I know you can't take a can of black powder, but can you take black powder loaded rounds?

I have taken BP loaded ammo on planes; they don't specify what KIND of powder it has to be loaded with as long as it is in the specified boxes, etc.

Yes. In fact, there's nothing to stop you from carrying twelve gauge shells loaded with nothing but black powder with a belted .50 cal projectile sitting on top of it and the appropriate shotshell primer stuffed in its base . Just don't exceed a total ammunition weight of 5.5 kg.

Guys,

BP, BP substitutes, percussion caps and primers are all strictly banned from being carried on any commercial aircraft.... and for very good reason.

Check the links at the bottom of the page here: http://www.shakariconnection.c...-and-air-travel.html

Or check here: http://www.africahunting.com/b...-powder-primers.html

The crux of the matter is that if the powder is classified as explosive 1.anything, it cannot travel on any commercial aircraft whereras if it's classified as Flammable (as in smokeless powder), it may travel under certain restricted limitations.

Penalties in this post 9/11 society in which we live are very severe and may include both huge fines and also serious jail time.

I've no doubt people have pulled tricks in the past to do it but it's bloody dangerous to their wealth & liberty and much more importantly it endangers the aircraft, everyone on board and anyone on the ground the aircraft might land on....... and frankly, I wouldn't advise anyone to admit to having done it in the past because as has been proved several times, these forums are monitored from time to time by a variety of people/agencies and admission of doing something like that just might have repussions at some time in the future.

To quote John Jackson:

"Air Travel with Black Powder is Absolutely Prohibited: What You Need to Know

Black powder is a Class 1.10, Packing Group II, number UN0027 “Explosive”. Air travel with black powder in your checked luggage is prohibited. Carriage on a plane is not one single offense. Rather, it constitutes multiple offenses and subjects the sportsman to multiple separate civil penalties (15 to be exact) that can each be substantial. The following is a partial quote from a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty received by a hunter when his luggage was found to contain one container of Jim Shockey’s Gold Premium Grade Black Powder Replacement:

By reason of the above, you violated the following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations):

1. Section 171.2(a) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation in commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter.

2. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(1) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the proper shipping name prescribed for the material in Column 2 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

3. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(2) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the hazard class or division prescribed for the material as shown in Column 3 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

4. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(3) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the identification number prescribed for the material as shown in Column 4 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

5. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(4) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the packing grouping, in Roman numerals, prescribed for the material in Column 5 of the § 172.101 Table, if any, of the material covered by the description, in the manner required by this subpart.

6. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(5) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the total quantity (by net or gross mass, capacity, or as otherwise appropriate), including the unit of measurement, of the hazardous material covered by the description, in the manner required by this subpart.

7. Sections 172.204(a) or (c)(1) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to certify that the material was offered for transportation in accordance with this subchapter by printing on the shipping paper containing the required shipping description one of the certifications set forth in this part.

8. Section 172.204(c)(2) in that you offered a hazardous material to an aircraft operator for transportation by air and failed to provide two copies of the certification required in this section.

9. Section 172.204(c)(3) in that you offered for transportation by air a hazardous material authorized for air transportation and failed to add the certification required in this section the following statement:

“I declare that all of the applicable air transport requirements have been met.”

10. Section 172.301(a) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material in a non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the proper shipping name and identification number (preceded by “UN” or “NA”, as appropriate) for the material as shown in the § 172.101 Table.

11. Section 172.400(a) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material in one of the packages or containment devices listed in this subpart and failed to label the package or containment device with the labels specified for the material in the § 172.101 Table and in this subpart.

12. Section 172.600(c) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material and failed to make the emergency response information immediately available for use at all times the hazardous material was present, and failed to make such information, including an emergency response telephone number, immediately available to any government agency responding to an incident involving hazardous material or conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous material.

13. Section 172.21(a) in that you offered for transportation materials designated “Forbidden” in Column 3 of the § 172.101 Table.

14. Section 173.21(b) in that you offered for transportation forbidden explosives as defined in § 173.54 of this part.

15. Section 173.54(a) in that you offered for transportation an explosive that had not been approved in accordance with § 173.56 of this subpart.

In accordance with Section 5123(a) of Chapter 51, Title 49 of the United States Code of Transportation, 49 U.S.C§ 5123, [name of violator] is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $250, nor greater than $50,000 ($100,000 if death, serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage results), for each violation of the regulations.

John J. Jackson, III
Conservation Force - A Force For Wildlife Conservation, Wild Places And Our Way Of Life
cf@conservationforce.org
www.conservationforce.org"

And note that the last sentence says FOR EACH VIOLATION.

You might also note that these charges all relate to one piece of legislation and that there are also several other pieces of legislation, notably the Air Navigation Order, (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) Act that could also be applied and on top of all that, if the authorities felt particularly vindictive, they could also probably anti terrorism charges if they wanted to.

Oh and BTW, Stonecreek,

Hope you don't mind me correcting you slightly in that's 5 kgs of ammo rather than 5.5 kgs

I was hammered on this years ago. It is definitely a pain. I am taking a m-loader to Namibia in a couple weeks. Had to get the powder company to ship mine over for me to a gun shop in Namibia who has a license for it. I know it cost them $1000 to ship it over! Obviously all parties have the correct licenses, etc., but it is a major pain.

What do guys who shoot the blackpowder cartridges do? Isn't that legal as it is ammo? It is no more explosive (less) than smokeless? Again, I don't know how it can be legally taken with you...makes no sense to me...

Tim, blackpowder, no matter how it is carried (even in brass cases), is much more explosive than smokeless powder. It burns quicker and is thus more explosive. It carries less energy than slow burning smokeless powder, but it's much more dangerous. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question, though.

Here's a thumbnail sketch of why it's illegal.

Aircraft holds are designed to cope with 'in hold' fires of a set temperature at a set burn time. Some are also equipped with fire extunguishers. Their ability to cope with explosions is effectively virtually non-existent.

If a fire exceeds the containment limitations, it burns through the floor of the aircraft into the passenger cabin and/or through the fusalage of the aircraft which then loses it's integrity and/or ability to fly and falls apart either in the air or when it hits the ground. Obviously in either case, the flight control cables are almost certainly damaged/destroyed.

Accidents are usually the cause of a series of incidents rather than just one and the Valuejet incident is a good example. In that incident, the heat and oxygen was provided by the illegally loaded oxygen generators and the fuel for the fire was provided by the tyres in the spares pack. The time it took for the fire to bring down the aircraft was just a few minutes at most.

In the case of BP & BP substitutes etc, you have the explosive which is a far greater hazard in itself (than flammable powder) should something fall on it and in the event of a fire in the hold becomes even more of a hazard.

The bottom line of it is that flammable material such as smokeless powder is just that. Flammable and BP/BP substitute is explosive.

Let's also remember that if someone tries and gets caught or even worse brings down an aircraft, it paints us all in a bad light and could easily mean that ALL ammunition might be banned from travel at some time in the future....... and incidentally, the first step on that road has already been taken by the EUSSR last year when they banned all ammo from flights into and out of the EUSSR.

Admittedly, they subsequently issued a waiver for sporting ammo but let's not forget they haven't withdrawn the original legislation of the ban.

There's also no great reason to take your own on a flight because if M/Ls are legal in a country, the powder will almost certainly be available locally, so why not just buy it there?

And if anyone doesn't know where to buy it or whether it can be bought, feel free to contact me and I'll do my best to find out for them.

So am I to understand if I have a say 577 BPE hammered double I can't bring it to Africa with loaded ammo and that I must find these rounds in Africa?

I'll be specific and run the risk of stating the obvious.

You can bring the firearm and the metallic cases (assuming they're loaded with ordinary primers), the profectiles/bullets/heads and a set of dies. (You might be able to borrow a set of dies here).

Technically although not required by law or regulation, you might like to pack the profectiles/bullets/heads in a container that keeps each separated from the others just in case you get a dumbarse check in agent that misinterprets the rules.

Then you can buy the BP or BP substitute here in Africa (assuming it's available and you might have to pre-order it) and then load them here.

You cannot bring BP, BP substitute, loose primers or any percussion caps whatsoever.

Another alternative is just to bring the rifle and have someone (probably a dealer) here load the rounds for you..... but that of course will depend on what country and what area you're going to.

For example, if RSA, one of the JNB dealers could well be able to do it for you and I'd have thought one of the dealers in the Nelspruit area if you were passing through could also do it for you.

Does anyone know if, in this global economy, powder companies ship their product by sea? I very sincerely doubt it.

The only way it can be shipped is by surface transport under 'HAZMAT' requirements and packaging etc. That means it's slow and probably relatively expensive but not impossible.

Sannadex is made in RSA so really only has to sourced from there rather than from the US etc.

Last year, 2010, I had Air 2000 Hunters Support, purchase 1 lb. of Swiss black powder for myself along with some percussion caps. The total cost was approximately $200.00 US. That amount included all necessary paperwork & official approval for transport. (Johannesburg airport)

Air 2000 greeted me on arrival - prearranged temporary firearm import assistance and my powder & caps. Done in 1/2 hour with the whole thing.

Didn't get a damn thing with that muzzle loader. Left the powder & caps with the PH.

Expensive, but it can safely, legally be accomplished.

The prohibitions on carrying flammable, hazardous, or otherwise dangerous substances applies to smokeless powder as equally as it does black powder, or black powder substitutes, or any other propellent, including match heads. You can add primers, gasoline, propane, and an extensive array of other substances to that list. None of these substances may be carried in checked baggage.

There is an exception for self-contained sporting ammunition if kept to less than 5 kg. This exception does not appear to discriminate as to the nature of the propellant contained in the fully assembled ammunition.

Although I have neither had nor expect to have occasion to carry any ammunition with me that has as its propellant anything other than nitrocellulose or a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine (yes, NITROGLYCERINE!), I would be glad to be informed if the carriage of ammunition charged with a propellant made of a mixture of charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur would somehow be in contravention of the laws or rules governing air travel.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The prohibitions on carrying flammable, hazardous, or otherwise dangerous substances applies to smokeless powder as equally as it does black powder, or black powder substitutes, or any other propellent, including match heads. You can add primers, gasoline, propane, and an extensive array of other substances to that list. None of these substances may be carried in checked baggage.

There is an exception for self-contained sporting ammunition if kept to less than 5 kg. This exception does not appear to discriminate as to the nature of the propellant contained in the fully assembled ammunition.

Although I have neither had nor expect to have occasion to carry any ammunition with me that has as its propellant anything other than nitrocellulose or a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine (yes, NITROGLYCERINE!), I would be glad to be informed if the carriage of ammunition charged with a propellant made of a mixture of charcoal, saltpeter, and sulfur would somehow be in contravention of the laws or rules governing air travel.

Mate,

If you check the links at the bottom of the article I posted above, or check the source of the info I posted from JJ, you'll find the requirements for transport of materials classified as flammable are totally different to those of all materials classified as explosive.

The difference being flammable may travel on commercial aircraft under certain circumstances and explosive may not travel under any circumstances.

It's detailed in the Air Navigation Order (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) Act, the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and several other pieces of legislation as well.

All say basically the same thing in that flammables MAY be carried under certain restrictions and explosives may never be carried on commercial aircraft.

However, if you know of other legislation that says it may be carried and that, that legislation overrides ALL the other legislations and/or of a waiver that allows it to be carried by certain individuals or under certain circumstances, I'd be VERY interested in seeing the act and the source information. I absolutely guarantee that no such act, legislation or waiver such as you suggest exists at all.

My intention isn't to start a pissing match or an argument, it's to ensure that hunters don't get into trouble and aircraft don't come down when/where they shouldn't.

I don't doubt that someone has told you it does, you might even have read it and I admit some mags have published that but they're completely wrong.

I can assure you it's nothing more than urban legend that was probably invented by some bloody fool who wanted to convince himself he was right and to hell with endangering the aiecraft, everyone aboard it and anyone on the ground it might fall on.

A smart, young lawyer was hunting ducks at a pond adjacent to an 85 year-old farmer's field just across the fence. The young lawyer shot a high, fast duck which fell on the farmer's side of the fence, where the old farmer happened to be plowing with a mule at the time.

The young lawyer started to cross the fence after his duck when stopped by the old farmer who said "Look, sonny, this duck fell on my place, so it's my duck".

"I know better", responded the now irate young lawyer, "because I've studied the law".

"Well, sonny, around here if there's a dispute over the law we settle it with the 'three kicks' method", said the farmer, who went on to explain: "The first guy gets to kick the other guy three times, then it's the other guy's turn to kick the first one three times, and so on. The first one to give up is the loser".

The young lawyer, sizing up the small, frail old man's stature readily agreed to the contest.

"Okay, I go first", said the old farmer, who immediately delivered an unexpected hard kick to the young lawyer's groin. The young lawyer fell to the ground writhing in pain as the old farmer kicked him a second time with the steel toe of his work boot right in the kidneys, then caught him another hard lick in the side of the head as he rolled over in agony.

After a few minutes of recovering from the intense pains of his wounds, the young lawyer pulled himself shakily to his feet, dusted himself off, and with blood in his eye menacingly said, "Okay, now it's my turn!"

"Nah, I give up, you can have the duck", said the old farmer as he returned to his mule.

Shikari, for what it's worth, you can have the duck.

Mate,

FWIW, I've had this same debate several times and to date, no-one has been able to provide a shred of evidence or a word of legislation that says otherwise. Plenty of suggestions of a mystery waiver but bugger all evidence.

Like I said, what's important to me in this is that no-one gets arrested and no-one endangers the safety of the aircraft etc......... absolutely nothing else.

But I do know that I'm right.

I'm not a black powder shooter, so it is only relavent to me insofar as it might impact my carrying conventional ammunition with smokeless powder.

Heretofore, there has never been any question raised among the officialdom in regard to the nature of the propellant inside fixed ammunition. Raising the issue is potentially not a good thing for any of us, as it might prompt some bureaucrat to attempt to think, the results of which are almost invariably a bad thing.

Please, take the duck with my complements and go be quiet.

With all due respect, I'll go be quiet when I'm ready to not when I'm told to.

You miss the point and if you think that the question hasn't already been raised with officialdom then you're sadly mistaken.

There has been at least two cases of passengers in US airspace travelling with prohibited ammo related articles in the last few months, one of which caused a bag to explode (fortunately on the ground) and the EUSSR introduced a blanket ban on the carriage of all ammo in April or May last year. Admittedly, they have since introduced a waiver for sporting ammo but they have not repealed the original ban and there's a helluva lot more chance they'll rescinding the waiver than the ban legislation.

Anyone stupid enough to try to take such prohibited items onto a flight deserves to be caught and prosecuted but it goes considerably further than that..... even if they're caught and the aircraft and passengers kept safe, they're increasing the chance that transport of all ammo will be banned in the future which would stuff things up for all of us.

Yes, we're all familiar with the Einstein carrying loose primers in a bag. However, despite the flagrancy that violation of rules represents, that case bears no relationship to the carry of fixed ammunition.

Are you aware of anyone ever being prosecuted, detained or delayed, or even questioned due to the nature of the propellant contained within fixed sporting ammunition? If so, we'd all appreciate the reference materials of such incident as it would undoubtedly be instructive.

(Maybe I'm not so inclined to give up the duck as I thought.)

Ah, do I feel for the two of youse, to neither of whom will the last word on any subject ever be posted.

Fight on, valiant soldiers.

I anxiously await the next turn of the earth, if not the stomach, on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Are you aware of anyone ever being prosecuted, detained or delayed, or even questioned due to the nature of the propellant contained within fixed sporting ammunition? If so, we'd all appreciate the reference materials of such incident as it would undoubtedly be instructive.

That has to be one of the daftest, most stupid and irresponsible statements I've ever read in my life. It implies that what you consider important in this issue is 'has anyone ever been caught breaking the law and endangering an aircraft in such a way?' - Because if they haven't, it doesn't matter.

It isn't about has anyone been caught, (although I'm sure some have), it's about is it legal and is it safe to carry such material on a commercial aircraft?

And the answer is NO! & NO! .

I suggest you read the quote below from John Jackson and then look up the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and/or the Air Navigation Order (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) Act yourself. I'm going from memory but think it's somewhere in Schedule 10 of that (international) act.

You might also consider there are at least seven other pieces of legislation that specifically forbid what you seem to want to encourage people to do and that could mean a total of nine sets of charges..... plus of course the anti terrorist charges that could possibly also be applied.

Also bear in mind that it's probably not impossible you could be charged in both the country of departure and the country of arrival and even putting that plethora of possible prosecutions aside for a moment, it doesn't even begin to address the fact that such acts could kill at least hundreds of people.

To quote John Jackson from here: http://www.conservationforce.o...ewsblackpowder.html:

"Air Travel with Black Powder is Absolutely Prohibited: What You Need to Know

Black powder is a Class 1.10, Packing Group II, number UN0027 “Explosive”. Air travel with black powder in your checked luggage is prohibited. Carriage on a plane is not one single offense. Rather, it constitutes multiple offenses and subjects the sportsman to multiple separate civil penalties (15 to be exact) that can each be substantial. The following is a partial quote from a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty received by a hunter when his luggage was found to contain one container of Jim Shockey’s Gold Premium Grade Black Powder Replacement:

By reason of the above, you violated the following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations):

1. Section 171.2(a) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation in commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter.

2. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(1) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the proper shipping name prescribed for the material in Column 2 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

3. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(2) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the hazard class or division prescribed for the material as shown in Column 3 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

4. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(3) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the identification number prescribed for the material as shown in Column 4 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

5. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(4) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the packing grouping, in Roman numerals, prescribed for the material in Column 5 of the § 172.101 Table, if any, of the material covered by the description, in the manner required by this subpart.

6. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(5) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the total quantity (by net or gross mass, capacity, or as otherwise appropriate), including the unit of measurement, of the hazardous material covered by the description, in the manner required by this subpart.

7. Sections 172.204(a) or (c)(1) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to certify that the material was offered for transportation in accordance with this subchapter by printing on the shipping paper containing the required shipping description one of the certifications set forth in this part.

8. Section 172.204(c)(2) in that you offered a hazardous material to an aircraft operator for transportation by air and failed to provide two copies of the certification required in this section.

9. Section 172.204(c)(3) in that you offered for transportation by air a hazardous material authorized for air transportation and failed to add the certification required in this section the following statement:

“I declare that all of the applicable air transport requirements have been met.”

10. Section 172.301(a) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material in a non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the proper shipping name and identification number (preceded by “UN” or “NA”, as appropriate) for the material as shown in the § 172.101 Table.

11. Section 172.400(a) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material in one of the packages or containment devices listed in this subpart and failed to label the package or containment device with the labels specified for the material in the § 172.101 Table and in this subpart.

12. Section 172.600(c) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material and failed to make the emergency response information immediately available for use at all times the hazardous material was present, and failed to make such information, including an emergency response telephone number, immediately available to any government agency responding to an incident involving hazardous material or conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous material.

13. Section 172.21(a) in that you offered for transportation materials designated “Forbidden” in Column 3 of the § 172.101 Table.

14. Section 173.21(b) in that you offered for transportation forbidden explosives as defined in § 173.54 of this part.

15. Section 173.54(a) in that you offered for transportation an explosive that had not been approved in accordance with § 173.56 of this subpart.

In accordance with Section 5123(a) of Chapter 51, Title 49 of the United States Code of Transportation, 49 U.S.C§ 5123, [name of violator] is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $250, nor greater than $50,000 ($100,000 if death, serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage results), for each violation of the regulations.

John J. Jackson, III
Conservation Force - A Force For Wildlife Conservation, Wild Places And Our Way Of Life
cf@conservationforce.org
www.conservationforce.org"

quote:

Are you aware of anyone ever being prosecuted, detained or delayed, or even questioned due to the nature of the propellant contained within fixed sporting ammunition? If so, we'd all appreciate the reference materials of such incident as it would undoubtedly be instructive.

quote:

And the answer is NO! & NO! .

Thank You.

And the premise of my question was not whether anyone had ever been "caught" violating Shikari's Rules, but whether there is any evidence whatsoever that officials interpret Shikari's Rules the same way you do.

You continue to cite instances of persons carrying bulk or loose prohibited items, which is not at all relavent to this discussion, which is about the sporting ammunition exclusion. All evidence indicates that officials interpret the sporting ammunition exclusion to apply regardless of whether higher-energy nitrocellulose/nitro glycerine is the propellant or lower-energy carbon-based powder is the propellant.

Thanks for the duck, but just as I don't use black powder, I don't care for eating duck, either.

They're not my rules, they're international legislation created to keep aircraft and passengers safe for Christ's sake. It's the material that's forbidden not how it's packaged or contained.

Try reading the legislation as posted above and you'll find out that no material classified as explosive is permitted.

All I'm trying to do is make sure hunters don't get into trouble and aircraft don't fall out of the sky.

As I think I've proved my point, I'll probably leave it at that unless anyone has anything sensible to add.

Oh and before I go, you haven't quoted me, you've misquoted me. See MY comment above for what I actually posted.

Okay, let me get this straight: It's not okay to take fixed ammunition charged with black powder on the plane since black powder is classed as an "explosive". Got it.

Thus, it is also not okay to take fixed ammunition on the plane primed with lead styphnate because lead styphnate is likewise classed as an explosive (albiet, a higher explosive which is also pressure sensitive). Got it.

So, the sporting ammunition exclusion applies only to unprimed ammunition, correct? And carrying primed ammunition (which contains an explosive banned from air transportation in any form) is a violation of the numerous provisions you've cited, correct? Or does Shikari's Rule have a special exception no one other than Shikari is aware of for the explosive compound found in primers?

Lead styphnate (lead 2,4,6-trinitroresorcinate, C6HN3O8Pb ), whose name is derived from styphnic acid, is an explosive used as a component in primer and detonator mixtures for less sensitive secondary explosives.

There are two forms of lead styphnate: six-sided monohydrate crystals and small rectangular crystals. Lead styphnate varies in color from yellow to brown. Lead styphnate is particularly sensitive to fire and the discharge of static electricity. When dry, it can be readily detonated by static discharges from the human body. The longer and narrower the crystals, the more susceptible lead styphnate is to static electricity. Lead styphnate does not react with metals and is less sensitive to shock and friction than mercury fulminate or lead azide.

OK, I'll give it another try.

They're not my regulations and I didn't write 'em.

I'm just telling you what those regulations are, why they're there and the penalties for breaking those regulations.... and I've posted links that prove it.

If you disagree with the regulations, I suggest you take it up with the various relevent authorities and suggest they change them but before you present your particular argument to them, you might like to consider that it just might encourage those authorities to make transport of ammunition even harder for hunters than it is now. The EUSSR ban is a good example of how that can happen.

And incidentally, the current basic regulatory requirements have been in force since about 1945 so they're obviously reasonably happy with them as they are. You might also bear in mind that in this post 9/11 society in which we live, safety requirements are much more likely to be tightened rather than loosened.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
They're not my regulations and I didn't write 'em. . . . I'm just telling you what those regulations are . . .

I have no quarrel with what the regulations are, but you are attempting to tell us much more than what they are, you're offering your interpretation of how they apply and representing your interpretation as the official interpretation, which it is not.

And your interpretation (that explosives in any form are illegal for air transport) is blatantly inconsistent, as illustrated by the primer conundrum.

You offer no example of any official enforcing the regulations they way you interpret them, and further offer no written interpretation by an official which matches yours regarding the contents of fixed sporting ammunition.

The sporting ammunition exclusion is in place because officials, gratefully, recognize that sporting ammunition poses no safety hazard, despite containing substances which would be otherwise prohibited as "explosives", at least if each passenger is allow to carry no more than 5 kg of it. The sporting ammunition exclusion makes no discrimination between lead styphnate as a priming compound or fulminate of mercury or potassium chloride as priming compounds. It further makes no discrimination between nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine, black powder, or black powder substitutes as propellants inside sporting ammunition. NONE of the above mentioned compounds may be transported on a commercial passenger airplane by a passenger under any circumstance other than as fixed ammunition under the sporting ammunition exclusion.

Having this discussion here is probably, one would hope, of no consequence. However, I'm told by other posters here that you have made a practice of "stirring the pot" with officials by contacting them, raising this issue, and seeking their validation of your interpretation.

Sir, I have to assume that your motives are otherwise good, but you do us all a great disservice by urging a narrower interpretation of the sporting ammunition exclusion.

I think the duck is spoiled by now.

Your comments show your complete ignorance of the laws and the reasons for them.

Just one example of that is your comment:

"The sporting ammunition exclusion is in place because officials, gratefully, recognize that sporting ammunition poses no safety hazard, despite containing substances which would be otherwise prohibited as "explosives", at least if each passenger is allow to carry no more than 5 kg of it"

The truth of the matter is that smokeless powder is permitted because it's classified by the UN as flammable and BP etc is classified by the UN as explosive. The law allows flammables in limited quantity and restricted packaging whereas it does not allow what the UN classify as explosive.

As regards primers and percussion caps. The law considers primers as permitted to be carried if loaded into smokeless ammunition. It does not allow loose primers or any percussion caps at all.

Regarding the word 'sporting':

The Air Navigation Order (Carriage of Dangerous Goods) Act that was instigated by the Brit Govt at the end of WWII and then adopted by the various nations worldwide by adding the name of the country needed to differentiate between hunting weapons and weapons of war.

They decided to do that by saying any calibre that had ever been used by a military force was a 'weapon of war' and everything else a 'sporting firearm'. Hence the difference between 'sporting firearm/ammo' and 'weapons of war' and in turn what may and may not be carried. That particular requirement is applied more strictly by European airlines than US ones.

The other acts and in the case of the US, also Presidential decrees etc have been introduced since but the same criteria has mostly been exactly adopted.

One thing Govts are damn near never capable of is being grateful.

Anyway, be that all as it may. So far, I've produced exact wording and sources of legal requirements and you have produced BS, bluster, veiled insults, stupid duck stories and duck all else.

If you're so sure I'm wrong, why not produce sources/laws/wording etc that says BP, BP substitutes, loose primers and or percussion caps are allowed to travel by commercial aircraft?

I await with bated breath.

This question has been answered.

http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/porta...RCRD&vgnextfmt=print

Elmer: Thanks for that enlightenment. This is the first official interpretation I've seen on this subject. Thank goodness the person who asked the question did not also ask if primers containing lead styphnate could be loaded into the cartridge cases of the ammunition or I'm afraid all of our ammunition would be grounded.

Weak . . . stone weak.

Can't let this pass, shaka zulu.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Weak . . . stone weak.

Can't let this pass, shaka zulu.

Michael,

Yes, you're right..... very weak but if his argument ever gets adopted by the authorities and we end up with a total ban on transport of all ammunition, we'll know who to blame huh?

As I said, my only concern was that the laws/rules and sources were properly quoted and explained so that hunters didn't get into trouble and aircraft stayed where they were supposed to be and I think I achieved that for anyone sensible several posts ago.

Ah well you can lead a horse to water etc.

My thanks to Elmer for providing the link.

To all members of AR, I appologize for starting this discussion.

Maybe this will start a whole new string re: appologies - necessary or not necessary.

Why apologize for asking a good question?

If nothing else, people interested in doing so now know a couple of safe and legal means of using their BP guns in Africa and elsewhere.

Good question, good answers and a few solutions.

Thanks.

For what it’s worth I just completed a Safari in SA using an 8 Bore firing brass cases loaded with black powder. Knowing the regulations I arranged before hand for my PH to have black powder in camp and I loaded my cases in camp, not round the fire I might add!

In my opinion, getting caught flying with black powder is not only irresponsible, but is asking to have further restrictions placed on us all, we don’t need that.

At the risk of bringing the simmering pot back to a boil ---- what about carrying BP on an Air Taxi into camp ---- example--- certain places in our worldly travels to hunt, the only way to get there (literally) is by airplane for the last leg of the trip to camp ------ what is the legality of carrying BP on one of these planes? I think we have established that the practicality is negative but ----??
Example --- one desires to chase moose in the middle of Alaska with a Black Powder rifle --- last leg into camp is via Air Taxi – how does one accomplish that part of the trip?? Wonder how Jim Shocky accomplishes that feat?

quote:

Originally posted by Woodmnctry:
At the risk of bringing the simmering pot back to a boil ---- what about carrying BP on an Air Taxi into camp ---- example--- certain places in our worldly travels to hunt, the only way to get there (literally) is by airplane for the last leg of the trip to camp ------ what is the legality of carrying BP on one of these planes? I think we have established that the practicality is negative but ----??
Example --- one desires to chase moose in the middle of Alaska with a Black Powder rifle --- last leg into camp is via Air Taxi – how does one accomplish that part of the trip?? Wonder how Jim Shocky accomplishes that feat?

I'm not 110% sure of the situation with charter aircraft but would guess that because they're still commercial that technically it also would be illegal..... but I'll add that there may possibly be some leeway if it were a non-shared, private charter where the pilot might be happy to take it...... but I'd guess that most would be unwilling to do that.

FWIW, I don't entirely disagree with Stonecreek's attitude to primers and it does surprise me sometimes that they do allow them. However, I try not to comment on what I think of the rules, just what the rules are.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodmnctry:
At the risk of bringing the simmering pot back to a boil ---- what about carrying BP on an Air Taxi into camp ---- example--- certain places in our worldly travels to hunt, the only way to get there (literally) is by airplane for the last leg of the trip to camp ------ what is the legality of carrying BP on one of these planes? I think we have established that the practicality is negative but ----??
Example --- one desires to chase moose in the middle of Alaska with a Black Powder rifle --- last leg into camp is via Air Taxi – how does one accomplish that part of the trip?? Wonder how Jim Shocky accomplishes that feat?

Air taxi or charter flights within a country are regulated by the laws/governing agency of that country. For example, when researching advisory letters from the USDOT I found that charter flights in Alaska have specifically been exempted (in part) from the bulk black powder and primers prohibition. How and whether charter flights are regulated in other countries I'm sure varies widely.

What I've been unable to find is the definition of "small arms ammunition" as utilized by the USDOT and which, if any, propellants that definition excludes. If anyone knows where to find that and would be kind enough to post it I would be grateful.

As so many examples related to guns and travel on this board have highlighted, you can get a myriad of different answers from a series of bureaucrats, often depending on how the question is asked. Thus, if you can't stand the answer, it is best not to ask the question.

Okay, my research on the definition of "small arms ammunition" by the U.S. Department of Transportation is complete. THERE IS NONE.

Here's a fascinating court case from Utah which is exactly on point on this subject: https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/c...ic_doc?2009cr0842-68

The defendant, Joseph Peter Moesser, attempted to carry Triple 7 pellets inside shotgun shells. The court denied his motion to dismiss indictment, but recognized that the USDOT has no definition of small arms ammunition. The court in effect said that the lack of a definition was not sufficient to dismiss, but did give some guidance on what the court might be willing to consider after a trial on the finding of fact.

The court did find that the ATF has a definition, but that definition cannot be automatically assumed for DOT purposes.

The latest development in the Moesser case was a motion to postpone trial as "government and defendant are negotiating a settlement" or words to the effect. Let's all stay tuned.

Of course, the results of this case only apply in the U.S. Regulations elsewhere are under other arbitors.

I think Pyrodex and perhaps some of the other BP substitutes are classified as "flammable solids" rather than exlosive. If this is the case, then rounds loaded with them could be handled same as rounds loaded with smokless powder with regard to air travel.