Shotguns and fires...

toppermost · November 7, 2014, 12:28 AM

Are shotguns inherently more dangerous when it comes to causing fires (than rifles or pistols)?

I live a in very dry part of the country where outdoor shooting is banned for a good part of the year.

(Seems to me that given the way it functions... wadding materials, bore size, distance to target..., that they would be more prone to causing fires...)

...but I am curious if anyone knows for sure.

James K · November 7, 2014, 01:22 AM

Modern shotshells don't use wadding; they have plastic shot cups and crimped closure rather than an over-shot wad. So I think that would eliminate the danger of fire from ordinary shells. (Those "tracer" shells, of course, would be another story.)

As for fire from rifles or handguns using commercial ammunition (not military tracer, incendiary or steel core armor piercing) I think the fire danger is as near zero as it can get. There simply is nothing to start a fire unless the muzzle were held right on some flammable material.

Jim

Panfisher · November 7, 2014, 09:01 AM

I would hazard a guess that way more fires are caused at shooting ranges by careless disposal of cigarette butts than are caused by shooting, unless someone is shooting the tracer type stuff or shooting exploding targets.

Dreaming100Straight · November 7, 2014, 11:20 AM

What about steel shot and can a spark from the steel start a fire in dry conditions.

**44 AMP** · November 7, 2014, 06:18 PM

Steel shot would be my biggest concern (and I don't shoot it btw).

How do you make a fire? Flint and steel being banged together is a good start (lots of sparks). There are other rocks that will spark steel, too.....

James K · November 7, 2014, 08:51 PM

I doubt very soft steel, the only kind used in shot, would spark even with a flint. My experience with flintlocks and fire starters suggests that hardened steel is needed to strike a spark.

The only place the strike of an ordinary bullet causes an explosion and a big eruption of flame is in the movies. Doesn't happen in real life.

Jim

Doyle · November 7, 2014, 09:01 PM

Quote:

What about steel shot and can a spark from the steel start a fire in dry conditions.

Even if it could start a fire, I don't know many shooters wealthy enough to go target shooting with steel shot.

**44 AMP** · November 8, 2014, 11:16 AM

Quote:

My experience with flintlocks and fire starters suggests that hardened steel is needed to strike a spark.

Certainly that combination works well, but its not the only thing that can spark. I'm not much into muzzle loaders, is the frizzen(?) what the flint strikes made of hardened steel? Were they on the originals? I don't know.

I have seen sparks come from steel plates struck with ordinary lead/copper hunting bullets. (not a lot, but I have seen it)

I don't think any shotgun ammo is likely to start a fire (not counting Dragonbreath type rounds, of course), but I think it possible that steel shot may throw off some sparks under the right conditions.

I've seen some really odd things happen, so I try not to rule things out automatically. Murphy and I have known each other for a long time, so the one thing I do feel sure of is that, if I were trying to start a fire sparking steel shot, it would not work. If I were trying NOT to, it might....

MarkCO · November 10, 2014, 03:24 PM

Rifles are more prone to cause fires than shotguns or pistols. Even then, the slug has to strike steel that will trap and hold the slug with insulating material that is also ignitable.

The fire tetrahedron needs fuel, oxidizer, heat and a chain reaction. For most firearms, the temperature is not sufficiently high for enough time to initiate combustion. With modern shotguns and pistols, outdoors, the chance of starting a fire is extremely low. With rifles, and steel jackets or the right conditions, the chance of starting a fire is very low.

The temperature of high velocity rifle bullets is pretty high. During testing at night, copper on steel does produce sparks indicating rupture of material with enough temperature to glow due to heat. Shooting through thermal scopes, the hot spray is evident and in fact we can even see different temperatures based on bullet construction, but the very tiny particles are of such low mass that their heat loss is too fast to be able to cause ignition, in most cases.

T. O'Heir · November 10, 2014, 04:07 PM

Firearms, be they shotguns, rifles or handguns, do not cause or start anything.
Daft laws like that are the whimsical ideas of civil servants who don't know what they're talking about.
A jacketed bullet doesn't have to hit steel of any kind to create a spark. Hit a nice hard rock and you'll get a spark. However, the chances of said spark starting a fire are less than slim. Even in the driest conditions, said spark doesn't last long enough.
Steel shot doesn't go fast enough. 1500 to 1600 MV is too slow.

MarkCO · November 10, 2014, 08:37 PM

There is a shooting range in Oregon that burned down, a 1200 acre fire in New Mexico, a 3 acre fire in Wyoming and a gun range fire in Ohio that have all been confirmed to have been started due to bullet impact causing ignition, and those are just the three cases I worked on plus one a friend of mine worked on. So it does happen.

Virginian · November 11, 2014, 06:01 AM

And how many fires have been caused by planes falling out of the sky? Just another way to keep careless people out of the fields when conditions are unfavorable. Watching people drive for 10 minutes its hard to argue with the logic.
I remember they used to close the National Forest in Virginia due to fire hazards, and I liked to ride my motorcycle on the fire roads/trails. I went and talked to them. My bike had a USFS approved spark arrestor. I became a 'volunteer' forest warden and rode on.

MarkCO · November 11, 2014, 11:30 AM

The OP asked a question, from the words in his post, irrelevant of bans due to fires due to shooting. The risk is low, certainly lower than many other activities, but shooting bans was not his question.

Dreaming100Straight · November 11, 2014, 12:38 PM

Per this Forest Service sponsored study fires can be started by rifle ammunition, but it discusses how they are started by what is termed themal energy generated by plastic deformation and fracturing and I do not believe it deals with sparking. The OP asked if steel shot was more likely to cause fires than rifle or pistol ammunition. I suspect it is less likely because I could find nothing seriously considering the possibility that steel shot causes fires. Logically, I suspect it can happen (say if you shoot into some brush and hit an old vehicle or some other metal object).

November 7, 2014, 12:28 AM	#1
toppermost Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 224	Shotguns and fires... Are shotguns inherently more dangerous when it comes to causing fires (than rifles or pistols)? I live a in very dry part of the country where outdoor shooting is banned for a good part of the year. (Seems to me that given the way it functions... wadding materials, bore size, distance to target..., that they would be more prone to causing fires...) ...but I am curious if anyone knows for sure. __________________ k.i.s.s.

November 7, 2014, 06:18 PM	#5
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	Steel shot would be my biggest concern (and I don't shoot it btw). How do you make a fire? Flint and steel being banged together is a good start (lots of sparks). There are other rocks that will spark steel, too..... __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

November 10, 2014, 03:24 PM	#9
MarkCO Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 1998 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 4,307	Rifles are more prone to cause fires than shotguns or pistols. Even then, the slug has to strike steel that will trap and hold the slug with insulating material that is also ignitable. The fire tetrahedron needs fuel, oxidizer, heat and a chain reaction. For most firearms, the temperature is not sufficiently high for enough time to initiate combustion. With modern shotguns and pistols, outdoors, the chance of starting a fire is extremely low. With rifles, and steel jackets or the right conditions, the chance of starting a fire is very low. The temperature of high velocity rifle bullets is pretty high. During testing at night, copper on steel does produce sparks indicating rupture of material with enough temperature to glow due to heat. Shooting through thermal scopes, the hot spray is evident and in fact we can even see different temperatures based on bullet construction, but the very tiny particles are of such low mass that their heat loss is too fast to be able to cause ignition, in most cases. __________________ Good Shooting, MarkCO www.CarbonArms.us

November 10, 2014, 04:07 PM	#10
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	Firearms, be they shotguns, rifles or handguns, do not cause or start anything. Daft laws like that are the whimsical ideas of civil servants who don't know what they're talking about. A jacketed bullet doesn't have to hit steel of any kind to create a spark. Hit a nice hard rock and you'll get a spark. However, the chances of said spark starting a fire are less than slim. Even in the driest conditions, said spark doesn't last long enough. Steel shot doesn't go fast enough. 1500 to 1600 MV is too slow. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

November 10, 2014, 08:37 PM	#11
MarkCO Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 1998 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 4,307	There is a shooting range in Oregon that burned down, a 1200 acre fire in New Mexico, a 3 acre fire in Wyoming and a gun range fire in Ohio that have all been confirmed to have been started due to bullet impact causing ignition, and those are just the three cases I worked on plus one a friend of mine worked on. So it does happen. __________________ Good Shooting, MarkCO www.CarbonArms.us

November 7, 2014, 01:22 AM	#2
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Modern shotshells don't use wadding; they have plastic shot cups and crimped closure rather than an over-shot wad. So I think that would eliminate the danger of fire from ordinary shells. (Those "tracer" shells, of course, would be another story.) As for fire from rifles or handguns using commercial ammunition (not military tracer, incendiary or steel core armor piercing) I think the fire danger is as near zero as it can get. There simply is nothing to start a fire unless the muzzle were held right on some flammable material. Jim

November 7, 2014, 09:01 AM	#3
Panfisher Senior Member Join Date: July 30, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,337	I would hazard a guess that way more fires are caused at shooting ranges by careless disposal of cigarette butts than are caused by shooting, unless someone is shooting the tracer type stuff or shooting exploding targets.

November 7, 2014, 11:20 AM	#4
Dreaming100Straight Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2013 Posts: 1,235	What about steel shot and can a spark from the steel start a fire in dry conditions.

November 7, 2014, 08:51 PM	#6
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I doubt very soft steel, the only kind used in shot, would spark even with a flint. My experience with flintlocks and fire starters suggests that hardened steel is needed to strike a spark. The only place the strike of an ordinary bullet causes an explosion and a big eruption of flame is in the movies. Doesn't happen in real life. Jim

November 11, 2014, 06:01 AM	#12
Virginian Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2012 Location: Williamsburg, Va. Posts: 1,528	And how many fires have been caused by planes falling out of the sky? Just another way to keep careless people out of the fields when conditions are unfavorable. Watching people drive for 10 minutes its hard to argue with the logic. I remember they used to close the National Forest in Virginia due to fire hazards, and I liked to ride my motorcycle on the fire roads/trails. I went and talked to them. My bike had a USFS approved spark arrestor. I became a 'volunteer' forest warden and rode on. __________________ What could have happened... did.

November 11, 2014, 11:30 AM	#13
MarkCO Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 1998 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 4,307	The OP asked a question, from the words in his post, irrelevant of bans due to fires due to shooting. The risk is low, certainly lower than many other activities, but shooting bans was not his question. __________________ Good Shooting, MarkCO www.CarbonArms.us

November 11, 2014, 12:38 PM	#14
Dreaming100Straight Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2013 Posts: 1,235	Per this Forest Service sponsored study fires can be started by rifle ammunition, but it discusses how they are started by what is termed themal energy generated by plastic deformation and fracturing and I do not believe it deals with sparking. The OP asked if steel shot was more likely to cause fires than rifle or pistol ammunition. I suspect it is less likely because I could find nothing seriously considering the possibility that steel shot causes fires. Logically, I suspect it can happen (say if you shoot into some brush and hit an old vehicle or some other metal object).