Explosives Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

weight -> mass?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Please leave the joke paragraph in, it is April Fool's day after all, by all means delete it afterwards.

dah 144 144 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]