Will other powder companies follow suit??
01-22-2010, 06:34 PM
#21
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
rafsob
True, I could do that but I much prefer T7 to true black (unless I were to shoot Swiss) Grain for grain T7 is more powerful and burns cleaner but more importantly not near as corrosive. I sight T7 in October and never clean the gun until the end of December. I do run a windex patch that nuetralizes the T7 residue so corrosion is non existant. + no one around here handles real BP because of the new ATF rules on it. I get T7 for $19 during the year and $13 at the end of the year from Walmart...
If cost is an issue with you, why not start shooting the real deal, BP??? I get it through a friend who gets it from the store up in Winchester. Va. Next to the N-SSA Range. It comes out to about $13.00 a full pound.
01-22-2010, 06:36 PM
#22
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: O-H-I-O
Posts: 47
To my understanding as others have said, it is a bp sub. Not considered a true smokeless powder. I just wondered if the trend will shift to this type of powder and see other companies climbing on board to try and catch this market.
01-22-2010, 08:16 PM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moravia NY USA
Posts: 2,164
builder459
It is not classified as a smokeless by the ATF - it is classified as a black powder substitute... Western and/or General Dynamics will not discuss what the powder is actually made of. But unless the ATF changes it's classification it will continue to be a BP sub.
It is not classified as a smokeless by the ATF - it is classified as a black powder substitute... Western and/or General Dynamics will not discuss what the powder is actually made of. But unless the ATF changes it's classification it will continue to be a BP sub.
01-23-2010, 03:34 AM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio,mid
Posts: 1,275
I will pay the money for the BH209. I shoot about 4/5 jugs of it a year, not like the serious gys. It is worth it to me on the clean up alone. T7 is good stuff but the that crud ring i had for 3 years just burnt my butt.
01-23-2010, 03:48 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
As far as legality in Utah, their rules state that you may not use smokeless powder or "a black powder substitute that contains "nitro-cellulose". Does anyone know without a doubt that BH 209 constains nirto-cellulose?
I have emailed Western powders and specifically asked them that question and if their powder is legal in Utah. Will let you know what they say.
I have emailed Western powders and specifically asked them that question and if their powder is legal in Utah. Will let you know what they say.
01-23-2010, 04:12 AM
#28
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Central Connecticut
Posts: 766
The law enforcement division of the Utah state game dept. are the proper authorities to ask about the legality of BH in their state since in general they have internal policies already in place about enforcing the laws regarding what they consider to be illegal powders.
There's no reason to not ask a game enforcement employee about it, especially when part of their job is public relations and they're are dept. staff who sit at their desk just waiting for these kinds of questions to be asked.
They work for the public and any information that is supplied by the manufacturer may not have any bearing on what Utah game enforcement has already established as their policy for dealing with BH.
In other words, if game enforcement says that BH is legal in Utah then it's legal. If they say that it's illegal, then there are appeals to higher ups to verify the reasons why.
It's not up to each and every citizen to call up the manufacturer and to ask them to disclose the ingredients. It's up to the paid officers to answer the question about whether it's legal.
And it's up the state of Utah to have a policy in place and to have a rational basis as to why the policy is what it is. Usually that's based on evidence, chemical analysis or official information that the state has already obtained from the manufacturer that was considered when they made their decision. Now all game enforcement needs to do is to let the public know what their decision was.
If someone doesn't agree with the decision then a letter can be written to the Commissioner of the game dept., the state Attorney General who oversees all legal decisions, and state legislators if a law needs to be fixed.
There's no reason to not ask a game enforcement employee about it, especially when part of their job is public relations and they're are dept. staff who sit at their desk just waiting for these kinds of questions to be asked.
They work for the public and any information that is supplied by the manufacturer may not have any bearing on what Utah game enforcement has already established as their policy for dealing with BH.
In other words, if game enforcement says that BH is legal in Utah then it's legal. If they say that it's illegal, then there are appeals to higher ups to verify the reasons why.
It's not up to each and every citizen to call up the manufacturer and to ask them to disclose the ingredients. It's up to the paid officers to answer the question about whether it's legal.
And it's up the state of Utah to have a policy in place and to have a rational basis as to why the policy is what it is. Usually that's based on evidence, chemical analysis or official information that the state has already obtained from the manufacturer that was considered when they made their decision. Now all game enforcement needs to do is to let the public know what their decision was.
If someone doesn't agree with the decision then a letter can be written to the Commissioner of the game dept., the state Attorney General who oversees all legal decisions, and state legislators if a law needs to be fixed.
Last edited by arcticap; 01-23-2010 at 04:39 AM.
01-23-2010, 05:26 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 1,408
As far as legality in Utah, their rules state that you may not use smokeless powder or "a black powder substitute that contains "nitro-cellulose". Does anyone know without a doubt that BH 209 constains nirto-cellulose?
I have emailed Western powders and specifically asked them that question and if their powder is legal in Utah. Will let you know what they say.
I have emailed Western powders and specifically asked them that question and if their powder is legal in Utah. Will let you know what they say.
01-23-2010, 11:37 AM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Yucca Valley,Ca
Posts: 2,496
It probably does contain nitrocellulose, from the work I have seen. I no longer have access to the kind of equipment which would allow me to do a definitive analysis unfortunately. Of course I would be unpopular if I did, some states define what is and is not acceptable by the inclusion of nitrocellulose. Western seems to be very tight-lipped about the base of the powder and this could be one reason why. Note that the plant they bought to manufacture BH used to be a smokeless plant that put out a powder of similar properties...or so I read on the internet