Quantcast

Classification of APCP as explosive

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

edwardw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
0
Hey All,

I was looking at a tin of pyrodex pellets that I have sitting here and was reading the label.
It says:

"Pyrodex is not an explosive regulated by Federal Explosive Law, but may explode if misused."

Now, could this same kind of regulation be applied to APCP, ANCP and KNCP propellants.

I know that APCP is on the explosives list, could this logic be used to take it off?

I am not really interested in people replying that it is/isn't an explosive, I'm not debating that point - I'm wondering if we could use the same type logic to get it off the list.


Edward
 
A

Austin

Guest
I am hoping this does not turn into a debate because that could get ugly, which would be followed by me having to get nasty. So, to answer your questions...could it? Yes it potentially could. Would it? I seriously doubt it because it is a track record fact that once the BATF gets their hands on an item, they never give it back or back down. they have had AP listed on the books for a long time now and are not about to give it up....period. Even if and when we win our lawsuits, it will still be classified as an explosive...that will not change.

Nuf Said,

Carl
 

loopy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
4,570
Reaction score
1
Not to mention that we don't have the lobbying power of an organization of the NRA, which I'm sure is how Pyrodex stayed off the explosives list. NAR and Tripoli unfortunately don't have a whole lot of political pull.

Oh, and by the way - no one wants to see Carl get nasty...he's scary enough when he's in a good mood...:D

Loopy
 

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,356
Reaction score
4
I don't think I'll ever be the same after the last time I saw CT get nasty (just kidding, Carl-----we all know it's your job here!)

As far as getting APCP off the list, most of the reason it is ON the list in the first place is that we have some " 'fraidy cats" in our government. They would rather regulate something (that has never caused problems) than take the teeny risk that it might someday be misused. The same thinking (or lack of?) is what has us burdened with a whole slew of laws, but I'm not going to start down that trail . . .

Just remember that APCP (as we use it) does not even qualify, technically, as an explosive (the burn rate is too slow), but they lumped it into their list anyway. We are probably stuck with it.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,716
Reaction score
8
See the related article on the NAR website or ROL. BTW this is inevitable IMO. All the litigation has done to date is to make the BATF go thru the motions on PADS, propellant weight limits, etc. They are trying to evade the recent rulings, but even if stopped they will eventually amend their rules officially.
 
A

Austin

Guest
Rob,

Thats a bit of old news, but the new news is there will be a meeting next week...this was published by the president of both the TRA and NAR and is available on each website.

Carl
 

Ray Dunakin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
0
Pyrodex is exempt because it was specifically exempted by Congress. It would take another act of Congress to do the same for APCP, and that's not very likely to happen. For one thing, we don't have the political clout (money/votes) that the NRA has. Secondly, in the current climate of anti-terrorist hysteria, few congresscritters want to stick their necks out and be seen as "weaking the explosives laws". Third, if it ever could happen, it certainly wouldn't be during an election year.

BTW, APCP is on the ATF's list primarily because they didn't do their homework. They never conducted a single test to determine which materials were truly explosive -- they just had some law student interns slap together a list of energetic materials and called them "explosives".

Also, I disagree with rstaff3's gloomy outlook. I think we've made some major progress in court, and so far the ATF has made little effort to legally promulgate their enforcement of rocket motors. The NPRM that they started many months ago is so badly flawed it will be easy to challenge it -- if they ever finish the process, which they haven't even done yet.They haven't even begun the NPRM process for removing the PAD exemption on motors. If they ever do, it remains to be seen whether they can find a way to remove the exemption for rocket motors without affecting other types of PADs.

Personally, I feel that things are looking up.
 

Ray Dunakin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
0
Pyrodex is exempt because it was specifically exempted by Congress. It would take another act of Congress to do the same for APCP, and that's not very likely to happen. For one thing, we don't have the political clout (money/votes) that the NRA has. Secondly, in the current climate of anti-terrorist hysteria, few congresscritters want to stick their necks out and be seen as "weaking the explosives laws". Third, if it ever could happen, it certainly wouldn't be during an election year.

BTW, APCP is on the ATF's list primarily because they didn't do their homework. They never conducted a single test to determine which materials were truly explosive -- they just had some law student interns slap together a list of energetic materials and called them "explosives".

Also, I disagree with rstaff3's gloomy outlook. I think we've made some major progress in court, and so far the ATF has made little effort to legally promulgate their enforcement of rocket motors. The NPRM that they started many months ago is so badly flawed it will be easy to challenge it -- if they ever finish the process, which they haven't even done yet.They haven't even begun the NPRM process for removing the PAD exemption on motors. If they ever do, it remains to be seen whether they can find a way to remove the exemption for rocket motors without affecting other types of PADs.

Personally, I feel that things are looking up.
 

Bill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
479
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Ray Dunakin
Pyrodex is exempt because it was specifically exempted by Congress. It would take another act of Congress to do the same for APCP, and that's not very likely to happen.
I agree, Ray, things are looking up. I have been increasingly optimistic in the last several days. The judge is showing some irritation at the inJustice Department overreaching its bounds.

For those of you reading this who do not like guns, stay away from gun control. If guns are outlawed, there will be no more legitimate unregulated use for black powder or Pyrodex. What else will you use to deploy your parachutes? The same legislation to ban guns can easily unexempt black powder and Pryodex.


Bill - save rocketry now - donate to the legal fund
 

KermieD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
3,000
Reaction score
1
I don't think pyrodex will ever be on the table for regulation. There haven't been any gun control laws out there that would seriously affect it. Also, even if you have a flintlock rifle, you can store your black powder, but your use of it for rocketry is still regulated.
 

teflonrocketry1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
1,625
Reaction score
1
As a chemist, I am sure that the regulatory agencies can come up with plenty of explosives experts to testify that Ammonium Perchlorate (AP) by itself is an explosive. Just do a Google search on ammonium perchlorate explosion and view the results.

On the other hand someone might have data that shows the composite propellents used in our rocket motors (AP plus additives and binders) are not explosives. I have yet to see any scientific studies on the nature of these mixtures. While the government may say these items are explosive because the contain AP, it is up the motor manufacturers to provide data to prove/show this is not true. I haven't found any data supporting or refuting that these composite mixtures are explosive, and I wonder if anyone ever did a proper scientific study of these materials to establish wether or not they are explosive?

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 

dragonshiprider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
349
Reaction score
0
Saw one of those documentaries the other night and they where talking about the huge AP factory blast in Henderson,NV in `88.These so called "experts" where pretty hell bent on proving that AP when mixed with the metal of the structure and the plastic of the container barrels does indeed explode.They even set up a little demonstration to prove it.They mixed all of those ingredients into a five gallon(?) can and lit it.In the video of it you saw what the non-thinker would consider to be an explosion.However,the only thing that really happened was that the cans overpressurized and burst.Gee I wonder how many congressmen they could con with that video?:mad:
 

Latest posts

Top