Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa How are guys transporting powder for muzzle loader hunts?

There is something called an "exception" in the US Dept OF Transportation (DOT) rules that excludes loaded cartridges. BP is no more prone to static ignition than most other propellants and certainly less than JP let alone AVGAS. Ask them about cordite loaded cartridges and all you'll get is the proverbial deer in the headlights look.

If memory serves me right, about 100K volts or thereabouts and a LOT less that JP fuel let alone high Grade AVGAS. BTW, calling TSA and getting some illiterate bureaucratic goon to answer a question is about the same as calling our own IRS for the right answer. Just go ahead and ask them about the transportation if regular ammo, i.e., IN the same case as the rifle or separated. Call them ten times and you'll get ten different answers. The folks at GOEX researched all of this and would not knowingly break the law neither would any of us. You can't carry cans of smokeless powder, primers OR BP, but loaded cartridges yes. jorge

A clarification of terms at least for my purposes, a black powder �derivative� by definition is black powder. It implies or is analogous to a parent child relationship. One comes from the other. From Merriam: �a chemical substance related structurally to another substance and theoretically derivable from it b : a substance that can be made from another substance�. In comparison a �substitute� by definition cannot be blackpowder, it is a substitute. By definition substitute and derivative are contradictory terms. For my purposes in this discussion it is about common black powder substitutes being transported in metallic small arms cartridges aboard a commercial aircraft, not ANY form of loose powder.

In the US, DOT is the senior agency setting the standards regarding transportation of all materials. The manufacturer engineers the product. They are held liable for the truthful representation of that product for labeling purposes to ensure that other parties use established standards for correct handling, storage, and transportation of their products.

In the US we have standards for truth in labeling and advertising. The explosive industry is rigorously monitored so personally I believe the explosives manufacturers when they label a product. If a container of yogurt says non-fat, then I believe there is no fat, if a product says non-dairy and if I have a dairy allergy, I believe this product is safe to consume.

If an explosive manufacturer externally labels a product, exact quote: �Not smokeless powder, but approved to ship (DOT) and store (NFPA) as such� and �Triple Seven is not an explosive regulated by Federal Explosive Law� and �For Black Powder Firearms Only � Not Black Powder � a Safer Substitute�, I trust and believe that labeling to be accurate under penalty of US law and under threat of civil liability IF they are determined to be false. They are 3 VERY unambiguous statements.

Below is the label for Triple Seven. No where is it labeled as an explosive even though it may be technically but the �as smokeless� gives it exception from the explosive category.



Now regarding all this fear talk in other posts regarding explosives, �ALL� gunpowder is classified as an explosive which is why you can�t carry loose powder of ANY kind on a commercial aircraft. But based on their ignition, flammability, and propellant characteristics there are �exceptions� for powders used in small arms ammunition. Smokeless powders fall into this �exception� category, most/maybe all black powder substitutes are within this exception also. Why? Because the manufacturer (get it right from the horse�s mouth) verifies that classification. At least as I am aware, no form of �black powder� has that exception.

Here are front and rear canister pics of Smokeless H414 and H4831, each in 2 places are labeled as explosive. That is fine because they are also labeled as �smokeless propellant� putting it into the �excepted� category for small arms ammunition. My Alliant 2400, RE22, and RE19 are also labeled as explosive. So simply because something is an explosive doesn�t prohibit it from commercial transport otherwise all ammo would be illegal.






If you want to research this yourself to verify how to legally handle it, first contact the manufacturer for the specific designation for your specific powder, someone there knows the official classifications of their products. Ask if it is �black powder�? And then ask if it transports as smokeless? Then contact one of the enforcement agencies for information based on that designation, not a different one. If you want to know whether a boat can go in the water there is no point to call and expect a correct answer by asking whether a motorcycle can go in the water. It�s important to phrase the question correctly in order to not influence the answer either way.

Unless you get exceedingly lucky, an agent is not going to know what a �black powder substitute� really refers to anymore than they will know about BH209, H414, or IMR 4831. Those trade names are not in the statutes If the manufacturer says it is NOT classified as black powder then don�t pose a question as if it were some kind of black powder. You need to know the classification from the manufacturer. A dairy substitute cannot be referred to as dairy.

I have posted the response from Hodgdon management above, I also have responses from American Pioneer regarding American Pioneer and Shockey Gold, and from Western Powder regarding BH209. I�ll respect their wishes and won�t copy and paste their response, just to say to contact them directly for an accurate response regarding their product. Please go to their websites and contact them directly. I am not posting the responses because of the following portion on their email response.
DISCLAIMER:
This communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
(i) please do not read or disclose to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply mail, and (iii) please
delete this communication from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation.

Another route for confirmation that real black and substitutes come under separate classifications is very simply contact any and all sporting goods dealers in your area. They all are acutely aware that black powder has a different classification from its substitutes. They all sell substitutes, few sell black powder. Sale of black powder requires an annually renewed Federal Explosives License, substitutes do not, black requires a higher specified level of storage magazine compared to smokeless, substitutes do not, black storage containers require at least one annual inspection, substitutes do not, black requires paperwork for each sale, substitutes do not. Personally I can sell substitutes on this forum, however, I cannot sell any quantity of black on this forum without an explosive license.

Here is a couple links to peruse:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/difference_black_powders.htm

Just a few selected statements from the link:
�Black powder is an old propellant, formed from a blend of natural ingredients: sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal. Classified as an explosive,��
�Pyrodex, though man-made and with a variety of additives, still has sulfur in it and is corrosive. It is classified as a smokeless powder by the DOT,��
"Triple Seven, Black Mag3, and Goex Clear Shot� These propellants have nothing in common with true black powder at all; chemically, neither sulfur nor charcoal is present. They are still carbon-burning propellants, though, of the deflagrating (fast-burning) type.�
�Referring to Triple Seven and Black Mag3, the only thing that they have in common with black powder is they can be volumetrically measured with old black powder measures.�
�They are considered smokeless powder by the DOT,�

Another link and selected comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_powder_substitute
�Black powder substitutes offer a number of advantages over black powder, primarily including reduced sensitivity, reduced fouling, and increased efficiency. Due to property insurance and federal transportation regulations, black powder substitutes also can be transported and stored in interstate commerce in the United States using smokeless powder regulations, instead of the much more restrictive black powder regulations. Because of this, black powder substitutes are thus becoming more commonly available than traditional black powder, which has largely vanished from the shelves of most retailers.�

Too much typing!!!

Jorge,

Buddy, as I said in the previous thread, there's a plethora or different laws and official bodies that have a finger in this pie and (since 9/11) the US have the biggest number of all. All it takes is for just one of those bodies etc to forbid the act and it's forbidden.

I've shown you the CF link where it specifically says that using cases is illegal and it even details the exact part of the relevent law being broken and I've also provided plenty of other links to Gvt sites and commercial aviation sites all of which say the same thing. On top of that, I've also provided links to what can happen when some silly arse fails to abide by the rules and despite umpteen posts and several threads, not a single person has been able to post a single link to a single relevent website that proves me wrong.

Again, if you're so sure it is legal, please post a link to a Gvt or commercial aviation website that stipulates that fact. Simply saying something is true doesn't prove anything. I've provided something like 20 odd links that say it's forbidden but no-one has posted a single link to an appropriate website to say it is.

Alternatively, try calling any commercial airline and ask the speak to the senior risk assessor or other person who is qualified to advice on carriage of dangerous goods or hazardous materials and ask him to check the load and balance manual under dangerous goods and ask him if any material designated as explosive of any kind or whatever it says on the label is permitted to be carried on a commercial aircraft. If you can find someone who agrees with you, either get a link to the relevent law or get it in writing and post it.

The way to win a debate is to provide scientific or legal proof of the argument, not to keep stating personal opinion and nothing else.

Tundragriz,

Your comments are irrelevent as they don't provide links to Gvt or commercial aviation sites that confirm that it is legal to do as you say.

The Chuck Hawks site is irrelevent because it doesn't even mention the subject we're discussing and the Wiki link is also irrelevent for the same reason plus the reason that anyone can make a Wiki comment and it requires no experience of the subject. Incidentally, the Wiki link refers to road transport and not to carriage by commercial aircraft.

As I said to my buddy Jorge,

Again, if you're so sure it is legal, please post a link to a Gvt or commercial aviation website that stipulates that fact. Simply saying something is true doesn't prove anything. I've provided something like 20 odd links that say it's forbidden but no-one has posted a single link to an appropriate website to say it is.

Alternatively, try calling any commercial airline and ask the speak to the senior risk assessor or other person who is qualified to advice on carriage of dangerous goods or hazardous materials and ask him to check the load and balance manual under dangerous goods and ask him if any material designated as explosive of any kind or whatever it says on the label is permitted to be carried on a commercial aircraft.

The way to win a debate is to provide scientific or legal proof of the argument, not to keep shouting personal opinion and nothing else.

Incidentally, if you battle to speak to the (latterly mentioned)right person try asking for the cargo dept.

If any manufacturers etc have told you this act is legal, please ask them to contact me at shakari3mweb.co.za and I'll be more than happy to put them in touch with the appropriate authorities direct so that they can clarify the matter for the sake and safety of the travelling public.

Guys, please remember what the consequences could be if you break the rules. The reason they're there is to keep aircraft and passengers in the air and out of a big hole in the ground. If there's any doubt whatsoever, one shoud err on the side of caution and only a bloody idiot would think otherwise. I can understand someone making a mistake but to even consider such an act when aware of the possible consequences is sheer bloody lunacy.

If anyone is determined to take BP or any derivitive or substitute on a commercial aircraft in any form or kind of container including pre loaded into metallic cases, I'd strongly urge them to be completely open and candid about it to the airline before they travel.

This subject isn't and shouldn't be about what's convenient for Joe Hunter it's about what's safe for Joe Public.

Unless someone can add anything intelligent to this debate rather than misinformed opinion, I'm probably outta here as I'm fed up with feeding the troll that started this.

Steve,

Under most rules of law (US included) they don't list what is legal, they list what is illegal. Here, if there is no law saying that something is illegal, it is legal.

Fjold,

If there are exemptions etc as has been suggested then they'll be mentioned somewhere.

From the US Department of Transportation website @

http://safetravel.dot.gov/index_ammunition.html

"May I carry ammunition components?

You may carry separate non-hazardous components of ammunition such as empty cartridge cases or inert bullets. You may NOT carry separate hazardous components such as black powder, smokeless powder, percussion caps, primers, wrapped charges used in muzzle-loading applications, or similar items."

By that single word it would indicate to me that carrying BP ammunition contained in their loaded cases would be acceptable. Of course, in the case of something this contentious it would be wise to have a direct OK from DOT/TSA. Might not help in some cases since my experience with the average TSA employee indicates they have a lukewarm IQ.

I dealt with US Code of Federal Regulations covering Coast Guard inspected vessels, and can guarantee you the logic of reverse engineering a rule indicating something is approved will bite you in the azz every time. Unless you have approval in hand in writing (not an email) on Gov't letterhead with a SIGNATURE stating the legality of something, you will get screwed when the rule is interpreted differently by someone else.

sharpsguy,

Yes, South Africa had - note the past tense - a domestic black powder manufacturer. Guestt what happened? They blew themselves up a few years ago.

We do have a supply of black powder - all imported stuff nowadays.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

Men,
What a thread. I have a suggestion. Pay a hazardous fee and ship any questionable components via Fed Ex or UPS. They to have rules and if the shipment had to go on a plane it might not go. Check ahead of time.
If it cannot be shipped then go with Ray's recommendation and buy it when you arrive at your destination. No way would it be worht it to take a chance of violating any regulation or depend on any airline employee for an interpretation of any regulation.
An American Airlines ticket agent and her manager would not transport my centerfire rifle and case and check it through to Mexico. I was flying out of Columbus, Ohio. You would not believe the problems they created for me. I cannot imagine having a pound of Triple 7 and them finding out I had it.
They flew me to Dallas/Fort Worth where I had to claim my bags and check them again and where a ticket agent with the right knowledge checked my rifle to Chihuahua no problem. Trouble was I missed the connection and waited 8 hours on the next flight.

Dave