rehmwa 2 #51 February 6, 2012 QuoteQuote 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. I really doubt that the firestation has a list of inventory of every citizen that they review before going to the house - I know I've not provided one to the fire dept in my entire life. I really doubt if the department knows how much ammo JohnRich has in his house nor do they know just where Southern-Man stores his 3 gallon jug of gas and 2 gallon just of gas/oil mix. What I do suspect is that they respond to a fire and when they see certain types of fire, hear odd noises and explosions, smell the fire, and feel the heat, that they will react as best they can to the perceived personal danger while trying their best to deal with these unknowns in doing their job. none of which is an "excuse to stand by and do nothing to save someone's home" - it's just doing their job these discussions about whether or not exploding bullets are lethal (normally not), or if loose gunpowder is explosive (normally not) are really moot - the fireman doesn't necessarily know that it's exactly 2000 rounds of 22 rimfires - they just see and hear something they need to immediately assess. Now, if the homeowner is present, I'm sure that info would be appreciated by the crew and that many do have the education to know what's best. ... 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
Andy9o8 2 #52 February 6, 2012 Let's be realistic here. One factor our little "though experiment" here has failed to consider thus far is human nature; and that's why it still fails to realistically replicate a live field scenario. In this case, we're talking about the human nature of a Fire Captain on the scene. There's risking your life (or your subordinates' lives, which for most people is tougher) to save human life, and there's doing it to save mere property. Now then: Even if the trajectory is lacking the guidance of a barrel, a round from an exploding bullet does exit the cartridge at an initially high velocity. The chances that its random trajectory and retained velocity will be dangerous to a firefighter nearby is some factor greater than Zero. A Fire Captain sending his men into harm's way - especially if it's only to save a building, and not someone inside - isn't about to risk having to look some widow in the eye and answer the question: "Why did you send your men in there just to save a building if you knew there was live ammunition?" by dryly explaining that "lab tests and statistical analyses have predicted that the risk of being fatally injured by an exploding bullet is actually quite low." No - unless there's a life to save, he's going to keep his men the hell out of that building, and if need be (in his opinion, under the circumstances), away from it. That may not be entirely scientific, but it is human nature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #53 February 6, 2012 You pretty much just reiterated my points - so, yes, I agree I'm ok with the Fire Captain making the real time call for the safety of his crew. His knowledge and experience for these specific scenarios would have to guide him. If he's knowledgible about powder and ballistics, then great. If not, I wouldn't expect him to take a risk he is unable to assess. here's for fun: Quote a round from an exploding bullet does exit the cartridge at an initially high velocity Let's be realistic here - that slug does not have an "initially high velocity" - physics would note that the casing leaves with most of the velocity - not the slug.,......unless the brass is up against a back stop - [[[and the brass is restrained about it's circumference - I suspect that much of the energy in an unconstrained explosion is consumed in expansion of the brass, rather than conversion to velocity of the brass and the slug away from each other.]]] funny thing about casings - lousy aerodynamics, little mass, and they aren't very pointy science and human nature - all in one post ... 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
billvon 3,110 #54 February 7, 2012 >And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's >home. In some cases it is a reason to burn someone's home down, actually. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #55 February 7, 2012 Quote>And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's >home. In some cases it is a reason to burn someone's home down, actually. What comes to mind is David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. And homes with books in "Fahrenheit 451". Those are not great standards to give our government employees by which to operate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #56 February 7, 2012 Quote>And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's >home. In some cases it is a reason to burn someone's home down, actually. Case, Bill. Case. You are using your common tactic of perverting a singular event that is only marginally related to try to stir the pot and deflect attention from that which you don't agree with.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #57 February 7, 2012 Quote Quote >And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's >home. In some cases it is a reason to burn someone's home down, actually. Case, Bill. Case. You are using your common tactic of perverting a singular event that is only marginally related to try to stir the pot and deflect attention from that which you don't agree with. Either that or JR is . . . His claim that a pound of black powder is no more dangerous than a gallon of gasoline for instance. They may (or may not) contain the same amount of energy, but a person can walk up to a gallon of gasoline and put a cigarette out in it. I don't think the same can be said for the pound of black powder. At least not and still have a hand afterwards. It all has to do with air/fuel mixture.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #58 February 7, 2012 see, now you're changing his claim to fit your agenda. what he said was "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. " Considering the context of the thread the implication at the end is "to a firefighter in a burning home". If the container is breached, both will create vigorous flareups in the fire. If you want to walk up to either container, open it up, and put your cigarette out in it, that's a different set of circumstances. (feel free to do so, but if there isn't video, it didn't happen)-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #59 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI 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. I wonder if this is even true....Did you read this story in the newspaper or hear it on the evening news. The media distorts the truth so much, at times, that I'd be willing to bet something else killed that dog.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #60 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuote>And that's no excuse for firefighters to stand by and do nothing to save someone's >home. In some cases it is a reason to burn someone's home down, actually. Case, Bill. Case. You are using your common tactic of perverting a singular event that is only marginally related to try to stir the pot and deflect attention from that which you don't agree with. Ok, here's a case. A friend of mine had a well equipped shop in his garage. He had a fire start. The fire department showed up and asked "Is there anyone in the building?" There wasn't. The firemen set up, and began to enter to attack the fire and upon entry, saw the Oxy-Acetylene setup and immediately backed off. They stayed a safe distance away, put water on it from outside, kept nearby structures safe and let someone's home burn to the ground. The firemen weren't going to risk their lives to save property. They would have gone in, oxygen tanks or no if there had been a person at risk. But not to save property."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #61 February 7, 2012 QuoteConsidering the context of the thread the implication at the end is "to a firefighter in a burning home". If the container is breached, both will create vigorous flareups in the fire. One will cause a "flare up" the other will cause a respectable "boom." Feel free to prove me wrong by lighting a small fire next to each one and posting the results on YouTube for us to see.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #62 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteConsidering the context of the thread the implication at the end is "to a firefighter in a burning home". If the container is breached, both will create vigorous flareups in the fire. One will cause a "flare up" the other will cause a respectable "boom." Feel free to prove me wrong by lighting a small fire next to each one and posting the results on YouTube for us to see. You seem to be suffering from the media myth that loose gunpowder explodes when lit. Don't believe what you see in movies. Black powder certainly makes a quick flash, but it doesn't explode. And modern gunpowder doesn't even make the quick flash like black powder. What gets loaded into brass cartridge cases like we're talking about is modern powder. There are very few people shooting antique guns that use black powder in brass cases. I light off gunpowder now and then as experiments when I buy old ammo. My latest was some French Lebel ammo made in 1949. Before I take it out to shoot it, I want to get an idea if the ammo is still good. So I take a bullet apart, dump the powder into a pie plate, set it in the fireplace and light it. It burned vigorously, but did not explode. I also set off the primer in the rifle, in the now empty case, to test if the primers are still live. They make a nice flash and a pop sound. With that reassurance, I can then go the range with that rifle and ammo knowing that the rounds are probably good and will function normally. I've done this a lot. It also allows me to measure the components so that I know the weight of the powder charge and weight of the bullet. Loose gunpowder does not explode. Since you seem to think otherwise, that makes you wrong. And you seem to be unwilling to learn the otherwise truth. That makes you a typical gun-o-phobe. You've dug yourself into the bottom of a hole, and refuse to quit digging. You're only making yourself look... Since you seem to think that YouTube videos constitute the ultimate in proof of something, why don't you find us some videos of loose gunpowder being set afire and producing an explosion. Go for it. Attached: 1949 French Lebel square-flake powder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #63 February 7, 2012 >You seem to be suffering from the media myth that loose gunpowder explodes when lit. Ah, there's the key point. "Loose." Yes, loose gunpowder just burns. (Pretty damn fast, but it just burns.) That's a problem in fires, since you can't put it out like you put out most fires, but it won't blow your house to bits. However, packed gunpowder in a container explodes. If it didn't it wouldn't be much use as a propellant for weapons. Thus there are two problems - the fire that results when it is ignited when loose, and the explosion that results when it is ignited when stored in a closed container. Which is why storing gunpowder is not like storing gasoline. Gasoline will burn if an ignition source and oxygen is present. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen, and will either burn or explode depending on how it's stored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #64 February 7, 2012 Quote>You seem to be suffering from the media myth that loose gunpowder explodes when lit. Ah, there's the key point. "Loose." Yes, loose gunpowder just burns. (Pretty damn fast, but it just burns.) That's a problem in fires, since you can't put it out like you put out most fires, but it won't blow your house to bits. However, packed gunpowder in a container explodes. If it didn't it wouldn't be much use as a propellant for weapons. Thus there are two problems - the fire that results when it is ignited when loose, and the explosion that results when it is ignited when stored in a closed container. Which is why storing gunpowder is not like storing gasoline. Gasoline will burn if an ignition source and oxygen is present. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen, and will either burn or explode depending on how it's stored. First of all, you can put out burning gunpowder with water, just like many other things. It's not a magic substance that can burn when wet. That's why military ammo has sealant around the joint between the bullet and the case, and between the primer and the case. That allows soldiers to get their ammo wet, without ruining the powder inside, and still be able to fight. If powder still worked when wet, then that sealant wouldn't be necessary. Now for the containers. There are two types: plastic jugs, and tin cans. In the attached photo, I've shown a random sampling from my shelf - the three on the left are plastic, and the two on the right are tin. The plastic containers are like a milk jug - they won't hold enough pressure to cause an explosion. The plastic would melt first in a fire, long before the powder inside got hot enough to catch fire, and this would expose the contents and allow pressure relief when the powder burns, so there wouldn't be an explosion. That's the equivalent of "loose" gunpowder, just as gas in a plastic gas can is "loose" gas. Now for the tin cans. They're much more sturdy, but still not likely to act like a bomb. They don't have nearly the pressure-holding capacity of something like a gun barrel (60,000 psi) or a pipe bomb. It's just thin sheet metal. Even if the powder inside were to ignite from heat, it would just burst a seam on the tin can long before the pressure got high enough to act like a bomb made out of thick steel, and then it would burn like loose powder once again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #65 February 7, 2012 QuoteThe plastic containers are like a milk jug - they won't hold enough pressure to cause an explosion. The plastic would melt first in a fire, long before the powder inside got hot enough to catch fire, and this would expose the contents and allow pressure relief when the powder burns, so there wouldn't be an explosion. Care to test your hypothesis for us and post the results on YouTube?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #66 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe plastic containers are like a milk jug - they won't hold enough pressure to cause an explosion. The plastic would melt first in a fire, long before the powder inside got hot enough to catch fire, and this would expose the contents and allow pressure relief when the powder burns, so there wouldn't be an explosion. Care to test your hypothesis for us and post the results on YouTube? There really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. And there are storage requirements once a certain minimum is met (40# IIRC). Those storage units have a "pressure fail level" requirement. They have to be certified to release the pressure at or above a certain point to keep the fire from turning into an explosion."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #67 February 7, 2012 QuoteThere really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. Prove it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #68 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteThere really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. Prove it. Show me the money...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #69 February 7, 2012 I know this is SC and all, but really? That's your comeback?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #70 February 7, 2012 QuoteI know this is SC and all, but really? That's your comeback? Pretty much to every claim made by somebody I don't believe and on any topic. If a person makes a claim, they certainly ought to be able to either cite an authoritative source or demonstrate some sort of proof of their claim. If somebody said the Moon was made of cheese, would you believe them just because they said so?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #71 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. Prove it. Show me the money... I will happily reimburse you for the cost of the one pound container of black powder you hold a lit road flare to. The medical bills as a result of your doing so are your own concern.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #72 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteThere really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. Prove it. Ok, after reading your more detailed expanation behind the "prove it", DOT regs for smokeless container construction are covered under CFR49 173.93, but I can't find any text of that. SAMMI has recommendations for smokeless storage HERE and mention "DOT approved containers" without actually saying what those are. And it's 25# not 40. My mistake."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #73 February 7, 2012 Quit digging your hole. Educate yourself: http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/index.cfm The experiments you seek have already been done. There's even videos for those who think the written word doesn't count. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #74 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. Prove it. Show me the money... I will happily reimburse you for the cost of the one pound container of black powder you hold a lit road flare to. The medical bills as a result of your doing so are your own concern. That wasn't the experiment.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #75 February 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere really isn't any need for that. The containers are specifically designed to hold smokeless powder. Those containers have to meet standards (set by the DOT IIRC) for behavior in a fire. They are required to fail at a certain pressure point to prevent an explosion. That applies to both the plastic and metal containers. Prove it. Show me the money... I will happily reimburse you for the cost of the one pound container of black powder you hold a lit road flare to. The medical bills as a result of your doing so are your own concern. That wasn't the experiment. OK, drop the cigarette in. However you want to do it. I was giving you the benefit of JR's "melt" = "loose" theory.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
