The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 14, 2016, 07:55 PM   #1
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
Thought on the nitrocellulose thing...

The legal brief released a video recently covering the subject. HERE

I had some thoughts on the whole deal.

It was my understanding that smokeless powder used in ammo is considered a flammable solid, and not an explosive. (OK... I just looked this up, when shipped in amounts exceeding 100lb its listed as a class 1.3C, fire/minor blast... the same as fireworks 1.3G.. 1.3 is the code and C is for propellants Here is one of many sources)


Explosives require a license to purchase... But we can buy modern gun powder over the counter... If it was classified as an explosive, reloaders would need a license.


Wetted nitrocellulose has more relaxed shipping regulations by the DOT...

But I think the letter was trying to convey that just because you wet the nitrocellulose, does not reclassify it as a non-explosive... Meaning it's sale and distribution is still regulated as an explosive.


In other words...

Basically, I think the letter was meant to say that just because you can reclassify wetted nitrocellulose as a Division 1.3 (fire/small blast hazard) rather than a division 1.1 (Mass explosion Possible)... That it does not change its classification for sale/distribution under rules and regulations regarding explosives. Or... The DOT may not consider it an "explosive", but the ATF does.


The problem may arise in their use of the 12.6% nitrogen content to determine classification... As modern powders range in nitrogen content, and some may exceed the 12.6% mark.
marine6680 is offline  
Old September 14, 2016, 10:17 PM   #2
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 857
I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make. The latest from the BATF as of August 31, 2016 on the subject of wetted nitrocellulose is:

Quote:
ATF’s June 2016 Explosives Industry Newsletter included a brief discussion of Nitrocellulose, and attempted to clarify the circumstances under which wetted Nitrocellulose is considered a high explosive under 27 CFR, Part 555. As with all explosives, ATF’s focus is on the potential public safety risks associated with materials that can be misused or diverted to unlawful purposes. Subsequent contact from industry members who import, transport, store or employ wetted Nitrocellulose in the production of ammunition, however, has brought to our attention issues that were not fully addressed in the Newsletter and require further consultation and consideration with the industry. Accordingly, ATF has and will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.
Meaning - they're reconsidering the June 2016 Newsletter and looking for input on the subject from the firearms industry.

This has nothing to do with reloading supplies or the final product produced using nitrocellulose - gunpowder. It is meant to address the shipment and storage of nitrocellulose raw stock that is used to produce gunpowder.

Last edited by buckhorn_cortez; September 14, 2016 at 10:24 PM.
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old September 15, 2016, 01:46 AM   #3
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,220
Quote:
As with all explosives, ATF’s focus is on the potential public safety risks associated with materials that can be misused or diverted to unlawful purposes. Subsequent contact from industry members who import, transport, store or employ wetted Nitrocellulose in the production of ammunition, however, has brought to our attention issues that were not fully addressed in the Newsletter and require further consultation and consideration with the industry. Accordingly, ATF has and will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.
This is officialese for "we made a rule change about something we didn't know enough about"...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 15, 2016, 08:24 AM   #4
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
This is officialese for "we made a rule change about something we didn't know enough about"...

Exactly^^^^

The BATFE was asked for clarification of something. Being the BATFE they could not simply say they did not know and refer the request to the applicable agency.

BTW: There is one manufacturer of nitrocellulose in North America: BAE makes the stuff at the Radford, VA Army Ammunition Plant.

Quote:
Radford currently is the primary supplier of solventless propellants.and is the only North American manufacturer and supplier of nitrocellulose.
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product...munition-plant
thallub is offline  
Old September 15, 2016, 08:25 AM   #5
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
Quote:
This is officialese for "we made a rule change about something we didn't know enough about"...
"...and had the unintentional effect of effecting an entity of the non-peon class."
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 15, 2016, 10:20 AM   #6
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,353
Quote:
There is one manufacturer of nitrocellulose in North America: BAE makes the stuff at the Radford, VA Army Ammunition Plant.
Are they then shipping it to St Marks, Florida?
Ball powders made there are double base, mostly nitrocellulose, some nitroglycerine.

"North America" Are they then shipping it to IMR in Canada?
Jim Watson is offline  
Old September 15, 2016, 07:19 PM   #7
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
Mostly, I was commenting on the freakout people had about it.

Many are unphased by the retraction that the ATF did shortly after. They still think its a huge deal, that the ATF will just come back with the rule change. And that the rules will prevent the sale of ammo and powder for reloading.

And I don't think that was the intention of the letter.
marine6680 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07408 seconds with 8 queries