[fortyofforty]

No experience in the ammunition industry at all.

For over a decade, though, I have represented an industry whose products, when conforming to spec and properly used in well-maintained equipment, serve millions of Americans safely, effectively and efficiently. OTOH, if our products are out of spec, or equipment in which it is used falls short of performance specs, injuries and death can and do result.

If our products are out of spec, they are pulled from sale, and any that entered commerce are recalled. If the equipment in which it is used does not meet performance specs, it cannot be sold, and if it is in use, it must be taken out of service until it is properly repaired.

No one in my industry would even think of selling products that failed QC, or were rejected by a customer for performance shortcomings. They would be repaired/corrected, or destroyed. It may be one thing to sell scratch and dent furniture or products suffering cosmetic or other non-performance shortcomings, but NEVER items that come up short on safety-related issues.

Now we are getting somewhere.

What do you mean by "out of spec"? I am not inferring that it is unsafe. If it has blemishes, it would be out of spec for a federal contract, perhaps.

When Winchester was forced to recall millions of rounds of Ranger bonded .40 S&W ammunition that had been delivered to law enforcement agencies, what did it do with the components? I don't think they were discarded, do you? I suspect the bullets were pulled and reloaded into different cases. Perhaps that would not then meet federal specifications, or Winchester might not want to take the chance that a bullet was slightly dented during the pulling and reseating procedure. Loaded into new cases, Winchester perhaps sells the ammunition in white boxes rather than tan.

Is every round of ammunition subjected to the same level of QC? Is every round of ammunition loaded with the same or nearly identical bullets made the same as more expensive ammunition, or does it use cheaper power, or forgo sealant, or some other factors that reduce costs? Does Winchester have to reveal anything other than the barest facts about bullet type, caliber and weight when it sells ammunition in generic white boxes?

Do you think that identical ammunition is sold off in white boxes at lower prices than could be received if it were sold to the public or other law enforcement agencies in tan or black boxes, under the premium lines? Does Winchester have a financial interest in leaving customers to assume ammunition in white boxes is worth more because it is "contract overrun"? Do the retailers also have a financial interest to do the same?

 

[JohnnyE]

Most of the questions you ask appear to be matters of degree. For instance, we know that cars sold today have different braking distances when going from 60 mph to zero. We also know that there is only one car, or maybe a few tied for first place, for achieving the shortest stopping distance, and all others require greater distances to stop. So in some cases, a better braking car would have stopped before impact, while others would suffer a collision. Even so, the less than the best cars are ok to sell. Just because your not the best does not mean you are unsafe or unsalable.

This all becomes an issue from a products liability perspective when the question is asked: was the product in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous? That is subjective, and different juries faced with identical facts may render different verdicts. That is where the art of providing legal advice comes into play. How much risk is the client willing to accept versus the cost of trashing "underperforming" goods, how bad may it get if things go wrong, and so forth.

Because this is all subjective, there are few hard and fast answers. How "bad" can ammo be before Win/Fed/Rem is no longer willing to risk selling it, and instead tears it apart to scavenge power, bullets, etc.? I don't know, other than to begin by thinking about the ammo recalls we've seen over the years. I recall checking boxes of Winchester M-22 for certain codes that were being recalled, though I don't remember the nature of the defect or why it rose to the level that Win decided to bring it back.

I think manufacturers would not sell ammo with gross defects, like powder overcharges or missing flash holes, inert primers and the like, but would be fine selling blemished ammo. No matter what a contract calls for, if the ammo was rejected by the buyer as non-conforming, it would at least have to meet the manufacturers own standards before they would sell it to the public. Where the tipping point lays in between these extremes is something for them to know and us to ponder and blog about.

 

[fortyofforty]

Winchester did indeed sell many thousands of rounds, in cases that included rounds missing flash holes, to a degree that forced Winchester to issue a massive recall. That is indisputable. The vaunted QC failed, obviously.

When those rounds came back into Winchester's "house" they most likely were disassembled, with the components used to make other ammunition. Reusing the components might have violated the terms of the contract (no remanufactured, reloaded, or used components) or Winchester might simply have decided it wasn't worth the risk of being exposed by federal watchdogs having reused parts from faulty rounds in ammunition sold as "new".

Since nobody seems to be able to provide any solid evidence, let alone proof, that ammunition being peddled as "FBI contract overrun" or "contract overrun" is actually identical to ammunition being delivered to those federal agencies, you're correct that all we can do is speculate.

I haven't given up hope that somebody can and will provide proof. Hello, Wikileaks?

:laughing:

 

[Glock 23 Nutter]

Now we are getting somewhere.

What do you mean by "out of spec"? I am not inferring that it is unsafe. If it has blemishes, it would be out of spec for a federal contract, perhaps.

When Winchester was forced to recall millions of rounds of Ranger bonded .40 S&W ammunition that had been delivered to law enforcement agencies, what did it do with the components? I don't think they were discarded, do you? I suspect the bullets were pulled and reloaded into different cases. Perhaps that would not then meet federal specifications, or Winchester might not want to take the chance that a bullet was slightly dented during the pulling and reseating procedure. Loaded into new cases, Winchester perhaps sells the ammunition in white boxes rather than tan.

Is every round of ammunition subjected to the same level of QC? Is every round of ammunition loaded with the same or nearly identical bullets made the same as more expensive ammunition, or does it use cheaper power, or forgo sealant, or some other factors that reduce costs? Does Winchester have to reveal anything other than the barest facts about bullet type, caliber and weight when it sells ammunition in generic white boxes?

Do you think that identical ammunition is sold off in white boxes at lower prices than could be received if it were sold to the public or other law enforcement agencies in tan or black boxes, under the premium lines? Does Winchester have a financial interest in leaving customers to assume ammunition in white boxes is worth more because it is "contract overrun"? Do the retailers also have a financial interest to do the same?

What an academic navel-gazer.

Do you have Any actual facts to substantiate your wild accusations?

Pulled bullets... reloaded ammo... inferior QC...

Link?

And, since you don't, here is some empirical data RE: the Q4369 Government Contract ammo, that the Manufacture, on more than one occasion, has supported as "FBI Contract " over-run.

​

Nutter

 

[fortyofforty]

Still waiting. Just some evidence, instead of marketing copy provided by ammo salesmen. But I'm sure they would never say anything that wasn't true, to sell to rubes good customers. :upeyes:

 

[Glock 23 Nutter]

Still waiting. Just some evidence, instead of marketing copy provided by ammo salesmen. But I'm sure they would never say anything that wasn't true, to sell to rubes good customers. :upeyes:

Link to ANY fact to support your nonsense?

Ha!

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.36/round.
​

:supergrin:




Nutter

 

[fortyofforty]

Just one official document would be good. From the FBI, or Winchester. Something not based on advertising copy from an ammunition seller's website.

 

[JohnnyE]

Loads of speculation here. We don't know if "overrun" ammo met all the terms of the buyer's contract and was genuine excess production, or if it was rejected as non-conforming. If non-conforming, were they cosmetic or performance shortcomings? Does Win pulls bullets to reuse, or melt them down to recycle the lead, copper and brass. Do they have different acceptable failure rates depending on whether the ammo is sold into target, civilian defense, LEO and DOD markets?

We know so little...only the little AUTHORITATIVE, manufacturer-provided information that is public. Unless they talk, there's a leak, or a lawsuit puts officials under oath, we may never find out. Anyone collect statistics on ammo failures...on dozens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of rounds fired? All of a single product SKU? My 40 years of shooting so many different ammos is too small a sample size of any one product in order to be statistically significant. I've only experience a single center fire pistol round squib all my life, and a handful of misfires.

 

[fortyofforty]

Speculation and puffery by ammunition salesmen is all we have, so far.

As for misfires, unfortunately I have seen dozens and dozens, specifically with Winchester centerfire pistol ammunition in .40 S&W. I was offered Winchester as a carry option, free of charge. I refused. To each his own. And shoot lots of it to make sure.

 

[Glock 23 Nutter]

Most of the questions you ask appear to be matters of degree. For instance, we know that cars sold today have different braking distances when going from 60 mph to zero. We also know that there is only one car, or maybe a few tied for first place, for achieving the shortest stopping distance, and all others require greater distances to stop. So in some cases, a better braking car would have stopped before impact, while others would suffer a collision. Even so, the less than the best cars are ok to sell. Just because your not the best does not mean you are unsafe or unsalable.

This all becomes an issue from a products liability perspective when the question is asked: was the product in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous? That is subjective, and different juries faced with identical facts may render different verdicts. That is where the art of providing legal advice comes into play. How much risk is the client willing to accept versus the cost of trashing "underperforming" goods, how bad may it get if things go wrong, and so forth.

Because this is all subjective, there are few hard and fast answers. How "bad" can ammo be before Win/Fed/Rem is no longer willing to risk selling it, and instead tears it apart to scavenge power, bullets, etc.? I don't know, other than to begin by thinking about the ammo recalls we've seen over the years. I recall checking boxes of Winchester M-22 for certain codes that were being recalled, though I don't remember the nature of the defect or why it rose to the level that Win decided to bring it back.

I think manufacturers would not sell ammo with gross defects, like powder overcharges or missing flash holes, inert primers and the like, but would be fine selling blemished ammo. No matter what a contract calls for, if the ammo was rejected by the buyer as non-conforming, it would at least have to meet the manufacturers own standards before they would sell it to the public. Where the tipping point lays in between these extremes is something for them to know and us to ponder and blog about.

What we know is... that the brass cases are date stamped, for year, on the head. And, not only are the primers sealed, but the PDX1 bullets are asphalt sealed as well.

And, that they are reliable, accurate, meet industry velocity spec, and have outstanding performance in FBI/IWBA heavy clothing gel tests.

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.36/round.
​

:supergrin:




Nutter

 

[fortyofforty]

Oh, yeah, speculation, puffery by ammunition salesmen, and trolling are all we have, so far.

After experiencing and witnessing dozens of failures, no Winchester handgun ammunition will be carried by me, except as practice ammunition.

 

[Glock 23 Nutter]

These are Facts:

What we know is... that the brass cases are date stamped, for year, on the head. And, not only are the primers sealed, but the PDX1 bullets are asphalt sealed as well.

And, that they are reliable, accurate, meet industry velocity spec, and have outstanding performance in FBI/IWBA heavy clothing gel tests.

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.36/round.
​

:supergrin:




Nutter

 

[G29guy06]

When sold as "contract overrun" ammunition, the price is immediately higher because people want to believe it is the same ammunition as that being used by their favorite federal agency. People will buy and carry ammunition they believe is contract overrun, when they would never consider carrying simple generic rounds, even from the same ammunition manufacturer.

They do??? wow I must re think my logic then. I've never heard one person say this.

 

[fortyofforty]

They do??? wow I must re think my logic then. I've never heard one person say this.

To think "they don't!!!" should make you ask yourself why it's even mentioned in ad copy. Should. I'm not saying people do, because a lot of them apparently just lap up what a salesman tells them without thinking of an ulterior motive. Why would it be mentioned? Why isn't this "contract overrun" ammunition sold simply for what is in the box?

 

[Glock 23 Nutter]

Well, Federal XM40HC is ICE white box Government Contract overrun ammo.

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.38/round.
​

And Winchester has repeatedly supported Q4369 as being FBI white box Government Contract overrun ammo.

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.36/round.
​

It's $18-19/50 box.

They could say nothing at all, and I'd have still bought it by the case.

It's very good ammo at an Outstanding value.

And, at $18-19/50 box... How much is the wholesale marketing raising the price?

:supergrin:




Nutter

 

[fortyofforty]

If it didn't help sell ammunition to rubes, ammo salesmen wouldn't label ammo as being "contract overrun" or "FBI contract overrun" or "government agency contract overrun" or "three-letter agency contract overrun". Over and over again, year after year, those phrases are used as selling points. And some particularly gullible people lap them up. Well, it must be good because.... The idea is pretty simple.

Besides trolling, does anyone have a document that actually proves any ammunition sold as "contract overrun" of any type, by any salesmen, is actually that and not "out of spec" or "externally very similar" ammunition?

 

[JohnnyE]

^^^ Or how about any documentation at all from "authoritative" (being the key word) sources that says anything meaningful about the ammo!

 

[Merkavaboy]

Just one official document would be good. From the FBI, or Winchester. Something not based on advertising copy from an ammunition seller's website.

It seems to me that posters have already answered your questions and you're arguing because that's what you like to do.

Yes, manufacturers like Winchester, Speer and Federal DO sell of surplus ammo that has been rejected by end users and ammo that is considered as "over runs".

Agencies like DHS and FBI put out bids and contract with manufacturers for specific products, specific quantities and at specific prices over a given time. The contacts may be for one year, five years or IDIQ (indefinite delivery indefinite quantity).

If a company like Winchester is contracted to make 1M rounds for a one year contract for XYZ agency they're not going to make only 1M and call it good. They'll produce more than 1M just in case something goes wrong and they have to recall or replace ammo or for some other reason. Any excess ammo after the contract ends will be sold off to their distributors to be sold off to wholesalers to be sold on down to the retailers. Winchester doesn't set the retail price of an individual box of ammo, the end sellers do.

The "documentation" that you seek from Winchester or even the FBI don't exist as such information is not for public consumption.

The examples that I originally posted about are accurate and factual and are examples of actual contract rejects and/or overruns that were produced for agencies here in the U.S. and for foreign agencies. I can even provide you three examples of 45ACP ammo that Winchester made for the HK SOCOM pistol that was Gov't issued that showed up on the retail market nearly two decades ago.

Instead of asking that others provide the information that you seek maybe you should contract Winchester directly and see if someone can or will answer your specific questions.

 

[fortyofforty]

It seems to me that posters have already answered your questions and you're arguing because that's what you like to do.

Yes, manufacturers like Winchester, Speer and Federal DO sell of surplus ammo that has been rejected by end users and ammo that is considered as "over runs".

Agencies like DHS and FBI put out bids and contract with manufacturers for specific products, specific quantities and at specific prices over a given time. The contacts may be for one year, five years or IDIQ (indefinite delivery indefinite quantity).

If a company like Winchester is contracted to make 1M rounds for a one year contract for XYZ agency they're not going to make only 1M and call it good. They'll produce more than 1M just in case something goes wrong and they have to recall or replace ammo or for some other reason. Any excess ammo after the contract ends will be sold off to their distributors to be sold off to wholesalers to be sold on down to the retailers. Winchester doesn't set the retail price of an individual box of ammo, the end sellers do.

The "documentation" that you seek from Winchester or even the FBI don't exist as such information is not for public consumption.

The examples that I originally posted about are accurate and factual and are examples of actual contract rejects and/or overruns that were produced for agencies here in the U.S. and for foreign agencies. I can even provide you three examples of 45ACP ammo that Winchester made for the HK SOCOM pistol that was Gov't issued that showed up on the retail market nearly two decades ago.

Instead of asking that others provide the information that you seek maybe you should contract Winchester directly and see if someone can or will answer your specific questions.

Actually posters haven't answered my question. That's why I continue to ask. This site is a place where many people with various levels of experience and honesty can come and exchange ideas and knowledge.

If you don't know, you don't know. It's pretty clear that the usual suspects do not have information. One has no information but continually posts advertising for one product. Others chime in to provide nothing new, then criticize me for daring to ask the question.

Do you seriously think Winchester or any other company would admit it's selling "contract overrun" ammunition at bargain prices? Do you seriously think Winchester or any other company would admit that a particular load is not "contract overrun" ammunition? Why do you equate contract REJECTS with contract OVERRUNS? Do you think they're the same? They might be sold as being the same. Are they the same? To me there's a difference. To some, apparently, there is no difference.

I provided a specific example of thousands of rounds being rejected and shipped back to Winchester. Those were rejected. Now what? Were they overrun? Nope. Could they be sold as such? Probably, to some buyers.

So, keep on spouting off and attacking me if it makes you happy. Meanwhile, I'll continue to ask my central question.

How can we know whether one particular load is truly "contract overrun" ammunition? When a box of ammunition is advertised as being "contract overrun" do you know that it truly is? Maybe companies should not imply things they cannot prove. Wouldn't that be a step in the honest direction?

 

[Glock 23 Nutter]

...Instead of asking that others provide the information that you seek maybe you should contract Winchester directly and see if someone can or will answer your specific questions.

That would require a trip to Reality, where his paranoid delusions are merely so many billable hours at the Mental Health clinic.

These are Facts:

What we know is... that the brass cases are date stamped, for year, on the head. And, not only are the primers sealed, but the PDX1 bullets are asphalt sealed as well.

And, that they are reliable, accurate, meet industry velocity spec, and have outstanding performance in FBI/IWBA heavy clothing gel tests.

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.36/round.
​

Federal XM40HC is ICE white box Government Contract overrun ammo.

Good Government Contract Ammo.

...at $0.38/round.
​

:supergrin:




Nutter