I did a little search on metal prices, bullet prices seemed to be skyrocketing, and I wonder if the industry is doing what the oil industry did to gas prices.

What do you all think? Love to get the skinny on this, if they keep raising prices, I can foresee MUCH less shooting, less brass/bullets/powder and heck guns. The industry may slow down, I'd hate to shoot as much as I do with factory ammo-Seen the prices lately!!!!!!!!?????????

I may have to switch over to rimfire, pellet guns, and even BB's-you can recycle them!

1. The dollar has been and still is in the process of being devalued.

2. China is gearing up for the confrontation, and in general is buying up pretty much all they can get their hands on due to their industrial revolution.

3. Metals prices are increasing due to the high demand.

I talked with someone at one of the major reloading shops and he said that all ammunition components have been, and are going, up, up, up. It appears that all of the bullet manufacturers save one, have jumped on the price-increase bandwagon. That one exception is Berger. Berger bullets used to be on the high end of the bullet pricing scale, but now, they are ne of the better values in the industry. My buddy said prices change so often that it makes coming out with a catelog an almost imposibility. TP

6BR,

I have been thinking the same stuff.. personally I think it is another industry that is taking a lesson in marketing and price fixing from the oil industry.... price fixing and monopolies are illegal, its just that our useless government won't enforce the laws on those two subjects...

James Calhoon hasn't raised prices on his bullets and also, Mid South and Grafs have bullets for varmint shooting in the reasonable price range.. Mid South you can order 2000 55 grain SPs for $100.00 and Grafs have their 55 grain SP bullets for about $59.00 per thousand..

I have been buying Hornady 75 grain HPs for around $10.00 a box for a long time.. now they are up to about $17.00 a box locally....

It is strictly price fixing.. it is always easy to blame somewhere far away, that no one can really check up... like we can call up the Chinese premier and verify this BS??? or the Chinese embassy???

I call it price gouging...

I've noticed how the bullets keep going up. I found one that doesn't seem to be going up is Speer.
The primers are climbing to. I just spend a certain amount and order less each time I order bullets to stay in that amount.

Went out on the ocean fishing localy yesterday for the first time in eight years. Use to go at least once a week. If the cost of shooting keeps escalating I may start going fishing again more often.

The other option might be to shoot less and talk about it more. roger

Three years ago, a metric ton of lead was $440. Last week it was $1600 (cash price).

Copper made a very similar jump.

Bullets are made from copper, zinc and lead.

Any other questions? JMO, Dutch.

Dutch, I realize prices of raw materials went up, but how much increase in say of "Incremental cost increase in RAW materials" in a box of bullets.

Hmmmm, .22 lb previous, now .80 lb for lead, so a jump of .58 lb, say times 2.85lbs, the weight of say a box of 200 gr bullets, (of which is not 100% lead....but for KISS) that is an increase in say 1.65 for a box of say 338 200 gr hornady's. My Price check showed recently 3-4 dollar INCREASE in PRODUCT price, vs say 1.65 increase in lead.

You tell me where is the extra costs coming from? I think Seafire Nailed it! We consumers are being gouged some in my opinion and no one is regulating.

I would think it would be a pendulum and prices might come back like Gas, esp. in this industry where shooting is more an option for most, as VERY few bullets get used either on game or to stop an attack by law enforcement, SO the DEMAND will come down as prices go up, and perhaps the mfg. and distributors will stop 'making excuses' for their price increase.

You have to admit, bullet prices and other components have FAR exceeeded inflation rate, just as say Leupold scopes, which is one primary reason I avoid buying any new scopes from them, and own 1 rifle scope and 2 pistol scopes, and replaced the rest with better value products that do not try gouging consumers.

Just a pet peeve. I noticed where once I was getting a brick of discount 22's at a local sports store was 6.99, they jumped to 9.99.

Lead in that brick coincidently weights 2.85lbs, so I would expect the price to have gone up by the 1.65 incremental increase, to say 8.65 if we factor it in, but it is higher.

I say we are being gouged to some extent and being given the excuse of material increase which is only part of the equation.

You can bet the industry is capitalizing on this opportunity now, just as others say electrical industry with Copper materials.

I guess it is America. Demand changes will turn the tide I believe in time, as the poster said he spends the same dollars, and gets less product. That means the companies will not in the long term grow their profits like they would have hoped for during this time.

I do believe that shooters in whole will scale back the volume of reloading and shooting as prices climb.

I will. Anybody care to comment on how price increases will affect their 'hobby?'

FWIW I read the other day that the primary rise in the price of copper was hoarding!!! Yes.....hoarding....quarters.....all the new quarters with the individual states prints on them. Many millions of folks are throwing a few of each in a desk drawer somehow thinking they'll be collectors for their great great grandchildren......and maybe they will!!!

The estimate I read is that there is a quarter million tons of copper sitting in desk drawers that is causing the treasury to buy copper to keep the circulation reasonable.

That may be total but I'm not buying any kind of conspiracy to raise prices. There's a lot of competition for my bullet money.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:

Hmmmm, .22 lb previous, now .80 lb for lead, so a jump of .58 lb, say times 2.85lbs, the weight of say a box of 200 gr bullets, (of which is not 100% lead....but for KISS) that is an increase in say 1.65 for a box of say 338 200 gr hornady's. My Price check showed recently 3-4 dollar INCREASE in PRODUCT price, vs say 1.65 increase in lead.

The prices you quote are for elemental lead, F.O.B. a major port. You have to add the cost of Antimony (substantial) to alloy it, the cost of turning it into lead wire which is what the bullet makers use. Then, you have to add the cost of inventory, etc, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: We consumers are being gouged some in my opinion and no one is regulating.

Perhaps you can find a good little communist somewhere to impose price controls?

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: You have to admit, bullet prices and other components have FAR exceeeded inflation rate, just as say Leupold scopes, which is one primary reason I avoid buying any new scopes from them, and own 1 rifle scope and 2 pistol scopes, and replaced the rest with better value products that do not try gouging consumers.

What's "the inflation rate" have to do with it? There's been a four fold increase in materials cost, and your cost has only gone up 25%?

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: Lead in that brick coincidently weights 2.85lbs, so I would expect the price to have gone up by the 1.65 incremental increase, to say 8.65 if we factor it in, but it is higher.

So, the increases in fuel, transportation, antimony, copper and retailer mark-up don't count?

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: I say we are being gouged to some extent and being given the excuse of material increase which is only part of the equation.

You can bet the industry is capitalizing on this opportunity now, just as others say electrical industry with Copper materials.

You know, if there is such a tremendous opportunity making a family fortune in bullets, I'd say, hock the family jewels and start a business popping those puppies out! With these prices, you'll be just rolling in the dough in a week. They make so much money, you probably only have to work for a month, and you can retire for life..............

Price increases will affect the hobby, but as long as I see guys in $40,000 pickups, with $25,000 campers and $16,000 in four-wheelers in the field, I don't think an extra four bucks for a brick of '22s is going to make much difference. JMO, Dutch.

Dutch,

So Dutch, If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that if lead goes up 4x, then so should the price of bullets.....by the same amount?

The costs of lead is but a fraction, yes there are other materials, and costs, but I think you missed my point.

There is not a 1:1 ratio of increase in price of raw material, vs the price of product.

Maybe that simplifies it.

From Asia Times Online 06/21/06
Please do some research before oral ejaculation.

SPEAKING FREELY
The Fed and the nickel dollar
By Wayne Jett

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

When 1971 began, US$35 would buy an ounce of gold. By the end of that year, the same amount of gold cost $70. In other words, the dollar had lost half its purchasing power as measured by gold.

By the end of 1972, an ounce of gold cost $140, and the dollar had lost an additional 50%. So the dollar at that time was worth a quarter of the dollar of two years earlier.

The dollar's devaluation in 1971 was not announced by then-



president Richard Nixon or by the US Department of the Treasury. But the devaluation was real, nonetheless. Just as real, in fact, as when the dollar was officially devalued in 1934 by order of president Franklin Roosevelt from $20.67 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce.

During 2003, gold cost about $350 an ounce, 10 times the price at the outset of 1971. The 1971 dollar had shrunk to a dime (the colloquial US name for a 10-cent coin) - a major devaluation of the currency. Yet the US government has not issued a single notice of devaluation during the 35 years since 1971. De facto devaluation has occurred, even though it once required a direct order by the president.

In 1973, the dollar's value was turned over to the Federal Reserve Board by order of Nixon. The Fed, as it is called, has managed the dollar so that its value "floats" in the market. By this approach, the Fed points to the market as determining the dollar's value. The truth is, however, the dollar's value is determined by the Fed's practices, not by the market.

The dollar is neither a commodity nor a product; its value is not determined by the cost of production or by utility. Its supply can be changed at the Fed's discretion, and demand for the dollar is often affected drastically by what the Fed says and does.

Consider, for example, what has occurred since 2003, when $350 bought one ounce of gold. In spring 2004, the Fed began spreading the word that its interest-rate target for Federal Reserve funds would be raised. Since June 2004, the Fed has raised the Funds Rate target 16 times, from 1% to 5%. This was done, most Fed observers say, to strengthen the dollar.

The rate hikes raised the interest payments made by consumers and by businesses using commercial paper by $155 billion per year. This drain of working capital from productive enterprises meant fewer resources available to hire people and to make products.

This is the Fed's intent, since the Fed's theory is that higher unemployment means fewer workers will demand higher wages that might push prices up. In pursuing its rate-hiking regimen, the Fed conveyed a message to the economy - month after month - that production and employment should be reduced.

But the Fed's rate hikes during this period have not strengthened the dollar. Quite the opposite is the case. Today, one ounce of gold costs more than $700. The dollar is no longer worth a dime compared with the 1971 dollar, as was the case in 2003. In other words, today's dollar is a nickel's worth of the 1971 dollar. ("Nickel" is the US colloquialism for the 5-cent coin, which originally was made of one part nickel and three parts copper.)

The dollar has lost half its value over the past three years; and with most of the loss occurring within the past 10 months, the dollar's fall is getting steeper. The Fed's theory and performance are failing badly.

Those who contend that the Fed is trying to make the dollar more valuable now urge faster, larger hikes in interest rates. They say the Fed waited too long to begin raising rates, and should be more aggressive. Others argue that a weak dollar allows US exporters to sell more goods and services abroad. They speak as if the Fed has been seeking that objective and is achieving it with the weaker dollar.

Even with its new, plain-speaking chairman, Ben Bernanke, the Fed is not saying whether it is trying to increase or to reduce the dollar's value. But definitely the Fed is using a theoretical model that intends to reduce price increases (ie, strengthen the dollar) by raising the level of unemployment. The Fed calls it the Consensus New Keynesian Model, but in essence it is the modified Phillips Curve model. The Phillips Curve, named after New Zealand-born economist Alban William Phillips (1914-75), describes an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment; graphically, this appears as a curve sloping downward and to the right, with inflation on the vertical axis and unemployment on the horizontal axis.

This being the case, the Fed's theoretical model is most certainly invalid. The dollar's instant purchasing power relative to gold is the lowest since 1980, which was the dollar's worst year in history, despite two years of Funds Rate hikes.

The Fed's rate hikes have weakened the dollar, along with economic growth, by reducing demand for dollars to invest. That creates excess dollars the Fed does nothing to drain. So the Fed itself is causing monetary inflation. This explains the Fed's reputation for overshooting: rate hikes produce inflation that chases rates higher.

Throughout history, gold has been an unerring measure of a currency's value. The present high gold price means the dollar is worth very little now. General prices will have to be adjusted higher in the next 10 years, probably more than 5% annually, if the dollar's value is not restored promptly.

In 1979, gold was at $280 an ounce and rising. Fed chairman Paul Volcker at the time thought the circumstances were so bad he gave up trying to manipulate interest rates to help the dollar. Unfortunately, Volcker chose an unwise theory (monetarism) that made matters much worse.

This year, gold has touched $725 an ounce and is rising faster than in 1979. Again, the Fed must abandon its interest-rate targeting. Time is of the essence. This time the Fed should apply tried and proven classical principles by targeting a value for the dollar as reflected by a price for gold. The Fed can reach the target by selling its Treasury bonds to remove dollars from the economy.

The target price should be between $375 and $450 an ounce, which would cause the least price displacement in the economies of the United States and the rest of the world. The precise gold-price target is not as important as the dollar's stability. Lack of a floor under the dollar is what dropped the floor from under stock and bond prices during the stock-market crash of 1987.

Wayne Jett is managing principal and chief economist of Classical Capital LLC, a registered investment adviser in Pasadena, California.

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch:

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:

Hmmmm, .22 lb previous, now .80 lb for lead, so a jump of .58 lb, say times 2.85lbs, the weight of say a box of 200 gr bullets, (of which is not 100% lead....but for KISS) that is an increase in say 1.65 for a box of say 338 200 gr hornady's. My Price check showed recently 3-4 dollar INCREASE in PRODUCT price, vs say 1.65 increase in lead.

The prices you quote are for elemental lead, F.O.B. a major port. You have to add the cost of Antimony (substantial) to alloy it, the cost of turning it into lead wire which is what the bullet makers use. Then, you have to add the cost of inventory, etc, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: We consumers are being gouged some in my opinion and no one is regulating.

Perhaps you can find a good little communist somewhere to impose price controls?

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: You have to admit, bullet prices and other components have FAR exceeeded inflation rate, just as say Leupold scopes, which is one primary reason I avoid buying any new scopes from them, and own 1 rifle scope and 2 pistol scopes, and replaced the rest with better value products that do not try gouging consumers.

What's "the inflation rate" have to do with it? There's been a four fold increase in materials cost, and your cost has only gone up 25%?

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: Lead in that brick coincidently weights 2.85lbs, so I would expect the price to have gone up by the 1.65 incremental increase, to say 8.65 if we factor it in, but it is higher.

So, the increases in fuel, transportation, antimony, copper and retailer mark-up don't count?

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR: I say we are being gouged to some extent and being given the excuse of material increase which is only part of the equation.

You can bet the industry is capitalizing on this opportunity now, just as others say electrical industry with Copper materials.

You know, if there is such a tremendous opportunity making a family fortune in bullets, I'd say, hock the family jewels and start a business popping those puppies out! With these prices, you'll be just rolling in the dough in a week. They make so much money, you probably only have to work for a month, and you can retire for life..............

Price increases will affect the hobby, but as long as I see guys in $40,000 pickups, with $25,000 campers and $16,000 in four-wheelers in the field, I don't think an extra four bucks for a brick of '22s is going to make much difference. JMO, Dutch.

A great post

Was driving down the interstate today and passed a couple of pickups--one extended cab 4WD diesel pulling a triple axle trailer with 4 ATVs, and the second in the convoy was "only" an extended cab with the bed full of camp gear. The place they's headed to hunt didn't come free, and they's paying the same price for gas/diesel as the rest of us. So--you're right, $4 for the plinking rounds is less than chump change.

Didn't 6.5BR just tell us that a brick 22's should cost the same as 2.85lb. of lead? Come on! Ammuniition and gun guys aren't getting together for a vast conspiracy to turn you away from shooting and thus close their own doors forever.

As an officer in our local gun club, the increases in prices for components really hits home. Our members are constantly asking why the price increase? I show them the cost hikes for shipping vs what they were several years ago and they seem to understand.
Yeah, raw materials have increased in cost, but the cost for shipping has skyrocketed.

FWIW, I can attest to the increased cost of metals, especially the more exotic ones- scrappers, also, are pursuing any amount of alloyed steel at a price due to scarcity.

Dutch, you are right about the guys who drive 40k trucks, etc, but I am not one of them. Obviously there is not equal distribution of wealth in the country. And No, a few dollars won't break the bank, but speaking for myself as I am sure I must be the only one that feels this way-I will shoot less often as prices go up.

To Vapodog, to address my comment on inflation, I was thinking about how mfg. like Leupold has had an extraordinarily high price mark up annually till they price differential has about been eliminated between them and say Swarovski and other high end Euro scopes.

I would personally rather buy a quality product at a reasonable price by a company that does not routinely engage in the practice of raising prices so often, by so much. I find other values out there in other brands, and simply do not wish to support companies that price hike in the interest of excess greed. FWIW, I hear Leupold may jump prices 30% this coming year and establish 'fixed pricing', and keep in mind that I am just passing on what I heard.........

That is just me, trying to make the most of my hard earned dollar and realize everyone is different in their means.

Enjoy the sport however you see fit. If all shooters did not mind paying much higher prices, then I guess when the mfg. figured that out, they would really increase prices.....and then I would have to shoot much less. This economy/market is all about charging the consumer whatever the market will bear and I do believe the oil industry pushed the envelope to determine what the consumer would be willing to pay for gas, and not change the consumption.

I guess some here never thought twice about the increases in gas prices? I did, but I guess if I could afford the 40k truck, I should be affording to fuel it too.

Well I appreciate all the feedback, as it gave me more insight into the metals market, and consumers perceptions. Thanks for the replies.

Time to start collecting wheel weights and learn the art of bullet casting!

On the news tonight , metal prices are forcast to take a substansial fall in the next 12 months, copper as much as 30%, bad news for share holders in mining stocks ,maybe good news for shooters.

While I am no expert on Global or National economies, as a bullet maker, I can tell all off you experts that copper jacket prices doubled in the last 12 mos. Anyone who is in business can understand what an increase like that does to a profit margin.

Eddie, I sympathize with your being a business owner and being caught up in having to raise prices to pass on the inflation.

I never said or thought getting into any area of this industry was easy, or easily lucrative. My family has a mfg business in it, so I know. Me, I went another path.

Darwinmauser, it seems plausible as Gold will likely take a correction as real estate and many other 'investments' that have overshot values that are sustainable. Gold has sporadically had runs like these and they are sometimes far between, and the 'average returns' are actually quite low vs. stocks OVER TIME. I worked in the financial industry at one time, and seen it. The pendulum swings as everything is in motion. Nice to hear a possible pull back in prices for the consumer, HOPEFULLY the industry adjusts prices back as prices settle back down. If that bears out, investors might lock in profits now.

Not only have the costs of raw materials risen, but the cost of shipping those raw materials has risen, and the energy used by the companies that manufacture the final products has also risen. The folks working for those companies that make bullets need to get paid enough to keep gas in their vehicles to drive to work, and once again they have to pay to ship those bullets to a gunstore.

I have a hard time believing the shooting sports companies are gouging, rather they are passing on the higher cost of their doing business.

speaking as a man in a metal business, we go through tons of copper every year. a bit over a year ago our base price was about 1.73 per lb. now its at 5.83. BUT that being a big hit is not the major one. The costs in business caused by insurance and govt. demands are a driving influence. The word "safety" probably costs our firm some 50,000 per year in training (this for for about 20 men). the fact that these men have been doing the job safely for years has no effect on govt. they demand classes which teach such things as not to jump off a forklift when it is running. In the case of bullets, customers demand accuracy in the nth degree. this cannot be accomplished on the old machinery, so new machines are boughten - not given away. Insurance bills have averaged about a 20-25% jump every year for the last 4-5 years.
All this isn't to say that there isn't some price gouging going on, but it is my belief that the small manufacturers (such as in out hobby) don't have the chance to do it, rather the big guys can.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul H:

I have a hard time believing the shooting sports companies are gouging, rather they are passing on the higher cost of their doing business.

Paul, not to pick on you specifically, but what is the difference between gouging and charging what the market will bear?

If there is no difference, what is wrong with charging what the market will bear? Dutch.

As a consumer, my purchasing habits changes with Leupold as they 'priced as they wanted', gouging seems to apply more if the whole industry is charging far in excess of costs increases. As an investor, or a business owner, short term profits may increase, but long term loyalty may not.

What Leupold has done is create opportunity with other brands to offer similar quality/better quality products at attractive prices. Market forces is often a good equalizer.