1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Say good-bye to Top Gun and Gun Club ammo

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by mrskeet410, Mar 23, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    The dollar is plunging and I think that will give rise to increasing ammo cost, especially with Estates and Gun Clubs. And maybe their demise.

    In my opinion, and Estates and Gun Clubs were developed, and priced, to compete against the tide of cheap imported ammo we had just a few years ago. And to some extent to meet the demands of the big box oligopsonies. Sure, Remington/Federal did not reap the same margins enjoyed by their Gold Medals and STS, but they kept market share and made some money on them. Maintaining market share is important; and it kept those preferring USA, and maroon, and green shooting those.

    But what happened to those imports? They're for the most part gone, due largely to the lowered foreign purchasing power of the the dollar. And with the loss of that price competitor, Gun Clubs and Top Guns have gone up in price.

    The dollar plunged last week. I suspect it will continue. And what will happen to the price of Gun Clubs and Estates? If we are lucky, they will go up.

    Lucky???? Yes. If we are unlucky, they will disappear.
     
  2. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,258
    I think the promo shells will continue and competition between the big three will keep the prices (and quality) down. Wally World will continue to sell these kinds of shells as fast as they can get them on the shelves because the majority of their customers don't really care about quality.
     
  3. Heckyea

    Heckyea TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    78
    I don't care about the feds but I want the GCs. They reload better than any Winchester out there for me. Anything green by Remington loads good.
     
  4. Carol Lister

    Carol Lister TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    490
    <center>[​IMG]</img></center>
     
  5. over the hill

    over the hill Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,377
    IMHO cheap shells are here to stay. Dont discount the Chinese. Most people on these threads would not use them including me but there are a lot of shooters that would.

    Its going to get interesting.


    Regards....Gerald
     
  6. no5shooter

    no5shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    453
    Interesting how somebody can make such a definite statement and then waffle with "in my opinion," and "I suspect." Sure looks like a fishing trip here, or maybe like fred suggested, it's just been a long winter.
     
  7. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    I'm not sure Mrs. Keet knows of which she speaks.
     
  8. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    I use promo loads. No one seems to care about the Federal or Winchester hulls (and I won't use the Winchesters for doubles or sporting clays). But there is demand from other shooters for the Gun Club hulls, because, I'm told by those who want them, they'll interchange with their STS recipes.<br>
    <br>
    As for Chicom shells, I would have to question their reliabilty and thus safety.<br>
    <br>
    Years ago I shot a lot of the Fiocchi one piece plastic hulls. I found them to be a good, reliable shell. If I could get them at a decent price I'd still use them.<br>
    <br>
     
  9. MitchL

    MitchL TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4
    If they go I'll miss the Gun Clubs - best reloading hulls out there.
     
  10. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    Nope...stay away from the Gloom & Doom folks. The price of ammo will come down, not right now though due to high inventories.

    Lead will be averaging approx. $18.00 (or less) by June....new shells will follow suit as more and more shooters will reload again.

    Curt
     
  11. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    mrskeet410 did use sound economic logic in his post. Unfortunately, sound economic logic is frequently wrong.

    Pat Ireland
     
  12. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Mr. Ireland is correct.
     
  13. Dr.Longshot

    Dr.Longshot Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,722
    Gun Club and Top Gun shells will be around for a long time to come, some just have no logic in their posts and are unaware of Mfgrs. commitment to continue to Mfgr a good selling product, sales are the driving force in Mfg. poor sales equals demise, and I don't see their demise.




    Gary Bryant
    Dr.longshot
     
  14. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,484
    They will still be manufactured, but you will not see a return to the low prices that we enjoyed.

    The Obama administration and congress will be increasing the cost to manufacturer in the United States through taxes and transfers of wealth through social programs that only can be paid for through tax increases.

    All increases will be passed on to the consumer.

    -------------------------

    ONE EXAMPLE....

    Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

    Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.

    Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.


    Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."

    Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

    The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).

    But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels -- particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It's no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade -- Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey -- come from California or the Northeast.

    Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.

    Another way to think about it is in terms of per capita greenhouse-gas emissions. California is the No. 2 carbon emitter in the country but also has a large economy and population. So the average Californian only had a carbon footprint of about 12 tons of CO2-equivalent in 2005, according to the World Resource Institute's Climate Analysis Indicators, which integrates all government data. The situation is very different in Wyoming and North Dakota -- paging Senators Mike Enzi and Kent Conrad -- where every person was responsible for 154 and 95 tons, respectively. See the nearby chart for cap and trade's biggest state winners and losers

    Democrats say they'll allow some of this ocean of new cap-and-trade revenue to trickle back down to the public. In his budget, Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid, especially in states with higher carbon use.

    All the more so because the Administration is lowballing its cap-and-trade tax estimates. Its stated goal is to reduce emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, which assuming that four-fifths of emissions are covered (excluding agriculture, for instance), works out to about $13 or $14 per ton of CO2. When CBO scored a similar bill last year, it expected prices to start at $23 and rise to $44 by 2018. CBO also projected the total value of the allowances at $902 billion over the first decade, which is some $256 billion more than the Administration's estimate.

    We asked the White House budget office for the assumptions behind its revenue estimates, but a spokesman said the Administration doesn't have a formal proposal and will work with Congress and "stakeholders" to shape one. We were also pointed to recent comments by Mr. Orszag that he was "sure there will be enough there to finance the things that we have identified" and maybe "additional money" too. In other words, Mr. Obama expects a much larger tax increase than even he is willing to admit.

    Those "stakeholders" are going to need some very large bribes, starting with the regions that stand to lose the most. Led by Michigan's Debbie Stabenow, 15 Senate Democrats have already formed a "gang" demanding that "consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship." In practice, this would mean corporate welfare for carbon-heavy businesses.

    And of course Congress is its own "stakeholder." An economy-wide tax under the cover of saving the environment is the best political moneymaker since the income tax. Obama officials are already telling the press, sotto voce, that climate revenues might fund universal health care and other new social spending. No doubt they would, and when they did Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade rebates would become even smaller.

    Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html
     
  15. tad houston

    tad houston TS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    477
    Friend of mine just bought some Top Guns from Rogers Sporting Goods in Liberty MO for $49.99 a flat.

    Had them shipped (to his business) for an additional $6 a flat and they were there the next day.

    Either a Sale on them or a Close Out......???
     
  16. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,692
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    You know, we shooters have proven that we will gladly pay at he $50 to $60 level for bargain shells. Why would they lower that price? Taht answer is obvious. And just as in the case of gasoline last year, when the price of cheap shells gets to $80 a flat, the sales will plummet. NO, it appears to me that the current $50 mark is here to stay. Look at it anothr way... if we as reloaders can put together decent shells at $3 to $4 a box, Federal, Win, and Rem can put together components into cheapo hulls for about $2. Seems to be a proper profit motive to continue to get $55 a flat from us for bargain shells.

    The gas companies in my area hav ebeen testing the down and upside of the market since prices fell last fall. They seemed to levl off at the buck ninety area for unleaded with corn starch. If they go to $4 no one will be driving again and the price will fall again. The saem will happen with shells.
     
  17. mike b.

    mike b. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    286
    Curt, If you really think lead will be much lower than now this year....read the chart below. This may be the bottom.......

    http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/lead_historical.html
     
  18. mike b.

    mike b. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    286
    This will be easier ^
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.