How can anything that’s mass produced in quantities of millions each year be a viable investment?
Yes! I miss the early-mid 2000’s when that surplus ammo was everywhere and cheap! I should’ve stocked up.
I also miss the early-mid 2000’s when reloading components were cheap. My Dillon press doesn’t get the use it used to.
Thanks Obama! 
Have you forgotten what a good investment beanie babies was? 
Excellent post overall on commodities in general. The critical purported difference with ammo is that there’s a huge exogenous shock coming: the government will radically curtail supply while demand stays the same or goes up some in response.
In that environment the hoarder doesn’t have to compete with Remington. Remington will be prohibited from manufacturing or selling enough to meet demand. Once inelastic small supply meets inelastic large demand the price will skyrocket and … profit$$$ are guaranteed.
The rest of their (IMO BS) assumption is that there won’t be any effective regulation of private party ammo sales. To be sure there’s not gonna be enough BATF agents to put one at every rural Elk’s meeting to catch people making a deal for a few bricks over a beer.
But for this to be a money making venture worth doing the seller(s) need to be able to move thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of product from who and where it’s plentiful to who and where it’s not. That’ll be a big enough operation with enough trackable electronic trail that the game won’t work … much.
If it did starting working much then I could imagine the Mob promptly expanding from smuggling cigarettes and drugs to smuggling ammo too. They have plenty of infrastructure all set up. I can also imagine Joe Gunsrights being a bit surprised when the Mob “suggests” he stop competing with them for the health of his family.
And of course the whole scenario comes crashing down because it’s real implausible to anyone not being force-fed hysterical propaganda that the Feds are going to limit ammo production and sales by the manufactuers.
Fortunately I’m in Canada, where a crate of 1,200 rounds of surplus 7.62 x 39 is about $280.
We fired lots of WWII stuff, just fine. WWI stuff was problematic. So, 100 yo ammo is not that good.
People trying to get a deal. Our local police chief was caught and spent a couple years in prison for selling guns and ammunition. The guns were those he’d confiscated and the ammo was purchased by the town for training purposes.
Anyone expecting to make a living off of hunting small game “after the hammer falls” is living an even bigger fantasy than the apocalypters thinking they are going to hold off gangs of mutant bikers with flamethrowers. Hunting small game has always been an exercise in supplemental protein, and the best gun to take small ground game like rabbit or squirrel is a small gauge shotgun (.410 or 20 gauge) using #6 or #4 shot. Better yet, someone truly experienced in collecting sufficient small game for survival will build a few dozen snares (cruel but effective). Even this, this would only support 1-2 people indefinitely.
.22 LR ammunition is pretty robust on the shelf but because the primer is basically painted on the rim it is dirtier and more prone to breakdown than pocket primer shells. Kept in low humidity storage unopened boxes of .22 LR will probably last for decades, but in high humidity environments I wouldn’t bet my life on it, and I sure as shit wouldn’t trade for ammunition of unknown provenance from some crazy prepper.
Here is an explanation of some of the problems in manufacturing .22 LR and why the vast majority of reloaders don’t even bother. For real world ‘survival’ purposes, it would make sense to spend money on larger caliber ammunition and weapons capable of taking small game and defending against actual human attackers, and to avoid armed conflict whenever possible because getting gutshot without modern medical care is pretty much a ticket to a painful suffering death.
Stranger
Currently, 5 cents a round is on the lower end, as verified by AmmoSeek. 8 cents, retail, is much more common. Bulk purchaces can lower that, especially when sourced though meta engines like AmmoSeek, but factor shipping into your costs! 24 bucks a brick, plus US$16 shppping ups the price per shot quite a lot - buy in large bulk to achieve best results.
Realistically, 8 cents is an average bargain price.
That said, the rest of the conclusions are pretty much correct: Modern ammunition is generally fairly stable, chemically, over a decade or more. Sometimes MUCH more, depending on storage conditions. Price-wise, you’re NOT likely to see any kind of reealistic return - likely you won’t even beat inflation.
A few years ago, during the height of the artificial ‘scarcity spike’ the ability to buy low and sell high for short term proffit was available, but that’s largely gone, and prices have largely stabilized.
Speaking with my gunshop buddies, firearms purchases as a whole are off about 15% from this time, last year. The occupant of the White House is largely responsible - just being who he is has calmed the panic buying. Blunt fact is, President Obama was the best salesman the private sale firearms industry has ever had, just being who he was.
An “End of the World as We Know It” situation, 5 to 10 thousand rounds is a very reasonable lifetime supply for a family - Assuming you’re saving the ammunition for practical purposes only, and are not proflagately wasting it on pleasure shooting.
I currenly hold about 7000 rounds, but for my daughter and I, that’s about two years supply - we shoot for pleasure, and do so a lot. I tend to buy a brick or two whenever it drops low - grabbed a couple bricks last month for 4 cents a shot - but that’s opportunistic replenishment, not TEOTWAKI purposes. If prices go over 7 cents, I just don’t buy, and we burn down current stocks.
Snares are no where near that effective. Maybe in areas where squirrels or rabbits are over populated.
Snares (and deadfall traps), much like solar stills- are things taught in survival courses where almost every time the calorie or water used in setting them up will exceed by many times the amount gathered.
Under current law, Yes.
No.
It depends, but possibly, Yes.
The thing about snares is that once they are set up there is little energy expenditure involved, and you can spend time doing other useful things like building shelter or tools. But I agree, trying to live off of small game is unlikely unless you live in an area that is heavily forested, hence why small game should only be considered a supplemental food source.
Solar stills, by the way, do work. I’ve actually built and used one. However, they are not very portable and won’t provide enough water for more than one person, and even then is pretty marginal. If you are in a situation requiring a solar still you are probably better off looking for sources of fresh water than cutting up plants or pissing in a hole and trying to extract sufficient potable water by solar distillation.
Stranger
Scarcity premium - Which worked.
For a brief while.
If it isn’t on the shelf, it doesn’t matter how much it cost Winchester to make it (let’s not use Remington - nasty, dirty stuff!) - you can charge a premium. The fact that in some cases that scarcity was driven by shop owners delibertely not shelving half their order, so they could sell it via their online portal at a higher price is beside the point.
Scarcity premiums are exacerbated by panic buying. Regenerative feedback loop.
But… That cycle is largely broken now, though there remains some skittishness in the more paranoid corners.
The thing with snares is that they require time, patrolling, and maintenance and you need quite a few to feed a family. They’re supplemental, rather than primary.
Which is exactly what I said.
Stranger
Pellet rifles aren’t snares. They are, however, quite effective at taking small game. I own a simple Benjamin .22 pellet (air) rifle, and it punches clean though a fairly thick telephone book. (yes, those still exist!)
When I go back and look through the text, yes. Quite.
Bait station in a farm area where predators have likely all been killed off, leading to a squirrel over pop. Squirrels do not, in nature congregate in that density.
But yeah, a high powered pellet rifle can likely supplement your diet nicely.
and snares are by no means worthless. But you do have to figure calories burned setting and patrolling vs calories gained with a pound of squirrel meat.
and yes, Solar stills work. But the water lost in digging one is usually more than you gain back.
Here’s a guy with a new style of still, which i have not seen, which may indeed be much more effective. But his article contains the line "*There is a problem, however. The next thing that same person will tell you almost in the same breath is: “But, they don’t work very well, and you wouldn’t have enough water to live on. Not to mention it wastes more sweat to build than you could replace with it.”
Those are all completely true criticisms.*
"https://survivalblog.com/the_extreme_solar_still_concept_by_jim_d/
http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-58151.html
"C*ollecting Water With a Solar Still
The solar still involves digging a two foot deep pit with a three foot diameter, placing a container in the bottom, and covering the whole pit with a six foot by six foot piece of clear plastic. The plastic condenses ground moisture on the interior covering where it funnels down to the center and drops into the container.
Constructing a still involves expending considerable amounts of your precious sweat to dig the pit. It also presupposes that you have a sheet of clear plastic and a shovel. If you had the foresight to bring this gear then you probably had the good sense to pack plenty of water. The solar still just isn’t that useful in the desert and yet it still shows up in survival books as a reliable water-collecting device.
I have constructed many stills over the years in each of the four North American deserts. Each time I arrive at the same conclusion after seeing the results: Plan ahead and carry plenty of water! If you hadn’t already guessed, this is the mantra that a wilderness explorer has to live by."
*