So . . . just how much ammo should you be allowed to store at your home?

[quade 3]

Hmmm, I'm thinking "enough" but what exactly is that?

Does it mean a shipping container full of it in a residential neighborhood?

Hmmm . . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-explode1-2009jun01,0,1683216.story
http://cbs2.com/local/Northridge.ammunition.explosion.2.1025707.html
http://dailynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=766958&CategoryID=26369&ListSubAlbums=0

I mean, I guess he had his permits and whatnot in line and isn't going to be arrested, but holy crap dude! Couldn't you see that one kinda coming? I'm sure his neighbors are thrilled about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[councilman24 36]

See what coming? The word explosion in these stories must not apply to the ammo.

A fire, rounds cook off causing shrapnel. But not very energitic shrapnel because there is no chamber to contain the explosion and no barrel to direct it. 50' isn't very far away for the fire fighters to be. This all looks like a bad fire with some ammo going off. Doubt that the fire or the destruction was caused by the ammo.

Quote from photo captions "hundreds of rounds of ammunition were fired off.." Hundreds of rounds is one trip to the range.

All of the cases in the photos were empty. They have primers that have been hit by a firing pin.

The fact that there was ANY ammo made it a story for some people.

Move along people... Nothing to see here.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[skybill 19]

Hi Dennis,
How much is too much, how much is not enough?? Never mind the milk, got ammo?? I concur with Terry's comment.

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[billvon 2,435]

If he had the right permits for working with explosives - as much as he likes.

The issue isn't that he had ammo; the issue is that he had explosives in his house/shed. Doesn't matter if he's making ammunition or blasting charges or rocket motors. The permitting process _should_ require precautions that protect his neighbors from injury or death if said explosives are accidentally detonated, and/or require procedures to prevent that from happening.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

If he had the right permits for working with explosives - as much as he likes.

The issue isn't that he had ammo; the issue is that he had explosives in his house/shed. Doesn't matter if he's making ammunition or blasting charges or rocket motors. The permitting process _should_ require precautions that protect his neighbors from injury or death if said explosives are accidentally detonated, and/or require procedures to prevent that from happening.

Was there any damage to neighboring property caused by explosives?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,435]

>Was there any damage to neighboring property caused by explosives?

Given that police evacuated nearby homes, clearly they thought there was a risk of damage or injury to neighboring property. In this case, however, I would assume that the permitting process worked as intended, and there were enough safeguards in place (physical distance, fire alarms, container meterial, whatever) to mitigate the risk.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The issue isn't that he had ammo; the issue is that he had explosives in his house/shed. Doesn't matter if he's making ammunition or blasting charges or rocket motors. The permitting process _should_ require precautions that protect his neighbors from injury or death if said explosives are accidentally detonated, and/or require procedures to prevent that from happening.

Here's the ironic part of all this. Gunpowder, when exposed to flame, just burns harmlessly. But federal rules state that if you have over X number of lbs. of it (I forget the number), that it must be stored in a sealed metal container. Well, do you know what you call many pounds of gunpowder in a sealed metal container? A bomb! That's right, the federal government requires that we make a bomb if we have over X pounds of gunpowder. If that same amount of gunpowder was just left in the plastic jugs on a shelf, it would just burn not much different from crumpled newspapers.

Several studies have been done of ammo cooking off in fire - they're pretty harmless. The bullet pops out like a cork, releasing the pressure, and then... nothing happens except fire, which is what was already happening in the first place. Plaster walls only 20 feet away are rarely harmed.

There's really no story here - just a lot of newspaper hype. But I'm sure someone on the L.A. city council will want to pass another anti-gun law because of it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Was there any damage to neighboring property caused by explosives?

Given that police evacuated nearby homes, clearly they thought there was a risk of damage or injury to neighboring property.

Sure, they do that as a precaution, because if they didn't, then someone would sue them.
That does not mean, however, that the police are experts on what happens when ammo cooks off in a fire.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

But federal rules state that if you have over X number of lbs. of it (I forget the number), that it must be stored in a sealed metal container.

Here's a case where I'd advocate some civil disobedience on the part of the reloaders--who obviously know better.

Do you happen to know what the X number is? And do you have any idea how much powder an average reloader keeps around?


Back at the original post, I don't think there's anything wrong with storing thousands of rounds of ammunition. I know guys who go through that much, recreationally, in a few weeks, and it's far cheaper to buy ammo in quantity (or reload, of course).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>Was there any damage to neighboring property caused by explosives?

Given that police evacuated nearby homes, clearly they thought there was a risk of damage or injury to neighboring property. In this case, however, I would assume that the permitting process worked as intended, and there were enough safeguards in place (physical distance, fire alarms, container meterial, whatever) to mitigate the risk.

clearly the police believed there was risk. Never any definites in these cases. And if they were concerned about people getting hit by flying brass, well, the curtains would stop it at that range.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,435]

>That does not mean, however, that the police are experts on what happens
>when ammo cooks off in a fire.

I would be willing to bet that there are people in most police/fire department who know something about such issues - at least, more than the guy's neighbors do. Granted that no one could be at the same level of expertise as an Internet gun advocate, but still, more often than not, police/firefighters/EMS know enough about their jobs to do them pretty effectively.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Granted that no one could be at the same level of expertise as an Internet gun advocate

Nice...

Having a bad day, Bill?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Granted that no one could be at the same level of expertise as an Internet gun advocate...

Shockingly, perhaps, there are actually some people posting on these forums who have expertise in the things they are posting about.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,435]

>Shockingly, perhaps, there are actually some people posting on these
>forums who have expertise in the things they are posting about.

Even more shockingly, there are people who actually put out fires who know something about dealing with burning explosives! Hard to believe, I know . . .

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>Shockingly, perhaps, there are actually some people posting on these
>forums who have expertise in the things they are posting about.

Even more shockingly, there are people who actually put out fires who know something about dealing with burning explosives! Hard to believe, I know . . .

Based on the fact that they called in a bomb squad, I'd guess the firefighters actually weren't that knowledgeable about it, and did the prudent thing--called in experts.


The reporting in this case looks a lot like the typical reporting about a skydiving accident. Even if the guy hooked himself in, we get to read that his "parachute failed to open."

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,435]

>The reporting in this case looks a lot like the typical reporting about a
>skydiving accident. Even if the guy hooked himself in, we get to read that
>his "parachute failed to open."

Agreed. The conclusion there might be "the reporters knew very little about skydiving" and you might well be correct.

But if someone on an internet political forum read a news report about a skydiving incident, and saw the line "his parachute failed to open" and therefore concluded that no one at the DZ at the time of the incident was much of a skydiving expert - that's not a supportable conclusion.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

But if someone on an internet political forum read a news report about a skydiving incident, and saw the line "his parachute failed to open" and therefore concluded that no one at the DZ at the time of the incident was much of a skydiving expert - that's not a supportable conclusion.

A more accurate analogy would be: "...concluded that none of the first responders were parachuting experts."

Unless you are saying that the firemen were actually the shooting buddies of the homeowner, and that this incident occurred at a shooting range?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,435]

>A more accurate analogy would be: "...concluded that none of the first
>responders were parachuting experts."

OK. That would still be both wrong and not supportable from the available evidence. That, of course, does not stop internet experts from giving their opinions.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>That, of course, does not stop internet experts from giving their opinions.

It's ok, we like it when you do that. Sometimes you have very good opinions.

...
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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

But federal rules state that if you have over X number of lbs. of it (I forget the number), that it must be stored in a sealed metal container.

Do you happen to know what the X number is? And do you have any idea how much powder an average reloader keeps around?

I'm not going to go dig it out of the federal code. But I think the tipping point is about 40 lbs.

The amount you store obviously depends upon the amount you shoot, and in what calibers. Handgun cartridges use very little powder, and an 8-lb. jug lasts a long time. If you're shooting a large rifle cartridge like .30-06 though, you'll only get about 1,200 rounds out of that same amount.

And then you might have different types of powder for different cartridges, so you could have 8 lbs. for .30-06 and .308, and another 8 lbs. for .303, and another 8 lbs. for .223...

The you might also stock up a little so you don't end up out of powder while waiting on a back-order, and so on. So for someone who shoots a lot, or just a bunch of different calibers, it can add up.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I would be willing to bet that there are people in most police/fire department who know something about such issues... Granted that no one could be at the same level of expertise as an Internet gun advocate...

I know what the firemen know. I researched this thoroughly a few years ago. I read the studies.

Study: "Sporting ammunition and the firefighter"

Quote: "Nearly one million rounds of ammunition were subjected to ten different tests, from open burn conditions to tightly confined burn conditions, to examine what happens... explains how firefighters
face no danger from sporting ammunition in a fire when protected bystandard turn-out gear."

Available from: SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute)

Published in "Fire Journal", January, 1977, Vol. 71, No. 1, published by the National Fire Protection Association.

http://www.saami.org/Publications/

[riddler 0]

Quote

just how much ammo should you be allowed to store at your home?

You obviously have no idea just how many zombies there are going to be after armageddon! If gun-control nuts like you get their way, then us law-abiding citizens that need to protect our families from those millions of undead will barely have enough rounds for one head-shot each

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[TomAiello 25]

Head shots won't kill the zombies anyway. You have to fully decapitate them. So we're all going to need swords...and chainsaws...

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,435]

>I know what the firemen know.

Cool. So as long as we have either firemen or John Rich at such fires we're covered.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

>Was there any damage to neighboring property caused by explosives?

Given that police evacuated nearby homes, clearly they thought there was a risk of damage or injury to neighboring property. In this case, however, I would assume that the permitting process worked as intended, and there were enough safeguards in place (physical distance, fire alarms, container meterial, whatever) to mitigate the risk.

I'd just assumed that they evacuated nearby homes because of the risk of the fire spreading, not due to ammo cooking off in the fire.