chuckakers 370 #1 March 17, 2009 Just regulate ammo out of existence. http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d16-Atlanta-ammunition-supply-is-severely-constrained.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 March 17, 2009 That's not regulating ammo out of existence. That is regulating what happens to spent cartridges used by DoD. Nobody ever said 3rd parties had a right to cheap used cartridges. Face it, the ammo shortage is being caused by people hoarding, not government regulation. Ok, some might say it's FEAR of regulation, but that's not the same AS regulation.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #3 March 17, 2009 I've seen this sort of stock-pilling before. When Bill Clinton first took over as president, many people thought that he would severely restrict ammo sales. Many were worried that you might not be able to get the ammo you needed. So, I stocked up. I didn't really need to though, because little changed. With Obama taking office there is renewed fear that just that will happen. There is also a fear that with our spiralling economy, that bad times are ahead. If it's dog eat dog, many people may want a weapon handy. I don't know what the future holds, but to tell you the truth it doesn't look rosy to me. It might make sense to stock up. It's getting hard to do that though. I had to look all over to find the bullets and powder I wanted this last weekend. None of it was cheap. I truly hope the economy does shape up. I also hope that Obama has common sense when it comes to gun control..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #4 March 17, 2009 Quote That's not regulating ammo out of existence. That is regulating what happens to spent cartridges used by DoD. Nobody ever said 3rd parties had a right to cheap used cartridges. Face it, the ammo shortage is being caused by people hoarding, not government regulation. Ok, some might say it's FEAR of regulation, but that's not the same AS regulation. I never mentioned the ammo shortage as it stands now, nor did I suggest that this new regulation (which is very new) has anything to do with it. As for this issue, I'd like to hear a valid argument for doing this if it's not the first step toward overall ammo reduction. Under this regulation, nobody wins. 1. The government will get 10 or 20 cents on the dollar selling brass as scrap rather than as shell casings. 2. The cost to ammo re-manufacturers will increase significantly as they will have to buy new casings rather than re-manufacturing spent ones. 3. The cost to the end consumer will skyrocket from dramatically increased manufacturing costs and the affects of supply vs demand. It makes no sense to force the destruction of an otherwise renewable product (and a system that has been working very well), especially when the government will take a big cut in sales dollars during the "worst financial crisis since the great depression". Plus, it can only lead to much more mining of brass - something the current administration should be holding firmly against for eco reasons. And by the way, guess who is THE BIGGEST buyer of scrap brass from the U.S. China! Change you can absolutely believe in! And he's just gettin' started.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 March 17, 2009 QuoteI never mentioned the ammo shortage as it stands now, nor did I suggest that this new regulation (which is very new) has anything to do with it. The article you linked to certainly did. They even tried to tie it into an ammo shortage at Walmart stores. Seriously? Does Walmart sell ammo that was reloaded? That's news to me. Quote Change you can absolutely believe in! And he's just gettin' started. Any proof that this change is the result of the current Administration rather than say, just a better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #6 March 17, 2009 Quote Quote I never mentioned the ammo shortage as it stands now, nor did I suggest that this new regulation (which is very new) has anything to do with it. The article you linked to certainly did. They even tried to tie it into an ammo shortage at Walmart stores. Seriously? Does Walmart sell ammo that was reloaded? That's news to me. Quote Change you can absolutely believe in! And he's just gettin' started. Any proof that this change is the result of the current Administration rather than say, just a better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies? You should read more carefully. The article does refer to an ammo shortage, and also mentions a Wal-Mart customer having trouble finding ammo there. The article does not say, imply, or suggest that the new DOD regulation has anything to do with the existing shortage. What it does say is that said shortage is about to get worse because of the new regulation, and that is very likely. "Better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies?" Man, what a stretch. No wonder you posed that as a question.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 March 17, 2009 Quote "Better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies?" Man, what a stretch. No wonder you posed that as a question. It was YOU that brought up China as being the largest buyer of this material. Not I. At their labor rates, I can see it being a perfectly viable business for them to purchase the scrap, reload it and . . . yes . . . sell it to people that would shoot at us.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #8 March 17, 2009 Quote Quote "Better interpretation of current regulation to demil surplus being sent to our potential enemies?" Man, what a stretch. No wonder you posed that as a question. It was YOU that brought up China as being the largest buyer of this material. Not I. I again suggest you read more carefully. I didn't say China is getting our shell casings. They buy our SCRAP brass, which is what the new regulation requires the casings to be turned into. My point was that while the regulation will increase ammo prices to Americans, it will also increase the supply of raw brass to our biggest buyer of the stuff - China. And since you mentioned it, China may indeed turn the new, larger supply of brass into ammo for their armed forces.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #9 March 18, 2009 Shortage? But seriously, (a) Anyone who's really concerned about having a stock of ammunition for long term storage is probably going to be willing to suck up a couple hundred extra bucks per thousand rounds. And people who are really going to be buying several hundred (or thousand) rounds for storage (or potentially for defense) shouldn't be buying reloads anyway--those are for training. (b) Making surplus brass rarer and/or more expensive is dumb. It makes it harder to train and practice, which means it makes firearm ownership more dangerous, even for the responsible owners. It's not going to change things much for people who are just buying rounds to hold up 7-11--they only need 10 rounds or so to do that, and they're going to be buying a single box at Sportsman's Warehouse, not a case from a reloader. (c) Quade, I've heard you ask before what could be done intelligently to reduce firearms crimes in the USA. This isn't it. Anyone who wants to buy a case of reloads in a military caliber is either; 1) doing real training and a genuinely law abiding gun owner, or 2) doing real training and stockpiling for some kind of pseudo military action, in which case raising prices a bit isn't likely to discourage them, and they're a far bigger problem than can be solved by generalized price/prohibition changes, anyway.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 March 18, 2009 Tom, I'm not nor have I ever claimed this would be a way to cut down gun crime. My concern is the rush to judgement some people are making with regards to the this as it being a way to take away their 2nd Amendment rights.. There simply is no proof whatsoever that is the case. It's all conjecture from conspiracy theorists at this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #11 March 18, 2009 If the Obama Administration really is in charge of this ban and has such power that it can do all of these amazing back door shenanigans . . . . . . then I find this interesting. My guess? The whole thing was a simple misunderstanding and a big jump to conclusion by some.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #12 March 18, 2009 Eh....I don't think the Obama administration had much to do with this business--certainly not at the executive level. If any kind of decision about this was made by the military, it certainly didn't make it past the Secretary of Defense (in fact, it almost certainly didn't even make it close to that high--probably about 15 steps lower down the chain). Thinking that this is some kind of organized conspiracy by the new administration is pretty much paranoia. Worrying that a reduction in military surplus brass could make firearms owners less educated and trained seems legitimate though. And obviously, reductions in surplus brass supply are going to hurt the budgets of local and state agencies, who are, in reality, the largest purchasers of military caliber reloads (since they're the guys training with it).-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #13 March 18, 2009 Quote . . . then I find this interesting. I think you'll find it even more amusing that following that link led me to their web storefront, and now I'm considering buying a can of their bulk reloads. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #14 March 18, 2009 I am too! $470 for 1000rds isn't a bad price, even though I would rather have 55gr for plinking then 52gr, simply for accuracy in training (for what I carry in the rifle). They have some good prices, I wonder what the quality of their reloads are? How their primers and their crimps are. We had a problem last year with Federal ammo having a lot of bad crimps.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #15 March 18, 2009 Quote Quote . . . then I find this interesting. I think you'll find it even more amusing that following that link led me to their web storefront, and now I'm considering buying a can of their bulk reloads. Would be HILARIOUS to find out the entire thing was just a hoax to whip up more fear, guns and ammo hoarding. I wonder why it's so easy to make a web page saying that the policy has been reversed, but it takes 12 or more hours to post the email from the DoD?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #16 March 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote . . . then I find this interesting. I think you'll find it even more amusing that following that link led me to their web storefront, and now I'm considering buying a can of their bulk reloads. Would be HILARIOUS to find out the entire thing was just a hoax to whip up more fear, guns and ammo hoarding. It would be kind of funny. Especially because it wouldn't really work for that. No ammo hoarder worth his M855 is going to buy a can of reloads to store. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #17 March 18, 2009 On the flip side, you did just say you were thinking of ordering up some ammo from these guys. That's a sale no matter how you look at it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #18 March 18, 2009 QuoteOn the flip side, you did just say you were thinking of ordering up some ammo from these guys. That's a sale no matter how you look at it. Yeah, but their story didn't really have anything to do with that, aside from getting me to look at their web site. And their pricing is competitive enough (and I do believe that the a lot of their sales are LEO or other government agencies) so that they don't really have to scare up business that way.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #19 March 18, 2009 QuoteYeah, but their story didn't really have anything to do with that, aside from getting me to look at their web site. And their pricing is competitive enough (and I do believe that the a lot of their sales are LEO or other government agencies) so that they don't really have to scare up business that way. Isn't that what advertising is?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #20 March 18, 2009 Sure. I may be confused...are you saying that this specific company is trying to draw attention to themselves, or that there is a larger movement by the gun/ammo industries generally to scare people into a panic rush to buying their products? Honestly, I think this company would have to be pretty dumb to make claims about official DOD statements that were untrue. It's too easy to track those down, if you're interested.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #21 March 18, 2009 QuoteSure. I may be confused...are you saying that this specific company is trying to draw attention to themselves, or that there is a larger movement by the gun/ammo industries generally to scare people into a panic rush to buying their products? Honestly, I think this company would have to be pretty dumb to make claims about official DOD statements that were untrue. It's too easy to track those down, if you're interested. I'm saying the gun industry as a whole is whipping up a furor to generate gun sales. It is nearly impossible to go to any gun site right now and not see some sort of statement about how people better get them now before they get outlawed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #22 March 18, 2009 QuoteI'm saying the gun industry as a whole is whipping up a furor to generate gun sales. It is nearly impossible to go to any gun site right now and not see some sort of statement about how people better get them now before they get outlawed. I can agree with that to some extent. But what's that old saying about it not being paranoid if they're really out to get you? Looking at voting records, public statements by the President (admittedly before he was president), by the Speaker of the House, and by leading democratic Senators, as well as the Attorney General, I don't think that the alarmism on the part of the gun industry (or it's customers) is either surprising or misplaced. I do expect that we'll see another gun ban on the federal level. I expect it to be at least a revival of the Clinton era legislation, but possibly even more draconian. I do not expect to see it this year. If the economy picks up and the democrats are able to claim credit for that, I do expect to see a new gun ban next year. I think that intelligent people (who care about this business, and desire to own firearms) are stocking up now, because it's unlikely the furor will subside for very long before the actual legislation comes down the pipe. I do not believe they are unjustified in doing so, or in expecting further legislation. Seeing as various folks have proposed (and enacted) bans on a whole host of different things, including ammunition, I can see why some people are looking to lay in a long term supply.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #23 March 18, 2009 In terms of cartridges with expired shelf life - very reasonable indeed. Such cartridges insecure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #24 March 18, 2009 QuoteI'm saying the gun industry as a whole is whipping up a furor to generate gun sales. Yes and no. An example of no would be MagPul. Their very expensive mold for the 20rd magazine they produce recently broke. They basically stated that the only people who bought the 20rd mags were civilians and their government sales (which were all 30rd mags) made it impractical to have a new mold made.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #25 March 18, 2009 QuoteIn terms of cartridges with expired shelf life - very reasonable indeed. Such cartridges insecure. The casings involved are suitable for re-manufacturing and have been sold for that purpose for many years.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
