Am I Smokeless Powder?

[Anonymous]

Am I Smokeless Powder?

 

[Admin]

No.

 

[VENISONEATR]

New Jersey Fish and Game = NO

D.O.T. = YES

 

[Underclocked]

If you are...you should take a good bath.

 

[Anonymous]

Go figure.

 

[Johnny Deer Man]

If you used a Smokeless ML with Smokeless powder and added something to make it smoke is it no longer smokeless powder?

Speaking strictly hypothetically.


I looked in the NJ compendium and all it says is that smokeless powder cannot be used. What is the exact rule?

 

[Admin]

Go figure.

As soon as I saw the question and the picture I knew you would post this picture. These are the same pictures Toby used back when he was pro smokeless.

 

[Anonymous]

Same? Hardly-- I snapped them today after I got back from a (very) muddy pheasant find attempt this morning. Didn't even see a hen; two days left in the season. :cry: Not done yet, though.

 

[savageml10-2]

nice can rw! so why add charcoal to 777 ???? lol to make it smoke! hmmm seems hogdon cannot make up their mind or could it ALL BE ADVERTISING HYPE? surely not :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

If you used a Smokeless ML with Smokeless powder and added something to make it smoke is it no longer smokeless powder?

Speaking strictly hypothetically.


I looked in the NJ compendium and all it says is that smokeless powder cannot be used. What is the exact rule?

Good question-- there is no "exact" rule that I'm aware of. That is why charcoal is in Triple 7, to make it smoke. It IS a smokeless powder according the DOT and BATF-- so who claims to have more authority to classify than the DOT? That IS what they do.

Some people are still under the impression that it was somehow a competitor that called "Pyrodex" smokeless powder-- not the case at all.

The manufacturer, Hodgdon, labeled it loud and clear as smokeless and warned at the same time that it could not be used as a weight-for-weight sub for black powder. Hodgdon designated as smokeless, published it, claimed it, and printed it.

Hodgdon also sold it as blasting compound for the mining industry; no one else did that for them.

All this, strictly for marketing purposes. Now, the same company NOW claims it is not a smokeless powder-- again, for marketing purposes. Folks can believe whatever they wish, of course, but Hodgdon has had a very difficult time describing their own product.

It is highly unlikely that two completely different descriptions of Pyrodex are both "correct." :?

 

[Anonymous]

ALL BE ADVERTISING HYPE? surely not :shock:

Some folks have questioned the statement that Pyrodex has been used as a blasting compound in the mining industry, just because they haven't heard of it. It is old news, but quite well-known:

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK L. McGRATH, JR., PRESIDENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA AMALGAMATED, LOCAL NUMBER 4, BARRE, VERMONT

Mr. McGrath. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frederick L. McGrath. I'm the President of United Steelworkers of America Amalgamated, Local Number 4 in Barre, Vermont. Our local has approximately 1,200 active and retired members working in numerous industries, including the mining of marble, slate, and granite.

On May 20, 1994, one of our members, Brother Basseck, who worked at Rockridge Corporation in Barre town, was killed in a mining accident when pyrodex, an explosive powder similar to powder that's used in guns, exploded in a granite quarry hole.

The company had previously used pyrodex in various locations within the quarry over the preceding year. The following year, Brother Basseck was assigned to work in one of the areas of the quarry which contained undetonated pyrodex. The company knew of the presence of this undetonated explosive powder.

When the foreman was questioned by MSHA, a Mine Safety Health Administration inspector, as to why the explosives were not removed or the area properly searched prior to sending men to work in the quarry, the foreman said, I forgot.

The MSHA investigation into the cause of Michael Basseck's death led MSHA to issue and impose fines totaling approximately $480,000. The company appealed those fines, which were subsequently reduced by MSHA.

It is my contention that the company foreman should have received better training so that he would have known better than to send a man into a quarry where explosion of undetonated powder could take place, as in fact happened.


Source:


http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/edu/hedwp5-137.000/hedwp5-137.htm

 

[Admin]

This is an OLD argument. It's clouding the issue like this than can get people hurt.