Reid introduces lautenberg powder bill!!!

[Doggy Daddy]

Long way to go for that joke...   

That's okay.  I had the time. 

[Doggy Daddy]

One of our guys should introduce a pressure cooker background check bill just to be a dick

Careful.  These guys just might pass that.

[mtnbkr]

Many muzzleloader don't use BP but BP subsititues like Pyrodex, Triple 7, and Blackhorn 209. I personally like Blackhorn 209 for my inline shotgun primer fired muzzleloader.

Same here, but Lautenberg's ban covers all powder: Black, Substitute, and Smokeless.  It affects us all, but muzzleloader shooters will notice it first and most acutely.

Chris

[RaspberrySurprise]

Just because they bill has not text doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it. The bill can sit and sit and sit and then at the last minute have actual text amended into it and then rammed through when people aren't looking.

[birdman]

Just because they bill has not text doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it. The bill can sit and sit and sit and then at the last minute have actual text amended into it and then rammed through when people aren't looking.

Or added as an amendment to something else
Cough Hughes amendment cough

[Waitone]

Shortly after the Boston bombing Lautenberg quite predictably went after gun powder stuff.  The press release has now been followed with specifics.  And yes, reloaders will take it in the shorts should the good senator have his way.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/08/New-Explosives-License-Impinges-on-Gun-Owners-that-Load-Own-Ammo

[Ben]

In the past I would have said that this would be DOA in the House, but these days I don't count my chickens before they hatch. It bears close watching.

It just kills me that the answer to a bomb made with fireworks that are illegal in MA is to highly restrict BP for firearms, while fireworks aren't even mentioned (not that they should be). And of course we all called it here when we said they wouldn't know the difference between BP and propellant.

[Gewehr98]

Looks like the bill is also going after smokeless powder.   

[Matthew Carberry]

Still only two cosponsors.  Schumer and a Maryland Dem.

[Perd Hapley]

In the past I would have said that this would be DOA in the House, but these days I don't count my chickens before they hatch. It bears close watching.

It just kills me that the answer to a bomb made with fireworks that are illegal in MA is to highly restrict BP for firearms, while fireworks aren't even mentioned (not that they should be). And of course we all called it here when we said they wouldn't know the difference between BP and propellant.

+1 to not counting on the House.

So do propellants not blow up good? No can make the bomb? (I'm trying to keep this in language that even Congressfolk can comprehend.)

[zxcvbob]

+1 to not counting on the House.

So do propellants not blow up good? No can make the bomb? (I'm trying to keep this in language that even Congressfolk can comprehend.)

It does not detonate, it deflagrates (technical terms)  This probably doesn't help with the keep it simple part...

"Blow'd up real good" could be a detonation or a deflagration.

ETA: a deflagration explodes when its containment vessel ruptures and suddenly releases the hot gasses inside.  A detonation does not require containment.  The difference is the propagation rate of the reaction.  If the reaction front exceeds the speed of sound in that medium, it transitions to a detonation.  Think a big pile of ammonium nitrate that catches on fire.    It burns faster and faster, but the explosion (detonation) doesn't occur until it reaches... whatever the speed of sound in is ammonium nitrate. Then it all goes at once

[AZRedhawk44]

+1 to not counting on the House.

So do propellants not blow up good? No can make the bomb? (I'm trying to keep this in language that even Congressfolk can comprehend.)

Marky Mark showed me that IMR rifle powder makes good pipe bombs, so it must be true.

[roo_ster]

+1 to not counting on the House.

So do propellants not blow up good? No can make the bomb? (I'm trying to keep this in language that even Congressfolk can comprehend.)

Burns (relatively slowly) rather than explodes and requires a pressure vessel to contain pressure to a point where it gets dangerous.  

Pile of BP on a plate in the middle of a field get lit off?  Smoke, heat and poof.  Same BP in a sealed pipe/can/cooker and if the pressure builds enough to rupture the vessel, it will let it all loose at once.

[roo_ster]

Was it de Tocqueville that observed a similar difference on either bank of the Ohio River, between Illinois and Kentucky? I.e., the free state had a thriving economy, and the slave state not so much?

[scratches head] maybe a later writer. 

Yes, that is who it was.  Democracy in America.

[Ben]

Hey, so are they gonna amend the bill to cover this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/500-pounds-still-missing-explosives-highlights-federal-security-flaws/

[TechMan]

Hey, so are they gonna amend the bill to cover this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/500-pounds-still-missing-explosives-highlights-federal-security-flaws/

Right after the amend the UBC bill to cover fast n' furious type operations.   

[Scout26]

This part made me hoot in derision.

While Beyersdorf stressed that security at ATF-affiliated facilities in the country is tight, there have been an alarming amount of explosives lost from private sites over the past decade.

http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_23117546/milwaukee-before-failed-gun-sting-atf-mishandled-other

From that article:

...the October 2012 burglary of the ATF's undercover storefront in Riverwest, about five miles away, where thieves made off with about $40,000 in merchandise.
Two of the same ATF agents were involved in both sting operations, the documents and interviews by the Journal Sentinel reveal.  One is the undercover agent who had guns stolen from his car in Riverwest, including a machine gun that hasn't been recovered.

[Perd Hapley]

It does not detonate, it deflagrates (technical terms)  This probably doesn't help with the keep it simple part...

"Blow'd up real good" could be a detonation or a deflagration.

ETA: a deflagration explodes when its containment vessel ruptures and suddenly releases the hot gasses inside.  A detonation does not require containment.  The difference is the propagation rate of the reaction.  If the reaction front exceeds the speed of sound in that medium, it transitions to a detonation.  Think a big pile of ammonium nitrate that catches on fire.    It burns faster and faster, but the explosion (detonation) doesn't occur until it reaches... whatever the speed of sound in is ammonium nitrate. Then it all goes at once

I've read something like that before. I guess what I'm asking is, is there a difference between black powder and smokeless, as far as making bombs is concerned? Why are people talking about there being a difference between BP and propellant?

[Azrael256]

Pressure.

Propellant's burn rate varies with pressure.  BP's burn rate doesn't. (or not significantly, anyway.)

In open air, propellant just burns fast, while BP still "pops."

[zxcvbob]

I've read something like that before. I guess what I'm asking is, is there a difference between black powder and smokeless, as far as making bombs is concerned? Why are people talking about there being a difference between BP and propellant?

I think BP goes from low gear to high gear pretty much in one step if it's contained -- doesn't take much confinement at all.

Smokeless has a lot more energy per pound that BP, and the more you confine it the faster it burns.  I don't know if it's possible to detonate with a large enough amount and sufficient containment or not; it's designed not to.  (cool word of the day: phlegmatizer)

So it's much easier to make a bomb using black powder, but the yield will be lower than a properly made device using smokeless powder.

I am not an expert on such things, just know something about it.  I may be totally wrong about some of the details.