Surely to allow use of non issued ammunition would negate the level playing field of TR, issued ammo is a whole part of the competition. I believe that the NRA went to some lengths to obtain a reliable supply of good quality ammunition at a commercial rate (and should be applauded for doing so). If shooters wish to load their own ammo their are other events that allow it. The covenience of issued ammo must be for many a beneficial aspect of TR. As to the level of stock so long as this is in line with expected useage and means purchasing at discounted/price break levels then I see no problem.
Just for the record, I don't shoot TR and have never used issued ammo.
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.
There are numerous disciplines which allow any ammo, so if shooters want a technical challenge of tuning ammo and rifle, rather than a 'level paying field' test of marksmanship, they are spoiled for choice. As for better buying and stock control, it's not as though you can pop down to your local store and buy quarter of a million rounds of proven match grade ammo just before a competition, and I don't suppose it would be economically viable to buy, say, 50,000 at the start of the season, then a further 200,000 before the main competitions. It is made to order as part of a supply contract, so the season's ammo has to be produced and delivered as one lot. It probably represents just a few days production, and setup costs to split the order would drive the prices even higher. There have been serious problems in the past due to delivery and quality issues, and unless there are at least a few months between delivery and use the potential losses in the event of problems could be huge. I'm not completely against 'any ammo' competition, and obviously wastage needs to be cut, but I think it is far from being as simple as you suggest.
a) Buying in bulk a la NRA means a decent chance of getting a discount.
b) Ammo prices only ever go upwards, so buying in bulk early in the season means we benefit from cheaper prices later on (assuming the NRA don't raise their prices in line with the rest, which of course it would make commercial sense to do)
c) TR is a level playing field with issued ammo. I'd much rather hear the top shots complain about crap RG/RWS ammo than see the entries to the Imperial halved because people don't know how/don't want to handload.
d) From the point of view of one with less disposable income than he'd like (ahem!), issued ammo is good because it means I can't be outshot by someone with enough geld to buy top quality ammo/assemble his own from top-notch components. It's down to firer ability and rifle condition.
e) There's plenty of other matches to enter which allow your own ammo - mainly F class (or "the arms race" as I think of it)
The RWS ammo is bought primarily for the Imperial. It is a single batch of between 450k and 600k each year, made in the space of a few days and delivered mid-to-late June. By end July we have used 300k.
Our ammo stocks at year end include typically 150k RWS (=£120k) to see us through to June the following year, plus several ks of each of the various natures we hold so you the members can walk in and buy 20 rds of whatever over the counter. It also, I suspect, includes several 10s of ks of bullets (mostly from Sierra in a sponsorship deal, but they have a book value), a hundred kilos or so of powder in eight or ten different varieties, six x some 10 000s of primers (four sizes, two brands in each of the popular sizes, bought in boxes of 10 000) and an assortment of other bits and bobs that come under the generic heading of "ammunition". Indeed in a time of austerity it does need to be looked at, but £200k is not so much if the NRA is to deliver what the members want when they need it.
The RWS ammo is bought primarily for the Imperial. It is a single batch of between 450k and 600k each year, made in the space of a few days and delivered mid-to-late June. By end July we have used 300k.
Our ammo stocks at year end include typically 150k RWS (=£120k) to see us through to June the following year, plus several ks of each of the various natures we hold so you the members can walk in and buy 20 rds of whatever over the counter. It also, I suspect, includes several 10s of ks of bullets (mostly from Sierra in a sponsorship deal, but they have a book value), a hundred kilos or so of powder in eight or ten different varieties, six x some 10 000s of primers (four sizes, two brands in each of the popular sizes, bought in boxes of 10 000) and an assortment of other bits and bobs that come under the generic heading of "ammunition". Indeed in a time of austerity it does need to be looked at, but £200k is not so much if the NRA is to deliver what the members want when they need it.
Iain
Hi Ian
Put like that it makes more sense. I had not realised the main bulk of RWS only came on to inventory in June for July - I didn't look to see the year end date of the accounts. My concern would be holding paid for stock for months before the event and tieing up whatever capital funds were available. My question was not intended to be a critism of anybody, more an observation of a large capital investment in the accounts that might be handled differently, but I can appreciate the problems you all must be having trying to make ends meet to everyone's satisfaction. regards Colin
c) TR is a level playing field with issued ammo. I'd much rather hear the top shots complain about crap RG/RWS ammo than see the entries to the Imperial halved because people don't know how/don't want to handload.
Am I missing something as someone who does not shoot competition; why would it half entries - surely there is no requirement to reload as the likes of HPS make some good match ammunition that is freely available. Probably as good if not better than RG/RWS.
c) TR is a level playing field with issued ammo. I'd much rather hear the top shots complain about crap RG/RWS ammo than see the entries to the Imperial halved because people don't know how/don't want to handload.
Am I missing something as someone who does not shoot competition; why would it half entries - surely there is no requirement to reload as the likes of HPS make some good match ammunition that is freely available. Probably as good if not better than RG/RWS.
There are those who would go to some length and extreems to make handloads that are even better...and that would put those who didn't want to/ have the time to handload at a disadvantage...
c) TR is a level playing field with issued ammo. I'd much rather hear the top shots complain about crap RG/RWS ammo than see the entries to the Imperial halved because people don't know how/don't want to handload.
Am I missing something as someone who does not shoot competition; why would it half entries - surely there is no requirement to reload as the likes of HPS make some good match ammunition that is freely available. Probably as good if not better than RG/RWS.
There are those who would go to some length and extreems to make handloads that are even better...and that would put those who didn't want to/ have the time to handload at a disadvantage...
This is quite a learning curve for me; I always thought target shooting was about ultimate accuracy. Surely some shooters are already using guns/sighting systems that are inherently more accurate than others, so that initself must impose an advantage of sorts. Do golf tournaments insist only their golf balls be used, I don't know, or all use the same clubs. Most sports seem to use whatever advantage they are legally allowed; whether this is something in the NRA's favour to restrict ammunition on a 'fairness' basis I equally don't know. I suppose the argument is to impose a restriction in one area and let all the other variables look after themselves.
phil