Aren't there smokless powder muzzleloaders that could be used in Africa with minimal problems? Or would it be possible to get the chemicals and mill your own black powder at camp?
Didn't want to derail the black powder in Africa thread.

Problem is, from the research Steve and I have done so far, we haven't found any smokeless powder that is currently classified as anything other than Explosive 1.3 and that classification is listed as forbidden for air travel.

TNJohn has made a couple of claims that once you load it into a cartridge it is converted to 1.4 but so far, he hasn't been able to provide a link to any such conversion exemption. He claims you can trust him because he has 35 years of experience shipping HAZMAT.




I'd rather see some official documentation as Steve and I are under the impression this may be a new development.

It appears that factory loaded ammo is still classified as 1.4 and therefore legal to carry. So I suppose you could just pull the bullets from some factory rounds, but then you don't know what powder the manufacturer used in those loads so I don't see that working for you.

We need to get more clarification on the issue as it stands.

Hey Todd

I told you where to look. What I gave was from a few minutes of research on my phone.

The regulations are clear. The interpretation letters are clear.

I'm not able to cut and paste till during the week.

John

I might add, you don't handle this correctly it may turn out the term manufactuerer may not apply to handloaders. Ammo makers issue MSDS's showing their ammo is 1.4 and are doing this based on the regulations. They've been inspected. This is routine. Carry the MSDS you'll be just fine.

Start reloading yourself to unload overseas is not the way to go. Check local regulations you may find that the manufacturer or possession of an explosive is a serious offense. Since the powder is no longer in a cartridge it then reverts to its original classification.

quote:

Originally posted by TNJohn:
Hey Todd

I told you where to look. What I gave was from a few minutes of research on my phone.

The regulations are clear. The interpretation letters are clear.

I'm not able to cut and paste till during the week.

John

I looked there John. And by the way, I looked there long before you offered where to look. As I said earlier, I didn't find a specific reference to Explosive 1.3 being converted to 1.4 just by loading it into cartridges. And NO, Steve isn't the only guy doing the research.

But then again, I do work during the day and was doing my research when taking a few breaks during the day. It's possible I've overlooked the specific reference to the 1.3 to 1.4 conversion. THAT is the reason I asked for someone to provide a specific link if they know of it. So, if you or anyone else has a direct link to the specific authorization, I'd like to see it so that I can print it for reference as it's only a matter of time before some overzealous gate agent attempts to prohibit us from taking our ammo on safari.

As I stated time and time again on the other thread, there MUST be an exemption, maybe in the form of this conversion action you mention, but I just can't find it and I've looked pretty damn hard at this point.


Just for further clarification John, you do realize that 173.56 applies to certification process of "New Explosives", right? It has nothing to do with powders that have been on the market long enough to have already been classified, UNLESS the manufacturer has made a material change to the formula. Even then I don't read it to say what you are claiming. I think the part you are referencing is 173.56 (h) and the statement I've placed in bold under item 4 under paragraph (h). First you need to look at (h) (1). It says these rules do not apply to explosives NOT FORBIDDEN under 173.54. So I've posted 173.54 under 173.56. Look at paragraph (j). It states "(j) Explosives specifically forbidden in the § 172.101 table of this subchapter." Of course this gets real tedious but I posted 172.101's table on the other thread. It specifically states Cartridges, small arms, blank with the classification of 1.3C to be forbidden. AND the crux of the matter is, all smokeless powders I've researched so far are listed as 1.3C. Yes, it says 1.4 can be carried, but so far, I haven't found any manufacturer's powder that is currently classified as 1.4. They are all 1.3.

So again, I have not seen a specific reference to a smokeless powder that is classified as 1.3 being converted to 1.4 by the act of loading it into cartridges. If you can put those links together, that would be great. I'm not asking you to do it because I don't want to do it. I'm asking anyone if they can put the links together from the standpoint that I've tried and haven't been able to do so yet.



§ 173.56 New explosives - definition and procedures for classification and approval.
(a) Definition of new explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter a new explosive means an explosive produced by a person who:

(1) Has not previously produced that explosive; or

(2) Has previously produced that explosive but has made a change in the formulation, design or process so as to alter any of the properties of the explosive. An explosive will not be considered a “new explosive” if an agency listed in paragraph (b) of this section has determined, and confirmed in writing to the Associate Administrator, that there are no significant differences in hazard characteristics from the explosive previously approved.

(b) Examination, classification and approval. Except as provided in §§ 173.64 and 173.65, no person may offer a new explosive for transportation unless that person has specified to the examining agency the ranges of composition of ingredients and compounds, showing the intended manufacturing tolerances in the composition of substances or design of articles which will be allowed in that material or device, and unless it has been examined, classed and approved as follows:

(1) Except for an explosive made by or under the direction or supervision of the Department of Defense (DOD) or the Department of Energy (DOE), a new explosive must be examined and assigned a recommended shipping description, division and compatibility group, based on the tests and criteria prescribed in §§ 173.52, 173.57 and 173.58. The person requesting approval of the new explosive must submit to the Associate Administrator a report of the examination and assignment of a recommended shipping description, division, and compatibility group. If the Associate Administrator finds the approval request meets the regulatory criteria, the new explosive will be approved in writing and assigned an EX number. The examination must be performed by a person who is approved by the Associate Administrator under the provisions of subpart H of part 107 of this chapter and who -

(i) Has (directly, or through an employee involved in the examination) at least ten years of experience in the examination, testing and evaluation of explosives;

(ii) Does not manufacture or market explosives, and is not controlled by or financially dependent on any entity that manufactures or markets explosives, and whose work with respect to explosives is limited to examination, testing and evaluation; and

(iii) Is a resident of the United States.

(2) A new explosive made by or under the direction or supervision of a component of the DOD may be examined, classed, and concurred in by:

(i) U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety (SMCAC-EST), Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA-9934), or Air Force Safety Agency (SEW), when approved by the Chairman, DOD Explosives Board, in accordance with the DOD Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures (IBR, see § 171.7 of the subchapter); or

(ii) The agencies and procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) A new explosive made by or under the direction or supervision of the Department of Energy (DOE) may be -

(i) Examined by the DOE in accordance with the DOD Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures, and must be classed and approved by DOE; or

(ii) Examined, classed, and approved in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(4) For a material shipped under the description of “ammonium nitrate-fuel oil mixture (ANFO)”, the only test required for classification purposes is the Cap Sensitivity Test - Test Method 5(a) prescribed in the Explosive Test Manual (UN Manual of Tests and Criteria) (IBR, see § 171.7 of the subchapter). The test must be performed by an agency listed in paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section, the manufacturer, or the shipper. A copy of the test report must be submitted to the Associate Administrator before the material is offered for transportation, and a copy of the test report must be retained by the shipper for as long as that material is shipped. At a minimum, the test report must contain the name and address of the person or organization conducting the test, date of the test, quantitative description of the mixture, including prill size and porosity, and a description of the test results.

(c) Filing DOD or DOE approval report. DOD or DOE must file a copy of each approval, accompanied by supporting laboratory data, with the Associate Administrator and receive acknowledgement in writing before offering the new explosive for transportation, unless the new explosive is:

(1) Being transported under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section; or

(2) Covered by a national security classification currently in effect.

(d) Transportation of explosive samples for examination. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section with regard to the transportation of a new explosive that has not been approved, a person may offer a sample of a new explosive for transportation, by railroad, highway, or vessel from the place where it was produced to an agency identified in paragraph (b) of this section, for examination if -

(1) The new explosive has been assigned a tentative shipping description and class in writing by the testing agency;

(2) The new explosive is packaged as required by this part according to the tentative description and class assigned, unless otherwise specified in writing by the testing agency; and,

(3) The package is labeled as required by this subchapter and the following is marked on the package:

(i) The words “SAMPLE FOR LABORATORY EXAMINATION”;

(ii) The net weight of the new explosive; and

(iii) The tentative shipping name and identification number.

(e) Transportation of unapproved explosives for developmental testing. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the owner of a new explosive that has not been examined or approved may transport that new explosive from the place where it was produced to an explosives testing range if -

(1) It is not a primary (a 1.1A initiating) explosive or a forbidden explosive according to this subchapter;

(2) It is described as a Division 1.1 explosive (substance or article) and is packed, marked, labeled, described on shipping papers and is otherwise offered for transportation in conformance with the requirements of this subchapter applicable to Division 1.1;

(3) It is transported in a motor vehicle operated by the owner of the explosive; and

(4) It is accompanied by a person, in addition to the operator of the motor vehicle, who is qualified by training and experience to handle the explosive.

(f) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section, the Associate Administrator may approve a new explosive on the basis of an approval issued for the explosive by the competent authority of a foreign government, or when examination of the explosive by a person approved by the Associate Administrator is impracticable, on the basis of reports of tests conducted by disinterested third parties, or may approve the transportation of an explosives sample for the purpose of examination by a person approved by the Associate Administrator.

(g) An explosive may be transported under subparts B or C of part 171 or § 176.11 of this subchapter without the approval of the Associate Administrator as required by paragraph (b) of this section if the Associate Administrator has acknowledged in writing the acceptability of an approval issued by the competent authority of a foreign government pursuant to the provisions of the UN Recommendations, the ICAO Technical Instructions, the IMDG Code (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter), or other national or international regulations based on the UN Recommendations. In such a case, a copy of the foreign competent authority approval, and a copy of the written acknowledgement of its acceptance must accompany each shipment of that explosive.

(h) The requirements of this section do not apply to cartridges, small arms which are:

(1) Not a forbidden explosive under § 173.54 of this subchapter;

(2) Ammunition for rifle, pistol, shotgun, or tools;

(3) Ammunition with inert projectile or blank ammunition; and

(4) Ammunition not exceeding 50 caliber for rifle or pistol cartridges or 8 gauge for shotgun shells.

Cartridges, small arms meeting the criteria of this paragraph (h) may be assigned a classification code of 1.4S by the manufacturer.

(i) If experience or other data indicate that the hazard of a material or a device containing an explosive composition is greater or less than indicated according to the definition and criteria specified in §§ 173.50, 173.56, and 173.58 of this subchapter, the Associate Administrator may specify a classification or except the material or device from the requirements of this subchapter.

(j) [Reserved]

[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617 Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 66267, Dec. 20, 1991; Amdt. 173-234, 58 FR 51532, Oct. 1, 1993; 62 FR 51560, Oct. 1, 1997; 63 FR 37461, July 10, 1998; 64 FR 10777, Mar. 5, 1999; 66 FR 45379, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 75743, Dec. 31, 2003; 72 FR 25177, May 3, 2007; 78 FR 1074, Jan. 7, 2013; 78 FR 42477, July 16, 2013]


§ 173.54 Forbidden explosives.
Unless otherwise provided in this subchapter, the following explosives shall not be offered for transportation or transported:

(a) An explosive that has not been approved in accordance with § 173.56 of this subpart.

(b) An explosive mixture or device containing a chlorate and also containing:

(1) An ammonium salt, including a substituted ammonium or quaternary ammonium salt; or

(2) An acidic substance, including a salt of a weak base and a strong acid.

(c) A leaking or damaged package or article containing an explosive.

(d) Propellants that are unstable, condemned or deteriorated.

(e) Nitroglycerin, diethylene glycol dinitrate, or any other liquid explosives not specifically authorized by this subchapter.

(f) A loaded firearm (except as provided in 49 CFR 1544.219).

(g) Fireworks that combine an explosive and a detonator.

(h) Fireworks containing yellow or white phosphorus.

(i) A toy torpedo, the maximum outside dimension of which exceeds 23 mm (0.906 inch), or a toy torpedo containing a mixture of potassium chlorate, black antimony (antimony sulfide), and sulfur, if the weight of the explosive material in the device exceeds 0.26 g (0.01 ounce).

(j) Explosives specifically forbidden in the § 172.101 table of this subchapter.
(k) Explosives not meeting the acceptance criteria specified in § 173.57 of this subchapter.

(l) An explosive article with its means of initiation or ignition installed, unless approved in accordance with § 173.56.

[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617 Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 66267, Dec. 20, 1991; Amdt. 173-236, 58 FR 50236, Sept. 24, 1993; 67 FR 61013, Sept. 27, 2002; 68 FR 48569, Aug. 14, 2003]

quote:

Originally posted by TNJohn:
I might add, you don't handle this correctly it may turn out the term manufactuerer may not apply to handloaders. Ammo makers issue MSDS's showing their ammo is 1.4 and are doing this based on the regulations. They've been inspected. This is routine. Carry the MSDS you'll be just fine.

Start reloading yourself to unload overseas is not the way to go. Check local regulations you may find that the manufacturer or possession of an explosive is a serious offense. Since the powder is no longer in a cartridge it then reverts to its original classification.

John, are you even paying attention to this discussion.

Yes, it started on the black powder thread with the guy asking about black powder and the comment was made about the illegal practice of loading BP into cartridges to get a supply into Africa. I and others were quick to condemn that practice.

The last two pages on that thread was a discussion based on someone asking about taking smokeless powder for one of the new smokeless powder muzzleloaders. On the surface, it seemed doable since all of us who have been on safari and taken our own guns have taken our ammo. Been there. Done that. Numerous times.

When the comment was made on using a smokeless powder muzzleloader, someone mentioned RL-7. Steve posted the manufacturer's MSDS for RL-7. In fact, it is the MSDS for all of the Alliant powders. RL-15 is included in that and many of us use RL-15 in big bore rifles. So the discussion turned to reviewing other manufacturer's MSDSs. So far, all of the powders Steve and I looked at say Explosive 1.3.

So if all of the smokeless powder MSDSs from the manufacturers all say 1.3, how is it that we can load our own ammo and take it aboard an aircraft?

So once again, your statement of "carry the MSDS and you'll be just fine" is incorrect!! In fact, relying only on the MSDS from the manufacturer is exactly what steered this conversation in this direction. AT THIS POINT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELOADING FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNLOADING ONCE OVERSEAS. It has to do with trying to sort out what appears to be a change in HAZMAT policy OR a change in the classification in the MSDS of smokeless powders from 1.4 to 1.3, UNLESS you rely on factory bought ammunition.

You posted the answer just now.

I know what your trying to do. My references have only been about ammunition that is manufactured commercially, I've never discussed or said you could reload and reclassify!

Key word manufactuerer. Second key word assigned. Section H is likely how the commercial guys get to being able to call it 1.4.

MSDS reference is to Ammo as per the post, not the powder. If you are reloading then you probably just put a target on every reloader as the topic becomes are they a manufactuerer of ammunition. Most reloaders can't put together an MSDS and aren't federally registered as a manufactuerer.

Suggest you pick up the phone and call the DOT hotline and drop them an email they'll love to hear from you.

quote:

Originally posted by TNJohn:
You posted the answer just now.

I know what your trying to do. My references have only been about ammunition that is manufactured commercially, I've never discussed or said you could reload and reclassify!

Key word manufactuerer. Second key word assigned. Section H is likely how the commercial guys get to being able to call it 1.4.

MSDS reference is to Ammo as per the post, not the powder. If you are reloading then you probably just put a target on every reloader as the topic becomes are they a manufactuerer of ammunition. Most reloaders can't put together an MSDS and aren't federally registered as a manufactuerer.

Suggest you pick up the phone and call the DOT hotline and drop them an email they'll love to hear from you.

Bold part above is exactly why I asked if you were paying attention to the conversation. As I suspected, you weren't!

The question I've been looking to answer all along is what authorization exists for us as handloaders, to fabricate handloaded ammo using the manufacturer's propellents when the MSDS for the commonly used powders all list the material as Explosive 1.3. Finding out that little tidbit of info on Friday was certainly a surprise to me as I'm sure it was to many. And it doesn't appear to be a new development as this is the MSDS for IMR powders, dated April 2009 ... yep, Explosive 1.3! Just an example. There are others.

http://www.sinclairintl.com/us...0-%20407_default.pdf


I couldn't give two rats asses about factory ammo. I've purchased a total of 1 box of factory ammo since sometime in the 1980's. This very forum is Accurate Reloading and as such, there are many here who travel with handloaded ammo on our hunts abroad.

Interesting that you say I just put a target on every reloader's back. I say you're full of shit! All I did was notice a nuance in the previous conversation that has raised questions that need to be sorted out. You seem to be suggesting just keeping the topic quiet and letting guys continue to break the law unsuspectingly. Is that what 35 years of shipping HAZMAT has taught you? I'm not sure how that action would be much different than telling guys to just load their ammo with BP and pass it off as factory smokeless.

So in short John, no you don't know the answer to the question at hand. I didn't think so.

Todd

I'm sick of people like you trying to figure out ways to circumvent the regulations. Don't mis quote me or try to allude that I in any way misled anyone. You don't know shit and its evident.

The question was asked how do ammo manufactuerers reclassify. If you look at Steves posts you will notice his Information was predicated on manufactured ammo.

So tomorrow pick up the phone call DOT and ask them if you can do this as reloader. Notice no one else with knowledge but Steve has come forth to even try to help figure this out. I was in the field and willing to run down my contacts on Monday and find out the ins and outs.

Now you can go pound sand.

No one said to keep quiet. The one thing about me is I'll run somebody into the ground for trying to skirt the regs. Don't you ever accuse me of doing something shady.

You could have called one of the big reloaders and asked them but no you want to prove something.

FU

John

quote:

Originally posted by TNJohn:
Todd

I'm sick of people like you trying to figure out ways to circumvent the regulations. Don't mis quote me or try to allude that I in any way misled anyone. You don't know shit and its evident.

The question was asked how do ammo manufactuerers reclassify. If you look at Steves posts you will notice his Information was predicated on manufactured ammo.

So tomorrow pick up the phone call DOT and ask them if you can do this as reloader. Notice no one else with knowledge but Steve has come forth to even try to help figure this out. I was in the field and willing to run down my contacts on Monday and find out the ins and outs.

Now you can go pound sand.

No one said to keep quiet. The one thing about me is I'll run somebody into the ground for trying to skirt the regs. Don't you ever accuse me of doing something shady.

You could have called one of the big reloaders and asked them but no you want to prove something.

FU

John

John, my apologies for the personal attack but really fella, you appear to be a basic idiot, and a rather simple sumbitch to boot. Referring to me as the one trying to get around the regulations is laughable. Please show me one single reference in the two threads where I advocated for such.

Skirting the regs is EXACTLY what I am trying to advise my fellow reloaders NOT to do by examining what appears to be a serious misunderstanding we may have had in the regs. Everything I've read so far indicates that we cannot carry handloaded ammo on passenger aircraft, despite what we have all believed to allowed. I've been trying to find out the exact authorization that would allow handloaders to carry our ammo. So far, it doesn't appear to exist and if that's the case, we as handloaders need to take heed of that fact as it appears this is a problem that we were unaware of. Guys can do what they want I suppose but for me, I'll not be carrying any handloaded ammo on a jet again unless and until I can find a specific regulation that allows it.

And yes John, your suggestions of just letting the handloading issue go without question IS advocating for skirting the rules. You are guilty of what you accuse. Nothing more, nothing less.

You should really work on your comprehension skills. NO, the question was NOT how do manufacturers reclassify. I suppose I should know what the question is as I'm the guy that asked it. lol. I asked how it is that we as handloaders can carry ammo we've loaded with 1.3 because it appears we can't. Someone stated that the 1.3 becomes reclassified to 1.4 once it's loaded. I asked for proof in the form of a link, to an official document allowing such reclassification. You claimed the same reclassification until I backed you into a corner and forced you to admit that you don't know of one either and all of a sudden, you claim your comments are restricted to factory ammo. Yeah, right!

I'll be a little less cryptic in my sign off as I tried to engage you from the beginning in an intelligent manner and discuss the issue civilly, asking you to drop the snark on several occasions.


But since you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, I'll leave you with this ... FUCK OFF ASSHOLE!!

Done with you Todd. You started the shit, should have waited until this week I would have found out something and possibly got you where you needed to be. You never backed me into a corner. Someone asked how a powder when placed into ammo is reclassified. My answer was to that post.

You Are right it appears handloaders are likely illegally offering ammo. Is there an exemption or interpretation that says different, looked through a 100 or more and can't find an exact match. A couple that could be used. Is there a loophole or something that may allow it, maybe. You call the DOT hotline on Monday start there and find out the answer.

Todd

You are a good guy but I suggest that you take a higher road. Getting a bit over the top. Just saying...

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleDon:
Todd

You are a good guy but I suggest that you take a higher road. Getting a bit over the top. Just saying...

My apologies Don and to all. I tried the high road with this fellow early on when we started out on the black powder thread. When the guy told me to "pound sand" and signed off with FU in the immediate post above mine, I'd simply had enough of.


My last post on the subject. I'll leave the final determination on the legalities of handloaded ammo to others to sort out.

quote:

Originally posted by TNJohn:
Todd

I'm sick of people like you trying to figure out ways to circumvent the regulations. Don't mis quote me or try to allude that I in any way misled anyone. You don't know shit and its evident.

The question was asked how do ammo manufactuerers reclassify. If you look at Steves posts you will notice his Information was predicated on manufactured ammo.

So tomorrow pick up the phone call DOT and ask them if you can do this as reloader. Notice no one else with knowledge but Steve has come forth to even try to help figure this out. I was in the field and willing to run down my contacts on Monday and find out the ins and outs.

Now you can go pound sand.

No one said to keep quiet. The one thing about me is I'll run somebody into the ground for trying to skirt the regs. Don't you ever accuse me of doing something shady.

You could have called one of the big reloaders and asked them but no you want to prove something.

FU

John

How to win friends and influence people.

If you guys are done trying to prove who's the smartest person on the boards, could it be as simple as a regulation that lets you reclassify hazardous materials as "less hazardous" due to the quantity, and method of packaging, like the post office does?



Publication 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail > 3 Hazardous Materials > 33 Hazard Classes > 335 ORM–D Materials

Link to "334 Mailable Limited Quantity" Link to contents for "3 Hazardous Materials" Link to Index Link to "336 Small Quantity"

335 ORM–D Materials
ORM-D (Other Regulated Material) material is a limited quantity of a hazardous material that presents a limited hazard during transportation due to its form, quantity, and packaging. Not all hazardous materials permitted to be shipped as a limited quantity can qualify as an ORM-D material. Some of the hazardous materials that qualify under the limited quantity provision are permitted a further exemption in 49 CFR 172.101 (column 8A) to be reclassified as an ORM-D material under 49 CFR 173.144 and renamed with the proper shipping name “Consumer Commodity,” which is defined in Appendix D. Effective January 1, 2021, the ORM-D category will be eliminated for materials intended for surface transportation. After this date, the mailability of materials previously fitting the description of ORM-D must be evaluated based on its eligibility under the applicable consumer commodity or mailable limited quantity categories.

I am sure other members have been looking at this too.

I am almost getting to the point of seeing this like the lithium batteries debacle!

One day they tell you you cannot take on on board, the next they tell you you can, but not in your carry luggage.

The next day all that is reversed, you can carry it in your carry on, but not in checked baggage.

What I know so far.

You cannot carry either smokeless or black powder on airplanes.

You can carry smokeless powder on airplanes as long as it is in loaded ammo.

They do restrict this per passenger.

But there is no restriction in carrying large amount of loaded ammo on cargo planes.

Can anyone make any sense out of this??

I cannot.

To me at least, this is more important than silly insults and (IMO) we should rather be trying to get to the bottom of it because it could not only land (excuse the pun) a hunter well & truly in the shit but even more importantly, it could endanger aircraft if there is a mistake somewhere.

What puzzles me is how a material can suddenly change it's safety rating simply by a change of container & why does that rule apply to one material but not to another (of the same rating) .......As I've repeatedly said, I'm well & truly out of date but such changes used to be absolutely unheard of......... in fact, people & companies used to be prosecuted for trying to pull that stunt.

Like Saeed, I can make no sense out of it at all!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
To me at least, this is more important than silly insults and (IMO) we should rather be trying to get to the bottom of it because it could not only land (excuse the pun) a hunter well & truly in the shit but even more importantly, it could endanger aircraft if there is a mistake somewhere.

What puzzles me is how a material can suddenly change it's safety rating simply by a change of container & why does that rule apply to one material but not to another (of the same rating) .......As I've repeatedly said, I'm well & truly out of date but such changes used to be absolutely unheard of......... in fact, people & companies used to be prosecuted for trying to pull that stunt.

Like Saeed, I can make no sense out of it at all!

Changing the shipping and handling requirements due to packaging, etc. is actually pretty common. My guys at work can transport lube oil in the back of their trucks as long as it is in barrels of 55 gallons or less. That same oil in more than 55 gallon containers requires a hazardous material shipping license.

On airplanes people are allowed to carry consumer qualities of highly volatile chemicals (nail polish remover, etc) while bigger containers are prohibited from being aboard.

quote:

Originally posted by Fjold:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
To me at least, this is more important than silly insults and (IMO) we should rather be trying to get to the bottom of it because it could not only land (excuse the pun) a hunter well & truly in the shit but even more importantly, it could endanger aircraft if there is a mistake somewhere.

What puzzles me is how a material can suddenly change it's safety rating simply by a change of container & why does that rule apply to one material but not to another (of the same rating) .......As I've repeatedly said, I'm well & truly out of date but such changes used to be absolutely unheard of......... in fact, people & companies used to be prosecuted for trying to pull that stunt.

Like Saeed, I can make no sense out of it at all!

Changing the shipping and handling requirements due to packaging, etc. is actually pretty common. My guys at work can transport lube oil in the back of their trucks as long as it is in barrels of 55 gallons or less. That same oil in more than 55 gallon containers requires a hazardous material shipping license.

On airplanes people are allowed to carry consumer qualities of highly volatile chemicals (nail polish remover, etc) while bigger containers are prohibited from being aboard.

It's not the same thing.

Changing the shipping/handling requirements for a material on land may well be commonplace but changing UN rating for materials shipped by air is not & although I've looked very hard I can't find any official info that says it's possible & even if it is then how can it be possible for it to happen with smokeless powders but not black powders? - Surely if one material can change rating from 1:3 to 1:4 why can't all materials be changed in the same way?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Hopefully it'll be sorted out quickly & more to the point........... safely!

This entire debacle tells me one thing. There is not one chance in hell that I would ever take black power in any form with me for fear of misinterpretation and end up with a big fine or in jail. Simply not worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This entire debacle tells me one thing. There is not one chance in hell that I would ever take black power in any form with me for fear of misinterpretation and end up with a big fine or in jail. Simply not worth it.

Bloody right!

quote:

Originally posted by 86thecat:
Aren't there smokless powder muzzleloaders that could be used in Africa with minimal problems? Or would it be possible to get the chemicals and mill your own black powder at camp?
Didn't want to derail the black powder in Africa thread.

Did not have to worry about derailing the other thread, this one derailed almost immediately all on it's own.

quote:

Originally posted by 86thecat:

quote:

Originally posted by 86thecat:
Aren't there smokless powder muzzleloaders that could be used in Africa with minimal problems? Or would it be possible to get the chemicals and mill your own black powder at camp?
Didn't want to derail the black powder in Africa thread.

Did not have to worry about derailing the other thread, this one derailed almost immediately all on it's own.

The difference between authority and asshole can sometimes be measured in microns.