Letter to and Response from Editor at Guns and Ammo

[Landshark9025]

First off, I am not looking to troll or just stir up a pot of indignation, but I saw something in the April issue of Guns and Ammo that kind of irked me. I thought I would write a letter to them, but figured one from me would do little good. Several from a few of us might cause the editor to rethink his position. And that's what I'd like to encourage- him to just re-think.

As you are likely aware, Federal has re-released "Syntech" coated ammo. Now, I don't doubt they had a few challenges to overcome to go to mass market. We've said here "Powder coat is not a substitute for poor fit." They had to come up with something that would work in 9mm barrels that measured .355 as well as the "looser" ones at .358. Plus the issues with mass production. And so on. So, good on 'em. (I still think they are way too expensive though.)

Recently G&A did an article on it, and this month in the "letters to the editor" there was one from a guy asking where he could find more information about "IPSC shooters using a spray polymer coating".

Mr. Sweeney's response is as follows:
"The crux of the matter, as the early experimenters discovered, is volume of production. There just isn't any aerosol (or equivalent) process that allows you to economically coat a small batch of bullets. As soon as those first experimenters proved the idea had some promise, they set about to making it a high-volume process. Unless you can find a way to coat 10,000 bullets for a penny each or less in an afternoon, there is just no monetary advantage in it. Doing it yourself is just too much extra work."

I guess what stuck in my craw are the statements:

There isn't a process that allows you to economically coat a small batch of bullets.
10,000 in an afternoon
Too much extra work


So, long before polycase, IPSC and others were shooting traditionally lubed bullets and I GUARANTEE they weren't cranking them out at the rate of 10,000 in an afternoon. I have a Star, and while it is not air powered or have an autodrive, I think 1,000 an hour is pushing it. I doubt many have modified it to double that production and can keep it fed well enough to do so.

And as far as "small batch economically"....you can do 50 bullets in 30 min (10 to preheat and DT, 10 to bake and 10 to cool) and the cost would be almost nothing. The oven is the limiting factor there. MAYBE one tenth of a cent per bullet?

And as far as too much work? Without really optimizing my process, I am good for about 400 an hour. Which is laughable to some of you. :-P

So, here we have a "respected member of the community" who, when asked by an inquiring mind, gave them information that was erroneous at best and misleading at worst. And since it was in print, there's no way to "reply to comment".

I ask, is it worth several of us responding to Mr. Sweeney (respectfully of course), and letting him know that while we appreciate Federal's new line, even they would acknowledge the work that has come before, and encourage him to post a followup comment with directions to this board? He might appreciate being exposed to a whole new branch of the community.
http://www.outdoorsg.com/about/contact/

If I did not know about this board but saw his comment, I'd write off any efforts to give it a try. And I'd miss out on a lot of fun and fugality in the process.

Thanks

[JSnover]

What they're looking for is economy of scale, if you offered to do 400 per hour for Federal's SynTech line let they'd laugh at you. Doing it yourself, for your own use is not the same thing as doing it on a commercial scale for nationwide sales.
Mr. Sweeney told you what they want: 10,000 in an afternoon at a penny apiece. Every day. Are you up to that challenge?
Doing it yourself is worthwhile or it isn't, depending on what you want. That's why some shooters don't hand load, some hand loaders don't cast and some casters don't pan lube.

[ballcap]

Once a hobby is a business, it's no longer a hobby.

[Landshark9025]

Hey @jsnover, Thanks for the response.

I agree, at first I thought he was referring to Federal when he mentioned that quantity- but I am sure they put out much more than that! The more I read it, the more I realized the way it is worded it isn't for mass production. The point he is basically making is "You can't do it economically yourself, so you might as well buy them." And that is the message I take issue with. It's not about competing with Federal for market share- just individual use.

That said, I would imagine that if you are competing at the level where you need 10,000 in short order- and on a regular basis, Federal or Freedom are shipping completed rounds to you gratis.

Thanks,


What they're looking for is economy of scale, if you offered to do 400 per hour for Federal's SynTech line let they'd laugh at you. Doing it yourself, for your own use is not the same thing as doing it on a commercial scale for nationwide sales.
Mr. Sweeney told you what they want: 10,000 in an afternoon at a penny apiece. Every day. Are you up to that challenge?
Doing it yourself is worthwhile or it isn't, depending on what you want. That's why some shooters don't hand load, some hand loaders don't cast and some casters don't pan lube.

[Motor]

It's not the first time and certainly won't be the last time that someone who should know better just simply does not have a clue.

These guys are so busy with the business of selling their magazines and getting advertising that they lose touch with what's going on in the very thing that they are supposed to be covering.

Respectfully or not this bozo needs a wake-up call.

Motor

[Echd]

I suppose my personal issue with this is that they are probably shilling (let's be absolutely honest, that's what the gun rags do- they shill and advertise, not review) the federal ammo, without consideration for the coated bullets that are already on the market and have been for years.

Federal may- and probably does- have a more efficient process for whatever their requirement is, but handloaders all over the nation are well supplied now by a huge amount of bullet coating shops- most of which have sprung up in just the past few years.

[Walter Laich]

People will put whatever 'spin' they need to make their product look like it's the latest and greatest.

Model airplane magazines are the same way. Advertisers pay for much of the production costs and they want to have their products in a starring role.

We'll just keep pc-ing our bullets and let them write their rags

[Landshark9025]

Motor and Walter: You're likely right and, while I'm not so naïve as to think there's no correlation between the number of ads a company buys and the tone of the reviews of their product, I guess I am naïve enough to think that an editor wouldn't write a response with malice. Meaning, they wouldn't be thinking "How can I discourage this person from doing research so they just give up and go to my advertisers?" That might be a bit TOO cynical on my part. I'll chalk this up to Mr. Sweeney just not taking adequate time to research.

Echd: You're probably right. Somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards shilling. And as long as there are companies like Bayou Bullets, those who wish to use bullets that are coated in some fashion can find economical sources, for sure.

Just sad to see people steered in the wrong direction.

[DerekP Houston]

TBH he does make a good point about it being labor intensive. I use PC for pretty colors and test batches, but if I want to coat 5-10lbs of boolits I still use hi-tek tumbling.

[matrixcs]

We should all remember that the advertisers are going to be given preferential treatment (they have the money) even when it distorts the truth...
I would not expect them to say in the article that you could make the poly coated bullets yourself for cheap......
G&A has done lots worse in the past......

[Landshark9025]

Good points, all. 'course I'd wager lunch that he doesn't know the difference between HF Red and Hi-Tek.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I only read G&A to see what Craig Boddington wrote each issue. Even Handloader and Rifle have gotten pretty useless the past five or six years.

I saw a magzine at the grocery store yesterday with the headline "Five knives you have absolutely got to have for TEOTWAWKI...". I found out that means "The End of The World as We Know it".

I hope you guys are ready...

[SSGOldfart]

I guess a letter writing campaign wouldn't do any good,What they don't know could fill volumes, next month they will be telling use not to use coated bullets unless they are from Federal,which I don't think they even sell just the bullets
Oh btw I can coat 10,000 in a long afternoon for not much more than a penny each. That's just 10 runs through the ovens.:-o

[dryflash3]

I cancelled my subscription to Guns and Ammo after the anti gun article on their back page. That was several years ago.

The other thing never mentioned in any gun mag is wet tumbling.

[Landshark9025]

Idaho: yeah, I am sure I'll end up cancelling my subscriptions at some point. I've only just gotten back into the game in the last three years, so I like having magazines around by the recliner and the "throne". Some of the articles are interesting and I like the photos.

SSG: If you can coat and bake- whether you are doing it via DTASBB or gun, 10k in even a full day- let alone an afternoon that's impressive! Did you post how you do that? I'll have to search for it. Since the ammo is 25% more than regular FMJ, I doubt Federal will be selling bullets to us tightwads any time soon. No handloaders I know will pay a 25% premium without a major improvement in performance.

Dryflash: thanks for reminding me of another "project" I need to look into. :razz:

[Ballistics in Scotland]

People will put whatever 'spin' they need to make their product look like it's the latest and greatest.

Model airplane magazines are the same way. Advertisers pay for much of the production costs and they want to have their products in a starring role.

We'll just keep pc-ing our bullets and let them write their rags


And photography magazines. I remember in the 60s there were some articles about the art of seeing a picture, but more (usually repeating every few months, because the scope is limited) about technical processes, lighting etc. Then they mutated into wall-to-wall equipment reviews. When did you ever see a gun magazine article about how to walk quietly, or avoid moving your hands?

Why should the amateur coat 10,000 bullets in an afternoon, unless he can shoot 10,000 in an afternoon - which sounds like pretty hard work to me? He seems unaware that the enthusiast may set a value on doing things for himself, and betting on his own skills and insight. If you just wanted a dead game animal or pest, you could poison it or buy it at the butcher's.