ammo rules

N

nickthe

Guest
I just heard that you would have to manufacture one million rounds a year in order to qualify for use in a official match.

Well with the cost of good rim-fire ammo doesn't this work against the growth or preservation of this great sport.

At these prices one small (US) company could really have a shot at creating a win win....... What do you people think?

jobs, fare prices, quality control, 3 grades red (practice) white (intermediate) blue (match)

nick the *****
 
220 views

220 views and not one response, eley or lupa could charge a buck a round what's going to stop them?
Im sure by summer there will be a shortage on powder of some other thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a million rounds is less than the BR community shoots in a season and we are a very small percentage of the folks that shoot it just in the US. No need to change any rules. Some bean counter just needs to figure out how much we shoot and the price we pay. A small dedicated line could be run very efficiently and profitably. The patented Eley priming process may be the road block. Government won't allow the old process and Eley syphons off the profit with their patent. Just a guess.
 
Good points,

perhaps with some R&D and yankee ingenuity a new priming system, more accurate, will flesh out. Who knows this new US company may become the envy of the world.
 
I have wondered why either Eley or Lapua does not have a factory in the states also. With the demand by US shooters, and the fact that they would cut out import taxes and some shipping costs, I would think it would pay off for them. In theory they would be able to deliver good quality ammo for less than we pay now. But then again.. they have no reason to ask for less as long as we buy it......:(

I for one would love to see a US mfg start making good quality ammo, like federal did. Maybe CCI would look into this (they make a few shells here and there :D). Anyway, we can only hope..
 
aren't Federal and CCI owned by the same company?
If they shut the Federal "Match Ammo" line down why would they start one up as CCI? Generally CEO's don't like to admit that they made a mistake.
JMHO - you all have a good day now - "missing" cdpersons
 
Last edited by a moderator:
new player needed

you would think after the R&D and tooling, that this ammo could be produced relatively inexpensively
 
American manufacturers will make the ammo we need if they see a nitch where they can make money. If they think they can make a profit they will jump in with both feet. There are startup cost and materials cost. I am sure they look at these issues on a regular basis. That is why they add some products and drop others on a regular basis. They don't care so much about us as they do their pockets and stockholders.

Rich
 
nickthe said:
you would think after the R&D and tooling, that this ammo could be produced relatively inexpensively
Click to expand...
A. You'd be very surprised at the total ongoing cost
B. The economics is no better than the CF bench game, the total number of participants is fairly small compared to, say, the number of guys that buy Remington golden bullets to punch holes in cans.
 
Full circle

that go's back to my point of having to make one million rounds in order to qualify for sanction match....

If that rule didn't exist that would open up the door for a grass roots effort to R&D something hear in the states by a small group of people.

Maybe 100k rounds first year and then if all go's well a million.
 
...as long as they don't wear a mask

nickthe said:
If that rule didn't exist that would open up the door for a grass roots effort to R&D something hear in the states by a small group of people.

Maybe 100k rounds first year and then if all go's well a million.
Click to expand...
I may be getting to be a cynic as I get older, but over the years, I've seen more than one instance where the man cleaned up with his exclusive revolutionary gismo at one match but the suckers who bought it when he launched it couldn't make it work at all.
 
John

John Kielly said:
I may be getting to be a cynic as I get older, but over the years, I've seen more than one instance where the man cleaned up with his exclusive revolutionary gismo at one match but the suckers who bought it when he launched it couldn't make it work at all.
Click to expand...

Who do you think lost more money the "sucker" or the guy that paid to R&D and manufactured a ton of gismo's that no one wanted after the word was out?

If this trend of upping 22 ammo prices is not changed 22 matches we be only the sport of kings and congress.
 
nickthe said:
that go's back to my point of having to make one million rounds in order to qualify for sanction match....

If that rule didn't exist that would open up the door for a grass roots effort to R&D something hear in the states by a small group of people.

Maybe 100k rounds first year and then if all go's well a million.
Click to expand...


I don't think 20 cases of ammo is even worth the effort to tool up for production. You can't even think of any return on investment with such a small lot. A million rounds isn't that much in a year.

Ken
 
Ok

TangoTwo said:
I don't think 20 cases of ammo is even worth the effort to tool up for production. You can't even think of any return on investment with such a small lot. A million rounds isn't that much in a year.

Ken
Click to expand...

THAN WHY DO YOU NEED THE RULE!:confused:
 
To keep someone from claiming to be a company and loading their own ammo.
 
What

DonMatzeder said:
To keep someone from claiming to be a company and loading their own ammo.
Click to expand...

ok, so that would be.. a threat to the game?
looks like that it could promote competition and growth, and maybe start a new ammo company
 
John Kielly said:
I may be getting to be a cynic as I get older, but over the years, I've seen more than one instance where the man cleaned up with his exclusive revolutionary gismo at one match but the suckers who bought it when he launched it couldn't make it work at all.
Click to expand...

while we are talking about suckers how about the guy on a fixed income at the time in his life when he finely has the time to enjoy shooting but cant afford to be competitive has to shoot k-mart specials or just quits
 
nickthe said:
ok, so that would be.. a threat to the game?
looks like that it could promote competition and growth, and maybe start a new ammo company
Click to expand...

Maybe not a threat to the game, but quite possibly to himself or the shooter next to him. From an even field concept, the ammo would have to be readily available for all competitors. Hence, the arbitrary one million figure. This is only my thought, not necessarily the original or current reasoning behind the rule.


Ken
 
Ammo rules and others

Some rules exist because of perception. To speak of such in a logical sense does not address the issues behind the rules. "What if" can quickly become a perceived reality regardless of the likelihood of occurrence.

Suppose for the moment, the ammo rules were simplified to "readily available ammunition". Sounds good at first blush. Now, what does readily available mean? Even within actual readily available ammo there has been concern that the good lots have been withheld for selected individuals. Sadly, friendships have been lost and bridges burned because of ammo.

Again, consider the "what ifs" when evaluating seemingly stupid and overly restrictive rules. A good question to kick around is how did the rule evolve in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top