That would be less silly than the wacky ATF regs, barely.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

They don't allow them because the manufacturer attaches a sticker saying they are not to be used to store explosives.

Brian Elfert

Reply to
Brian Elfert

Wrong model. The one I saw was

formatting link
and was on sale for 72.99... Not sure what the differences between the two models are.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Hey, I didn't say it was reasonable. This is the government we're talking about! ;)

NFPA 1125. 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

NFPA 1125. 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

NFPA 1125, 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Reply to
David Schultz

Ok, all the BATFE has to do is cite the regulation that states the maker of a metal box can disallow it's use as a magazine. I don't recall seeing one, but I might have missed it.

The manufacturer has nothing to do with approval.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Ok, but that doesn't say they have to not be stored during transport. If you look at the list, they actually understand that while the material is being handled, it's difficult to be IN the magazine.

And,.. 1125 is for manufacturers, which is why the list doesn't include "use".

Joel. phx

Ok, I can't find the link I had to the old FAQ which #13 was 'are rocket motors explosives?'

Reply to
Joel Corwith

Well, as Dave mentioned this is 1125 (manufacturers) but 6.1.1 mentions "not exempt" but 6.4.11 doesn't. So while an explosive could be exempt, if it's a propellant, delay, or ejection... it's not an 'other material'.

Joel. phx

Reply to
Joel Corwith

This is one of the problems Dean Roth had. Agent A told him he had to have ALL his APCP stored in his magazine, Agent B told him he was breaking the law storing grains < 62.5 gms in the magazine.

Reply to
DaveL

Agent B had read the law.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.