 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / December 2006High power/ATF questions
Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started playing with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power club (Metra) with the intention of getting my L1 cert in 2007. With the new (and hopefully temporary) regulatory climate I have the following questions: 1- do people keep a few high power reloads "in stock" or do they order and pick up from the onsite vendor only on launch days? 2- Am I correct that all high power flyers now will need a LEUP? 3- My local Home Depot stocks a metal jobsite tool box that seems to fit the bill for a class 4 magazine; it is 16 gauge metal with provisions for fastening to the ground and for 2 protected padlocks. It is cheaper and entails no shipping charge as opposed to the ones I have seen on the net. Has anyone gone this route or is it necessary to buy one specifically labeled as a magazine? 4- Is there much difference in applying for a LEUP for use only as opposed to storing a small amount of reloads? Thanks, Len > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started > playing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pick up from the onsite vendor only on launch days? > 2- Am I correct that all high power flyers now will need a LEUP? I'm Hoping it is temporary. I have my L2 Cert but no LEUP. The vendors that come to our launches say that you can buy the motors at the launch without a LEUP with the idea that you are covered under their permit as long as you are there with them. However, if you don't use them they have to buy them back at the end of the day. You can not take them home with you. This is good if you are buying motors. But not good if you are into experimental rocketry. I can't get a LEUP because my local jurisdiction will not allow me to have "fire works" at my house. Even sparklers are illegal. I tried to get some other LEUP holder to let me list them as contingent storage on my application but they are all scared stiff and did not even respond. So I went and bought some hybrids and stuck my tongue out at the BATF jerks. KT > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started playing > with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power club (Metra) > with the intention of getting my L1 cert in 2007. With the new (and > hopefully temporary) regulatory climate I have the following questions: > 1- do people keep a few high power reloads "in stock" or do they order and > pick up from the onsite vendor only on launch days? Keeping motors "in stock" requires a magazine to store them in. > 2- Am I correct that all high power flyers now will need a LEUP? A permit is not required to fly. It is required to purchase, transport, etc. See 18 USC Chapter 40. > 3- My local Home Depot stocks a metal jobsite tool box that seems to fit the > bill for a class 4 magazine; it is 16 gauge metal with provisions for > fastening to the ground and for 2 protected padlocks. It is cheaper and > entails no shipping charge as opposed to the ones I have seen on the net. > Has anyone gone this route or is it necessary to buy one specifically > labeled as a magazine? There are no requirements at 27 CFR Part 555 for a magazine to be labeled and sold as such. A type 4 magazine has no thickness requirements on the metal. As has been pointed out before, aluminum foil covered 1/4" plywood meets the "metal covered wood" requirement. But a minimum level of security will be required and that is up to your local ATF folks. You do not need to fasten a type 4 magazine to the ground. > 4- Is there much difference in applying for a LEUP for use only as opposed > to storing a small amount of reloads? There has not been a "use only" permit since 2003 when the ATF removed the clause in their regulations that allowed it. Your choices are between a User of Explosives Permit or the Limited Permit. > Thanks, > Len  SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ A breakfast of ham and eggs illustrates the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. Given that the PAD exemption is still going through final changes, is it not still in place? Yes, they've changed the 62.5 gram exemption/item, but that still leaves the PAD one intact (for the moment), does it not? David Erbas-White >> Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started >> playing with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> Thanks, >> Len > Given that the PAD exemption is still going through final changes, is it > not still in place? Yes, they've changed the 62.5 gram exemption/item, > but that still leaves the PAD one intact (for the moment), does it not? > > David Erbas-White The PAD exemption, such as it is, is based on the 1994 letter to Aerotech. That letter placed further restrictions on what qualified for the PAD exemption. Alas, they used the CPSC definition of a rocket motor so nothing bigger than an F motor can qualify. http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocumen ts/ATF/letter_from_atf_4-20-94.pdf You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF does not believe it and the judge pointedly did not rule on it. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ A breakfast of ham and eggs illustrates the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. > You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all > rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF > does not believe it and the judge pointedly did not rule on it. But I thought the Judge DID rule that the ATF was improperly making rules when it said Rocket Motors are not PADs. IIRC there were statements about assembled motors being PADs. That's why the latest NPRM was published, to eliminate that. Interestingly the NPRM said rocket motors are the merely the propellant that actuates the rocket. Seems to imply that fully assembled rockets are PADs. >> You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all >> rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > statements about assembled motors being PADs. That's why the latest > NPRM was published, to eliminate that. The judge ruled that the ATF's changing from saying some motors were exempt under the PAD exemption to not being PADs ("inartfully drafted") was done without proper notice and comment. A footnote in the opinion notes that because of this, he didn't have to decide if rocket motors were or were not PADs. See page 20 of: http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/MemorandumOpinion-19Mar04.pdf > Interestingly the NPRM said rocket motors are the merely the propellant > that actuates the rocket. Seems to imply that fully assembled rockets > are PADs. In spite of the ATF invoking the word "logic" in the NPRM, they displayed a striking lack of it. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ A breakfast of ham and eggs illustrates the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. > You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all > rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF > does not believe it and the judge pointedly did not rule on it. Well, the 1990 orange book, question #13 said that all rocket motors were not regulated because they were PADs. to date, the BATFE has not formally changed that statement. This is yet another attempt to clean up what they didn't do, and to ramrod it through regardless of what comments might be made. Which makes it just as illegal as enforcing an illegally produced rule. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all >> rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > made. Which makes it just as illegal as enforcing an illegally produced > rule. Not quite. "13. Is the rocket propellant in model rocket kits considered to be an explosive? No. [55.141]" The question was only about _model_ rockets and the reference was to the entire exemption section of the regulations rather than to any one part. SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ A breakfast of ham and eggs illustrates the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. >>> You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all >>> rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the entire exemption section of the regulations rather than to any > one part. Is the propellant considered to be an explosive? The answer was no. The proper way to answer the question would have been (if they had been of a mind to), "Yes, but it is exempt from regulation." Since they didn't do that, their statement is that the propellant is not explosive -- and note that it is the same propellant used in the model rockets as in the high-power rockets (just more of it). David Erbas-White But black powder and APCP aren't the same thing. -- David >But black powder and APCP aren't the same thing. But if I have an F25 model rocket motor, isn't it then just a matter of how much and not the composition? Simple answer is that the NAR/TRA lawsuit started prior to 9/11. And things have gotten much more restrictive since then. Add into the mix, that motor vendors want to sell motors (Duh!). They might skate around the legal stuff. When it comes to getting a LEUP, the very first place to check is your local codes. You might not be able to store motors, under any condition, where you live (That's the case in Phoenix). The local guys use DOT classification here, that date back decades. Before you expend any more time, check with your local codes, and maybe your state codes (Ill requires a state permit, IIRC) You won't find a mag that makes the ATF happy at Home Depot. > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started playing > with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power club (Metra) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks, > Len > Before you expend any more time, check with your local codes, and maybe > your state codes (Ill requires a state permit, IIRC) And/or talk to the Agency Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). My local Fire Marshal was very helpful. > You won't find a mag that makes the ATF happy at Home Depot. Not as is, but it the metal jobsite boxes can be modified. First, peel off the label that says no flammable material. Then add a non-sparking liner. 1/8" plywood or Masonite works fine. Technically even cardboard would qualify. I have a LEUP and I made my own magazine from a 20mm ammunition box obtained at a local military surplus store. I added a plywood liner to meet the non-spark requirment and a pair of padlocks. When the local agents checked it out, they measured the thickness of the metal and plywood and the diameter of the padlocks. They also asked about the number of pins in the locks. Those seem to be the hot buttons. The only advantage to buying something labeled and sold as a magazine is that you know that the requirements will be met without having to try to figure them out on your own. Larry > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started playing > with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power club (Metra) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks, > Len > I have a LEUP and I made my own magazine from a 20mm ammunition box > obtained at a local military surplus store. I added a plywood liner to > meet the non-spark requirment and a pair of padlocks. When the local > agents checked it out, they measured the thickness of the metal and > plywood and the diameter of the padlocks. They also asked about the > number of pins in the locks. Those seem to be the hot buttons. About what I did as well. Except I used epoxy paint as my on sparking liner. Had to paint over the bolt heads I used to install the shackles. They seem to like those round padlocks that John Cato turned me on to back when I first got into this stuff. I don't understand why they measure the thickness when there is not thickness requirement, yet they use this thingie to measure the edge thickness, where the lip that is twice as thick as the rest of the box is. Clueless bunch of ID <ten> T's > The > only advantage to buying something labeled and sold as a magazine is > that you know that the requirements will be met without having to try > to figure them out on your own. Alas, that is not necessarilly true. They definitley didn't like the one a friend of mine bought commercially. Of course, when each agent makes up the rules as they go, you end up with Calvinball... SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! I have a LEUP and I made my own magazine from a 20mm ammunition box obtained at a local military surplus store. I added a plywood liner to meet the non-spark requirment and a pair of padlocks. When the local agents checked it out, they measured the thickness of the metal and plywood and the diameter of the padlocks. They also asked about the number of pins in the locks. Those seem to be the hot buttons. The only advantage to buying something labeled and sold as a magazine is that you know that the requirements will be met without having to try to figure them out on your own. Larry > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started playing > with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power club (Metra) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks, > Len Len, If you don't have an apropriate area for storage you are out of luck unless you know someone with an LEUP for contingent storage. The rules are a bunch of bull crap as cored motor grains burn a little more rigorous than road flares. Uncored grains burn like road flares. Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode. The 50lbs. of BP the government allows one in the shooting sports to keep is more explosive. Yeah and like the reloaders are blowing themselves up right and left right? Not! They are getting along just fine thank you. Nonetheless, we are stuck with the crappy rules as they are and if you want onsite (read home) storage, you'll have to put up them as it doesn't look like we won't hear anything about the lawsuit until the summer. Even if the rocket guys prevail the ATFE can appeal like idiots as they don't have anyone else weaker to pick on. I am certain you will hear from LEUP holders who can help you out on the application process. You might want to get a copy of the archaic "Orange Book" that has the rules on must abide by. Folks tell me if you download the first few files of the paperwork the ATFE submitted to the court, it contains a copy of the Orange Book you could look at before deciding to go out and buy it. Try the Tripoli website or probably the NAR site might have it too. > Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode. I keep reading that APCP can't be made to explode. That depends on the amount. It can be made to detonate. I work at a rocket company and we have research that says APCP motors of large diameters and quantities can detonate. But of course those motors are far larger than any us HPR people will ever make or use. Were talking about motors greater than 60" dia with several tons of APCP. Heck look at Henderson Nevada. Their AP detonated without the fuel to burn. KT Just for grins here is a link that shows AP can detonate. http://www.chemaxx.com/expolode1.html The plant exploding is The Pepcon Rocket Fuel (ammonium perchlorate) Plant Explosion in Henderson, Nevada. There was a fire in the plant. while they were evacuating the fire super heated the stock pile of AP. The video shows the rest. It is obviously a detonation. You can see the blast wave go out for miles. KT >> Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >KT Moral of the story is that the composition of commercial APCP we use in the quanities we use in the intended purpose we use it, it 'should' not explode. I suppose under the conditions that are not the intended use, you can get a lot of stuff that isn't normally considered an explosive to explode. Phil >>>Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > explosive to explode. > Phil Agreed, The keyword is AP. Aerosolized grain dust or coal can explode. I suspect if it was simply a big pile of APCP grains, one would have a big fire but not an explosion. I have seen the recipe of an AP explosive that was used in World War One but the manufacturing of it is involved and requires the additions of explosive agents that are indeed dangerous and tightly controlled (as they should be). They are items that have no use in rocketry. I don't even believe there is a commercial use for this in the explosives industry today. > I keep reading that APCP can't be made to explode. That depends on the > amount. It can be made to detonate. I work at a rocket company and we have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > several tons of APCP. Heck look at Henderson Nevada. Their AP detonated > without the fuel to burn. AP is a component of APCP - they aren't the same thing. Oxygen and Hydrogen can combine explosively, and both are components of water, but water isn't an explosive. -- Roger Ya did'nt read the whole thing. APCP can if there is a large enough quantity. KT > Ya did'nt read the whole thing. APCP can if there is a large enough > quantity. Sorry, I took the bait once. I won't do it again. :-) -- Roger > research that says APCP motors of large diameters and quantities can > detonate. But of course those motors are far larger than any us HPR people > will ever make or use. Were talking about motors greater than 60" dia with Not the form we use it in. Not the primary or intended purpose. Cake flour can detonate too. > several tons of APCP. Heck look at Henderson Nevada. Their AP detonated > without the fuel to burn. AP is not APCP. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > Not the form we use it in. Not the primary or intended purpose. Cake flour > can detonate too. Yes, you are right there. We don't have motors 60" dia or larger weighing several tons. > AP is not APCP. Read the whole email. I said APCP can detonate given it is in a large enough hunk. KT You need to read the accident report before you say there was no fuel. The AP was store inproperly, Too close together and with no barriers, House keeping was nonexistant and so the plastic shavings, scraps of all kinds mixed with AP was the initial fuel. The plastic containment vessels became the fuel later as this fire progressed. Dennis >> Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > KT Ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer yes, but the molecule has it's own fuel component. It will energetically decompose readily as a monopropellant at pressures above 700 psi with a theoretical sea level Isp of about 170. The talk that APCP that will only DDT with HE materials added (and where, when and why) is also without basis. Materials such as RDX/HMX are only added to specialized propellant that tend to be used in reduced smoke applications for example. Way too much misinformation in this forum. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto > You need to read the accident report before you say there was no fuel. > The AP was store inproperly, Too close together and with no barriers, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> KT Anthony, You are the expert. Educate me here. (Please I do not mean that as sarcasm at all as I respect that you would be one who would know.) Can APCP grains out in the open explode by themselves? I don't mean with doctoring. I mean if they can, I don't know why Tripoli/NAR is pursuing the lawsuit as it would be doomed to failure. (I did donate BTW) I take it if there was some liberalization of the rules, you and other manufacturers could benefit from purchases from more casual modelers and there might be some encouragement for more participation in HPR. Develop a launch range and they will come sort of thing. My contention is it would be perfectly safe for one to store a reasonable amount of propellant grains on hand with a modicum of caution. Most modelers can't afford to hold large amounts anyways. Yes, I know there are real serious folks who store grains on a grand scale and I have no issue for control there. Please go ahead and change my mind here. Again, I mean no disrespect as I do not want to have my facts wrong. Kurt > Ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer yes, but the molecule has it's own fuel > component. It will energetically decompose readily as a monopropellant at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota > (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto Use your propellant and rocket motors as intended. The DDT issue in this tread is moot in that regard. I simply take issue with statements and claims that get made that aren't based on facts or good science. Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto > Anthony, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota >> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto Thanks, Hope we win the suit so I could by a grain or two from your company without a bunch of rigamarole. Kurt > Use your propellant and rocket motors as intended. The DDT issue in this > tread is moot in that regard. I simply take issue with statements and claims [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >>> (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota >>> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto If you decide to buy a grain, buy a casing for it too. 8-) Phil >Thanks, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>>> (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota >>>> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto I'll have to as I don't have the means to make em and I don't mind supporting the industry. Although my prefect did a 12 inch 24mm case for me that we get an H-200 out of. :-) > If you decide to buy a grain, buy a casing for it too. 8-) > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>>>> (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota >>>>> (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto I think you're confusing "detonation" with "failure" of the motor casing. If you were to take the same amount of APCP used in those motor tests, place it in a parking lot and light it, the effect would be MUCH different than if you put it in a casing that allows the pressure to increase. Also, the explosion video you cited was an explosion of pure AP, which has different characteristics than APCP. P.S. Flour can also cause a flour plant to "detonate"/"explode" under the right circumstances. On Nov 17, 11:26 am, kimba...@pacbell.net wrote: > > Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode.I keep reading that APCP can't be made to explode. That depends on the > amount. It can be made to detonate. I work at a rocket company and we have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > KT > Len, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > deciding to go out and buy it. Try the Tripoli website or probably the > NAR site might have it too. 1) You cannot "buy" a copy of the Orange Book. The ATF gives them away not to mention that it is available in a much better form than the court filing on the ATF web site: http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/index.htm Last published in 2000. 2) A much more up to date version of the law and regulations is available online. law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_40.html regulations: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/27cfr555_06.html SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ A breakfast of ham and eggs illustrates the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. >> NAR site might have it too. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > regulations: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/27cfr555_06.html Hello David, I went to what I thought was a "govermint" site to try to download or see how I could get a copy but they wanted money. If they're free for the asking then I do indeed stand corrected. I don't remember the site address as I don't have the prospect of passing an inspection and there are not enough LEUP holders around that could provide for contingency for myself. It's not the money involved that irks me. It's the issue that the propellant is treated as some super dangerous high explosive when it's not. I did download the ATF filing that has a copy in there. Thanks. Kurt This is what I understand right now, and I do not have the details of rules and regs like many do. This is how my permit experience went and what I have. 1) In order for you to buy a motor with more than 62.5g of propellant in the motor or reload kit, you need a LEUP. 2) In order to get a LEUP, you have to have provisions to store what you do not use, but still own at the end of a launch. This does not have to be your storage, but it has to be documented to be someone who can legally posess and store the material. A club member or vendor can perform this for you. 3) The local guys hold the keys to the first door. ATF will grant a variance for storage, even in an attached garage. If you do have an attached garage (like me) you will need a separate magazine to store igniters/e-matches. Yes, it sucks. I bought two of the commercial Type 4 mags from US Explosive, then four of the 5 tumbler, 7/16" hasp Master locks. From my perspective, it was not worth my time to fab my own mags. My town, just outside of Buffalo, NY, required a Hazmat permit ($25/year) but does allow storage. NY State does not have any restrictions. Apart from my own application change (contingency to local storage) my experience was only painful in the pocketbook because of the two mags. I reminded my wife and my self that this is still waaaaayyy cheaper than a boat or classic cars. The expensive part is feeding the HPR rockets. My motor magazine is empty, I've burned all that I bought. I did have at one time two motors for a few weeks. My igniter mag has some e-matches in it. I intend to stock up via mail order early next year. Hazmat charges apply to packages, not motors, so you can spread the charge across a few reloads to minimize the cost impact. SignatureTom Koszuta Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers Buffalo, NYz > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started > playing with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thanks, > Len > Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started > playing with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thanks, > Len One of our members (quark) runs a business selling motors at various launches in the area. As the "Club LEUP" holder, He is able to store our motors for us that exceed the limit. One does not need a LEUP to use them, only store them. You must be attempting or have attained NAR-TRA certification to use the motors, nothing else, according to our club rules. To buy the motors, we must order them in advance. He is not allowed to transport multiple motors for 'possible' or provisional purchase. His magazine is a simple red metal box, much like a tool box, with two built in key locks. It is very small. SignaturePP -------------------------------------- Deactivate the DYNOMITE to reply. > His magazine is a simple red metal box, much like a tool box, with two > built in key locks. It is very small. ...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com . SignaturePP -------------------------------------- Deactivate the DYNOMITE to reply. http://www.whitecapdirect.com/store/worker?request=GetProduct&productID=18036&de stination=%2Fstore%2Fproduct-v2.0.jsp&from=drilldown Probably cheaper I know a bunch of people with these as mags J >> His magazine is a simple red metal box, much like a tool box, with two >> built in key locks. It is very small. > > ...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com . U.S. Explosive Storage advertise in Rockets MAgazine and their ad says that they give a 10% discount if you enter code ROCKETS44 when ordering via the internet. http://www.usexplosive.com/ What J mentioned looks nice but sometimes it is a hassle to get ATF to approve something that you made yourself. Phil >http://www.whitecapdirect.com/store/worker?request=GetProduct&productID=18036&de stination=%2Fstore%2Fproduct-v2.0.jsp&from=drilldown > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> ...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com . I have a box from Merlin Missiles and it did not pass inspection by my ATF agent. I then purchased the usexplosives box. The agent took one look at it and said "that certainly meets all the regs and then some!" Worth the money. > U.S. Explosive Storage advertise in Rockets MAgazine and their ad says > that they give a 10% discount if you enter code ROCKETS44 when [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> >>> ...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com . That's interesting. I bet more than half the rocket guys with a LEUP use that magazine. A few years ago there was a lock update to put on them that cost about $20 but that's the only issue I've heard of related to them. I forget who manufactures them but their web site did say they are an approved magazine. Phil >I have a box from Merlin Missiles and it did not pass inspection by my ATF >agent. I then purchased the usexplosives box. The agent took one look at it [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>> >>>> ...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com . Yes, I had the lock upgrade, but still couldn't get it approved. Rather than fight I purchased the usaexplosives box. > That's interesting. I bet more than half the rocket guys with a LEUP > use that magazine. A few years ago there was a lock update to put on [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>>>> >>>>> ...and is available for sale on merlinmissiles.com . > That's interesting. I bet more than half the rocket guys with a LEUP > use that magazine. A few years ago there was a lock update to put on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Phil The ATF published a ruling on this: http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/2004-3.htm SignatureDavid W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/ A breakfast of ham and eggs illustrates the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. >> That's interesting. I bet more than half the rocket guys with a LEUP >> use that magazine. A few years ago there was a lock update to put on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/2004-3.htm In you opinion, do the magazines with the updated locks that MM sells confirm to this or not? Phil >>> That's interesting. I bet more than half the rocket guys with a LEUP >>> use that magazine. A few years ago there was a lock update to put on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Phil I was under the impression that the ruling was a direct result of problems with and changes to this magazine. Or it might have been the one Magnum was selling although I think it was identical to this one. I haven't seen the lock upgrade so I have no idea if it conforms to this ruling or not. SignatureDavid W. Schultz "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it..." - Philip K. Dick One additional problem with the Merlin box I received was that with one lock unlocked you could still open the box -- that was a definite no-no in the ATF's eyes. And I did show the upgraded lock set documentation to the agent --- didn't fly. She showed a counter letter of some sort. I was tired ot waiting and went for the other box. Sure, maybe I could have eventually won my case, but then again maybe all I would be able to do is get myself further embroiled in the issue of who's right and who's wrong. I have had a lot of battles to fight and so I pick the ones I can win and accept the ones I can't. >>>> That's interesting. I bet more than half the rocket guys with a LEUP >>>> use that magazine. A few years ago there was a lock update to put on [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I haven't seen the lock upgrade so I have no idea if it conforms to this > ruling or not. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.