Back when I was a teenager I used to do this sport called Cowboy Competition Shooting. Think normal competition shooting, but everyone's dressed as some character from a western movie or trying to realistically portray some figure from the 19th century American West.
A lot of the people in the crowd would make their own ammunition. Myself included. I never saw anyone go as far as to make their own lead bullets, but we all generally recycled spent cartridges and reloaded them with powder and lead to make them whole again.
There really wasn't anything particularly ideological about it though, no concern that one day big government would take our guns or anything like that. It was a simple necessity of the hobby. A single day of shooting would often have you spend 100+ rounds of ammunition and replacing your loses was expensive. On top of that most of these events took place on some rancher's land, and it wouldn't be particularly kind to leave all these brass casings all over his property. Better to recycle them than throw them away or leave them to slowly pile up.
On an unrelated note, nice perk about the sport and the fact that this all took place on a ranch is that lunch often came from where it was served.
Reloading is fun but can trigger OCD :) For some reason was a natural in archery in my teens and decided target shooting would be a interesting skill. Opportunity presented itself in the form of a Ruger .220 Swift M77V bullbarrel stamped made in the 200th year of American liberty and a Remington 700 (right! the one with the defective bolt design which can misfire when chambering a round, which on occasion it did) in 7MM Rem Mag, both acquired from a late grand uncle's estate. Then segued to RCBS reloading equipment, primer pocket brushes, case trimmers, then weighing individual powder loads, you know the rest (that .220 Swift needed case trimming after only a few firings). Goal was a 1 inch (2.5cm) group at 200 yds (183M) with the Remington (which had the kick of an angry mule). When that goal was met, decided NEXT!, then moved on to flying. Consider yourself lucky to have had open ranches in your area.
There's a couple good reasons to do your own ammo. 1. Cost. Bullets are very expensive, and you need to shoot to use your firearms well when you need them. The whole 'individualism' thing is applicable to anything people would do themselves other than forking over money for it. If bullets are cheaper, the equipment and time to reload would not be worth it.
Sadly, this cost analysis doesn't even mention time spent, though, given the motivation of the site, that could detract from the message.
I realize that some participants may consider it a part of a hobby, in which case the dollar value of the time may be negative if not zero, I can't imagine this would be everyone (especially of the subset who load their own due to cost).
Someone might even value that "lost" leisure time higher than their hourly work earnings.
Time isn’t a very big factor, TBH. Reloading a single cartridge involves 3-4 steps, and there three different types of equipment you can use in reloading.
* A single stage press has to be reconfigured for each step, so you run a batch of cartridges through one step at a time. Typically you can do ~50 cartridges an hour.
* A turret press is configured to do all of the steps, but only works on one cartridge. Pulling the press lever advances to the next step, so you work on one cartridge at a time, taking it through all the steps to completion. Output of 100-200 cartridges per hour.
* A progressive press is basically a turret press that holds multiple cartridges, so each pull of the lever performs each step on a different cartridge and produces a finished cartridge. You easily put out 750-1000 per hour.
Even with cheap cartridges like 9mm your reloading component cost is around half the price of of retail ammo. As the cartridge you’re reloading, the savings increase pretty drastically. For example, I used to reload high powered .357 Magnum shells for about $0.20 a piece that would cost upwards of a dollar a piece retail.
If that's true, then I'd hope the analysis to mention something like "and an hour or two" in addition to mentioning the dollar cost savings for 1000 rounds.
> there three different types of equipment you can use in reloading.
Presumably their up-front purchase cost is significantly different. The OC's link didn't mention that, so I'd assume the cheapest option.
> Typically you can do ~50 cartridges an hour.
This cheapest option means that, according to that site, the savings range from $7.68-$66.50/hr (not counting equipment purchase?). That strikes me as a significant, if not very big, factor, if someone considers this a chore, rather than part of the hobby, since that range of hourly rates is at least the same OOM as what people would value their time at.
> easily put out 750-1000 per hour
As little as 1 hour per 1k is, I agree, insignificant, even for someone placing a high dollar value on their chore-avoided leisure time. How much more does that equipment cost?
Do those time figures include extra time to recover the brass, and any other differences (positive and negative) in handling pre- and post-production? It's easy to focus on only the most time-consuming part of the process, but everything adds up, and, for beginners or other low-volume participants, it can inflate the per-unit time cost.
There at least a third option, which is neither: a chore.
> You're not getting rich.
This is just a matter of degree. The point of the OC was that reloading was motivated by cost rather than ideology.
My point is that, even if an activity saves (or makes) cash, if it's a chore, at least some people will be willing to spend the cash to avoid it. Depending on how much an individual values, in dollars, chore-avoided-time that could have been spent on leisure instead, the activity may not save any money at all.
>> I realize that some participants may consider it a part of a hobby
My point is that, since it can be a chore [1], not a hobby, time is a relevant part of any discussion of cost, and omitting or dismissing it is inappropriate.
DIY cartridge manufacturing is relatively common in many parts of the US. The two big drivers of this activity are reducing ammunition costs and research/experimentation with new cartridge designs or loadings.
The cost driver is the most straightforward, and has two different angles. The first angle is that recycling spent ammunition can be significantly cheaper than buying newly manufactured ammunition -- treating brass as a waste material is expensive. The second angle is that there are hundreds of exotic or less common cartridge types that have a market volume much too low for economies of scale to kick in on an industrial manufacturing line, which makes them relatively expensive when produced in a munitions plant. Individuals and small shops can often manufacture this ammunition much cheaper than the equivalent industrial plant due to the much lower overhead of running a small batch.
Cartridge research and experimentation is a world unto itself. There is an enormous amount of performance variance (both precision and ballistics) due to relatively small changes in geometry, configuration, powder, bullet, and firearm characteristics. Not only are there a large number of "hyper-miler" types who try to squeeze every gram of precision and ballistic performance out of a particular firearm and cartridge geometry, the hardcore types will design entirely new cartridges (and matching firearm components) to explore parts of the design space that are not possible with existing geometries. This is a popular hobbyist area, sort of like brewing a thousand slightly different beer recipes, that is enabled by the fact that it is straightforward to manufacture custom ammunition at home.
The vast majority of all DIY ammunition manufacturing exists for one of these two reasons, it isn't political or ideological. I'm sure a few of them are ideological but it isn't their primary motivation. The idea of designing new cartridges specifically optimized for the characteristics of printable firearms is interesting though.
> DIY cartridge manufacturing is relatively common in many parts of the US. The two big drivers of this activity are reducing ammunition costs and research/experimentation with new cartridge designs or loadings.
Yes, though the article spends most of the time on "big government intrusions", "ideological individualism", and "should bullets be banned or one day be in short supply".
A third smaller market is competitive shooting. At high levels of competition, the manufacturing tolerances of the ammunition need to be more precise than factory ammunition. A friend who introduced me to target shooting as a hobby competed at the national level in CMP Service Rifle. He and his father reloaded their own ammo using carefully weighed powder for ultra-consistent velocity.
It's well known in the competitive shooting world, where competitors calibrate their rifles from benchrests that minimize the effect of the human operators.
Very cool but seems very labor intensive. I probably shoot about three-four hundred rounds a week...can't imagine making them! Fortunately there are a lot of ammo sellers online that keep prices pretty low and deliver.
But kudos to these folks as they will keep downward pressure on prices
Has this been incorporated yet into some post apocalyptic film? Because I was just talking about this the other day. In the post apocalypse, everyone has a gun and no one ever seriously addresses where they are getting their ammo while gunning down zombie hoards daily.
It's very unrealistic that he's the only character with even a passing familiarity with reloading, and that Rick and the gang never run across any proper reloading setups or manuals. Eugene has to reinvent an extremely crude version the process.
Reloading is a contemplative and exacting pursuit. And single missed powder measure could cause a bullet to lodge in the barrel and the round following could cause an injurious catastrophic failure. My father reloaded on a single stage press (one operation on one round at a time) due to economics. As a boy I was always given the "privilege" of shagging brass (no cracks from the Brits please) at the range. Each usable casing was worth a few cents and it added up.
Today, reloading is the stock and trade of top shooters in competitions such as the Precision Rifle Series and the King of Two Miles, where shooters attempt targets at ultra long range. Each case is sized trimmed and annealed by hand and measured with micrometers. Powder is measured down to the individual particle using scales costing over 1,000 dollars. Primer pockets are treated as well. Consistency wins these matches and these hand loads are more consistent than even match grade factory ammo.
Shooters use doppler chronograph to create their own data on how these loads perform in their rifles.
Last comment. This article puts a lot of emphasis on cast bullets. Lead only bullets aren't used nearly as much as the used to be. Pistols, as opposed to revolvers can be finicky with lead and the vast majority of rifle rounds are jacketed.
Indeed -- my granddad was a competition marksman and did the whole reloading thing. I used to collect brass and lost tire weights for him -- I can still hear his brass tumbler spinning. Digital analytical balances weren't available to average Joes back then, but he did his best with a mechanical balance and meticulously trimmed this brass. He cast lead for his revolvers, but everybody even back then bought jacketed stuff [from Hornady, Nosler, etc] for rifle and pistol.
>Powder is measured down to the individual particle using scales costing over 1,000 dollars.
Really? I'd imagine that at those ranges it would make more sense to spend all your time on superior wind & barometrics measurements rather than counting powder particles...
You're point is valid but some of the participants are spending 10K+ for Vectronix range finders so they are pretty far down that rabbit hole already. Wind is a dark art because at those ranges it likely varies in intensity and direction over the distance to the target. I guess you could say they are having to estimate the effect of multiple competing force vectors. I have read that some people consider the spotter the more skilled member of a two person shooting team, implying that the wind calls and environment are more difficult than the holdover and breaking the shot.
Some of my childhood summers were spent in the back room of a jewelery store casting wax models of custom rings/bands.
One summer the owner had me casting wax slugs for his handgun in the same fashion, which he used for DIY shell recycling.
Judging from the cardboard box they had setup back there for target practice, the wax slugs were very effective. As an adult I've wondered on multiple occasions if those wax slugs were actually a good alternative to lead for indoor self-defense where the risk of unintentionally shooting people through walls is high.
I'm just super glad they highlighted the fact that it's much easier to make a gun with normal off the shelf/modified metal than to 3D print one. Every other article that involves 3D printing guns is all "the world is over, people can make guns all by themselves!".. the only real difference is the reduced amount of metal in regards to detection
39 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 77.6 ms ] threadA lot of the people in the crowd would make their own ammunition. Myself included. I never saw anyone go as far as to make their own lead bullets, but we all generally recycled spent cartridges and reloaded them with powder and lead to make them whole again.
There really wasn't anything particularly ideological about it though, no concern that one day big government would take our guns or anything like that. It was a simple necessity of the hobby. A single day of shooting would often have you spend 100+ rounds of ammunition and replacing your loses was expensive. On top of that most of these events took place on some rancher's land, and it wouldn't be particularly kind to leave all these brass casings all over his property. Better to recycle them than throw them away or leave them to slowly pile up.
On an unrelated note, nice perk about the sport and the fact that this all took place on a ranch is that lunch often came from where it was served.
Even if commercial ammo were cheaper than reloading, many precision rifle shooters load their own rounds for accuracy.
A single box of .45 rounds will set you back $25. Depending who you ask, reloading costs a third of that (plus upfront costs for the equipment).
http://www.massreloading.com/reloading_savings.html
I realize that some participants may consider it a part of a hobby, in which case the dollar value of the time may be negative if not zero, I can't imagine this would be everyone (especially of the subset who load their own due to cost).
Someone might even value that "lost" leisure time higher than their hourly work earnings.
* A single stage press has to be reconfigured for each step, so you run a batch of cartridges through one step at a time. Typically you can do ~50 cartridges an hour.
* A turret press is configured to do all of the steps, but only works on one cartridge. Pulling the press lever advances to the next step, so you work on one cartridge at a time, taking it through all the steps to completion. Output of 100-200 cartridges per hour.
* A progressive press is basically a turret press that holds multiple cartridges, so each pull of the lever performs each step on a different cartridge and produces a finished cartridge. You easily put out 750-1000 per hour.
Even with cheap cartridges like 9mm your reloading component cost is around half the price of of retail ammo. As the cartridge you’re reloading, the savings increase pretty drastically. For example, I used to reload high powered .357 Magnum shells for about $0.20 a piece that would cost upwards of a dollar a piece retail.
If that's true, then I'd hope the analysis to mention something like "and an hour or two" in addition to mentioning the dollar cost savings for 1000 rounds.
> there three different types of equipment you can use in reloading.
Presumably their up-front purchase cost is significantly different. The OC's link didn't mention that, so I'd assume the cheapest option.
> Typically you can do ~50 cartridges an hour.
This cheapest option means that, according to that site, the savings range from $7.68-$66.50/hr (not counting equipment purchase?). That strikes me as a significant, if not very big, factor, if someone considers this a chore, rather than part of the hobby, since that range of hourly rates is at least the same OOM as what people would value their time at.
> easily put out 750-1000 per hour
As little as 1 hour per 1k is, I agree, insignificant, even for someone placing a high dollar value on their chore-avoided leisure time. How much more does that equipment cost?
Do those time figures include extra time to recover the brass, and any other differences (positive and negative) in handling pre- and post-production? It's easy to focus on only the most time-consuming part of the process, but everything adds up, and, for beginners or other low-volume participants, it can inflate the per-unit time cost.
Listen to an audio book and reload 200 rounds. You're not getting rich.
There at least a third option, which is neither: a chore.
> You're not getting rich.
This is just a matter of degree. The point of the OC was that reloading was motivated by cost rather than ideology.
My point is that, even if an activity saves (or makes) cash, if it's a chore, at least some people will be willing to spend the cash to avoid it. Depending on how much an individual values, in dollars, chore-avoided-time that could have been spent on leisure instead, the activity may not save any money at all.
Landscaping can be both a hobby and a cost-saving mechanism ("chore") for the same person.
>> I realize that some participants may consider it a part of a hobby
My point is that, since it can be a chore [1], not a hobby, time is a relevant part of any discussion of cost, and omitting or dismissing it is inappropriate.
[1] or the strawman of a career, I guess
The cost driver is the most straightforward, and has two different angles. The first angle is that recycling spent ammunition can be significantly cheaper than buying newly manufactured ammunition -- treating brass as a waste material is expensive. The second angle is that there are hundreds of exotic or less common cartridge types that have a market volume much too low for economies of scale to kick in on an industrial manufacturing line, which makes them relatively expensive when produced in a munitions plant. Individuals and small shops can often manufacture this ammunition much cheaper than the equivalent industrial plant due to the much lower overhead of running a small batch.
Cartridge research and experimentation is a world unto itself. There is an enormous amount of performance variance (both precision and ballistics) due to relatively small changes in geometry, configuration, powder, bullet, and firearm characteristics. Not only are there a large number of "hyper-miler" types who try to squeeze every gram of precision and ballistic performance out of a particular firearm and cartridge geometry, the hardcore types will design entirely new cartridges (and matching firearm components) to explore parts of the design space that are not possible with existing geometries. This is a popular hobbyist area, sort of like brewing a thousand slightly different beer recipes, that is enabled by the fact that it is straightforward to manufacture custom ammunition at home.
The vast majority of all DIY ammunition manufacturing exists for one of these two reasons, it isn't political or ideological. I'm sure a few of them are ideological but it isn't their primary motivation. The idea of designing new cartridges specifically optimized for the characteristics of printable firearms is interesting though.
That's basically what the article is about.
The additional practical perspective is helpful.
Ie: tests with proper blinding or mechanical non-human shooters?
https://www.theboxotruth.com/educational-zone-98-shooting-a-...
But kudos to these folks as they will keep downward pressure on prices
If ammo prices skyrocket again, which they will, then reloading makes more sense.
I made a couple of video a long time ago on the press and tumbling:
https://youtu.be/gCOjenjFKmI
https://youtu.be/i3qFDbVm7sA
Wow! I get like 1/min on my single stage press.
Maybe it's time to upgrade.
Today, reloading is the stock and trade of top shooters in competitions such as the Precision Rifle Series and the King of Two Miles, where shooters attempt targets at ultra long range. Each case is sized trimmed and annealed by hand and measured with micrometers. Powder is measured down to the individual particle using scales costing over 1,000 dollars. Primer pockets are treated as well. Consistency wins these matches and these hand loads are more consistent than even match grade factory ammo.
Shooters use doppler chronograph to create their own data on how these loads perform in their rifles.
Last comment. This article puts a lot of emphasis on cast bullets. Lead only bullets aren't used nearly as much as the used to be. Pistols, as opposed to revolvers can be finicky with lead and the vast majority of rifle rounds are jacketed.
Really? I'd imagine that at those ranges it would make more sense to spend all your time on superior wind & barometrics measurements rather than counting powder particles...
One summer the owner had me casting wax slugs for his handgun in the same fashion, which he used for DIY shell recycling.
Judging from the cardboard box they had setup back there for target practice, the wax slugs were very effective. As an adult I've wondered on multiple occasions if those wax slugs were actually a good alternative to lead for indoor self-defense where the risk of unintentionally shooting people through walls is high.
The most extreme would be 230 grain “logs” for shooting bowling pins with a .357 revolver. (158 is normal.)