The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Not being a TR shooter or competitor I would like to know why does the NRA supply ammunition for certain events? I know it is not given for free but what is the idea behind it as surely it increases entry fees for shooters who have an ample supply of the ammunition they normally shoot. I ask this as reading through the NRA accounts there seems to be a huge investment in ammunition stock >£200K

This has been done to death on various other discussions.

Basically, two reasons:

One, everybody shoots with the same ammo so it's fairer.

Two, a substantial fraction of the entrants to the major NRA events have neither the knowledge, equipment or interest to handload. Quite a lot of them don't even have FACs. There are problems for them getting hold of ammunition. And they are the ones we most want to encourage to be more involved.

Iain

My understanding is the issue ammunition is to prevent undue advantage to competitors who would load their own, this way everyone is on an equal footing when it comes to ammunition.

EDIT - Iain beat me to it :)

IainWR wrote:This has been done to death on various other discussions.

Basically, two reasons:

One, everybody shoots with the same ammo so it's fairer.

Two, a substantial fraction of the entrants to the major NRA events have neither the knowledge, equipment or interest to handload. Quite a lot of them don't even have FACs. There are problems for them getting hold of ammunition. And they are the ones we most want to encourage to be more involved.

Iain

I guessed all of that, but I am more interested in the effect of holding >£200 of ammunition has on NRA accounts. Why not reduce the amount of ammunition held and make it optional to use NRA ammunition. That way everyone is catered for. I understand the fairness aspect, but as a short term contingency it may well improve the financial balance. I really feel this is a time where no opportunity of saving expenditure or investment should be overlooked.

ColinR wrote:

IainWR wrote:This has been done to death on various other discussions.

Basically, two reasons:

One, everybody shoots with the same ammo so it's fairer.

Two, a substantial fraction of the entrants to the major NRA events have neither the knowledge, equipment or interest to handload. Quite a lot of them don't even have FACs. There are problems for them getting hold of ammunition. And they are the ones we most want to encourage to be more involved.

Iain

I guessed all of that, but I am more interested in the effect of holding >£200 of ammunition has on NRA accounts. Why not reduce the amount of ammunition held and make it optional to use NRA ammunition. That way everyone is catered for. I understand the fairness aspect, but as a short term contingency it may well improve the financial balance. I really feel this is a time where no opportunity of saving expenditure or investment should be overlooked.

I guess it all boils down to what the turn over is like on NRA ammo stocks, if it is rapid and they are making a small profit on it then good luck to them, if it is slow and costing money, then someone needs their knuckles rapped smile2 of course, they may have to buy in that sort of bulk to keep their discounts and profit margin? I have no idea, although I would hope some one will come along who does

kennyc wrote:

ColinR wrote:

IainWR wrote:This has been done to death on various other discussions.

Basically, two reasons:

One, everybody shoots with the same ammo so it's fairer.

Two, a substantial fraction of the entrants to the major NRA events have neither the knowledge, equipment or interest to handload. Quite a lot of them don't even have FACs. There are problems for them getting hold of ammunition. And they are the ones we most want to encourage to be more involved.

Iain

I guessed all of that, but I am more interested in the effect of holding >£200 of ammunition has on NRA accounts. Why not reduce the amount of ammunition held and make it optional to use NRA ammunition. That way everyone is catered for. I understand the fairness aspect, but as a short term contingency it may well improve the financial balance. I really feel this is a time where no opportunity of saving expenditure or investment should be overlooked.

I guess it all boils down to what the turn over is like on NRA ammo stocks, if it is rapid and they are making a small profit on it then good luck to them, if it is slow and costing money, then someone needs their knuckles rapped smile2 of course, they may have to buy in that sort of bulk to keep their discounts and profit margin? I have no idea, although I would hope some one will come along who does

That's still a hefty amount of money invested in stock. If cash flow is a problem it is often prudent to forego maximum discounts and purchase smaller and more often. I have to say I have never seen huge amounts of ammo crossing the Range Office counter to casual shooters - I think all I have ever purchased is a box of .357! I suspect that rather than retail sales this is competition stock, but if not I wonder how often they turn the stock based on retail sales. The value I quoted above should read >£200,000.

kennyc wrote:I guess it all boils down to what the turn over is like on NRA ammo stocks, if it is rapid and they are making a small profit on it then good luck to them, if it is slow and costing money, then someone needs their knuckles rapped smile2 of course, they may have to buy in that sort of bulk to keep their discounts and profit margin? I have no idea, although I would hope some one will come along who does

The bulk of it will be gone by the end of July.
Ball park figures:

If 1,100 shoot the Grand Agg (167 rnds), of whom 750 also shoot pre-grand (60 rnds) = 228,700 @ book value of 80p = £ 182,960.00

Edit: (not including a bunch of team matches, RUAG AGG entries to MR etc).

..

rox wrote:

kennyc wrote:I guess it all boils down to what the turn over is like on NRA ammo stocks, if it is rapid and they are making a small profit on it then good luck to them, if it is slow and costing money, then someone needs their knuckles rapped smile2 of course, they may have to buy in that sort of bulk to keep their discounts and profit margin? I have no idea, although I would hope some one will come along who does

The bulk of it will be gone by the end of July.
Ball park figures:

If 1,100 shoot the Grand Agg (167 rnds), of whom 750 also shoot pre-grand (60 rnds) = 228,700 @ book value of 80p = £ 182,960.00

..

I have no idea what the current stocks are, just what was published in the last accounts, but if they are sitting on that level of stock for 5 months or more there needs to be better buying and better stock control. In this situation every little cost needs to be evaluated and this is not little it seems.

But nothing is so cast in concrete that it can't be changed in the light of pressing financial problems.

ovenpaa wrote:My understanding is the issue ammunition is to prevent undue advantage to competitors who would load their own, this way everyone is on an equal footing when it comes to ammunition.

EDIT - Iain beat me to it :)

Hi Dave I understand all that, but it is not as if most shooters don't have a supply of ammunition and I think it might make for good competition if ammunition/gun combination were tested as well, but then we are up against tradition i.e what has always been done. Cost savings are essential and maybe this is an area where some other arrangement can be made. The accounts to which you supplied the link showed over £200,000 of ammunition in stock; that can't be good business with the current deficits.

I agree Colin and I do wonder if it is possible to run a lean stock inventory, effectively working JIT, just in time. Of course the problem is if RUAG supply JTL for some reason come the Imperial. Such a catastrophe would only happen the once. So in mitigation such stock levels need to be maintained, also it may be the stock was taken before a know price increase.

Of course I could be wrong and someone ordered early 'just in case'