Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 187

Thread: What's wrong with stores/manufacturers/industry and 6.8?

  1. #171
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    8,431
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    What 6.8 needs to take off is a lower price gap with 5.56mm. Sort of like the difference between 40 S&W and 9mm.
    I agree, because the bulk of the market is training and plinking and people cringe at 1 buck per bang. I know I do. If you really go out and do precision shooting, its not that bad. But most want to do a mag dump here and there.

    The more I have studied the round, and limited shooting of the round, the more I am impressed. I have a 12.5 gun, I may trade one of my uppers at some point for a 6.8 UPPER. I would like a 16 or 18 inch gun. I have an 18 WOA RIFLE in 5.56 that I wouldn't might duplicating in 6.8SPC.

    PB
    "Air Force / Policeman / Fireman / Man of God / Friend of mine / R.I.P. Steve Lamy"

  2. #172
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,347
    Feedback Score
    0
    6.8 mm sweet spot is in the 12-16" range...

  3. #173
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    914
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I hoped the Remington UMC 6.8 ammo was going to be priced much lower than ~ $1 per round, however, at this point this is not the case.

    SSA's training ammo is "only" $0.80 per bang. Not cheap, but compared to $1 per you get one free round for every five bangs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pappabear View Post
    I agree, because the bulk of the market is training and plinking and people cringe at 1 buck per bang. I know I do. If you really go out and do precision shooting, its not that bad. But most want to do a mag dump here and there.

  4. #174
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0

  5. #175
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    914
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Well that just cost me $385 plus shipping

    Thanks for the link!


    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post

  6. #176
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    That SSA ammo is not ORM-D shippable.

    According to code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 173 - 173.63, only 22 rimfire may be bulk packed.

  7. #177
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    914
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    That SSA ammo is not ORM-D shippable.

    According to code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 173 - 173.63, only 22 rimfire may be bulk packed.
    I believe this pertains to loose packaging, not secured bulk packaging:
    173.63...
    (2) Packaging for cartridges, small arms, and cartridges power devices as ORM–D material must be as follows:

    (i) Ammunition must be packed in inside boxes, or in partitions which fit snugly in the outside packaging, or in metal clips;
    (ii) Primers must be protected from accidental initiation;
    (iii) Inside boxes, partitions or metal clips must be packed in securely-closed strong outside packagings;
    (iv) Maximum gross weight is limited to 30 kg (66 pounds) per package; and
    (v) Cartridges, power devices which are used to project fastening devices and 22 caliber rim-fire cartridges may be packaged loose in strong outside packagings.

  8. #178
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    (i) Ammunition must be packed in inside boxes, or in partitions which fit snugly in the outside packaging, or in metal clips;
    (ii) Primers must be protected from accidental initiation;
    Last edited by rsilvers; 07-07-11 at 18:27.

  9. #179
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    914
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I noticed that. I guess one could make the case that the primers are not well protected.

    OTOH, many resellers ship bulk packed 5.56 and I have purchased a lot of it, e.g., Natchez, PSA, Widener's, Ammoman, Ammo to Go, et. al.

  10. #180
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    Falsely marking packages as ORM-D, but that do not meet ORM-D safety standards, is a serious offense. The fine is up to $27,500 per violation (per shipment).

Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •