Nice try. But this is what I mean by cherry-picking and not paying attention to details. I'll grant you that the whole Hazmat approach in terms of "compatibility classes" is confusing to the average reader, but you should at least look at all that they have to say about smokeless powder (and the compatibility classes it falls in). As I've mentioned previously, confusion will result when something is talked about in one place in terms of its function (purpose) and in another place in terms of its chemistry and physics. If you aren't up to managing those distinctions, you shouldn't be playing this game. You apparently think that if something is a propellant, then it can't be an explosive, or if it's an explosive then it can't be a propellant. But you really need to rethink that view. Explosives, indeed, can (and are) used to propel things.
Here is a direct quote from the
Code of Federal Regulations (in Subpart F, section 172.504, clause (g), which is describing requirements on transporting and labeling "
hazardous material":
"For shipments of Class 1 (explosive materials) by aircraft or vessel, the applicable compatibility group letter must be displayed on the placards, or labels when applicable, required by this section. ... (blah, blah, blah) ...
Explosive article means an article containing an explosive substance; examples include a detonator, flare, primer or fuse. Explosive substance means a substance contained in a packaging that is not contained in an article; examples include black powder and smokeless powder. "
So yeah, smokeless powder is a propellant (that's its usual
function, except when you put it in something like a pipe bomb), but in terms of its chemical and physical
properties and
behavior, it's an
EXPLOSIVE (substance).
Now please get over it, and stop insisting that smokeless powder isn't an explosive.