Quote:
|
...why shouldn't the ammunition manufacturers like Federal, Remington and Winchester, most of whom stay in business primarily on the business and backs of the civilian shooting public (both firearms and ammo in most cases), be pressured to take a similar stand?
|
I don't really see it as the ammo companies are playing both sides. There is a rush on ammo and reloading supplies right now. I think it would be wise of them to make the most popular calibers and keep the product moving until things slow down a bit, which means selling to the public and the government. While I don't have any firm numbers on factory ammo sales volume to government v. public I would take a wild guess at it being about a 50/50 split. Im also confused by your statement of "most of whom stay in business primarily on the business and backs of the civilian shooting public" above, but below you mention the same companies "selling their scrap...to the general public."
Quote:
|
...Why should they continue to cynically sell to both sides of the issue, benefitting from large government contracts from state and municipal agencies in New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois or California while selling their scraps at inflated prices (or permitting the same by their distributors) to the general public?...
|
The "large government contracts" are typically made to a certain, agreed to, specification, and while there are overruns at times, or ammo that is slightly off from spec, I would hardly call it "selling scrap" because while it may not meet the specifications for one particular contract, it may more meet the specs of other contracts, or other product lines they sell.