eodinert

Old topic, I know, but I'll throw this out in case anybody is interested. My opinion (worth what you paid for it): The PG7 projectile has a launch motor and a sustainer motor. The launch motor is not a rocket, the sustainer motor is. An argument could be made that a training rocket (that is not explosive, incendiary, or poison gas) with a rocket motor of greater than four ounces is not a destructive device, based on...well...the law. The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or [snip] The PG-2 is not a rocket at all, and as such, does not have any propellant limits described or suggested in the wording of the law. It's just a 'recoilless launcher'. To answer the question, I do have a live registered DD RPG-2, but I mostly work overseas and I have not had time for load development (it's at home in AZ). I considered doing an RPG-7, but I plan to put it next to my head and fire it, and the rocket is a lot more complex than the black powder charge on the PG-2.