Talk:M-80 (explosive)

I deleted an extended passage taken verbatim from one of the references. Including a passage like that isn't entirely encyclopedic. If someone reverts the passage, they should also display the license under which it is copied. Swmcd 2005 July 4 17:30 (UTC)

more formal, more informative

This article needs to be more formal, more informative; less link-to-pictures-found-on-the-'Net. - CobaltBlueTony 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to pare down the external links. If someone can get us free pics of the relevant fireworks (EG. An M-80, silver salute and cherry bomb), we can completely remove the "Photos" section. 68.39.174.238 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

All M-80 sales are ILLEGAL!!!

(possession not a crime in the US)

This is especially important during the July 4th season in the US. According to the American Pyrotechnics Association if they were legal they would not be classified as M-80's or "salutes". The ATF arrests manufacturers and according to the APA you should call the local authorites if you find them lying around.Angrynight 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Native American reservations in the U.S. are not subject to those statutes, and therefore can sell M-80s and related fireworks legally. However, transporting those fireworks off a reservation is illegal. 24.19.238.74 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More detail

A few questions are aroused on this subject. (1) Why is it called an M-80? What significance is in the number? Who named it such? (2) Can we get a citation for the Kiss incident? (3) I concur that more international information is warranted. 70.17.135.67 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The original device was made by and for the US military, for simulation and training purposes, and M-80 was its military designation. Weapons used by the US military are typically given designations consisting of one or more letters and a number, like F-111 (a fighter jet), Mk-77 (an incendiary bomb; in this case the "Mk" is short for "mark"), and M16 (a rifle). 216.59.228.3 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Are there really no images available?--Nemissimo (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

current military use of M-80

In the US Navy M-80s are often used for signaling devices. Specifically waterproof M-80s are used to signal military divers. Communication with combat divers (Navy Seals/Marine Recon/Army Rangers) can be dificult. During training missions several divers may be in the water and may be spread out. The diving supervisor may wish to call the divers to the surface or warn them to diver to the bottom to avoid a hazard such as a boat that may be passing over them. Tossing a waterproof M-80 into the water can be heard at great distance and can communicate the message to many divers at the same time. Martyburbank (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyburbank (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice article!

I just wandered here, have no expertise. I thought this was an excellent article in terms providing interesting information in a way that is accessible to a novice. Nice work! Eperotao (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

needs more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.100.6 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Grams or Grains?

The article's first paragraph currently makes reference to units in grams and grains - apparently interchangeably. I assume all the references should be to "grams," but there isn't enough context to be certain about what's meant there. ---MaxFlux (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, I second MaxFlux's concern. That's a pretty serious disparity. - Czrisher (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

M-80's are Generally rated in Grams (2 1/2-5 or so). There are 7,000 grains per pound, and 454 grams/pound; a difference of 15.41 times.68.231.184.217 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Some contain up to 5 grams or more"

So they contain an amount of explosive that's either less than five grams, or equal to five grams, or more than five grams. Well that narrows it down, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.152.237 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This page needs protection

I am requesting that this page receive semi or full protection from unregistered users because there has been too many incidents of vandalism committed to this and other similar pages. Please apply page protection for this page as soon as possible! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.30.79 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Picric acid?

Seriously? Picric acid is described, in the Wikipedia article, as extremely sensitive to both shock and friction, to such an extent that it must be stored wet. There are more dangerous things--to the manufacturer!--that one could add to fireworks sold commercially but I'd have to think a little while. Is there a citation for this? If not, it seems implausible, just due to the extreme hazards it would impose on anyone trying to manufacture fireworks, legal or otherwise. I can imagine fireworks containing a tiny pinch of blackpowder or flash powder. Picric acid, though? That one, I think, is right up there with "it's really a quarter stick of dynamite." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:8001:6EC0:A9B0:7747:735D:149B (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016 Turtle "Accident"

This section about several young men who blew up a turtle with an M80 is taken verbatim from a local news report with no citation and adds little if any value to the article. If included, it should be shortened to the basic information relevant to the article, cited properly and clarified to make it clear that it was not an "Accident". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"arguably the largest fireworks explosion ever documented"

I'm not sure how you define the size of a fireworks explosion, but comparing the 11 deaths this explosion caused to the 23 deaths, 947 injured and 400 buildings destroyed in the Enschede fireworks disaster, I'm not so sure it could be argued... perhaps the blast was greater, I have no idea, but the impact of the disaster was surely greater in Enschede. That article has some estimates on the strength of the blasts, by the way: 4000-5000 kg of TNT for the largest one. Digital Brains (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M-80 (explosive). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110401152613/http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms-smm/expl-expl/agcdf-crpcf-eng.htm to http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms-smm/expl-expl/agcdf-crpcf-eng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930190223/http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/ROP/1123-A2005-ROP.pdf to http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/ROP/1123-A2005-ROP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815184408/http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/2004fwreport.pdf to http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/2004fwreport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

arguably not the biggest firework disaster

as Digital Brains (alot gentler) stated on this page two years ago, the Enschede fireworks disaster is, by every available metric, arguably a larger scale disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.200.185 (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)