• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Do Certain Members of the Shooting Industry Owe Fiduciary Duty?

......
I've been at the reloading game for 42 years and in all that time, even before Al Gore invented the internet, I have been able to either find what I need in factory pressure tested data or by using intelligence from knowledge I gathered thru various books and smart people I knew to get the job done without blowing a finger off or shooting an eye out.

If you are going to brag about your intelligence in the form of an extremely lengthy sentence, you might try parsing your syntax to be sure it conveys a cohesive
thought... I found this particular passage extremely unwieldy: "....by using intelligence from knowledge I gathered thru various books and smart people I knew"
I did remark to my new buddy at Barnes that for some reason the Hodgdon website app would not progress beyond the drop down cartridge selection menu. Might have been my computer operating system which is a Linux derivative. Why my new buddy did not mention the info was on the Barnes site or provide a link for me, the dumb customer, I really can't imagine...
 
News Flash! S&W no longer has parts for the original Model 19 nor can they replace the adjustable sight on any revolver that has the "squared-off" sight cut on the top strap. Times change, powders change, bullets change; everything changes! Face the fact that most of these companies provide load data as a convenience and not as a revenue stream. They don't really "owe" you or I anything except the gratitude for us spending our money on their products. I would rather, at this point, have them spend their dollars converting all the data out there to PSI so we could have data that is consistent across the board than have them coming up with new loads for the, 219 Wasp with CFE223 or the like of other new powders.

The bullet and powder companies provide load data in order to sell their product. Of course, being "retired from the firearms industry" you likely have no idea about product sales in the real world. Gun nuts are simpletons with credit cards when it comes to buying stuff they think they need.

Hodgdon in point, if their new powders are "like 3031, 4064, 4350, and H-1000, but not temperature sensitive" why not have them formulated EXACTLY to the burn/pressure characteristics of those powders so as to be interchangeable? Seems like it would benefit all their customers who use those powders, and enable the industry to make a move forward... maybe they will, but seems unlikely.

How many hundred varieties of smokeless powder can be foisted on the market? Bulletmakers can't evaluate them all. Retailers can't sell them all.

I see "The Industry" as something special since it is so intertwined with toolmakers, bulletmakers, cartridge makers, powder sellers/blenders, and primer manufacturers. The Industry needs to work together to enable the customer base to grow and for manufacturers to supply what customers want to buy and shoot.
 
Speaking of lead.....and available data.

Over the last 20? years,there's been a huge increase in the number of mould makers"on the mrkt".To include co's that have design software that basically allows the consumer to have custom built.....pretty much anything he/she can think up?

Data?What data....you designed it,you figure it out.Just sayin,technology outpaced testing.
 
The criticism I make is valid. This is not just about loads for my Ruger with Sierra or Barnes bullets.
Sierra seems to recycle the same data for many of the same old tired ctgs.

History aside, how many shooters are still hot for these:
218 Bee,
219 Zipper, Donaldson Wasp
.222 rem mag
.224 wby mag
.225 win
6mm Int'l
.244 Rem
.256 win
6.5 Arisaka, Mannlicher, Rem Mag
7mm BR (if you have one of these and need a set of new, unused dies Very Cheap, pm me.)
7mm Sharpe & Hart
7.7 ...
I can almost guarantee there are way more of these guns on the market then the 375 Ruger. Companies can't do them all. They don't have the time or resources to test everything. As far as the 300 Ultra goes there are a lot more of them around then you tend to think. It is a very popular long range and elk cartridge. I know of quite a few around here. In fact all my buddies own at least one. I know of nobody that has a 375 Ruger. All you have to do is start low and work up like everybody has done for along time. Matt
 
Most Manufactures carry third party Liability Insurance. Their Insurance companies require manufactures adhere to SAAMI/CIP as well as have an Engineers PE stamp on their designs. Some calibers take years to get SAAMI approval and listing. There are testing parameters required that take extensive lab time.
Nat Lambeth
 
Funny how, when someone realizes they really have no basis or backing for their arguments, they stoop to calling others out for "bad grammar" and assail their "real world" knowledge.
Your summation of the "gun nuts" ignorance is enlightening to all of us on this forum.
Sorry if I offended your apparent Ivy League command of the english language. Also sorry for making a career of enabling gun-nut simpletons.
Just go on about harping on the fiduciary responsibility of others while ignoring your own sir.
 
So far, of all the cartridges listed on this thread, I personally know people who load exactly three of them. One man's "popular" round is another's curiosity.
 
So far, of all the cartridges listed on this thread, I personally know people who load exactly three of them. One man's "popular" round is another's curiosity.
You must not know many people or be from Californy. A lot of those guns around here. Just not 375 Ruger. The 300 Ultra is pretty popular. I know of at least a dozen within 10 miles. Now this is country setting where sometimes especially you drive a mile or more to a house. I can also guarantee the safes are sitting full of a lot of guns on that list. I also see no loads hardly published for the guns on that list in most new reloading manuals. If they stopped to make loads for all the powder and cartridges they wouldn't have any time to make bullets. Matt
 
Capitalism. Whether bullet, powder, or gun don't buy it if the package including product and information is insufficient to meet your needs. Sales drives suppliers, and those who meet the needs will prosper. The last thing we need is another government mandated whatever.
 
Please don't think I am relegating a lot of the "old calibers" to obsolescence because I am not. Neither is the industry. The cold hard fact is the industry often has trouble keeping up with demand for current products. How can ammo manufacturers keep up with the recent demands for 22LR, 223 and the like plus make new ammo for the 218 Bee? Pretty much impossible without great investment in new facilities and equipment. Once they do spend the dollars and take the, in many cases, years to get things built, tested and staffed the "run" is over.
I've helped lots of friends get their old Martini 218 Bee or 219 Wasp up and running but I've helped way more of them get the 6MM Creedmoor or 223 Ackley Imp shooting well and doing it safely.
 
Speaking of lead.....and available data.

Over the last 20? years,there's been a huge increase in the number of mould makers"on the mrkt".To include co's that have design software that basically allows the consumer to have custom built.....pretty much anything he/she can think up?

Data?What data....you designed it,you figure it out.Just sayin,technology outpaced testing.

To what degree do cast boolits or customer designed molds have anything to do with jacketed bulletmakers or powder sellers?

I will admit that I don't know much about the smokeless powder market. I do know that Hercules, now Alliant is/was a manufacturer of powder and other explosives, but are Hodgdon's and Accurate? From what I understand, many powders are imported, like Varget and they can be made to order for different burn/pressure rates. Hodgdon got their start by selling surplus rifle powder and powders from de-milled ammunition.

As far as cast boolit handloading goes, the old standby loads of 10gr of Unique is kind of a joke; but usually is ballpark for nice mild velocity which is conducive to accuracy in the cast world. Hardcast boolits are viable at much greater velocities, but not typically delivering groups worth bragging about.


It is one thing to make and sell shooting gear and accoutrement, another to make and sell propellant and projectiles. Improper use of a scopesight, riflestock, and other gear will not contribute to a 60,000 PSI or greater destructive event if they are not properly utilized. Some bullet designs do engage more rifling area thus raising pressures significantly when compared to other bullets of different design but same weight. No two powders are "the same", except maybe H-110 & Win 296, which are re-branded. Powders of same construction can vary significantly by Lot #s.

To the degree that bulletmakers and powder sellers market their product to the individual handloader/reloader market, they should be expected to provide Guidelines For Proper Use of their product. In the not so recent past, this was Loading Data published in manual format which also contained basic and sometimes advanced (Sierra) instructions for safe loading procedures.

It is NOT safe loading procedure to trade load data as if it were an apple pie recipe.

The fact that anyone who might claim to be an informed user of ammunition loading products is unable to understand that sellers of dangerous products owe a duty to their customers to provide data for safe use of their product just establishes that such persons are dysfunctionally ignorant.


My own observation is that the Shooting Sports Industry is no longer the friendly place where all involved were first shooters and afficionados seeking to further develop and advance their knowledge and abilities. The business is now too big and there's too much money at stake to serve customers, so customers now need to utilize products only within the range of use manufacturer/reseller intended. This is seen with gun manufacturers voiding warranties when handloaded ammunition is used in their products and with the examples shown of bulletmakers and powder sellers not providing complete data for currently manufactured and popular cartridges.
 
It sounds like you should stick to purchasing factory ammo if you aren't willing to accept the risk associated with reloading.

It is clear you have an agenda. Ignoring freely available data doesn't mean it's not available.

Feel free to continue your crusade to bring down the Industry, but don't be surprised if you find yourself in a lonely position.....
 
Firearms typically don't become worthless, the way an old computer of boombox radio does. Maybe these items aren't actually worthless as they are just no longer esteemed by their owners and thus get sent to the landfill. Nobody I know of collects old cathode ray monitors, but rifles from earlier eras and chambered for formerly cutting edge cartridges are still esteemed by owners or would be by a new buyer. They can be loaded and enjoyed.

That said, do any of the cartridges listed above in my post, which were taken from Sierra 5 ed. 4, enjoy the popularity they did when the Winchester 64 lever action was produced, or Martini actions were the hot item for the cutting edge rimmed varmint cartridges? Any gun manufacturer chambering even a nostalgia series for those ctgs? .225win is a pretty cool number, but... aside from maybe a rebarrel job on a Win 70 that some guy is committed to; how many you think have been chambered in the past 40 years.

If the bullet companies aren't doing ongoing load development for new cartridges as they are introduced, what are they doing? In Barnes #3, they transposed the data for .338rum and .300rum. Pretty pathetic that they could let that get by the proof-reader; but maybe they pay somebody who isn't a handloader and so cannot see the error?

Does Sierra see themselves with one foot in the graveyard of cartridge popularity? Seems like they ought be trying to stay cutting edge...

As far as powder sellers, IF (big if), they are bringing powders to the market without working with bulletmakers, I condemn them for irresponsibility and negligence.
 
If I recall correctly the .375 Ruger was a collaboration between Ruger and Hornady. Between the two they claimed the cartridge made the .375 H&H obsolete. Hornady is in the ammunition business and pushed that ammo out the door as fast as they could when Ruger introduced the chambering. If the onus for keeping reloading information up to date falls on any reloading component manufacturer , it is Hornady.
 
It is very revealing to see the comments here. Many show their lack of reading comprehension and proclivity to jump to false conclusions spawned by their ignorance.

Yeah, I'm seeking to "bring down the industry", LOL... Maybe a notch, if you think it is detrimental to raise the bar back to what it was in years past in terms of bulletmaker and powder seller delivery of data and technical information for users.

Just really a tell when some guy with all sorts of credentials (he's listed them to prove he's an expert!) shows failure to comprehend the subject matter.


Much of the pricing models for bullets and powders was developed at a time when these firms DID a great deal on ongoing technical research for product applications and DID make much of that available to their customers. IF they are no longer following that model for research and advancing their product and customers ability to use their product, then they are cheating their customers...

Of course, those who compete or put their lives at risk by using these products don't want to understand the variables. Isolation of variables, especially having any psychological issues like doubt or need for further evaluation might weigh on their competitive psyche and abilities. Does this translate to willful ignorance?

No matter how many variables a competitor or match shooter isolates, there is always The Wind.... How real is it to expect that no matter how careful and expert the rifleman with best tools and methods; all variables except externals are controlled? To what degree do you have to "believe" to shoot your best?

Then again, what is a "belief" if you can't challenge it or develop it into Knowing?
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,428
Messages
2,195,450
Members
78,895
Latest member
BrightCut
Back
Top