Inside the World of D.I.Y. Ammunition
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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-...
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.
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...
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).
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
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.
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:
Wow! I get like 1/min on my single stage press.
Maybe it's time to upgrade.
The most extreme would be 230 grain “logs” for shooting bowling pins with a .357 revolver. (158 is normal.)
Even if commercial ammo were cheaper than reloading, many precision rifle shooters load their own rounds for accuracy.