Will AI replace Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters (United States, SOC 47-5032), 5% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 8 out of 100 (range 6–12, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

What should someone working in “Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 5% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

US dataswitch to UK

Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters

examining blast areas to determine amounts and kinds of explosive charges needed and to ensure that safety laws, laying primacord between rows of charged blast holes and assembling and positioning equipment. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: placing explosive charges in holes or other spots is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 5%
changing shape: 5%
staying human: 91%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 8 out of 100 (6–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 27 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for explosives workers, ordnance handling experts, and blasters is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

What shifts is compiling and keeping gun and explosives records in compliance with local and federal laws: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.

Your week, as this page understands it

Place and detonate explosives to demolish structures or to loosen, remove, or displace earth, rock, or other materials. May perform specialized handling, storage, and accounting procedures. The job title says “explosives workers”, “ordnance handling experts” or “blasters”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: placing explosive charges in holes or other spots. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But explosives workers, ordnance handling experts, and blasters is not one task. It is 27 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is placing explosive charges in holes or other spots, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 5%
changing shape: 5%
staying human: 91%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

5 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

1 task

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Compiling and keeping gun and explosives records in compliance with local and federal laws
This is reading one thing and writing another: gun in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Compile and keep gun and explosives records in compliance with local and federal laws.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Explosives records follow strict, well-documented federal formats, which is exactly what software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

1 task

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Maintaining inventory levels, ordering new supplies
The software now makes the first pass at inventory levels, ordering new supplies, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Maintain inventory levels, ordering new supplies as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 52 out of 100 (45–59 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tracking stock and reordering is routine ordering work software already does, with licensing rules on what may be bought.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

25 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Examining blast areas to determine amounts and kinds of explosive charges needed and to ensure that safety laws
This work happens in the physical world: blast areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Examine blast areas to determine amounts and kinds of explosive charges needed and to ensure that safety laws are observed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Sizing a charge draws on published tables, but the licensed blaster must read the actual rock face on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Placing explosive charges in holes or other spots
This work happens in the physical world: explosive charges, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Place explosive charges in holes or other spots; then detonate explosives to demolish structures or to loosen, remove, or displace earth, rock, or other materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Placing and firing explosives is a physical act only a licensed blaster may perform.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Connecting electrical wire
This work happens in the physical world: electrical wire, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Connect electrical wire to primers, and cover charges or fill blast holes with clay, drill chips, sand, or other material.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Wiring primers and backfilling holes is hands-on work with live charges.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Placing safety cones around blast areas to alert other workers of danger zones
This work happens in the physical world: safety cones around blast areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Place safety cones around blast areas to alert other workers of danger zones, and signal workers as necessary to ensure that they clear blast sites prior to explosions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting out cones and clearing people from a blast site is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inserting, packing and pouring explosives, such as dynamite, ammonium nitrate, black powder or slurries into blast holes
This work happens in the physical world: explosives, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Insert, pack, and pour explosives, such as dynamite, ammonium nitrate, black powder, or slurries into blast holes; then shovel drill cuttings, admit water into boreholes, and tamp material to compact charges.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Loading explosives into holes and tamping them is hands-on work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Marking patterns, locations and depths of charge holes for drilling and issuing drilling instructions
This work happens in the physical world: patterns, locations and depths of charge holes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Mark patterns, locations, and depths of charge holes for drilling, and issue drilling instructions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can produce the pattern, but marking it on the ground happens at the rock face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Moving and storing inventories of explosives
This work happens in the physical world: inventories of explosives, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Move and store inventories of explosives, loaded perforating guns, and other materials, according to established safety procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Moving and storing explosives is physical handling under strict rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring depths of drilled blast holes
This work happens in the physical world: depths of drilled blast holes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Measure depths of drilled blast holes, using weighted tape measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Measuring blast hole depths is done on site with a tape.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

Show the other 17 tasks

Creating and laying out designs for drill and blast patterns
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for designs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Create and lay out designs for drill and blast patterns.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Blast patterns follow published calculations software can lay out, but a licensed blaster has to be behind the design.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting geological formations encountered during work
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: geological formations encountered during work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Document geological formations encountered during work.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Writing up the ground conditions is straightforward, but seeing them means being at the face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Setting up and operating short-wave radio or field telephone equipment to transmit and receive blast information
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: and operating short-wave radio, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Set up and operate short-wave radio or field telephone equipment to transmit and receive blast information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting up and working a field radio at a blast site means being there with the kit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Tying specified lengths of delaying fuses into patterns
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specified lengths of delaying fuses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Tie specified lengths of delaying fuses into patterns in order to time sequences of explosions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tying fuse patterns by hand is physical work with live explosives.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Laying primacord between rows of charged blast holes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: primacord, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Lay primacord between rows of charged blast holes, and tie cord into main lines to form blast patterns.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Laying and tying primacord across a blast pattern is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assembling and positioning equipment, explosives and blasting caps in holes at specified depths or loading perforating guns or torpedoes with explosives
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Assemble and position equipment, explosives, and blasting caps in holes at specified depths, or load perforating guns or torpedoes with explosives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Positioning explosives and caps at depth is hands-on work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Verifying detonation of charges by observing control panels
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: detonation of charges, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Verify detonation of charges by observing control panels, or by listening for the sounds of blasts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Confirming a blast fired means being at the site to see and hear it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Lighting fuses
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: fuses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Light fuses, drop detonating devices into wells or boreholes, or activate firing devices with plungers, dials, or buttons, in order to set off single or multiple blasts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Firing the shot is the licensed blaster’s own physical act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Driving trucks to transport explosives and blasting equipment to blasting sites
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: trucks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Drive trucks to transport explosives and blasting equipment to blasting sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Driving explosives to site is physical work behind the wheel.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Cutting specified lengths of primacord and attaching primers to cord ends
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: specified lengths of primacord, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Cut specified lengths of primacord and attach primers to cord ends.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Cutting cord and fitting primers is handwork with live components.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Repairing and servicing blasting shooting and automotive equipment and electrical wiring and instruments, using hand tools
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: automotive equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Repair and service blasting, shooting, and automotive equipment, and electrical wiring and instruments, using hand tools.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Repairing equipment and wiring is hands-on work with tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inserting waterproof sealers, bullets and/or powder charges into guns and screw gun ports back into place
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: waterproof sealers, bullets and/or powder charges, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Insert waterproof sealers, bullets, and/or powder charges into guns, and screw gun ports back into place.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Loading charges into perforating guns is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cleaning gauge and lubricate gun ports
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: gauge, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Clean, gauge, and lubricate gun ports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Cleaning, gauging and greasing gun ports is bench work by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Lowering perforating guns into wells
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: guns, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Supplemental
Source: “Lower perforating guns into wells, using hoists; then use measuring devices and instrument panels to position guns in correct positions for taking samples.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Lowering guns down a well and positioning them is physical rig work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Operating machines to flush earth cuttings or to blow dust from holes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: machines, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Operate machines to flush earth cuttings or to blow dust from holes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running the machine to flush cuttings or blow dust out of the hole is hands-on operation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Setting up and operating equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: and operating equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Set up and operate equipment such as hoists, jackhammers, and drills, in order to bore charge holes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Setting up and running hoists, jackhammers and drills is physical work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Signaling crane operators to move equipment
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: crane operators, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not published
O*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Signal crane operators to move equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Signalling a crane operator means standing where both of you can see each other.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $61,390a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 5,100in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: inventory levels, ordering new supplies in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: compiling and keeping gun and explosives records in compliance with local and federal laws and maintaining inventory levels, ordering new supplies. What it cannot do is be answerable: explosive charges need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: placing explosive charges in holes or other spots is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 5% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 5% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 91% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 27 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Compiling and keeping gun and explosives records in compliance with local and federal laws is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to inventory levels, ordering new supplies, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether explosive charges are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near maintaining inventory levels, ordering new supplies. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to explosives workers, ordnance handling experts, and blasters (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was earth drillers, except oil and gas: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 8/100 here, with only 5% of the task list in the top band, and “examine blast areas to determine amounts and kinds of explosive charges needed…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Earth Drillers, Except Oil and Gas
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already drive trucks to transport explosives and blasting equipment to blasting sites, and their equivalent is to drive trucks, tractors, or truck-mounted drills to and from work sites. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Helpers--Extraction Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already drive trucks to transport explosives and blasting equipment to blasting sites, and their equivalent is to drive moving equipment to transport materials and parts to excavation sites. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $47,730 against your $61,390, 22.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Rock Splitters, Quarry
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already place explosive charges in holes or other spots; then detonate explosives to demolish…, and their equivalent is to set charges of explosives to split rock. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $48,740 against your $61,390, 20.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 5% of its task weight, across 27 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like placing explosive charges in holes or other spots arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Mining and quarry workers and related operatives is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

Construction and building trades supervisors

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Mining and quarry workers and related operatives and Construction and building trades supervisors. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for explosives workers / ordnance handling experts / blasters launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for explosives workers / ordnance handling experts / blasters yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for explosives workers / ordnance handling experts / blasters existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for explosives workers / ordnance handling experts / blasters launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters (United States, SOC 47-5032), 5% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 8 out of 100 (range 6–12, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Compile and keep gun and explosives records in compliance with local and federal laws” (69/100, high); “Maintain inventory levels, ordering new supplies as necessary” (52/100, partial); “Create and lay out designs for drill and blast patterns” (35/100, low). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters” stay human?: About 91% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Signal crane operators to move equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Set up and operate equipment such as hoists, jackhammers, and drills, in order to bore charge holes” (0/100, minimal); “Operate machines to flush earth cuttings or to blow dust from holes” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 5% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 27 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
5 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt-with-imputed)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.