Talk:C-4 (explosive)

Copyvio

The material here is taken from HowStuffWorks.com, which, according to the notice at the bottom of that site, is copyrighted, which is bad. I don't know what their policy is on using their material, so anyone who does should tell me; otherwise, we have a serious problem. Deltabeignet 02:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the copyrighted material should be removed, per Wikipedia's policies on copyright. I have reverted the page to an earlier version without the copyrighted material. —Lowellian (talk) 10:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

A cursory review of the howstuffworks article also reveals a number of mistakes. It conflates Velocity of Detonation with blast wave propagation velocity (repeated on this wikipedia page) and is totally confused about the use of detcord and blasting caps. Any references to this article should be scrutinized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.213.154 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

C4 & PE4

I want to link PE4 into this page because they are fundamentally the same thing. I will add a short note at the top to say CE4 as used in USA, PE4 as used in UK."TheNose | Talk" 16:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

PE4 is not the same as C-4 though. For one, it is a british invention several years older than Composition C-4, it has a different composition than C-4 (88% Cyclonite, 1% PE dioleate, 11% DG-29 lithium grease) and oddly enough, PE4 is somewhat more brisant and easier to detonate than C-4, despite PE4 having a lower Cyclonite content. Cheers,--78.43.71.172 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Weight/mass

"which makes up around 91% of the C-4 by weight"

weight -> mass?

--MedeaMelana 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Weight and mass basically mean the same thing in this particular context. —Lowellian (reply) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, percentage by weight equals percentage by mass in any context where weight makes sense at all. Colin McLarty (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Weight is the force generated by gravity acting on a mass. Gravity can generally be regarded as constant on the surface of planet earth. If one component of the mixture was on the moon, its weight would be 1/6th. But then it would not really be a mixture. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Invention?

Article needs to have information added about when C-4 invented, where it was invented, and by whom. —Lowellian (reply) 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

According to an entry in Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology and History, C4 is a US designation for a British formulation of "RDX and an oil-based plasticiser".

I would add it, but I really can't be arsed dealing with all the nuts on Wikipedia. Someone else can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.129.188 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Electrical Jolt"?

The page claims that C4 can be detonated by an "electrical jolt" - is there any truth to this? It seems to me that, given its consistency, C4 is probably not a good conductor of electricity whatsoever. The HowStuffWorks page indicates that only detonators and blasting caps will set off C4. Now, an electrical _detonator_ would be an ideal way to set off C4, but it's the detonation, not the electricity, that does the job, right? Can anyone confirm or deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.102.16 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirm. An electrical charge will set off a block of C4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.93.32 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. Period. It requires a shock wave produced by a cap or similar initiator. Under some few specific circumstances 'Deflagration to Detonation Transfer' is possible, but this is the only exception. 'Electrical jolts' are both untrue and silly. See TM 9-1300-214, Military Explosives for further explanation.76.125.60.188 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

'Jolt' is not a scientific technical electrical term. A spark will generate a shock wave. Enough ? I'll leave it to you to play with large and small sparks and C-4 ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsuitable paragraph

"Using explosives provides the easiest and fastest way to break the frozen ground. However, the use of demolitions will be restricted when under enemy observation. ..." - What on earth is this paragraph doing here? Move it to some page about military use of explosives or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.137.208 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dumb, Dangerous and Irresponsible Paragraph

The paragraph concerning the ingestion of C4 to feign illness is outrageously irresponsible. C4 is a poisonous substance; ingesting it is highly dangerous and quite likely fatal. This is akin to telling the readers that 'just a little rat poison' would get them out of shcool. It's hard to imagine any adult would have posted this.

If you find it necessary to repeat the potentially fatal urban legend from Herr's book, the least you could do is balance it with this bold print warning from FM 5-250, Explosive and Demolitions: "WARNING Composition C4 explosive is poisonous and dangerous if chewed or ingested; its detonation or burning produces poisonous fumes."67.181.14.90 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely that someone dumb enough to try to eat C4 to get out of school would actually be able to get his or her hands on the stuff. -67.51.67.62 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC in the novel Day of the Jackal the assassin ingests cordite to feign illness when passing himself off as a disabled war vet. Obviously small doses of poison that do not kill will make one sickly, but judging the nonlethal dosage is foolish. There are a lot of urban legends like this that need to be documented as folklore but with warnings. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Composition C-4" or "Composition 4"?

Can we please stick with one or the other—preferably the official, correct one? "Composition C-4" was used originally (I think), then it was changed to "Composition 4", then back, now the introduction says "Composition 4" but "C-4" is used in the rest of the article. I'm pretty sure it's "Composition C-4", but I'm not an expert and don't have any reference material on-hand.68.14.133.151 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "Composition C-4" a case of RAS syndrome? --Tyrfing (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not if other explosive compositions are named according to the same pattern ("Composition [letter][number]"). TaintedMustard (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

TaintedMustard is correct. Explosive designations have included Compositions A, B and C, among others. Comp B, for example, being the explosive filler for M67 grenades. C is not an abbreviation for composition. C4 is merely the fouth major formulation of Composition C. And yes, the correct terminology is Composition C4, with no hyphen. See FM 3-34.214, Explosives and Demolition Devices; TM 9-1300-214, Military Explosives, and TM 43-0001-38, Army Ammunition Data Sheet for Demolition Materials.67.187.136.140 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then title of article should be "Composition C4" without hyphen. How to change that, please? Also, I have some old reference books that have "C-4" with hyphen, maybe should mention "formerly "C-4" with hyphen".--MajorHazard (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see this thread when I changed all instances of C4 to C-4 to match the lead and title of the page. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just changed all references outside the lead to C4 after seeing this and another section on this page. Would also agree the page name should be changed. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Advantages

By the way, wouldn't the C4 plastic explosives compact size (big explosion from a small package) be considered an advantage, or would this go in the C4 being moldable in shape? -67.173.188.118 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

C4 or C-4?

All references within the article were recently changed from "C-4" to "C4". If this is correct, the article should be renamed as well. (Likewise articles such as Composition C should be updated.) Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage

Is it possible to detonate C4 underwater and still get the same effects as an out-of-water detonation? HeatedPete 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, its not possible as there are too many variables. Also I would Create a page on C-6 and Link it to this one since they are almost the same but C-6 is a more powerful form of C-4Loki1488 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

C-Ration Heating with C-4

I have been told by a former Infantry Captain in Vietnam that there was a downside to using C-4 to heat C-Rations. While a small piece burns well for that purpose, it also illuminates the campsite at night. Supposedly troops lost legs by stepping on a piece of burning C-4 to put it out. Perhaps it is shock sensitive when it is burning. This should be addressed in the article. I do know that molten ammonium nitrate will detonate with shock.Trojancowboy (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The material is anecdotal. To add statements, WP requires reliable sources. A former Infantry Captain is not a reliable source. Glrx (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that an expert on the subject should adress this important issue of shock sensitivity to detonation while burning. This is a talk page to attract experts and you clearly are not one.Trojancowboy (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Glrx is correct. This is merely anecdotal with no evidence. In 41 years of dealing in this business, I have never run across a single verified instance of a small piece of burning C4 detonating when stomped on. I have heard many, many 'war stories' though, none of which were proven true. If even a small percentage of these 'war stories' were true, the obsessively safety conscious FM would include a warning on the subject. It does not. It merely warns of toxic fumes given off when C4 is burned. There is no "important issue of shock sensitivity to detonation while burning" concerning C4. This is an urban legend, pure and simple.

The recurring problem with this, and so many other Wiki pages, is that they are so thoroughly corrupted by misinformation, most of which is due to similar mythology. This article alone still contains two such errors: 1) That it takes heat and shock to detonate C4; not true, a shock wave alone is sufficient, and 2) it cannot be detonated by burning; mostly true, but ignores the Deflagration-to-Detonation process. Anyone charged with destroying bulk C4 via burning knows how improper burning can result in detonation. 67.187.136.140 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

More C-Ration Heating with C-4

As to the citation needed for this topic, I spent most of the year of 1967 just south of the DMZ with the USMC. We did indeed heat C-Ration meals with very small chunks of C-4, about half the size of an ordinary marble. Not often, but the sterno tablets were in short supply and of such low heat that even if you had three or four, it took a considerable amount of time just to warm up a can. Since the weather was usually so hot, and C-Rations not being exactly delicious fast food, they were mostly just eaten as fast as possible to get the task over. The one thing that was quickly learned, is that C-4 burns very hot, and continual and very vigorous stirring is needed to keep the meal from being burned at the bottom of the can. We had no stoves, so I just usually opened the can, leaving the lid attached and bent back, and just held it over the sterno or C-4, while stirring with the other hand.

As to the tale that burning C-4 explodes when stomped on, we definitely knew of that supposed fact. Unfortunately, at this time, 45 or so years after the fact, I can't remember if I actually did that, saw someone do that, or just recall someone telling me that it would blow your foot off if you tried it.

And, of course, we would never light a piece of C-4 at night - period. Or while on patrol. Only while in a firebase, such as Con Thien, and then only at the bottom of a trench or foxhole, or behind sandbags.

Cplkrf (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)cplkrf

Article Improvements

The article has had a number of improvements made during week 29 of 2014 as part of Articles for Improvement weekly selection. As it stands now there is no un-sourced content, but the Development section of History is empty and could do with some work. I have not been able to find an online source on the development of c4 but I'm sure there are books on the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am having a very tough time finding sources for the development of C4. The closest thing I could find was information in a US Army technical manual 9-1910 (link here), but it seems to be mostly talking about C3. So either this predates C4 or it doesn't speak directly about it by name (perhaps it was as yet unnamed as a distinct improvement). Maybe the History section should devote space to RDX, which is the underlying explosive that makes up C4. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a sense of progression or a chronology could also be provided by considering it as the fourth in the line of the Composition C explosives, especially as it appears to be a refinement of Composition C-3 / Composition C3. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Both good suggestions, the third would be to delete the heading. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not committed to the title of any of the headings, but the creation of the substance should have some sort of coverage in a thorough article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar Section

I think the section labeled 'Similar' maybe should be removed because the only major fact in that section relates to PE4 and Semtex, but I found an article on ACS Pub which mentions PE4 as simply being the label for C-4 manufactured and used in England which I included in my creation and editing of the section labeled 'Grades'. So I believe this other section may be inaccurate and similar explosives which are not C-4 may not be pertinent to the article. Instead perhaps better suited to a more generalized article having to do with explosive compounds.

Want to help? Here's some tips on where to find gold

I think other editors may find 'Grades' a great section to focus on. In my research I've found quite a lot of information, it can just be very difficult to find. I suspect it's rather difficult to find for a couple reasons, 1) it's a government controlled substance. 2) simply the name of the thing "C-4" can make it hard to formulate a worthy search query.

Might I suggest, if you are doing any research, try narrowing your searches to sites in the government and medical domains and you may have more success. It's also quite worth it to consider using advanced search methods if your using Google to find stuff. Using appropriate query methods to exclude and link search words and phrases together are going to have a major impact on the quality of your results in Google. When I first started searching basic terms like "C-4", and "Composition-4" I wasn't finding anything but when I started searching for things like "C-4 AND explosive-compound AND analysis molecular" the quality of results improved exponentially. You'll find that reliable references may also refer to C-4 as "Comp-C4", or "Composition-4", or in military terms such as "M118". There's also a lot of information to be found in regard to investigative/medical/molecular analysis and composition.

If you try simply searching the term "C-4", "C4", or even "C4 explosive" you'll most likely end up with very little or poor quality results. More specifically places such as www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, chemstone.net, www.nist.gov, www.fema.gov, www.nist.gov, www.fbi.gov, www.nps.gov. I've found these to all be highly qualified and rich with information. I'm quite sure if you start digging you'll be able to find more information in these locations.

I did a bunch of work on this article today but am calling it a night and probably won't have any more time to work on this one so hopefully somebody finds this info useful and can continue on with it. Thx. David Condrey (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That's great advice, I was having exactly the same problem with my searches, and I was turning up very little. Thanks for the info. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Section arrangement

Should the section Grades really be a subsection of Composition and not its own section? CSJJ104 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. David Condrey (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Just wanted to apologize, yesterday I think I overwrote someone else's edits while we were editing at the same time. I've never encountered that before and had trouble figuring out how to proceed. Looking at page history I saw my error and that it was resolved. Sorry. Could someone let me know where to find info on how to deal with conflicting edits in case that happens again? Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It happens. You just have to be careful. When a lot of people might be editing at the same time, I try to do things in smaller chunks, especially if I am moving content around. If I get an edit conflict, sometimes I just open a new tab and hit a fresh edit window rather than trying to figure out whats new and whats not. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the help entry on edit conflicts. ~KvnG 14:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Change of Name

As has been mentioned previously on this talk page, there is some debate as to the use of C4 vs C-4. As the consensus of these discussions seems to be in favour of C4, and as this is the current article for improvement, I would like to propose changing the articles name to C4 (explosive) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSJJ104 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The majority of references that I've been researching, mostly government sector, some medical journals as well, most commonly reference C4 as Composition C-4 and may then abbreviate as C-4, it was very uncommon for me to find anywhere in which it is references without the dash. If a name change is being considered I would recommend changing it to coincide with these sources: Composition C-4 David Condrey (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

C-4 (or C4) would be the WP:COMMONNAME in my mind, probably one of those two would be preferable to Composition C-4 or Composition C4. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

Hi all! David Condrey has done an *amazing* job finding material for the article! Thanks a lot for that, David. Most of the additions, though, are copied almost verbatim from the sources, and this goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. I'm sure you all agree that it would be too bad to find so much relevant material and then have it deleted because it violates copyrights. This means we need to rephrase it all. I've started doing that, but the material is very technical and difficult to understand, so I can't do much in the limited time I have. Anyway, just wanted to let everybody know. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations are serious business. Everyone should take some time to go through their contributions and make sure they are describing sources in their own words. Even if the work is from the US government, and therefore in the public domain, all content should still be paraphrased. Not only it is best practice, we want to make our article improvements a shining example of our own work, not someone else's. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to add stuff and slowly go back thru and rewrite/rephrase. I started finding a lot of information that I didn't want to not add, but have been really busy this week so couldn't take the time to get it just right in one sitting. I'm also not very adept at the subject matter, so.. Thx! David Condrey (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@David Condrey: No problem at all! I consider myself pretty good at finding sources, but I'm really impressed at how much you managed to find in such a short time, and that you even developed strategies that you shared with us in the process. Great job! Now let's all work together on rewording! Madalibi (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can help with some rewording. That Army Manual was reference-duplicated for multiple pages. I added an RP template to clarify and simplify the multiple references. Take a look and revert the change if you do not like that style of page notation. I found a lot of table information... and some of the language is very non-technical (ie. process oil vs. low viscosity motor oil.) I only had a few minutes to look at the history of David's additions. Where do you need the most immediate help? Please post a few specific phrases that are copied directly by David and I'll work on them. Kyle^(talk) 07:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There are five or six more army manual references that can be tagged with rp template. I'll pause and let people comment on the style before adding it to the rest. Kyle^(talk) 07:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you Kyle! I'm also in a big rush (packing for a trip), so just quickly, I think the sections that need work are: Manufacture (though it's taken from the US Army manual, and is therefore public domain), Form, Safety, Grades, and Investigation. Thanks for helping out! The new reference format is fine, as it would make the footnotes lighter. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added a few references to help avoid the close paraphrasing of a single source and have provided some copy editing to most of the sections noted. Some of the technical descriptions were misleading so I have simplified the description of analysis methods and a variety of other small changes to clean up the text. See the history for change details (too many to list here!) Kyle^(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kyle, that's good stuff. In the future we should all be careful to avoid falling into the close paraphrase trap. And if we are ever in doubt, we can always just quote and cite, nothing wrong with that approach. In some cases it might even be preferable (see also MOS:QUOTE). --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've submitted Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:C-4 - RDX Aqueous slurry-coating process.jpeg. Glrx (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Domestic anarchists section problems

I have tagged the section because of two problems:

1. The reference I have tagged gives only one example, which I think is insufficient to establish the "popularity among anarchists" that the section claims.
2. The section refers to tendencies in the United States as "domestic", which strikes me as BIAS.

Finnusertop (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I clarified the section a bit to make number 2. less of a problem. Ideally, there would be a single section called "Terrorism" that would list the Middle Eastern, domestic American, and other examples to give a coverage that is both comprehensive and balanced. There are plenty of such terrorist plots world wide, so a geographical balance would be feasible. Finnusertop (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the headings to reflect your comments, it makes it a bit broader. More content would be useful in this section. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I got rid of the subsection headings altogether. I hope this promotes a more balanced section. Also added info on Korean Air Flight 858. Finnusertop (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete Information from The Anarchist Cookbook

The Anarchist Cookbook is not reference material. Mention of The Anarchist Cookbook provides no benefit for this article. I propose that it (and related information) be deleted from the article. Kyle^(talk) 05:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Safety section

There seems to be a contradiction between the prose part of the safety section and the chart that comes after it. In the text, it states that when bullets were fired at the C-4 only 20% of the time did it burn and it did not explode. However, in the chart, it states that there were explosions 20% of the time. If the text is correct, the chart should either say that there were explosions 0% of the time, or the label should be the percentage of times that it burned, rather than exploded. Steve Marethyu (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C-4 (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/20150403104803/http://www.particleimaging.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Thresholding_Series.pdf to http://www.particleimaging.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Thresholding_Series.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Content

This edit has been made twice by two very similar IPs with the explanation "Fixed incorrect info." Please discuss why you believe this information is incorrect before removing it again. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)