7.62 X 39 Tracer
- Thread starter bill gass
- Start date
I knew a Police officer that got a crate of milsurp and 1/2 the rounds were tracers... that was years ago and when he took them to work to dispose of them he was told to take them to the bomb range and have at it. They don't make nails like that guy anymore dang was he a good guy.
Ugh, here we go again with another know-it-all who actually doesn't, and just went to find the OIC on prohibited ammo thinking that's the only law that applies.
I've been an explosives technician for 18 years. What you have stated is flat out false as you haven't got the first clue about what the Explosives Act (which is NOT the Firearms Act) states on possession of explosives.
Firstly, the Explosives Act prohibits EVERYONE in Canada from possessing ANY explosive. Period. Then it goes on to make exceptions for you to possess explosives. If the Explosives Act or Explosives Regulations do not specifically say you CAN possess it, you automatically CAN NOT possess it under section 6(d) of the Act. I put in bold the important parts for you.
The Act and Regulations then go on to allow you to possess what is called a "safety cartridge", otherwise known as small arms ammunition. A "safety cartridge" is defined as:
Ergo, illegal by exclusion.
If you want to argue that, talk to Chief Inspector of Explosives Jean-Luc Arpin at 613-948-5200 since he makes the rules.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
Nice quotes, but since when is the tracer portion of the bullet explosive, that's like saying a road flare is the same as a stick of dynamite. That shows how ignorant some of the government "experts" are including Jean-Luc.
According to the Explosives Act, it is. Something doesn't need to explode (in the traditional sense that your Hollywood-conditioned mind is educated) to be considered an explosive.
Furthermore, ammunition uses explosives to propel a projectile and thus falls under the definition of explosive. Ever wonder why those labels on surplus crates are orange and say 1.4?
Right. I'm sure we'll defer to YOUR vetted, qualified expertise on the matter.
- Location
- Georgetown Ontario
What's in a road flare? Is it the same composition as what's in tracers? Are road flares exempted? I'm not familiar with the explosives act; are you?
BTW Because no one seems to want to apply the Law and actually charge People; I don't find it to be a big deal when People buy/sell tracers.
Depends on the manufacturer but most road flares are strontium nitrate, sulfur, and sawdust. I have anecdotal evidence from a colleague that given fractures or shrinking in the grain they can explode violently. Certainly, I've seen my fair share of "non-explosive" articles explode quite forcefully. We were performing an indoor pyrotechnics display some years ago and a 20x20 gerb exploded at center ice and ended up hitting the boards near the goal line. That's a marked departure from something that is supposed to produce a 20' spray of sparks.
Here's an example of an otherwise "tame" pyrotechnic article and its behavior in a fire scenario with different quantities (and thus levels of confinement):
First, a demonstration to show you the product's intended behavior...
[youtube]taIeHi3rmUE[/youtube]
Then a partial container involved in a fire...
[youtube]sZF8bX6MbHE[/youtube]
And a full container involved in a fire...
[youtube]_nC0FetkeqA[/youtube]
Tracer bullets contain a pyrotechnic composition of an inorganic peroxide (depending on the color of the trace; red = SrO2, green = BaO2, etc.), magnesium or magnalium, and binders such as colophony resin, etc. In essence they are identical to most fireworks formulas involving an oxidizer, colorant (which in this case is also the oxidizer), and fuel. Some are organically fueled but most are metallic to promote luminous intensity for the brief duration of burn.
Me neither. I do however take umbrage with the dissemination of incorrect legal information. The reason I'm such a "bulldog" on this subject is because I'm in the industry and have familiarity with the law and those involved with it. People here are grown up enough to make their own decisions but they should be done on factual data. The problem is most flag-waving, chest-beating rednecks who don't like the answers I give are often unjustly offended somehow and provide some of the responses you see above.
- Location
- East of Home, West of the Rest
Still doesn't make it legal. Just means you aren't being caught.
You're welcome. The confusion stems primarily from the OIC that prohibited certain types of ammunition, which really it has no business doing because it usurps the Explosives Act which regulates ammunition. People take the OIC as being the one and only regulation concerning ammo when that's not the case. It's easy enough to correct the misconception, but a lot of people just want to stick their head in the sand and pretend it's not true.
I understand it's not a popular answer, but is unfortunately the correct one. If it were up to me we'd all have access to Raufoss rounds, but I guess that's why I don't work in government.
According to the Explosives Act, it is. Something doesn't need to explode (in the traditional sense that your Hollywood-conditioned mind is educated) to be considered an explosive.
Furthermore, ammunition uses explosives to propel a projectile and thus falls under the definition of explosive. Ever wonder why those labels on surplus crates are orange and say 1.4?
Right. I'm sure we'll defer to YOUR vetted, qualified expertise on the matter.
What is your expertise, looks like fireworks, I used my fair share of real explosives in the combat arms so I'm pretty sure I know what they are like, not just like in your smug "Hollywood-conditioned mind" comment.
I guess that this is directed at me too, "The problem is most flag-waving, chest-beating rednecks who don't like the answers I give are often unjustly offended somehow and provide some of the responses you see above."
Personal attacks and trying to belittle people does nothing for your credibility, you are just another guy on the internet with no provable credentials like the rest of us.
If you took the time to read and understand my first post I did not deny your facts or say anything about your post, just how rediculous some of our laws are.
Here is the worst case scenario for sporting ammunition:
I have experience with most types of explosives, and I'm quite familiar with the SAAMI tests among others. If you weren't making a personal attack I misinterpreted the spirit of your post, sorry about that. I understand your frustration but I also work frequently with explosives inspectors and don't appreciate folks belittling them with ignorant statements. They're hard working, decent folks who do NOT have any sort of agenda, contrary to what you read here.
In fact, possibly sometime this year you will see some very interesting products that they authorized for our community through legislation.
In fact, possibly sometime this year you will see some very interesting products that they authorized for our community through legislation.
Most of us are hard working decent folks too, I personally did 27 years in the Canadian Forces and now I work as a contractor for the Air Force fixing our CF-18's so before you hit reply please reread your posts as you did to me/us exactly what you don't appreciate people doing to the government explosives inspectors. Believe me I had to do that before I replied to you, best to wait until cooler heads prevail. Thanks for the info anyway.
