AggieDave 6 #26 February 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut I've thrown lots of bullets and powder in lots of fires I like guns, I like bullets and I like things that go boom. However, you are an idiot. yeah yeah yeah the led is bad..... but yeah the copper should just burst and that's what it did....little pop nothing more. god not like I'm tossing an M107 in the fire! No, it isn't the act, it is the decision process.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 February 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteI guess if you think that a million mosquitoes nearby is more dangerous to you than a thousand mosquitoes nearby. Actually, it's 1000 times more dangerous. You'd have 1000 time more chances to catch malaria. Which is not nothing. It only takes ONE mosquito bite to give you malaria. Thus, a single mosquito is still dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #28 February 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess if you think that a million mosquitoes nearby is more dangerous to you than a thousand mosquitoes nearby. Actually, it's 1000 times more dangerous. You'd have 1000 time more chances to catch malaria. Which is not nothing. It only takes ONE mosquito bite to give you malaria. Thus, a single mosquito is still dangerous. Correct! And it would only take ONE .45 shell casing flying into your eye to really f'in' hurt. Now, multiply that by 100,000 times.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #29 February 3, 2012 Quoteyeah yeah yeah the led is bad..... but yeah the copper should just burst and that's what it did....little pop nothing more. The lead is only bad if your shot with it, or if you're breathing the fumes while it's melting. The cases are made of brass, not copper. Brass is a combination of both copper and zinc. The only copper might be a thin jacket over a lead bullet, and it won't burst, it will just melt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 February 3, 2012 QuoteI can attest to the fact that we had a patient's house burn down a long time ago, and during the fire, his ammo cooked off, and a bullet killed his dog (a large one). So, I would tend to believe that if it can kill an 80-100lb dog, the right circumstances of a cooked off round could kill a person too. Sure, if it's in a firearm that is in the fire, and the firearm is pointing at the dog. But I don't think you can say that the bullet which killed the dog came from loose ammo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 February 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt only takes ONE mosquito bite to give you malaria. Thus, a single mosquito is still dangerous. Correct! And it would only take ONE .45 shell casing flying into your eye to really f'in hurt. Now, multiply that by 100,000 times. And thus the gun-o-phobe argument that ammo ownership should be limited in quantity in order to protect firefighters in case of a fire. So, now that we've come full circle back to the beginning of this thread, do you think that's a legitimate concept for legislation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #32 February 3, 2012 QuoteAnd thus the gun-o-phobe argument that ammo ownership should be limited in quantity in order to protect firefighters in case of a fire. Nope. As long as it's otherwise legal for you to do so, have all the ammo you want. Go for it. Just don't expect anybody to put out the fire around it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #33 February 3, 2012 That article offers no real over-all perspective does it John~ If a firefighter is going to worry about gettin' dead from cooking off ammo...they then should be scared shitless about aerosol cans, stored pressurized tires...a lawnmower's gas can, paints & solvents in the garage. Hell even a can of chicken soup or bottle of catsup can send out shrapnel in the right conditions... ~and how 'bout the multitude of toxic chemicals that are present in even the most average of households ...carcinogenic death clouds that get released during a fire? That's not 'dust' in the air when some older homes are collapsing from structural fire...it's asbestos. I got one, ever seen an old water-heater explode in a fire?! How about the propane tank on your 'Beef-Master 3000 grill' sittin' in the car-port?? I've been around ammo in a fire...there's a whole lot more to worry about with cooking off a can of WD-40, ~THAT shit is a napalm grenade! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 February 3, 2012 Quote Correct! And it would only take ONE .45 shell casing flying into your eye to really f'in' hurt. Now, multiply that by 100,000 times. 100,000 rounds will all manage to hit a one inch wide target in a brief interval. That would be impressive (fucking amazing) for a gun, and completely impossible for loose rounds. As for the single bullet, that fireman is wearing a face shield. Meant to shield the heat, it will do just fine here as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #35 February 3, 2012 QuoteQuote Correct! And it would only take ONE .45 shell casing flying into your eye to really f'in' hurt. Now, multiply that by 100,000 times. 100,000 rounds will all manage to hit a one inch wide target in a brief interval. That would be impressive (fucking amazing) for a gun, and completely impossible for loose rounds. As for the single bullet, that fireman is wearing a face shield. Meant to shield the heat, it will do just fine here as well. I'm wondering if anyone here, perhaps we can talk Shah or JR into doing it, would be willing to do an experiment for me and post it on YouTube. It would be essentially recreating the Mythbuster's experiment, but instead of the robot dumping the bullets you wear typical fireman gear and do it up close and remain there for several minutes. Obviously the reason I wouldn't do it is because I'm fairly certain it's going to hurt. However, those that have said it isn't anything to worry about should be perfectly fine with the concept. Maybe we could work out some sort of arrangement where the "loser pays" in terms of the cost of the expendables involved. Any takers?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #36 February 3, 2012 No thanks. We had a 20 round box of 5.56 get tossed in to a burn pit, in Iraq. One dude had minor surgery when hit by the exploding rounds. It can be harmful, they can be harmless, play the odds any way you want. Me I will avoid the situation. But legislation for an amount of ammunition allowable? Silly. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #37 February 3, 2012 Maybe we could work out some sort of arrangement where the "loser pays" in terms of the cost of the expendables involved. Quote I handle the expendables as far as ammo and starting the fire...YOU pay for the turn-out gear. The one I use to use in an emergency response capacity was triple layer, outside heat reflector with inner kevlar & nomex. The helmets w/visor were advertised as small arms bullet resistant...so you buy... & I'll 'burn'! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dthames 0 #38 February 4, 2012 I helped destroy some ammo by dumping it into a 55 gallon burn barrel with a good hot fire in the bottom. Some of the rounds were lifted by those popping and the lifted rounds popped above the top of the barrel (by chance timing). We backed off a few feet but did not feel at risk (with eye protection). I did hear of a case where a full box of .45 ACP was dropped, hit a table mounting bolt on the floor, and "fired" a bullet that hit someone in the head. The person was standing right over the spot where the box fell. So, under some specific conditions in a fire, maybe some risk.Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 February 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd thus the gun-o-phobe argument that ammo ownership should be limited in quantity in order to protect firefighters in case of a fire. Nope. As long as it's otherwise legal for you to do so, have all the ammo you want. Go for it. Just don't expect anybody to put out the fire around it. As Airtwardo points out in message #33, ammo is no more dangerous in a fire than many other household items. So, using your logic, above, a firefighter can just sit back and do nothing in *every* home fire, because it's too dangerous to intervene. Do you support that? And if so, then what's the point in having fire fighters? Or do you just want firefighters to discriminate only against gun owners? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #40 February 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd thus the gun-o-phobe argument that ammo ownership should be limited in quantity in order to protect firefighters in case of a fire. Nope. As long as it's otherwise legal for you to do so, have all the ammo you want. Go for it. Just don't expect anybody to put out the fire around it. As Airtwardo points out in message #33, ammo is no more dangerous in a fire than many other household items. So, using your logic, above, a firefighter can just sit back and do nothing in *every* home fire, because it's too dangerous to intervene. Do you support that? And if so, then what's the point in having fire fighters? Or do you just want firefighters to discriminate only against gun owners? Did you see my post about doing an experiment? Post #35. Also see post #36 immediately below it. Please make sure you get video.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #41 February 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteI can attest to the fact that we had a patient's house burn down a long time ago, and during the fire, his ammo cooked off, and a bullet killed his dog (a large one). So, I would tend to believe that if it can kill an 80-100lb dog, the right circumstances of a cooked off round could kill a person too. Sure, if it's in a firearm that is in the fire, and the firearm is pointing at the dog. But I don't think you can say that the bullet which killed the dog came from loose ammo. I don't want to go into detail too much due to HIPAA, but there were no firearms in the house, just left over ammo that was in a big bowl of stuff. I imagine that the one that killed the dog was one that cooked off at the bottom and was compressed / tightly wrapped so the gasses had no choice but to push the bullet out fast. Anyway, my point wasnt so much that 1 loose round is super dangerous, but rounds outside of firearms in the right circumstances that cook off can be.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #42 February 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd thus the gun-o-phobe argument that ammo ownership should be limited in quantity in order to protect firefighters in case of a fire. Nope. As long as it's otherwise legal for you to do so, have all the ammo you want. Go for it. Just don't expect anybody to put out the fire around it. As Airtwardo points out in message #33, ammo is no more dangerous in a fire than many other household items. So, using your logic, above, a firefighter can just sit back and do nothing in *every* home fire, because it's too dangerous to intervene. Do you support that? And if so, then what's the point in having fire fighters? Or do you just want firefighters to discriminate only against gun owners? Did you see my post about doing an experiment? Post #35. Also see post #36 immediately below it. I would happily participate in your experiment, without fear. You, on the other hand, seem to fear even answering my simply question. And that's a good indication that you know you're wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #43 February 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd thus the gun-o-phobe argument that ammo ownership should be limited in quantity in order to protect firefighters in case of a fire. Nope. As long as it's otherwise legal for you to do so, have all the ammo you want. Go for it. Just don't expect anybody to put out the fire around it. As Airtwardo points out in message #33, ammo is no more dangerous in a fire than many other household items. So, using your logic, above, a firefighter can just sit back and do nothing in *every* home fire, because it's too dangerous to intervene. Do you support that? And if so, then what's the point in having fire fighters? Or do you just want firefighters to discriminate only against gun owners? Did you see my post about doing an experiment? Post #35. Also see post #36 immediately below it. I wouild happily participate in your experiment, without fear. You say without fear . . . I say without common sense. Potato, potato. You move. Make it on YouTube.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 February 5, 2012 QuoteQuote[I wouild happily participate in your experiment, without fear. You say without fear . . . I say without common sense. That's correct, without fear. I've done enough research on this subject to know what to expect. Fear comes from ignorance, and I'm well-informed. You, however, still haven't answered the questions posed to you, which I'll repeat, below. What are you afraid of? As Airtwardo points out in message #33, ammo is no more dangerous in a fire than many other household items. So, using your logic, above, a firefighter can just sit back and do nothing in *every* home fire, because it's too dangerous to intervene. Do you support that? And if so, then what's the point in having fire fighters? Or do you just want firefighters to discriminate only against gun owners? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #45 February 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote[I wouild happily participate in your experiment, without fear. You say without fear . . . I say without common sense. That's correct, without fear. I've done enough research on this subject to know what to expect. Fear comes from ignorance, and I'm well-informed. You, however, still haven't answered the questions posed to you, which I'll repeat, below. What are you afraid of? Keep repeating as if I haven't already explained and shown it. I've linked video of the the test I propose YOU undertake with YOUR own body. What am I afraid of? Getting hit my flying pieces of metal as a result of gunpowder exploding in a confined space. Why haven't you made a fire and tossed a couple of hundred rounds of .45 into it yet while standing next to it? What are YOU afraid of?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #46 February 6, 2012 I can't remember anyone in this thread advocating limiting ammo stores. Why do you keep insinuating they are? I think you'd agree that firefighters arriving at a fire where there are 100,000 cans of WD-40 are going to treat it differently than a regular house fire. This is no different. I'm not a firefighter, nor a reloader, but I'd probably be more concerned with the likely large quantities of powder on hand than the already loaded rounds. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #47 February 6, 2012 QuoteI can't remember anyone in this thread advocating limiting ammo stores. Why do you keep insinuating they are? I think you'd agree that firefighters arriving at a fire where there are 100,000 cans of WD-40 are going to treat it differently than a regular house fire. This is no different. I'm not a firefighter, nor a reloader, but I'd probably be more concerned with the likely large quantities of powder on hand than the already loaded rounds. This brings up an interesting tidbit about modern firefighting. The time in fire for a modern firefighter is only a fraction of the time that a firefighter spent in a fire 40 years ago. Even with more technology and better gear, they can't spend as much time in the fire. This is due to the fires burning faster and hotter than previously, with modern construction materials and more importantly, other "modern" items in a home. I'll dig around a little bit to see if I can find the training article I read on it a while back... EDIT: This article references the research, but it wasn't the actual training document that had all the hard data. It's a start though: http://www.firefighternation.com/article/news-2/ul-nist-study-fire-behavior-modern-dwellings--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #48 February 6, 2012 QuoteI can't remember anyone in this thread advocating limiting ammo stores. Why do you keep insinuating they are? It was insinuated in the very first post, and by the title of this thread. It suggests that having "too much" ammo is dangerous in a fire, and the logical extension of that idea is that ammo ownership should be volume-limited to avoid such "danger". QuoteI think you'd agree that firefighters arriving at a fire where there are 100,000 cans of WD-40 are going to treat it differently than a regular house fire. This is no different. An explosion from a can of pressurized flammable liquid is much more dangerous than the popping of an ammunition cartridge. Scale that up to 100,000 units and it's like comparing a napalm bomb to firecrackers. QuoteI'm not a firefighter, nor a reloader, but I'd probably be more concerned with the likely large quantities of powder on hand than the already loaded rounds. Are you under the impression that loose gunpowder explodes? Because if so, that's another myth. It just burns vigorously, no different from many other materials. Five one-gallon plastic jugs of gunpowder in the garage is no more dangerous than the 5-gallon gas can used for the lawn mower. And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 February 6, 2012 Quotethe logical extension of that idea is that ammo ownership should be volume-limited to avoid such "danger" or....it could just be a request for personal opinions only hyper political types consider that their personal opinions should be codified into law - but since it seems to be inferred here in SC so often, I can see why you'd jump to that conclusion and defending the right of an individual to own personal property as they see fit is always a good argument ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #50 February 6, 2012 Quote Are you under the impression that loose gunpowder explodes? Because if so, that's another myth. It just burns vigorously, no different from many other materials. Five one-gallon plastic jugs of gunpowder in the garage is no more dangerous than the 5-gallon gas can used for the lawn mower. And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's home. I keep the gas for my lawnmower and other power tools in my shed out back so it is much less of a hazard to myself and others."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
