Some good info in "Hatcher's Notebook" on the reaction of gunpowder and small arms ammo exposed to fire.Also one of the NRA publications I got several years ago had some interesting experiments recorded.I can't find the article off hand but the NRA web site might have a link.
SAAMI firefighter training video
- Thread starter MarkdevCanada
- Start date
Hatcher's Notebook
http://www.amazon.com/Hatchers-Notebook-J-S-Hatcher/dp/0811707954
This is or should be a free download of the book. Although I hate reading ebooks, it is nice to have access to.
http://tngun.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=85&Itemid=28
http://www.amazon.com/Hatchers-Notebook-J-S-Hatcher/dp/0811707954
This is or should be a free download of the book. Although I hate reading ebooks, it is nice to have access to.
http://tngun.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=85&Itemid=28
Suputin
I sincerely hope that you are more proficient in your occupation than you are in mine. Frankly, your current knowledge just makes you dangerous to your own life.
Sorry to say but YES, Gunpowder is an explosive. Under the Explosives Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Black Powder is classified as 1.1D and Smokeless Powder is classified as 1.3C
Definitions: Hazard Classification Code
Class: 1.1 This Division comprises ammunition and explosives which have a mass explosive hazard:
(1) The major hazards are blast, high velocity projections, and other projections of relatively low velocity.
(2) The explosion results in severe structural damage to surrounding buildings, the severed range being determined by the amount of high explosives involved and the distance to the buildings from the explosion site. There may be a risk from heavy debris propelled from the structure in which the explosion occurs or from the crater.
Class 1.3 This division comprises ammunition and explosives which have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard. This division includes some items which burn with great violence and intense heat emitting considerable thermal radiation (mass fire hazard) and they are classed as Hazard Division 1.33. Others, which burns sporadically are, classified Hazard Division 1.34. Items in Hazard Division 1.33 or 1.34 may explode but do not form dangerous fragments. Firebrands and burning containers may be projected.
This should sort out your unknowledgeable definition of “Gunpowder”. Now we shall look at the phenomena of propellant burning to detonation;
Definitions
High Order Detonation:
Detonation at a velocity approaching the maximum stable VELOCITY OF DETONATION for the system.
Low Order Detonation:
Detonation of an explosive at the velocity well below the maximum stable VELOCITY OF DETONATION for the system.
Deflagration:
1) A rapid burning in which convection often plays an important role.
2) Used in mining to describe the burning of an explosive which has failed to detonate.
High Explosive: These type of explosives are designed to shatter and destroy. There is a wide range in the detonation velocities of high explosives, extending from ammonium nitrate at 3,300 fps up to HMX at 29,900 fps.
Low Explosive: Causes an explosion whose action is that of rapid burning or combustion. The rate of burning depends on the degree of confinement, area of burning surface and the composition of the low explosive (Velocity is 1,100 to 8,500 mps) (Black Powder is 1,312 fps)
Theory of Deflagration and Detonation
If a particle of an explosive is subjected to heat so as to cause a rapid increase in its temperature, a point is reached at which the rate of exothermic decomposition becomes significant. At temperatures within the approximate range of 500C to 1,700C, this decomposition involves volatilitization from the surface prior to decomposition. The heat liberated by decomposition increases the rate of reaction, and the resulting rate increase in temperature is exponential. At a certain temperature, characteristic of the explosive, the output of heat is sufficient to enable the reaction to proceed and be accelerated without input of heat from another source. At this certain temperature, called the ignition temperature, deflagration begins. Deflagration is a surface phenomenon, with the reaction products flowing away from the unreacted material below the surface. Deflagration of all the particles in a mass of finely divided explosive can occur simultaneously. In such case the confinement of the particles within the mass, because of the viscosity of the gaseous products, has the effect of increasing pressure. Increase in pressure in turn, has the effect of increasing the rate of reaction and temperature. The final effect of the deflagration under confinement is explosion, which may be violent deflagration or even detonation. In the case of low explosives such as loose black powder and pyrotechnic compositions only violent deflagration can take place. Nitrocellulose propellants can undergo burning or if confinement is sufficient, deflagration can become so rapid that detonation occurs.
That should explain burning to detonation to your satisfaction, as I have said in 25 years I have had the experience twice during the possible hundred assorted burnings that I have done. Now let’s go to Hatchers Notebook. I do appreciate the link, as I now have it on my computer at work and a hard copy at home. This book was written in 1947, 60 years ago. Small arms ammunition (SAA) and propellant development has moved ahead by leaps and bounds during that time. Most SAA propellant these days contains either nitrocellulose (NC) or nitroglycerine (NG), depending on the type. In regards to the “Curtis Bay Powder Fire” on Pg 527, the book does not specify what the composition of powder was, how it was packed, composition of the packaging material, spacing of the boxes within the magazine itself. All of these details are important to understand why a single package didn’t burn to detonation and cause a sympathetic detonation of all other packages.
As for primers detonating, the example on Pg 525 where an example of them high ordering, should answer any comments presented. In my last 9 years of working in Defence Research in Explosives Exploitation I have seen results of trials that I would never believed possible. No every incident reacts as expected due to unexpected influences, both good and bad. If you are interested in a current propellant burning video go to http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms/cerl/videog_e.htm. If you are really interested in what I do, go to the videos on Blast resistant windows and Large scale blasting, as this is my work on video
A 60 year old book contains a lot of good information, but it must be taken in context to advancements in technology today. Actually, I prefer “Test Book of Small Arms 1929” by the British. Next time you’re in Medicine Hat drop in for a beer. As Sean Connery says “Thus endith the lesson”
I sincerely hope that you are more proficient in your occupation than you are in mine. Frankly, your current knowledge just makes you dangerous to your own life.
Sorry to say but YES, Gunpowder is an explosive. Under the Explosives Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Black Powder is classified as 1.1D and Smokeless Powder is classified as 1.3C
Definitions: Hazard Classification Code
Class: 1.1 This Division comprises ammunition and explosives which have a mass explosive hazard:
(1) The major hazards are blast, high velocity projections, and other projections of relatively low velocity.
(2) The explosion results in severe structural damage to surrounding buildings, the severed range being determined by the amount of high explosives involved and the distance to the buildings from the explosion site. There may be a risk from heavy debris propelled from the structure in which the explosion occurs or from the crater.
Class 1.3 This division comprises ammunition and explosives which have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard. This division includes some items which burn with great violence and intense heat emitting considerable thermal radiation (mass fire hazard) and they are classed as Hazard Division 1.33. Others, which burns sporadically are, classified Hazard Division 1.34. Items in Hazard Division 1.33 or 1.34 may explode but do not form dangerous fragments. Firebrands and burning containers may be projected.
This should sort out your unknowledgeable definition of “Gunpowder”. Now we shall look at the phenomena of propellant burning to detonation;
Definitions
High Order Detonation:
Detonation at a velocity approaching the maximum stable VELOCITY OF DETONATION for the system.
Low Order Detonation:
Detonation of an explosive at the velocity well below the maximum stable VELOCITY OF DETONATION for the system.
Deflagration:
1) A rapid burning in which convection often plays an important role.
2) Used in mining to describe the burning of an explosive which has failed to detonate.
High Explosive: These type of explosives are designed to shatter and destroy. There is a wide range in the detonation velocities of high explosives, extending from ammonium nitrate at 3,300 fps up to HMX at 29,900 fps.
Low Explosive: Causes an explosion whose action is that of rapid burning or combustion. The rate of burning depends on the degree of confinement, area of burning surface and the composition of the low explosive (Velocity is 1,100 to 8,500 mps) (Black Powder is 1,312 fps)
Theory of Deflagration and Detonation
If a particle of an explosive is subjected to heat so as to cause a rapid increase in its temperature, a point is reached at which the rate of exothermic decomposition becomes significant. At temperatures within the approximate range of 500C to 1,700C, this decomposition involves volatilitization from the surface prior to decomposition. The heat liberated by decomposition increases the rate of reaction, and the resulting rate increase in temperature is exponential. At a certain temperature, characteristic of the explosive, the output of heat is sufficient to enable the reaction to proceed and be accelerated without input of heat from another source. At this certain temperature, called the ignition temperature, deflagration begins. Deflagration is a surface phenomenon, with the reaction products flowing away from the unreacted material below the surface. Deflagration of all the particles in a mass of finely divided explosive can occur simultaneously. In such case the confinement of the particles within the mass, because of the viscosity of the gaseous products, has the effect of increasing pressure. Increase in pressure in turn, has the effect of increasing the rate of reaction and temperature. The final effect of the deflagration under confinement is explosion, which may be violent deflagration or even detonation. In the case of low explosives such as loose black powder and pyrotechnic compositions only violent deflagration can take place. Nitrocellulose propellants can undergo burning or if confinement is sufficient, deflagration can become so rapid that detonation occurs.
That should explain burning to detonation to your satisfaction, as I have said in 25 years I have had the experience twice during the possible hundred assorted burnings that I have done. Now let’s go to Hatchers Notebook. I do appreciate the link, as I now have it on my computer at work and a hard copy at home. This book was written in 1947, 60 years ago. Small arms ammunition (SAA) and propellant development has moved ahead by leaps and bounds during that time. Most SAA propellant these days contains either nitrocellulose (NC) or nitroglycerine (NG), depending on the type. In regards to the “Curtis Bay Powder Fire” on Pg 527, the book does not specify what the composition of powder was, how it was packed, composition of the packaging material, spacing of the boxes within the magazine itself. All of these details are important to understand why a single package didn’t burn to detonation and cause a sympathetic detonation of all other packages.
As for primers detonating, the example on Pg 525 where an example of them high ordering, should answer any comments presented. In my last 9 years of working in Defence Research in Explosives Exploitation I have seen results of trials that I would never believed possible. No every incident reacts as expected due to unexpected influences, both good and bad. If you are interested in a current propellant burning video go to http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms/cerl/videog_e.htm. If you are really interested in what I do, go to the videos on Blast resistant windows and Large scale blasting, as this is my work on video
A 60 year old book contains a lot of good information, but it must be taken in context to advancements in technology today. Actually, I prefer “Test Book of Small Arms 1929” by the British. Next time you’re in Medicine Hat drop in for a beer. As Sean Connery says “Thus endith the lesson”
Last edited:
I tend to agree with Suputin. The definition of explosive by NRCAN is a legal one, not a physical definition. In the US, smokeless powder is not defined as an explosive.
Yes, smokeless powder can detonate, and a small scale example is when reloading of low weight charges of certain powders in large cartridge cases. The low weight charge can detonate and cause a kaboom, but this occurs in a confined space and is initiated only AFTER there is significant pressure in the chamber, on the order of thousands of PSI.
The video on NRCAN of the square plywood room being "blown" apart I believe is their powder experiment where they burned 8lb of 700X. That is not a detonation but combustion, violent deflagration, or a low velocity "explosion".
Yes, smokeless powder can detonate, and a small scale example is when reloading of low weight charges of certain powders in large cartridge cases. The low weight charge can detonate and cause a kaboom, but this occurs in a confined space and is initiated only AFTER there is significant pressure in the chamber, on the order of thousands of PSI.
The video on NRCAN of the square plywood room being "blown" apart I believe is their powder experiment where they burned 8lb of 700X. That is not a detonation but combustion, violent deflagration, or a low velocity "explosion".
Last edited:
Sandroad, sorry but that is the United Nations definition. Last time I checked, the US was a member of the United Nations (180 plus countries) and had accepted their definitions for the Transportation of Dangerous by road, sea and air. Mind you they didn't like it but, they accepted it. For over 25 years, one of the qualifications that I held was as a Dangerous goods shipper doing cross border shipments. In cross boder shipments our vehicles in the past have carried both the UN signage and the US signage. The old US classes were "Class A" "Class B" & "Class C" explosives. If you still believe that smokeless powder is NOT an explosive, please supply proof.
Re-read the definitions carefully particularly the one of a low order detonation, the video on the propellant is a high speed video, probably 90,000 frames per second. At least thats what we use.
Re-read the definitions carefully particularly the one of a low order detonation, the video on the propellant is a high speed video, probably 90,000 frames per second. At least thats what we use.
United States ATF publication 5400.8 List of Explosives
http://www.ocsresponds.com/ref/atf/List of Explosives (Sep 2006).pdf
http://www.ocsresponds.com/ref/atf/List of Explosives (Sep 2006).pdf
Yep, I found the same document.
It is classed as an explosive, Division 1.3. Also for the purposes of transport small quantities (I believe 50 lb or less) it is considered a combustible. I have not been able to find a link to a nice clear explanation of the regulations.
Division 1.3. Consists of explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard. Low explosives possessing a flammable capability such as propellant explosives, including some smokeless propellants and display fireworks.
My previous post was a little too early in the morning... thanks for pointing out my error
It is classed as an explosive, Division 1.3. Also for the purposes of transport small quantities (I believe 50 lb or less) it is considered a combustible. I have not been able to find a link to a nice clear explanation of the regulations.
Division 1.3. Consists of explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard. Low explosives possessing a flammable capability such as propellant explosives, including some smokeless propellants and display fireworks.
My previous post was a little too early in the morning... thanks for pointing out my error
Last edited:
Sorry guys, Hollywood has everyone thinking the worst.
I'm a firefighter (fire collage grad) on a rural Dept.
I have been in that situation with ammo and fire.
(more times than I'd like)
True the ammo goes off, but the casing turns into
the projetile. Bullet heavy,casing not so heavy.
Yes it does hurt when you get hit with a fiying case.
For a large boom when they all go off at once. NOT!
I'm more worried about the dumb a$$ that has his BBQ
tank in his home. Did I mention I live in a mining town.
My first question to the home owner(in private)
is "do you have any powder in your house?"
Powder=dynamite
Man I love fighting fires!
Cheers
tacdriver
I'm a firefighter (fire collage grad) on a rural Dept.
I have been in that situation with ammo and fire.
(more times than I'd like)
True the ammo goes off, but the casing turns into
the projetile. Bullet heavy,casing not so heavy.
Yes it does hurt when you get hit with a fiying case.
For a large boom when they all go off at once. NOT!
I'm more worried about the dumb a$$ that has his BBQ
tank in his home. Did I mention I live in a mining town.
My first question to the home owner(in private)
is "do you have any powder in your house?"
Powder=dynamite
Man I love fighting fires!
Cheers
tacdriver
The CDN government and the United Nations can pass all the laws they want but that doesn't change the laws of physics. Gunpowder burns via deflagration NOT high order detonation. There is no common way to high order detonate gunpowder (in a loaded round or in a factory container) because if it did, all our guns would explode every time we pull the trigger.
Not to mention all this is way off the topic. The original post dealt with gunpowder and ammunition burning in the factory container in a common wood framed building. In that context, there is no way to get any type of detonation. You can quote all the laws in the world but it ain't gonna happen.
Smokeless powder and loaded ammunition, in the factory packaging, burning in a common wood frame structure offer no danger of detonation or explosion. Prove that statement wrong?
Pour a pile of it out on your driveway. Stick a match to it. Hell, stick a detonator in the pile and set it off. What happens? Certainly NOT a high order detonation. Thus it is NOT an explosive. It IS a flammable solid though.
Not to mention all this is way off the topic. The original post dealt with gunpowder and ammunition burning in the factory container in a common wood framed building. In that context, there is no way to get any type of detonation. You can quote all the laws in the world but it ain't gonna happen.
How has the basic nature of smokeless powder changed in the last 100 years? Newton wrote his laws of energy, gravity etc a few hundred years ago and we have moved forward orders of magnitude in our technology but those physical laws still hold as true today as they did then.
Smokeless powder and loaded ammunition, in the factory packaging, burning in a common wood frame structure offer no danger of detonation or explosion. Prove that statement wrong?
Suputin, your obviously a very intelligent person. There are a few openings for Defence Scientists these days, maybe you should apply. Obviously you don't pay attention to anything that is explained to you,(sometimes neither do they). First I proved that Gunpowder is classified as an explosive. You don't agree, thats fine, but hundreds of millions of tons of munitions and bulk explosives are moved around the world daily, in accordance with these regulations that even the US government has accepted. In a very safe condition for all concerned, in accordance with these rules. That is the real world! Hopefully you will never be charged with an offence under the explosives act, but you have your defence already ready, so thats a good thing. I don't personally think a judge will accept your arguments, but thats me.
I explained in great detail, how it it is possible for a propellent burn to high order. I work with a dozen or so Phd's and they accept this theory. I have witnessed it in person. It doen't happen everytime, but it is possible. Maybe I should have written it down to your level, was that why you didn't understand what I explained? It doesn't happen in your world thats fine, but it is reality in my world. My world has 28 years experience in the explosives world, 9 years of that experimenting with theories that in the CF, you would be charged and jailed for attempting. But we are allowed to push the envelope in the name of scientific applications to help the Forces, especially in the area of Force protection. No, a small pile of powder, won't high order but 6,000 lbs just might, and that what MY original post was about.
When we conduct field trials, we repeat the trial multiple times, just to insure that the results were NOT a freak of nature. For example; in the late 90's a semi trailer loaded to capacity with ammonium nitrate got in an accident and high ordered in Northern Ontario. We repeated the accident for DOT, twice burning down a semi, loaded exactly the way the one in the '90s was loaded. To the same quantity of ammonium nitrate. Neither high ordered, it was a freak of nature. Maybe, but that is my reality.
Scientific examination of explosives has come a long way in the 60 years since Hatchers Notebook was written. His results would not be acceptable by any intelligent person with a detailed knowledge of explosive applications today. His specialty was not in explosives to begin with, he was though, a very gifted amateur for his time and moved firearm development forward in an era that demanded more detailed scientific knowledge.
As for storage of powder, I don't know 2 people/shooters who store their propellent in the manner suggested by the NRC, and I know a lot of shooters with propellant in their homes. Most have their powder and primers stored in a manner that would amplify the results/damage/destruction caused in a simple house fire. I have a friend in a residential neighbourhood who had 100 plus lbs of black powder in his basement for a muzzle loading cannon a couple of years ago. I know I would not feel comfortable being his neighbour, but thats me. But my friends, they are individuals and I can only suggest alternates. Therefore I don't have anything to prove because I have witnessed it. Responsibility is theirs, not mine.
CERL who conducted those trials have ranges that are capable (maximum NEQ allowed) of the detonation of up to 10 kg of various explosives, so they had no need to involve us. So I don't currently know the detailed set up, of the trials held. The high speed film was shot at somewhere between 20,000 to 100,000 frames per second, so you get a more detailed/amplified record of the events than you would with the Mk 1 eyeball.
As was previously mentioned, the BBQ brigade on average with their propane tanks are more dangerous to the average firefighter. While the basic smokeless powder, the additives, binding agents, solvents, etc have changed considerably, just maybe that is the reason that all reloading manuals have downgraded the amount of their high end loads? Something to consider.As Sean Connery says “Thus endith the lesson”!
SandRoad you are correct, under 50lbs/22.7 kg small arms ammunition, propellant and primers are considered as a "Consumer quantity" in North America. Therefore avoiding all the required TDG documentation and markings required of larger shipments when transported by individuals. If you are moving across country with your own personal "stock" the clear language TDG has a 500 lb exemption for individuals, that is worth looking into. To bad the RCMP didn't before they conducted a hostile takedown in Swift Current 4 or 5 years ago. The judge was not kind with his comments towards the police either!!
Tacdriver, if I was a firefighter on active duty, I would approach my professional organization in regards to having manufactured a more high quality video on this topic. Given the knowledge that can be gained, given the resources that can be currently be used to develop videos, makes the older videos "nice homemovies". As a training aid, the older videos aren't worth watching because of the misleading information that they provide.
Suputin, next time you’re in Medicine Hat drop in for a beer, if you have any other questions I'm sure we could get a very informative session going. I am curious though, what line of work are you in?
I explained in great detail, how it it is possible for a propellent burn to high order. I work with a dozen or so Phd's and they accept this theory. I have witnessed it in person. It doen't happen everytime, but it is possible. Maybe I should have written it down to your level, was that why you didn't understand what I explained? It doesn't happen in your world thats fine, but it is reality in my world. My world has 28 years experience in the explosives world, 9 years of that experimenting with theories that in the CF, you would be charged and jailed for attempting. But we are allowed to push the envelope in the name of scientific applications to help the Forces, especially in the area of Force protection. No, a small pile of powder, won't high order but 6,000 lbs just might, and that what MY original post was about.
When we conduct field trials, we repeat the trial multiple times, just to insure that the results were NOT a freak of nature. For example; in the late 90's a semi trailer loaded to capacity with ammonium nitrate got in an accident and high ordered in Northern Ontario. We repeated the accident for DOT, twice burning down a semi, loaded exactly the way the one in the '90s was loaded. To the same quantity of ammonium nitrate. Neither high ordered, it was a freak of nature. Maybe, but that is my reality.
Scientific examination of explosives has come a long way in the 60 years since Hatchers Notebook was written. His results would not be acceptable by any intelligent person with a detailed knowledge of explosive applications today. His specialty was not in explosives to begin with, he was though, a very gifted amateur for his time and moved firearm development forward in an era that demanded more detailed scientific knowledge.
As for storage of powder, I don't know 2 people/shooters who store their propellent in the manner suggested by the NRC, and I know a lot of shooters with propellant in their homes. Most have their powder and primers stored in a manner that would amplify the results/damage/destruction caused in a simple house fire. I have a friend in a residential neighbourhood who had 100 plus lbs of black powder in his basement for a muzzle loading cannon a couple of years ago. I know I would not feel comfortable being his neighbour, but thats me. But my friends, they are individuals and I can only suggest alternates. Therefore I don't have anything to prove because I have witnessed it. Responsibility is theirs, not mine.
CERL who conducted those trials have ranges that are capable (maximum NEQ allowed) of the detonation of up to 10 kg of various explosives, so they had no need to involve us. So I don't currently know the detailed set up, of the trials held. The high speed film was shot at somewhere between 20,000 to 100,000 frames per second, so you get a more detailed/amplified record of the events than you would with the Mk 1 eyeball.
As was previously mentioned, the BBQ brigade on average with their propane tanks are more dangerous to the average firefighter. While the basic smokeless powder, the additives, binding agents, solvents, etc have changed considerably, just maybe that is the reason that all reloading manuals have downgraded the amount of their high end loads? Something to consider.As Sean Connery says “Thus endith the lesson”!
SandRoad you are correct, under 50lbs/22.7 kg small arms ammunition, propellant and primers are considered as a "Consumer quantity" in North America. Therefore avoiding all the required TDG documentation and markings required of larger shipments when transported by individuals. If you are moving across country with your own personal "stock" the clear language TDG has a 500 lb exemption for individuals, that is worth looking into. To bad the RCMP didn't before they conducted a hostile takedown in Swift Current 4 or 5 years ago. The judge was not kind with his comments towards the police either!!
Tacdriver, if I was a firefighter on active duty, I would approach my professional organization in regards to having manufactured a more high quality video on this topic. Given the knowledge that can be gained, given the resources that can be currently be used to develop videos, makes the older videos "nice homemovies". As a training aid, the older videos aren't worth watching because of the misleading information that they provide.
Suputin, next time you’re in Medicine Hat drop in for a beer, if you have any other questions I'm sure we could get a very informative session going. I am curious though, what line of work are you in?
Well, your crass sarcasm towards CGN members and pompous air of superiority has impressed me greatly, though I only have 25 years in the military I know your kind and I am sure that if we met I would be shaking my head after our meeting.
Silverback, you are correct and I apologise for my sarcasim. I was asked to explain, and then when I did, I was told I was incorrect even though I provided the requested proof. I have no idea what trade you were/are, and I would not insult your intelligence or the trade knowledge that you gained throughout your career. I sincerly meant the offer of the beer, this has been a good discuss that has gotten me back to the basics and the juices flowing. It really matters not, if any advice that I have given is acted upon or not. I can only offer the facts as I know them and my opinion. That is all anyone can do.
