The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Looking for Black powder in ZimbabweGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Looking for Black powder in Zimbabwe | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
Yup!  | |||
|
one of us |
Steve: Wasn't that saga related to military calibers even though the accompanying rifle was "sporterized"? If I recall, such sporting firearms had to be flown routes which by-passed the countries that had signed this moratorium or get a special clearance.[/QUOTE] Not really. The ban on military calibres was in the Act right from the start to prevent returning servicemen from taking war souvenirs home & applied to all 'weapons of war' however most airlines, especially American ones ignored it in recent decades but some others (notably BA & a few others) applied it to include some calibres & at one point all calibres that had ever been adopted by any military force & the original (& bloody stupid) criteria was whether it was a weapon of war or a sporting firearm & if a calibre previously adopted by any military force it was a weapon of war & therefore banned. (Rolleyes) FWIW, I used to present the argument that the military equivalent was 7.62 x 51 which had a slightly different shoulder angle to the 308 so therefore the 308 was not a military calibre but often lost the argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO I'm going from memory but that was dropped about 2003 ish.......... The total ban of all ammo entering or leaving EU airspace came in some time after that & only lasted a very short time........... IIRC, it was weeks rather than months but it was discussed on AR at the time. I could incidentally be woefully out on my dates there as I'm just making a guesstimate. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Steve; IIRC there was a period (maybe a decade or so ago) that there was an issue about arms finding their way to the rebels in Rwanda which affected any and all arms destined for the East African states and as Todd mentioned, 308 was the main targeted caliber especially if hunters were flying out of or in transit through the UK.  | |||
|
| one of us |
At the risk of wandering off topic & down memory lane, BA especially had a down on .308s & several other calibres including .458 for donkey's years........ but they were also a royal PITA with the ridiculous arms embargoes to SA & before that to Zim. | |||
|
| one of us |
Todd Start with 172.101. Do an internet search for your question referencing 49cfr You'll find the answers within a few minutes | |||
|
| one of us |
The relatively short lived EU ammo ban I mentioned earlier was never actually lifted but rather an exemption introduced & my point at the time was that exemptions can be removed at any time & at a whim.  | |||
|
One of Us |
YEP, I started with that reference yesterday when this question first arose. NOPE, I didn't find the answers within a few minutes. I researched way past this reference. I'm still not seeing the exemption that allows carriage of loaded ammunition when the SMOKELESS, NOT BLACK, BUT SMOKELESS powder used to construct the ammo is classified as Explosive 1.3C. And so far, EVERY SMOKELESS POWDER I've researched is classified as Explosive 1.3C. I looked at my cans of powder upon getting home last evening. Sure enough, RL-15 says "Highly Flammable and EXPLOSIVE". So do all the other cans of powder I have stored in my reloading space. I referred to this in an earlier post but I'll try to copy and past the applicable parts of the table from your reference: Hazardous Materials descriptions and | Proper Shipping Names | -------------------------------------------| Ammunition, SA (small arms), | see Cartridges for weapons , etc | So, looking at the "Cartridges for weapons" section of the table, specific to the classification of being loaded with Explosive 1.3C powders, we find: Hazardous Materials descriptions and | Hazard class | Identification | PG | Label | Special | continued below ... Proper Shipping Names | or division | Numbers | | Codes | Provisions | -----------------------------------------|--------------|----------------|----|-------|------------| Cartridges for weapons, | 1.3C | UN0417 |1.3C| | | Packaging | Quantity Limitations | Vessel Stowage | -------------------------------|----------------------|------------------| Exceptions | Non-Bulk | Bulk |Passenger | Cargo | Location | Other | | | |Aircraft | Aircraft | | | ------------|----------|-------|----------|-----------|----------|-------| NONE | 62 | None |FORBIDDEN | FORBIDDEN | 04 | 25 | I hope the table recreation came out lined up but from what I see, it says loaded ammo, using 1.3C powder, which every brand and specific type of smokeless powder I've looked up so far, is classified as, is FORBIDDEN on passenger aircraft. I'm STILL looking for the Exemption that allows it's carriage. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, the table didn't come out lined up. So you'll just have to do the mental alignment to make each entry between the | | lines match up. Or you can just look at the table on any reference to CFR 172.101. | |||
|
| one of us |
Todd: Smokeless always used to be classified as Flammable not Explosive but assuming you're right (and I don't doubt you for a minute) it looks like at least most smokeless has been upgraded to Explosive & if that is the case then it could mean very serious shite for all travelling hunters. | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
FFS...... This gets more complicated by the day....... Check 5B in the link below which seems to apply throughout the EUSSR & then the BA link in my previous post. I think the best thing to do is to contact the airline before travel & get written confirmation about exactly (and I do mean exactly) what may or may not travel. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega...uri=CELEX:32015R1998 Gotta say I'm glad to be retired & no longer have to play these games.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Interesting discussion we have going on here Steve. The further we look into it, the more confusing it becomes. Surely someone on this forum is expert enough to cut through the chaff on this discussion and make a clear reference to whatever regulation exists to overcome the prohibition we seem to be coming up with over and over. And again, how this relates, at least for my curiosity, back to the black powder question, is the specific question of loading black powder into cartridges for airline transport. We have all become accustomed to saying "No, it's illegal because black powder is classified as an explosive, therefore bringing it onboard a jet in loaded cartridges is an illegal "work around" with the intent to deceive the officials and sneaking it onboard without mitigating the dangers". I do believe that to be correct. But we are finding all smokeless powder is also classified as an explosive and appears to be forbidden as well. So the question is in two parts: 1) Is there an exemption to carriage of smokeless powder, which is also classified as explosive, simply due the act of loading it into cartridges? So far, we haven't found such exemption, but it must exist as ammo IS allowed to be carried. We do it all the time, subject to the 11KG per person limit imposed by most airlines. 2) IF there is such an exemption that makes carriage aboard passenger aircraft allowable, simply by loading this "explosive" smokeless powder into cartridges, would the same exemption apply to black powder loaded in the same manner? In other words, for the research I've done over the past couple of days, I can't find how smokeless and black powder is treated differently? The only thing I can find that would possibly differentiate the two would be the class of explosive each is labeled as, such as smokeless being 1.3 and black being 1.1. Then again, I don't see an exemption at all, so engaging in the 1.1 vs 1.3 classification discussion seems moot. Got to be missing something.  Sorry guys, I'm sure this is getting tedious for many. I work in an industry where although I'm not an attorney, I spend all day reading legal documents. As a result, I'm very in tune with how the turn of a phrase can specifically change the meaning and intent of a contract, regulation, law, etc. This topic has just grabbed my attention because it appears we have all, airlines included, engaged in something that is prohibited by regulation, ie the carriage of any ammo on passenger planes. My apologies if my focus on the topic is straining folks' patience.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Todd I am admittedly well out of date but the Air Navigation Order Carriage of Dangerous Goods Act used to forbid transport of any material designated as Explosive of any category whatsoever in any format or container whatsoever & I'd be surprised if that has changed but what does seem to have changed is the UN rating of smokeless powders.............. I'm sure it used to be designated as Flammable so hopefully someone who has up to date knowledge of the Act can comment? Either way, I seriously doubt the regulations has been relaxed on BP, BP substitutes & percussion caps. As the discussion now stands, I'd suggest any hunters due to travel get written confirmation from the airline that whatever ammo they intend to travel with is permitted. | |||
|
| One of Us |
We keep crossing smokeless powder with cartridges and think they are the same. When you load propellant in a cartridge, it ceases to be propellant and becomes a cartridge, and as I said before: IATA airline scheduled flight permissions and approvals The phrase Div. 1.4S, UN 0012 or UN 0014 denotes the categories of ammunition that the IATA permits to be carried on passenger flights. In simple terms, each passenger may carry up to 5 kg of weapons cartridges of less than 19.1 mm caliber being either blanks or with solid projectile(s), in their checked baggage. The IATA published the minimum requirement for an airline for the carriage of dangerous goods in a table, where ammunition of the following nature can only be carried subject to the following permissions and approvals: Ammunition (cartridges for weapons), securely packaged (in Div. 1.4S, UN 0012 or UN 0014 only), in quantities not exceeding 5 kg (11 lb) gross weight per person for that person's own use, excluding ammunition with explosive or incendiary projectiles. Allowances for more than one passenger must not be combined into one or more packages. Permitted in carry on baggage: NO Permitted in or as checked baggage: YES Permitted on one's person: NO The approval of the operator(s) is required: YES The pilot in command must be informed of the location: NO Division 1.4S Division 1.4 refers to the specific nature of the ammunition, and the suffix "S" refers to the packing, as follows [2] Articles and substances that present no significant hazard. This division comprises articles and substances, which present only a small hazard in the event of ignition or initiation during transport. The effects are largely confined to the package and no projection of fragments of appreciable size or range is to be expected. An external fire must not cause virtually instantaneous explosion of almost the entire contents of the package. Note: Articles and substances in this division are placed in Compatibility Group S when they are so packed or designed that any hazardous effects arising from accidental functioning are confined within the package unless the package has been degraded by fire, in which case all blast or projection effects are limited to the extent that they do not significantly hinder fire-fighting or other emergency response efforts in the immediate vicinity of the package. United Nations UN 0012 UN 0012 defines the category 'Cartridges for weapons, inert projectile or Cartridges, small arms', being "Ammunition consisting of a cartridge case fitted with a centre or rimfire primer and containing both a propelling charge and solid projectile(s). They are designed to be fired in weapons of calibre not larger than 19.1 mm. Shotgun cartridges of any calibre are included in this definition." United Nations UN 0014 UN 0014 defines the category 'Cartridges for weapons, blank or Cartridges, small arms, blank' Looking at the back of a box of cartridges, yep they are UN0012 1.4S. Now can somebody look at the back of a box of cowboy black powder cartridges and see if we got UN0012 on the back? If so you are OK. The back of a bottle of smokeless is UN0161. So different rules. Also, only the outside shipping container must have the numbers, and in North Am we have a different system with NA numbers, but you can use UN if you wish. Confusing is an understatement. | |||
|
One of Us |
5.4.2 seems to indicate there are exceptions provided a safety /standards rule is in place. I.e no more than 5kg, in secure box, etc...no? | |||
|
| one of us |
TBH, I'm not sure enough to comment but have just emailed a good friend & ex colleague from many years ago who still works for a major airline and asked him to contact the appropriate authorities to try to get clarification. | |||
|
| one of us |
I reckon my buddy must have been in the right office when he got my message because I got a reply straight away. I said I was woefully out of date & apparently the current rules are that BP & BPS (and primers) are rated as Explosive 1:3 & may not be carried on any commercial passenger aircraft but smokeless powder is now classified as Explosive 1:4 & may be carried if in a container that separates each round from every other round & under 5kg in total. (Per passenger) He also says that Explosive 1:3 may be carried by cargo only aircraft under the HAZMAT restrictions but that would of course also mean a considerable amount of paperwork from both countries of export & import so probably a non starter. So effectively, they've changed the classification & then changed the rules to accommodate the change of classification & achieved bugger all. Gotta wonder what the point of that was? lol! Which in turn means the post I made quoting the CF statement is still correct although I wouldn't be surprised to hear the penalties have increased in the intervening years. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I would still like to see a specific reference to "when you load propellant into a cartridge" it changes its classification from 1.3 to 1.4. I can find no such reference anywhere. On the CFR 172.101 table, I do see a category for ammunition called "cartridges for weapons, blank, etc" with the designation of 1.4. But right above that you'll find the exact same wording "cartridges for weapons, blank, etc", exactly the same, but with the designation of 1.3, and in that line, the item is forbidden from carriage. So the question is, what is the difference between the two lines that both state "cartridges for weapons, blank, ...", one with 1.3 and the other with 1.4? I'm hung up on the fact that the specification sheets from the powder manufacturers all state their powders are classified as 1.3. My logic would suggest that a propellant classified as 1.3 becomes the "cartridges for weapons, blank, ..." line that is classified as 1.3 and NOT 1.4. Basically your point is suggesting that 1.3 becomes 1.4 simply by loading it into cartridges and placing it in the proper type of box. I'd just like to see an official reference to that conversion. I get the gist of your post, and earlier post, in that 1.4 is allowed. No disagreement. What causes the difference in classification between 1.3 and 1.4? Specific reference to the conversion please? Even the question of looking at the back of a box of cartridges with it being labeled, UN0012 1.4S, how does that apply to handloaded ammo using a propellant classified as 1.3 when it's in loose form? Again, really not trying to be obtuse. Trying to get something firm in writing that we can reference and rely on, in the same manner as many of us print off a specific airline's rules and regs for handling firearms in the event we find an over zealous agent upon check in at the airport. That gives us something in print to counter with. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Steve, your buddy says smokeless powder is now classified as 1.4. But that's not what the individual manufacturers spec sheets say. They say 1.3 as you and I have posted links to. Does you friend have a reference to a document classifying specific powders as 1.4, or as in the discussion with Arniet above, something that says 1.3 classified powder falls into the 1.4 category once loaded into a cartridge and placed in suitable boxes? | |||
|
| one of us |
Todd I'll try to find out but would guess someone looked at the in house database which is probably confidential................. But I'll be surprised if any material changes UN rating designation simply by changing the packaging because it's still the same material. | |||
|
| one of us |
Just had a reply from my old mate who tells me a UN rating remains the same no matter how it's packaged so 1:3 is forbidden whilst 1:4 is permitted under certain circumstances so perhaps the next line of enquiry should be to the powder manufacturers? This is turning into a super mega stuff up. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I’ll tell you what though, just knowing they have gone to such lengths to quantify/clarify/classify makes me feel soooo much safer...seems they have a keen understanding of the whole issue... ;-) | |||
|
| one of us |
One has to ask oneself why the change & I'm in 2 minds about that............ If they changed the rating there could well be good reason but not necessarily.......... However, the primary object of the exercise should be to keep aircraft & passengers safe & secondary to ensure hunters don't get prosecuted............. & although it's an inconvenience for hunters to buy ammo in the country of destination, it's not a train smash. | |||
|
| One of Us |
At least in the US we can ship our ammo ahead...but it seems the clamp just grows ever tighter on hunters. Agree on the safety issues, just how they get to that these days just seems so ...sketchy... | |||
|
| one of us |
I'm not in the office so don't have my books. So going by what I can research online. Not good at cutting and pasting on handheld. Basically Smokless Powder with a Hazard Class 1.3 can be reclassified by the manufactuerer as 1.4 when placed into small arms ammunition. If the materials in Classes 1.3 or 1.4 are listed as Forbidden on aircraft such as BP and BP substitutes then the reclassification cannot occur. Small amounts of small arms ammunition are allowable for transport on a passenger aircraft. The references you can look at is 49 cfr 173.56, 175.10 and especially 173.56. I want to look at what powders are used in manufactured ammo and then i can show a chain of how you get there. That wont be till Monday. Dont make Steve do all the work. | |||
|
| one of us |
What ammo manufactuerer uses RL15? Would like to see an MSDS for their ammo and see how if differs from powder. | |||
|
| one of us |
Perhaps someone could take a look at a a box of RECENTLY bought rifle factory ammo & tell us what rating is marked on the box? | |||
|
| Administrator |
Here is what is on a LAPUA MATCH ammo case. On the outside a red label says - 1.4 S 1 On the side label it says - UN0012 | |||
|
| one of us |
I've just seen pics of 3 types of recently bought factory ammo & all 3 show 1:4. In the good old days smokeless powder was UN rated as Explosive 1:4 & Black Powder & substitutes as 1:3 & in my day, UN ratings didn't change according to packaging style as in pots or loaded rounds etc........ & my old friend who still works in that field says that hasn't changed. Anything rated as 1:3 was absolutely banned from travel on all commercial passenger aircraft worldwide but 1:4 could travel under certain conditions such as in loaded rounds if in a container that separates every round from every other round & total weight of under 5 kg & no 2 allowances ever to be combined. Now comes the problem in that at least some smokeless powders seen to have been reclassified as 1:3 which means it cannot travel on commercial passenger aircraft BUT assuming the pics I've seen are of up to date factory loaded ammo it changes from 1:3 (forbidden) to 1:4 (allowed) when loaded into cases. Which although sounds odd because material doesn't usually change rating is actually handy for travelling hunters.......... it now begs the question of does the same change also apply to black powder & substitute because it's the same 1:3 rating? It also begs the question of does the same rating change apply to home loaded ammo? And that could seriously affect aircraft safety & also mean mega serious penalties for travelling hunters if they get it wrong. | |||
|
| one of us |
Steve If you look at the 49 cfr regulations it shows only "smokeless powder" can be reclassified. That interpretation letter you posted supports that as well as the regulations I cited. The UN regulations should be identical to our 49 CFR. IATA is merely a guidebook for air carriers and should mimick the regulations but carries no regulatory power. Here in the states the FAA takes regulatory lead and does inspect shippers you offer dangerous goods by air. The only way we are going to get an official answer is to write to PHMSA. John | |||
|
one of us |
I must disagree Bill! That is not a bullshit rule, I worked for American airlines for 30 yrs, and have been retired for almost 20 years and that rule has been in effect as long as I can remember. There are many things that can set off black powder, and I don't think you would want to be in a plane over the ocean when a hole was blown in the belly of you plane caused by a little electrical short, or cargo crushing a case with black powder in the belly setting off an explosion, and or fire in the belly under the floor beneath your seat. The key is to make arrangement with you safari company to procure some black powder in their location so it will be available for you in camp. An airplane going down in flames, is not a good way to get back down to earth. ………………………………………  MacD37....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1 DRSS Charter member "If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982 Hands of Old Elmer Keith  | |||
|
| one of us |
Well that's interesting. Last time I went I took .375 H&H cartridges loaded with RL15. Indy Life is short. Hunt hard. | |||
|
one of us |
Mac, of course I defer to your long experience. I guess the proper and traditional way to hunt Africa using Golden Era Victorian weapons is to book passage on a steamship. There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t. – John Green, author | |||
|
One of Us |
Steamship!!! ::  Thanks for the needed break. Or maybe we all would benefit from a relaxing 3 month long cruise on a Steamships? NRA Life Benefactor Member, DRSS, DWWC, Whittington Center,Android Reloading Ballistics App at http://www.xplat.net/ | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting African Big Game Hunting Looking for Black powder in Zimbabwe
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia