TZaun
Gold $$ Contributor
Same part number as what I have and I think I’ve had mine since my light rifle days about 20 years ago?
Why does USA not have a target 22LR ammo that will compete ?
- Thread starter Westex
- Start date
TZaun
Gold $$ Contributor
I acquired a brick and a half of the UM1B a while back. I don’t believe I’ll ever shoot it just because I know Launi Meili and Bob Foth and Bob shared the story about how they helped develop the ammo that Launi won Gold with and Bob won Silver with in the ‘92 Olympics.
TRSR8
Silver $$ Contributor
First off, across several forums it seems lots of guys that simply miss conditions love to call “flyer” Without a clue.
That said, these days myself and most guys I see shoot Midas for the last 4-5 years.
Personally, I have not had what I’d call a true flyer in that time covering about 6 lots.
bennett ford
Gold $$ Contributor
Every time this thread reappears, I wish I had recorded Lones Wigger holding forth on Federal's development of world class rimfire ammo. The management could not believe how much testing and downgrading of different runs was necessary to guarantee success. National Pride was all that was at stake. Eley Red Box was getting most of the jewelry and smallbore competition was in decline.
As Bennett Ford says, American businesses generally have to be pragmatic at some point.
Two areas of pragmatism come to mind in the best .22 ammo. Size of the market, and whether we can make better high end ammo, even if we undertake the challenge at a loss.
It doesn’t take shooters very long to sort out results from best to worst, so whether we can make better ammo than say Lapua, really is the first consideration. Just a fact that we do not attempt to make those finest six figure handcrafted breech guns, or most costly optics, automatic watches, cars, clothes, furnishings, accessories, and so on, here.
As to machine made precise high technology like advanced chips, same result, abroad. While the diminutive round is inexpensive to make “adequately well” it may require extreme attention to detail and machinery to make “exceedingly” well.
The reality is we may presently lack the equipment and the skilled workforce to make it as well, regardless of profitability. We cannot identify an aspirational competing line at a price point or quality level that is a mismatch and fool anyone if the ammo doesn’t perform. Being smart enough to reassemble the gear train of a watch without damaging the parts is not the same as being able to produce the watch.
As to market forces, a few people being deeply or even obsessively interested in chasing the very best is not as lucrative as high number being just interested enough to actually buy it, or a notch below it. Winchester claimed to lose money on every Morel 52. Remington had to relinquish the .22 40-X.
A board can recognize a halo product’s value if profitability at a wider level is already a given. But putting the best human and mechanical resources of a big company into a narrow bandwidth of its output to break even or make less money than they could produce in a different department is not capitalism where the public gets a return on investment. That kind of thinking pertains to proprietorships, purists and family businesses answerable just to themselves, - all far more akin, if we’re being honest to old world values than our dear price to earnings mentality.
Two areas of pragmatism come to mind in the best .22 ammo. Size of the market, and whether we can make better high end ammo, even if we undertake the challenge at a loss.
It doesn’t take shooters very long to sort out results from best to worst, so whether we can make better ammo than say Lapua, really is the first consideration. Just a fact that we do not attempt to make those finest six figure handcrafted breech guns, or most costly optics, automatic watches, cars, clothes, furnishings, accessories, and so on, here.
As to machine made precise high technology like advanced chips, same result, abroad. While the diminutive round is inexpensive to make “adequately well” it may require extreme attention to detail and machinery to make “exceedingly” well.
The reality is we may presently lack the equipment and the skilled workforce to make it as well, regardless of profitability. We cannot identify an aspirational competing line at a price point or quality level that is a mismatch and fool anyone if the ammo doesn’t perform. Being smart enough to reassemble the gear train of a watch without damaging the parts is not the same as being able to produce the watch.
As to market forces, a few people being deeply or even obsessively interested in chasing the very best is not as lucrative as high number being just interested enough to actually buy it, or a notch below it. Winchester claimed to lose money on every Morel 52. Remington had to relinquish the .22 40-X.
A board can recognize a halo product’s value if profitability at a wider level is already a given. But putting the best human and mechanical resources of a big company into a narrow bandwidth of its output to break even or make less money than they could produce in a different department is not capitalism where the public gets a return on investment. That kind of thinking pertains to proprietorships, purists and family businesses answerable just to themselves, - all far more akin, if we’re being honest to old world values than our dear price to earnings mentality.
Last edited:
dgeesaman
Gold $$ Contributor
Adding to what davidjoe said very well:
One other pragmatic thing that hasn’t been mentioned: human capital.
At my work we handle machinery orders with custom requests. We get some potential customers who write detailed and exotic specs and we take exception to the goofy items when we bid. Their response is to challenge us and say “I don’t think this is that difficult.” As if it was an exception because we were psyched out or afraid or didn’t know what to do. In fact we didn’t take exception because it was difficult or impossible - but it may be very far from our standard supply chain and standard processes and their order does not justify the human capital required to close those gaps. Not to mention that no other customers will be interested in that capability. I’d love to tell those customers “you alone don’t justify this kind of effort from our best people” or “this isn’t worth taking our best people off of their core responsibilities, or to hire new people to focus on this” but of course that won’t ever happen.
Companies are trying to hire and in highly technical fields they’re not able to fill those positions. They also can’t internally train new people on skill sets that the company doesn’t yet have.
Likewise, if a company like CCI has aligned their processes, supply chains, marketing, retailers, equipment, customer base, and internal experts to high volume production, then it simply doesn’t work to ask the same system to leapfrog over and start producing the worlds highest quality product. So while it sounds like they just need to buy some more machines and ease off the line speed, it’s so much more than that.
One other pragmatic thing that hasn’t been mentioned: human capital.
At my work we handle machinery orders with custom requests. We get some potential customers who write detailed and exotic specs and we take exception to the goofy items when we bid. Their response is to challenge us and say “I don’t think this is that difficult.” As if it was an exception because we were psyched out or afraid or didn’t know what to do. In fact we didn’t take exception because it was difficult or impossible - but it may be very far from our standard supply chain and standard processes and their order does not justify the human capital required to close those gaps. Not to mention that no other customers will be interested in that capability. I’d love to tell those customers “you alone don’t justify this kind of effort from our best people” or “this isn’t worth taking our best people off of their core responsibilities, or to hire new people to focus on this” but of course that won’t ever happen.
Companies are trying to hire and in highly technical fields they’re not able to fill those positions. They also can’t internally train new people on skill sets that the company doesn’t yet have.
Likewise, if a company like CCI has aligned their processes, supply chains, marketing, retailers, equipment, customer base, and internal experts to high volume production, then it simply doesn’t work to ask the same system to leapfrog over and start producing the worlds highest quality product. So while it sounds like they just need to buy some more machines and ease off the line speed, it’s so much more than that.
Last edited:
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.
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.