Firearms Food for Thought: The Coming Ammo Rush

ammo3

Many of us remember the ammo shortage of the early 00s with a combination of horror and perverse pleasure. If you happened to be one of those gun owners with a pre-existing ammunition stash so spectacular it rivaled the warehouse of a major manufacturer, it wasn’t so bad. If you happened to be one of those gun owners who just grabbed a box or two of ammunition when the urge to sling lead down-range hit, well, it was a bit worse. So here’s the question – and it’s a fitting one considering the fact that this is an election year – was the ammo rush and shortage drive by sales, hoarding, or a manufacturing shortage? (Or is there perhaps some other factor?)

Let’s use the 22 LR as an example. .22 LR was, of course, the biggest offender for shortages. It did vary according to which part of the country you were in, but in some areas – mine included – finding a single box of .22 LR on the shelf was akin to stumbling across the Mona Lisa at a redneck yard sale. It wasn’t just hard to find, it was impossible. Lately it’s been a bit easier to find and in some areas it’s practically flooding the shelves (although that seems to be the exception rather than the rule). Many arguments have taken place over the actual cause of the .22 LR shortage. Some say it was due to manufacturers simply not making enough while others said those manufacturers just couldn’t keep up with the demand (because it was, ahem, a manufactured shortage…pardon the pun). Still others say it was from the government buying up every single round of .22 LR they could find.

Since this is an election year gun and ammo sales promise to be on the rise. In fact, those sales could skyrocket depending on which candidate wins. But as we get closer to the election and another ammo rush ensues, the question remains the same: what came first, the chicken of panic or the egg of quantity shortages? Are manufacturers really churning out enough ammo right now or are the sales limits many stores continue to enforce simply keeping more ammo on the shelves? There are a number of angles to this and there seems to be a grain of truth to each of them. So much so it seems unlikely any one answer is correct on its own.

Questions aside, maybe this is a good time to take stock of your ammo situation. Rather than freaking out later when you realize you don’t actually have any ammo to shoot without hitting your local gun store, maybe you should be building a stockpile today. Yes it does take time to build up a truly impressive ammo pile, but you’ll never get there if you don’t start now. How do you do it? Prioritize calibers and get to it, one box at a time.



katie.ainsworth

Katie is an avid shooter, hunter, military journalist, and Southern girl. Firearms are her passion whether at the range or on a spot-and-stalk after a big buck. She’s a staff writer at The Firearm Blog and writes about guns, hunting, and the military for various publications both online and in print such as Outdoor Life, Handguns, and Shooting Illustrated. Shoot her a message at ainsworth.kat@usa.com


Advertisement

  • Jay

    I predict a shortage of .223 ammo in the near future, because of the huge number of AR15s sold in the last few ywars and huge number of new shooters.
    But if “Hitllary” wins, there will be shortage of everything.

    • BattleshipGrey

      I’m sure .223 will go fast once the rush catches on, but it seems like M193 and M855 have never really normalized or come down as much as I’d hoped they would after the proposed ban on M855.

    • ChierDuChien

      If Hillary wins, there will be a glut of 223 because most of the weapons that use it will be rounded up.

      • tts

        How will Hillary get a gun ban through Congress exactly?

        She is getting nearly nothing done with a Republican controlled Congress who is quite vocal about hating her guts. Stop fear mongering.

        • ChierDuChien

          The Congress will go democrat on her coattails like it did for Obama. Once her SCOTUS appointees turn the court anti-gun, it will stay that way for 100 years.

          You must be new to politics or a delusional union member.

          • tts

            What are you basing that belief on exactly? There is no reason to believe history is going to play out like that at all. Especially since not enough of the Repub seats are vulnerable this election period for the HoR.

            The best information we have suggests the Dems have got a shot at the Senate at best and even then its far from a sure thing.

          • And The House will go hard Republican two years later just like it did after the first so-called “assault weapons” ban. They may get away with it at the state level thanks to gerrymandering and voter apathy, but historically, Democrats pimping national level gun control is a self-correcting problem.

      • RickH

        That’s right, she’ll be coming for your gun! LOCK YOUR DOORS!!!!!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKK!!!! Please…..

  • BattleshipGrey

    I expect a noticed up-tick of sales and at least a small shortage on certain things leading up to the election, and obviously a full blown shortage on everything if Hillary takes the election. Crazy times.

    • If such an event occurs, I clearly have enough to ‘survive,’ but maybe not to ‘enjoy’ for very long. Just outta grad school.

  • Erich Von Topp

    I’m taking a 3 pronged approach to what I see coming. First – I’ve been slowly upgrading all my reloading equipment since December. Second – picking up a box or 2 of any .223 or .308 every time I go anywhere that has it. And paying that little extra for brass cases only. Lastly, stocking up on reloading components pretty regularly. It’s coming, make no mistake about it.

    • Devil_Doc

      Same thing here. I buy a box or 2 of .223 or x39 about once a week, and a box or 2 of 22lr every rime I see it for a reasonable price. I’ve been stocking up on powder, primers and bullets, and I haven’t thrown away brass in about 5 years. lol..

    • derpmaster

      Powder and primers is where my money is going, along with quality 22lr. Brass and bullets are easy to get, even during the last panic.

    • tts

      How is a gun ban going to make it through Congress exactly?

      Bear in mind Obama couldn’t get even minor regs through Congress even after multiple mass shootings in schools n’ such.

      • ChierDuChien

        The GOP Congress stopped Obama, Hillary will have a democrat Congress that will give her whatever she wants.

        • tts

          Dude stop replying to all my posts like this about the same issue its ridiculous. Especially since I already have one posted to you directly.

        • You have more faith in the Democrat Party than I do if you honestly think they’re capable of the kind of lockstep bloc voting needed to overcome filibusters and other procedural stalling tactics. Their party symbol should be a headless chicken instead of a jackass.

      • Erich Von Topp

        There will be a lot of nasty executive actions and a supreme court that will say it’s legal and she won’t give a damn what the Congress does.

        • tts

          Most of the stuff she has said she’d do through executive actions isn’t nasty at all (high volume sellers = held to same standard as gun shops, backround checks for personal sales, keep wife and child beaters from owning guns) and won’t even effect most people.

          The only one that is genuinely stupid that she has said she’d publicly support is allowing more lawsuits of gun manufacturers and that would require Congres’ support to happen which means it won’t happen at all.

  • Cameron Bissell

    Probably adding a few extra mags of everything and a bulk order for my birthday gift to myself.
    The problem I ran into besides 22 was my odd ball stuff like 303 was no where to be found until Remington andwinchester did thier yearly run of it. All the foreign stuff would be cleared out in seconds.

    • sadlerbw

      Yep. I picked an inconvenient time to get rifles in 6.5×55 and 45-70! Brass for those suckers was non-existent for a while (as no one was bothering to make it), and even finding factory ammo made me feel like Indiana Jones hunting for treasure. I got lucky with the M1 I picked up in that the CMP ammo I ordered came at the same time. Otherwise getting 30-06 loaded for lower pressures looked like it was going to be pretty much impossible for a while.

      Now, I can get ammo and brass for all those rifles at multiple vendors any day of the week. I’d say we are in a good place right now, and I sincerely hope the election coming up doesn’t send people into panic-mode again.

  • gunsandrockets

    California all by itself may adversely affect the national ammunition market this year.

    If the proposed restrictions on ammunition sales are passed by Sacramento (depending on iffy veto by Governor) or passed by the voters in November (via comprehensive anti-gun proposition on ballot) the panic buying of ammunition in California will help to dry up supplies for the entire nation.

    June 3rd is the deadline for the California legislature to pass bills. And the Governor can’t veto legislation after September 30th. But bills which become laws don’t go into effect until the 1st day of the new year after the bill becomes law.

    The means at the very least from October 1st to the end of 2016, Californians will have months to react before any new law restricting ammunition sales goes into effect. I expect they will react to a new ammo law by buying extra ammunition while they still can.

    • ChierDuChien

      What’s to keep Californians from driving to Arizona or Texas and stocking up once the restrictions are in place ?

      • gunsandrockets

        Hundreds of miles worth of gasoline and travel time, that’s what.

        In fact, once these new stupid rules take effect, the most economical way for Californians to buy ammunition will no longer be going down the local Walmart and buying a couple boxes, or ordering a few boxes online. Californians will be ordering ammo from the local gun-store by the case.

      • Chase Buchanan

        Driving from California to Arizona is not exactly like driving from New Jersey to Delaware. It’s a long frickin’ way.

      • Marcus D.

        As others have posted, time and gasoline. I live way up north, but for me it is four hours each way to Reno, maybe save an hour when someone sets up a bulk ammo business on the border, and the same to Medford. And on top of that, it will be a misdemeanor to import ammo without a vendor’s license, with a fine that increases for each arrest and conviction. Both laws still allow internet sales, however, all purchases must be shipped to an accepting licensed ammo dealer (i.e. your LGS), who will process the sale according to whichever law is in effect–for a fee of course. One bill specifies $10, the other (Newsome’s ballot initiative) does not specify a fee but does require an instant background check through NICS at the time of purchase, plus the purchase of a 2-year license by each ammo purchaser ($50 and a background check). So ammo prices will most certainly go up significantly unless buying in bulk. Oh and there is a bill that passed the Senate that allows you to buy ammunition ONLY for in the calibers for guns that are registered to you. Which means if you have an antique hand-me-down that you got before the handgun registration law in 1999, or purchased a rifle prior to 1/1/2014, you will need to register those firearms with the state unless you happen to have another firearm in the same caliber that is registered.

        So yeah, there will be a MAJOR buying rush if any one of the bills in the Legislature is signed (or not vetoed) by Governor Brown by the end of September, or if the Newsome ballot initiative passes on November 11.

  • Dickie

    Its fear mongoring like this that causes panic and thus the shortages. We are our own worse enemy.

    • Tim U

      Trouble is, we aren’t wrong. There will be panic purchases, because certain politicians will try everything they can to ban it all.

      • Anomanom

        Except we were wrong. A whole lots of people thought that a certain president was going to ban guns, or bullets, or take everyone’s guns away. And it didn’t even come near to happening. But there was a panic buy, and a shortage. And now ammo costs half a bloody fortune because the manufacturers and stores know we’ll pay it.

        • Devil_Doc

          The fact that he didn’t ban any firearms had nothing to do with what he wanted. If he had been able to, rest assured that he would have. If repubs hadn’t taken the house and senate, the ACA wouldn’t be the only “fundamental transformation” he enacted in America.

        • whskee

          Except firearms were banned…Has the Russian import sanction been lifted? Did he not push _hard_ for gun control measures nationwide? Had he been more successful, the outcome would not have been favorable for gun owners. And now Hillary is openly stating her intent.

          • John Yossarian

            Aye – They did what they could. And anybody who stocked up on 7N6 wasn’t wrong in the slightest.

          • whskee

            I can safely bet, just like the China sanctions, we will never see it lifted. It’s a de facto ban on ammunition and arms from that region. He tried seeing 5.56mm M855 go away as well, with yet another backhanded move. Thankfully that one couldn’t be forced the same way. People are rightly paranoid and cautious when they are actively working to get ban’s going and using underhanded methods to do it.

          • Haywood Jablome

            I agree. Last time I checked, the stuff doesn’t expire if you store it correctly.

          • buzzman1

            In the late 80’s I fired .50 cal rounds packed in 1939. They fired a well as anything made today except the were really smoke from the powder they used back then.

          • tts

            Import restrictions are pretty far from a “gun ban”. Especially the sort of gun ban that was predicted to happen by every fear monger on all the common gun sites.

            And no he didn’t push all that hard for gun control measures either, none of which would’ve been a gun ban as well BTW.

            Hillary won’t be able to get anything through Congress either so what she says at this point doesn’t mean much. That you fail to understand that and are in apparent fear of what she might do if she became the President, as if she can pass laws all on her own, strongly suggests to me you neither understand how the US govt. works nor the political realities of Congress today.

          • whskee

            Wow, what an assessment you’ve made. I only feel inclined to respond because that was so rudely said. I understand politics better than most, but thanks for your enlightened and condescending look anyway. When I’m threatened, I tend to take it at face value that the other wishes to do what they say, I don’t care if they have the means to do it, it’s that they _want_ to and will if able. Obama tried to push the emotional plea for gun control routinely. I mention Hillary because she’s making threats. The tide changes too fast to predict what she or others can get done in the future.

            If you have taken my choice, or say ‘You can’t have that anymore’ that is to me a de facto ban. Call it whatever you like, my definition works for me. Our choice was taken. That’s a ban to me.

          • tts

            But words mean things. We can’t all have our own special definitions for words just because we feel like it otherwise language becomes meaningless.

            Its pretty far from condescending to point that out.

            And its factually incorrect to say Obama’s attempts at gun regulation were not just based on emotion. There have been lots of public shootings during his term. Now you might not think that is a good enough reason to pass any sort of gun regulation, and if you’d said that then OK, but you can’t reasonably go saying its all based on emotion because it isn’t at all.

            Hillary is going to have to deal with Congress to get anything done and its preeeeeetttty unlikely the Dems get control of Congress this election. Maybe the Senate but that isn’t enough to actually do things. They need the HoR and the chances of that flipping are near 0.

            There is no “tide” to worry about here.

            Just a basic understanding of how our govt. works (ie. President can’t pass laws + can’t change laws without Congress’s consent) and the composition of Congress (Repub controlled) will allow anyone to know that the chances of major gun regulation like a ban or even minor ones like mag capacity limits are laughable.

          • whskee

            Condescending was speaking to someone with the assumption they don’t understand gov and must be fearful as a result. Your point on the current state is correct, they are not likely to get serious controls passed with congress/senate. They have made it clear they want to circumvent the normal process whenever it suits them though, by executive order or re-interpreting law. We can’t safely predict where we will be +10 years from now. You can’t threaten someone and then accuse them of just being fearful when they react accordingly.

            What you are calling an Import Restriction, as just some minor thing, I am referring to as a ban. True, it is not a complete or total gun ban, but you still can’t have those things anymore. Can’t have it = banned. The Chinese sanctions/restrictions have no valid purpose now, and yet they stand. You can’t have those things either.

            Yes, there have been shootings. To say Obama did NOT react emotionally is laughable. He injected himself into many incidents, and for what outcome if not emotional response? Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook, others.

            I don’t like violence committed against innocent persons, but that a criminal commits a crime doesn’t surprise me and should not be cause for me to give up a right, a choice, or any other thing. I’m not the criminal and did not commit those wrongs. In fact, I stand to safeguard myself and my family from those criminals instead of blaming everyone and everything else for them. Don’t mess with my choice to do that and I’m fine and happy.

          • tts

            You flat out can’t be in fear of a gun ban/regulation and actually have any understanding of how the govt./Congress works + Hillary as President. There is no factual basis for it at all and its anything but condescending to point that out.

            If you feel as if I’m being condescending here that is your perception and not really my intention at all.

            Also using executive orders + doing reinterpretations is hardly circumnavigating the process. Every President ever has done that at one time or another. It is unusual how much the current President has done it but that is a whole other issue altogether that is greatly mitigated as a issue due to the fact Congress keeps blocking almost everything he wants.

            And who is talking about 10yr+ in the future? That is goal post shift on your part that has nothing to do with the current President or even whoever follows him.

            Dude even under your reinterpretation that “definition” of ban doesn’t make any sense. You can still get AK’s, even mostly Russian ones even now on Atlantic or some other dealer if you like. The price has gone up, which sucks, and I don’t like that either. But that is no ban. Heck they didn’t even restrict imports because of any gun issues, its a trade issue at that. You don’t reinterpret words like that. Not just because I say so but because its a terrible idea that, again, renders language meaningless.

            Did I say he didn’t react emotionally? He had a emotional reaction to an event and asked for legislation to address it, which he didn’t get. That is very different from how you’re interpreting things.

          • Don_R_P

            “Yes, there have been shootings. To say Obama did NOT react emotionally is laughable. He injected himself into many incidents, and for what outcome if not emotional response? Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook, others.”

            whskee, You may find it laughable, but I don’t think Obama reacted emotionally. Right at the moment, I can’t think of anything that Obama has done emotionally that wasn’t in response to something that affected him personally… such as legal challenges to his executive orders. I do, however, agree that he injected himself into the incidences you listed, and numerous others, for an emotional response. You seem to write the two as though they are the same, which they aren’t. Reacting emotionally implies emotion on Obama’s part. Injecting himself into an incident for an emotional response is intended to elicit emotion from the public to support his position.

          • whskee

            I suppose I could have worded that clearer, I essentially meant he put on a show for political reasons to get the public to agree with him. I felt he was disingenuous, and surely knew he had no business in those incidents. He sent investigators multiple times from the justice department, when locals and FBI were already working. As if to thumb them both as incompetent. Seems you are saying the same just differently? Bah, we’re sidetracked into political waters and away from the guns. He’s been great for stirring up a fire and people are voting with their wallets at the gun store counters.

          • Outlaw

            Obama has never done anything uncalculated in his political life. He knew what buttons to push and when to try and get his agenda through to become law with the sole intent of prohibiting you, and me and everyone else from possessing firearms. If you don’t believe this you don’t give the man enough credit. He is cunning to the extreme.

          • AirborneSoldier

            I always thought he was indeed a cunning linguist. Ha!

          • Outlaw

            Probably more of a fabulous fellatious (or something that resembles that.) At least that what I think of him as. He sure champions their cause like it’s personal.

          • AirborneSoldier

            For what outcome? Votes and money to the DNC.

          • David

            You are overlooking the power of the pen and executive orders. Even if unconstitutional , Executive orders take effect quickly and take several years of litigation to reverse. As a constitutional schollar… Obi knows this well and Hillary knows this too.

          • tts

            Executive powers/orders don’t let to do general gun/ammo bans + are easily reversed by the next President and/or Congress which can override a veto if they like.

            There is also no reason to believe Hillary would try to do anything like that with guns so you’re fear mongering here.

          • buzzman1

            What is supposed to happen and what has happened is 2 different things. He’s ruling by edict now and no republican is trying to stop him.

          • tts

            How is he “ruling by edict”? Because he is using his executive powers a whole bunch?

            That is odd, but its not unconstitutional or unethical, and the Repubs constantly try and pass laws to overturn his decisions there too. They have had some success on a state by state basis but not on a national level since they don’t have a veto proof majority.

          • buzzman1

            Obama is using does not have the authority to do many of the things that he is doing and the republicans for some reason lack the balls to take him to task on it. I blame them as much as obama because they have the power of the Constitution behind them and still they do nothing.

          • tts

            The Repubs block him on everything they can. They can’t stop him from using his Constitutional executive powers though, even the ones they and perhaps you or I don’t like, so its factually incorrect to say he doesn’t have authority there.

          • buzzman1

            Not true. There is something called checks and balances which previously elected presidents mostly adhered to. However, a complacent congress who have people like Reid and Pelosie and later RINOs in charge have little desire to reign in a president that has exceeded his authority. Previously, if a president started do the things Obama has done, the congress would step in and stop it or the courts would.

            And you should remember that the next president will have the same power if its not placed in check. Its obvious you are a lib so how would you like it if Trump is elected and he started rescinding all of the executive orders obama has put out and then going as far to the right as obama went left?

          • tts

            How is it not true exactly? Congress can sue to stop any order he gives if they think its illegal. They’ve shown no qualms in the past about trying to do so.

            Neither Reid, nor Pelosie, or any RINO’s can stop such a lawsuit. You only need a single Congressmen willing to bring it before a federal court.

            Its also been normal for decades for the new President to rescind various executive orders the previous President had made. As soon as Bush took office after Clinton many Repubs in Congress petitioned him to do exactly that for instance back in 2001. The articles are easy to google up. That has always been a issue with executive orders so have no idea why you think its unreasonable or somehow unfair.

            I wouldn’t like it of course but so what? Just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean its unfair or unlawful.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Because we, the people want him stopped. This is not about opinion. Read your constitution, tell me where the fed gov has the authority take from one woman and give to another. They dont, but ppl like freebies, so they elect more freebie givers. Carl Marx is proud. Dont worry, its almost over.

          • tts

            Actually only some of “we the people” want him stopped. He got re-elected twice by both EV’s and popular vote so you’re being factually incorrect here.

            And the Constitution isn’t the entire scope of the law, it limits and delineates rights and powers, nor does it prohibit redistributive policies.

          • AirborneSoldier

            He rules by edict. He doesnt get legislation passed. Most of the time he does not use EO. He directs his administrative agencies to change rules.
            I suggest everyone study administrative law. Thats where he reigns.

          • tts

            That is all within the power of the Executive branch.

            He and every other President ever is allowed to do those things.

            The only thing different about how he is using them vs previous President’s is that he is using them more + being more active and choosing the details of how agencies and rules that fall under his scope are implemented.

            Which is still legal. Just because you or I don’t like it doesn’t make it illegal. The rules, and the Constitution, don’t work that way.

          • Don_R_P

            tts, you are correct that words have meanings. It is also correct that words can have more than one meaning, some word meanings vary from one location to another and they also vary in meaning depending on usage.

            With that being said, I must question the following statement of yours because it is not clear as to your intended meaning:

            “And its factually incorrect to say Obama’s attempts at gun regulation were not just based on emotion. There have been lots of public shootings during his term. Now you might not think that is a good enough reason to pass any sort of gun regulation, and if you’d said that then OK, but you can’t reasonably go saying its all based on emotion because it isn’t at all.”

            Logically, if someone writes “And its factually incorrect to say Obama’s attempts at gun regulation were not just based on emotion.”, you could rewrite it, keeping the same intent, as: ‘it’s factually correct to say Obama’s attempts at gun regulation were just based on emotion.’ The problem is that you finish off the paragraph with “…but you can’t reasonably go saying its all based on emotion because it isn’t at all.” That leads me to infer that you didn’t intend to include the original ‘not’ and you intended to have your original sentence read: ‘And its factually incorrect to say Obama’s attempts at gun regulation were just based on emotion.’ If so, please remember… words mean things. Hey, I’m just trying to understand your post.

            By the way, whskee didn’t say that Obama’s attempts at gun regulation were just based on emotion. He said that Obama was trying to push the emotional plea for gun control. The first, as written, implies emotion from Obama and the second is trying to elicit emotion from the public.

            I must also disagree with your statement of ‘Import restrictions are pretty far from a “gun ban”.’ To start with, how do YOU define “pretty far from”? Yes, definitions do vary from person to person. The accuracy of the statement would vary depending not only on what the restrictions are, but also on what the overall effect is on a person. To start with, a gun ban IS a restriction. If by “gun ban” you are referring to an all out ban on every type of firearm, you are correct in that the restrictions that have been made so far are not a “gun ban”. Then again, if all firearms were banned with the exception of rifles only capable of shooting 22 LR ammunition, it would not qualify as a “gun ban” by that definition. For most people however, if you are unable to purchase the type of firearm you want, due to some governmental reason, there is, effectively, a gun ban on that firearm. Just so you don’t have to look it up… Effective: fulfilling a specified function in fact, though not formally acknowledged as such. Although not formally acknowledged as a ban, some restrictions can fulfill that specified function in fact. Restrictions are too often used by the anti-gun crowd as a method of trying to nickle and dime the rules to their final intended goal of no guns for anyone… with the possible exception of their bodyguards.

          • tts

            Its fair if you think I was being unclear in my reply. I’m not the world’s best writer here and yes I do the occasional dumb typing mistake too.

            I would point out that while words can have multiple definitions that has nothing to do with what whskee was posting: he was flat out saying he was inventing new definitions for existing words just because he felt worked better that way. That is where I was calling BS. If he was just using another less used meaning of a given word then yes I’d be being pedantic here but that wasn’t what happened at all.

            I don’t read his post that way at all re: Obama’s motivation for gun regs. His post totally blows over all the shootings as if they never happened, and were the initial cause of all the public emotions here from Obama, which plenty of people in the public were already emotional over too.

            The context for gun bans that people are talking about in such a fearful manner are total gun bans from the govt. Not just a model or country specific restriction which have been in effect for years. Yes gun bans are a type of restriction but a pretty specific one, there isn’t much wiggle room here to play word games with. And yes getting rid of all guns except ones that can shoot .22lr would be close enough to a gun ban not to matter too much to me. But we’re nowhere near that point at all and its unbelievable to try and stretch the current import restrictions on weapons from Russia into something like that which was what he was doing.

          • whskee

            Come on now, don’t insult my integrity. I said very clearly the Import Restriction is a ban. What’s the first result for the definition of ban: “an official or legal prohibition”. So, there is the common definition. I also said I consider the restriction a ban (which by definition, it is) because you’re choice was taken, and you can not have it. It’s beside the point that there are equivalents on the market. Should we all only be allowed to purchase AR-15’s from Colt, or be told Glock is your only pistol choice? No, that’s ridiculous. Arms and Ammunition were banned, that’s a fact and not up for dispute. I don’t know what you’re on about saying I’m making up words or definitions, that’s a stretch. What new definition am I inventing here?

          • GNTownsend

            You are definitely wrong about the President’s ability to change laws without Congress’s consent. Just look at the Affordable Care Act (AKA “Obamacare”). Obama has used his executive powers to clearly change the Obamacare law in over 2 dozen ways…all against what the law clearly states and without a single vote in Congress. Labor union exemptions coming due? Just change that date to several years in the future…law doesn’t state that, but Obama did it and is getting away with it. The president can do whatever he wants to do so long as Congress doesn’t have the balls to impeach him for it.

          • tts

            There are certain parts of a given law that may fall under the executive powers and changing dates or times for a given law to come into effect is one of them if the bill is written in such a way to allow it.

            I’m no lawyer or PPACA expert but given public commentary by legal types that I’ve read on the subject he hasn’t done anything controversial legally there which is why Congress hasn’t been able to do much of anything about the changes he has made. Given that the SCOTUS has largely upheld the PPACA too, even on a different matter, I don’t think there is much weight at all to any complaints of its illegality in general either though.

          • Old Vet

            You are overlooking one major point of contention: Executive Orders. He (Obama) has tried it on Immigration and it is in the courts right now. If she gets in she will do the same thing and if she gets in, the court will be forever on her side for generations. The 2nd AD will be history in some manner or cause.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Middle school understanding. Not how real world has worked past 8 years

          • ChierDuChien

            If Hillary gets elected with a democrat Congress on her coattails, she will get EVERYTHING she wants and a lot more. The SCOTUS will be turned anti-gun and uphold the new bans, probably permanently. Semi-autos, pumps, full autos and most pistols will be rounded up and destroyed.

          • tts

            Sure if the Dems got control of Congress they’d have a shot at enacting gun control laws, I’ve said as much myself, but its virtually impossible for Congress to flip to the Democrats in 2016.

            At best MAYBE they get the Senate in 2016. They’re not going to get the HoR. Not in 2016 In 2018 they’ll probably LOSE more seats which is why it’s not a sure thing they’ll get the HoR in 2020 or 2022 either.

            The Repubs have got a gigantic gerrymandered advantage since they got to redistrict in 2010 that requires the Dems get something silly like a +8% voter advantage to just break even with the Repubs in seats.

            So stop freaking out will you?

          • AirborneSoldier

            Its called Eternal Vigilence. We owe at least that to all who have died for real freedom

          • AirborneSoldier

            Im gonna stand up, how bout you all?

          • Haywood Jablome

            Have you been asleep the last 8 years? When the hell has the separation of powers mattered a bit to these idiots? Wow, you need to start selling some of what you’re smoking if you think we are anywhere near a Constitutional Republic anymore…or the judicial branch will reign her in if elected.

          • tts

            Even Obama never got any of his relatively mild gun restrictions in place despite some level of public support given the rash of public shootings during his Presidency.

            If Obama can’t get stuff like a mag cap in effect after schools get shot up Hillary isn’t getting anything done.

            Its pure irrational fear mongering to claim otherwise at this point.

          • whskee

            You keep talking about fear. Irrational fear, fear mongering. But it’s not fear that fuels most of the people(gun community). I’m certainly not fearful of anything, and likely others with my position aren’t either. We’ve been presented with a valid threat to our beliefs and react accordingly. As I said before, you don’t get to threaten me and then claim I’m just being fearful when I respond.

            I really don’t want to dole out history(in short, NFA, GCA, Hughes, AWB, etc) here, but those in support of gun regulation(control) have the simple goal of disarmament, and have chipped away at the gun community piece by piece for years and years now. It would be irrational to not see it for what it is and resist in kind. I viciously oppose anyone seeking to remove freedom of choice from the people. What is freedom if not the ability to choose?

            If I don’t like what someone else has or is doing, I just don’t do it. The gun control crowd thinks if they don’t like something, they’ll just legislate it away. It’s not fear driving the gun community, it’s fear driving the gun control camp.

          • tts

            The past is not a perfect predictor of the future though. Ultimately Hillary will have to work with Congress to get anything done and they really really don’t want to work with her. They hate her worse than Obama at this point and Obama got little to nothing done at all on this issue.

            I see no viable legal path to the sort of regulation you guys are all freaking out about which is why I call it irrational fear mongering. That none of you can do more than post “executive orders” or “SCOTUS” in reply to that is very telling to me.

          • AirborneSoldier

            She is another Godless, anti American commie. What issue are you talking about. Im glad he didnt get MORE DONE ON THIS ISSUE. The man had his BATFEissue a list of guns they want banned. Practically everything was on that list. Thank God we stood up to them.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Right. An unarmed man is a subject, an armed man is a serf. And I mean armed with what the fed gov has, just like when our Constitution was written, to deny the fed gov as much power as it has today.

          • n0truscotsman

            I’ve cited this before, but Ill do it again because it highlights exactly what you said.

            For some activists, total disarmament is indeed the end game. The stepping stones for this end result often begin with assault weapons bans (and they will admit such bans are indeed impotent, but symbolism and incrementalism are more important).

            http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html

          • Haywood Jablome

            Whatever you say.

          • HollowTs

            Aww but executive orders can do a lot on their own.

          • Cattoo

            They do when allowed to stand as law. They all should be struck down and the proper processes used to to effect change.

          • HollowTs

            Agreed

          • Jay

            tts, you are very small minded. She can’t pass laws but Obama has declared he can pass any executive action he wants. Also, the BIGGEST thing you are completely not seeing is if Hillary wins she will get to nominate at minimum one supreme court justice, and in all likelihood 3. Put 3 antigun justices there and if anything goes to the supreme court the anti gunners win.

          • tts

            Of course the President can pass any executive action they want, that goes with the office and was just as true for any previous President.

            Executive powers are limited though and can’t do everything and anything. There is some wiggle room legally to do some stuff that wasn’t done before if they feel like pushing the limits but pulling off the sort of stuff you guys seem to think she could do won’t happen.

            It is possible Hillary could put 3 anti gun justices on the SCOTUS during her term but I don’t think its particularly likely. Why not? Because guns are lower on her list than other things she would like to see supported. Hillary likes to appoint people who are center Left party team players which means I doubt you’ll see another Ginsberg.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Not true Sir. Executive orders are supposed to apply to Executive branch only, not as a kings decree we must accept.

          • tts

            What exactly do you think the “executive branch” is here?

          • AirborneSoldier

            This Pres has broadened the use of executive orders into very unconstitutional territory. You have a good grasp of what is taught in middle school, but that is not how the bully pulpit of the office of POTUS has been wielded in the last 8 years. With CJScalia gone, no guarantee a regulater in Batfe would simply produce a list of banned weapons. Congress wont need to vote on that.

          • HollowTs

            Also 7n6 was banned as another evil bullet.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Thank God someone has a memory. This.

        • Budogunner

          I remember $60 30 round mag-pul magazines. Dang sure didn’t buy any for that price, but people were scalping them.

        • buzzman1

          Guess you forgot Fast and Furious which was a culvert program to convince everyone the trouble in Mexico was caused by US weapons being sold to Mexican criminal by US CITIZENS. Don’t you remember Obama saying when had to stop all gun sales to stop the crime in mexico problem?

          • Outlaw

            They forget everything that doesn’t fit the agenda. It is a waste of time trying to convince the sheeple. They need to be led. It’s their thing.

        • markrb

          You obviously don’t live out here in California. They have bills that will ban EVERY centerfire, semi-automatic rifle that can accept a magazine, background checks on ammo, registering those semi-automatics that are now “assault weapons”, banning the ownership of “high capacity” magazines, no more 80% lower “ghost gun” builds, etc, etc.

        • Outlaw

          Wasn’t because that certain President didn’t try like Hell to get them banned now was it? Only due to much hard work and letter writing, calling, emailing our elected officials that “we wouldn’t take that crap lying down,” was he prevented from enacting a ban on 855 which I might add has never killed any officer or been used against one in my knowledge. Barry Sorento and his minions would have confiscated every firearm and bullet in America if he thought he could have gotten away with it. Did he do it? No. Did he try (and still is?) We still have six more months of his crap that we have to watch for and deal with and anything crooked he would try too accomplish in those six months won’t surprise me in the least, in fact I’m expecting it. If you’re smart you will be too.

        • AirborneSoldier

          No, he would have, and did take action. We just beat him is all.

        • n0truscotsman

          There was no further gun control legislation simply because of the backlash encountered in state’s like Colorado (recall) and elsewhere where any proposed bans was met with hostility.

          You can bet if there was the will, there would have been bans definitely. I think the internet can be credited with preventing another 1994 AWB tbh. Same with gun owners learning lessons of yesteryear past.

          I never could figure out the run on ammunition though, like 22lr. Puzzles me. There was a short run on m855 and on 7n6, although they’re both still competitive in price.

      • tts

        You’re being played for a fool by fear mongers if you really believe that.

        No gun bans, much less any sort of seriously limiting regulations, are getting through Congress for at least a few more years.

        If Congress changes in 2020 or 2022 due to an elimination of the gerrymandering that happened in 2010 then gun regulation becomes a real possibility but until then nope. It really might not even happen then really since gun regulation is nearly as big of a “third rail” as SS and tax reform.

        • ChierDuChien

          Hillary may well get a democrat Congress.

          • tts

            According to what or whom? Just you saying so is unconvincing.

            Every source I’ve read (538 is a good place to start if you want to know more stuff) says at best maybe they get the Senate and even that isn’t a sure thing.

          • N Man

            TTS u seem to be forgetting about SCOTUS. that is all that matters now

          • tts

            SCOTUS doesn’t pass laws or sign them into effect so I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

          • Probably that SCOTUS is currently 4/4 “liberal” and “conservative” with an open spot, and it’s going to be difficult for Congress to stonewall an anti-Bill Of Rights nominee for four years.

          • tts

            Sure but that is very far from a gun ban. Even a “Left” SCOTUS will be unlikely to overturn much of the established precedent gained over the last few years too. This includes stuff like Heller.

            Its also a bit unreasonable to say even a rabid anti gun judge would be “anti Bill of Rights” too BTW. The 2nd is a major portion of the Bill but you can dislike it and still be for the rest of the Bill believe it or not.

          • I do not accept that. A lack of respect for the content of any amendment of The Bill Of Rights is clear indication that political opinion is more important than the Constitution or the letter (or spirit) of The Law; the correct course of action if one disagrees with an amendment is to campaign for a revocation or alteration, and if one can’t muster up the support of 75% of the voting population, maybe one’s political opinion isn’t quite as universally applicable as one thought.

          • tts

            Not accepting that means rejecting the SCOTUS’s power over the judiciary/law and the interpretation of the law/Constitution which you are certainly free to do but also has no legal merit nor is it a factually correct position to maintain either.

        • Tim U

          It’s not going to be an overnight “Big Bang” approach. There will be no mass confiscations. However it will still happen.

          It’ll start by a new AWB that doesn’t sunset. Then they’ll require registration. Eventually they’ll tack on a provision that banned items that are grandfathered may not be transferable (they are confiscated at death). This is already going on in NY – cops show up in no time after the obit to collect on the guns. Keep banning classes of weapons, keep confiscating them from the estates of deceased, move on. Within 1-2 generations it will be all done, no one will have fought it in significant numbers, and the population of the day will think it normal. I guarantee any losses made under democrats will not be rolled back by republicans. Name one federal gun law repealed by congress. You can’t.

          SCOTUS will become so heavily leftist they will do anything they want with a “constitutional” blessing.

          • Norm Glitz

            The Federal ban on mail order ammunition. It was part of the original GCA ’68. Federally repealed. Even T. Kennedy (I feel dirty just typing that) voted to repeal.

          • tts

            Its a possibility some or all of that stuff might happen in the far future but it sure didn’t happen under Obama and its unlikely at best to happen under Hillary even if the Dems take Congress in 2020/2022 so you’re still just fear mongering.

            And confiscating unclaimed weapons from the deceased has been going on for decades at least in some states and has nothing to do with gun bans, Obama, Hillary, or the Dems.

            Federal gun laws change all the time and many have nothing to do with bans. Quite a few were lobbied into effect by the NRA and are actually fairly pro gun so I don’t think you have much of a point there at all really.

            And a Left SCOTUS is hardly a guarantee of a gun ban of any sort via the judicial bench nor is a Left SCOTUS’s decisions somehow no longer Constitutional just because either you or I don’t like them or because of the courts’ political leanings.

          • Robert

            I can name one. The AWB was repealed through its sunset provision!!! They will not make that mistake again. So, one out of thousands!!! I don’t really like those odds personally.

    • TC

      I agree. Right now, there is all the ammo you can afford to buy.

      • tts

        .22lr is still almost impossible for me to find in local stores, online sure anything is available.

        Locally on the odd stuff that doesn’t get shot much is easily available.

    • Dave Y

      I have a prediction too.

      There will be an onslaught of internet fear mongering – just like this article – and going even further “over the top” with predictions for a few reasons.
      1) “Look at me” – click bait, sensational headlines with very little substance designed to get you to read. it’s like a bait and switch sale ad.
      2) Setting up for the future “I told you so” post crowing about how they were the first or among the first to predict the rush / run on goods.
      3) Cauldron stirring. Writers who like to discuss the “shortage” – past, present or future tend to like to stir up controversy. It’s our fault for reading it just as much as it is the author’s fault for writing it.
      4) Beyond cauldron stirring, a few of our community actually prefer that we’re in a shortage or under some dire political or market threat for reasons I have yet to fathom.

      We are our own worst enemy at times.

      So yes, there will be more internet postings like this with vague, unsubstantiated claims of a panic coming, the end times, and they will most certainly want comments so “ditto heads” will chime in and provide that satisfying validation.

      Remember the Boy Scout Motto: Be prepared.
      it’s not be panicked.

      Part of being prepared is gathering good intel, to separate the rumor from the fact. Use your best judgment.

      • Don_R_P

        Dave,
        Yes, with a prediction written in that form you can’t be wrong. By reading your post, it appears that, in your opinion, if anyone writes ANY article about ANY limitation on the availability (or lack thereof) of ANY ammunition they are, by one or more of your reasons listed above, fear mongering.

        So how, may I ask, could anyone have been notified about the ban on selling M855 ammunition that was proposed a while back… without being a fear monger? Then you talk about being prepared by gathering good intel. How, in what would apparently be your “perfect world” of no articles of governmental restrictions (to include bans) or shortages, could you obtain any intel about them? Makes it easy to understand why you wrote “We are our own worst enemy at times.”

        • tts

          You’re mis-reading his post pretty thoroughly if you think he tried to write it in such a way as to “not be wrong”. He even gave a list of what he’d consider fear mongering and the govt. restricting certain types of 5.56 ammo wasn’t on it.

          • Don_R_P

            I will admit I did miss that he was apparently quoting the previous post when he wrote “We are our own worst enemy at times.” Mainly because it wasn’t written in quotation marks. Other than that, I was just reading what was written and going with that.

            “3) Cauldron stirring. Writers who like to discuss the “shortage” – past, present or future tend to like to stir up controversy. It’s our fault for reading it just as much as it is the author’s fault for writing it. ”

            The above section comes across as referring to anyone who writes any article about any supposed ammunition shortage, past, present or future, as nonsense and just “stirring the pot”. Writing an article about a discontinuation of the availability of M855 ammunition, which would qualify as a shortage of M855, would qualify in the above category of any article about a shortage. From your post and his reply to my post, I guess I am supposed to, for some unapparent reason, infer that articles about the M855 fiasco and, I suppose, any article about any other shortage with a ‘documented’ reason are valid and not “stirring the pot”. I say infer since I could find nowhere in the post, stated or implied, that excluded shortages with a ‘documented’ cause, such as the M855 fiasco. However, if having ‘documented’ evidence of a cause will prevent an article about a shortage from being classified as “stirring the pot”, someone could still write about most any category of American made ammunition containing lead that is in short supply considering that the last lead smelting plant closed down a few years ago due to EPA regulations… It’s documented.

          • tts

            I don’t read it that way at all and he clarified himself further in a follow up post. I think you might’ve been reading a lil’ too much into what he was saying.

            Yes lead ammo is in short supply due to toxicity issues, which are perhaps silly I’m not a expert there, but steel ammo isn’t hard to find and the performance is still close enough not to matter for most things. Where is the issue there?

          • AirborneSoldier

            We have little internal capability. Closing that last plant was only punishment, you think they care about environment? Look into how that state or county voted. Follow money and votes, and you will find truth

          • tts

            I think there are people within the govt. who TRY to care about the environment but can only do so much so their efforts come through in odd ways and at odd times due to lobbyist efforts and intransigent local politics.

        • Dave Y

          Don,

          This, is not that. The M855 scenario was reporting, based on actual, independently verifiable fact; in that case government action. There was also an effort to generate a panic when Ukraine was invaded. Internet cries of “no more cheap wolf ammo” and the like were everywhere. I’ve bought Wolf, Tula & RAS all recently and inexpensively, but you wouldn’t have thought it at the time by reading internet blogging about it or ammunition sales flyers. I got an email from an ammo seller I’d bought from many times right after Ukraine was invaded. It prominently said “Made in Ukraine” for several manufacturers of ammunition for sale, and prominently displayed purchase limits. I don’t know how much of that ad was true as it relates to the place of manufacture, but nobody else had purchase limits and I never saw anyone else put any limits in place.
          You don’t see them now either. This was a blatant attempt by this seller to create or amplify a run on ammunition and it failed.

          To be fair, sanctions were placed on Russia by the current regime and maybe that has impacted ammunition sales (?) if it has, I have not noticed it in the pricing.

          This article may not be an attempt to create a run on ammunition, but it is not far short of it. It may not quite rise to the level of fear mongering, but after reading this blog post, what is your takeaway?

          I just re-read the whole article before commenting and suggest others do too. What is the main topic?

          what is the supporting evidence that a panic is underway, or will be?

          Ammunition prices over the spectrum have fallen since at least January through May this year. There are outliers but ammunition is out there, components are out there and their prices continue to march toward pre-insanity pricing. It’s not there yet, but it’s moving in that direction.

          I am fortunate to have many firearms and many calibers to be supplied for from .22 pistol to crew served so I am just as sensitive to ammunition prices as any in our community.

          I am sure that there will at some point in the future be a shortage of one or more calibers, BUT, it doesn’t have to be now, a month from now, 3 months from now, 6 months from now or immediately after the election. WE Don’t have to make the panic happen or contribute to it happening !

          Again, to be fair, the article does close with this: “Prioritize calibers and get to it, one box at a time.” My dispute is with the premise that there is now or there is an imminent rush on ammunition sales that will result in a shortage.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Just go buy it. You think it will be more prevalent and cheaper if HRC gets elected? BHO has perfected the use of regulators to squeeze any industry he hates. Who is on that list?

      • AirborneSoldier

        Buy now. We see what happens when the Marxists are in charge.

        • tts

          Oh come on even Bernie isn’t a Marxist. Clinton is, economic policy wise, center right just like Bush and Bill Clinton before. Where she will differ from Obama is on social policy. Historically she has been more center Left there.

    • buzzman1

      I’d say it was the people correctly reading the intent of our politicians that caused the panic buying of weapons and ammo.

    • Jay

      If you live in a truly free state you don’t have to worry about it but if you live in any state where most of the people are idiots, like California and Illinois, you sure do. Just look at all the crap laws California is pushing through right now? In certain areas of Illinois you can’t order ammo online where it is a ton cheaper than in a store and they’re trying to make it so more places are like that. Cook County passed their $.02/rimfire and $.05/centerfire tax so they don’t want any residents ordering online and getting around that. While shipping is available I saw stock up! Once they ban shipments you’ll have to pay twice as much for the same ammo.

  • Tim U

    I’m working on my plan to stock up on the most important calibers before judgment day. Err, hitlery’s stolen or perhaps legitimate election — we’ll never know how much of it was real vs stolen, but we know she’ll be the “winner” from the powers that be.

    • RickH

      Do you use Reynolds Wrap or generic?

  • AK™

    PANIC BUY ALL THE CALIBERS RIGHT MEOW!
    /sarcasm

    • iksnilol

      That’s why I am getting a crossbow. Reusable ammo for the win.

      • john huscio

        Super slow reloads.

        • iksnilol

          I am getting twinbow, two arrows at the same time. Should equal about truple the damage.

          • Rooftop Voter

            Would that be a Class III under AOW?

          • Only if the arrows are propelled by explosives.

            …Someone needs to get on that.

        • gunsandrockets

          harrumph! Slow reloads conserves ammunition.;-)

      • “I approve this message”

        – Darryl Dixon

  • Odie Tucker

    Interesting article, as a market research guy, I don’t know where your info is coming from. Yes, Firearm and Ammo sales have been up so far this year, but Average Selling Price has actually decreased. As far as what I know about ammo manufacturing, it was never designed to keep up with the level of demand that was presented post-sandy hook. .22LR is a terrible example because its’ availability has been erratic for the prior 4 years at least. I’d be happy to sign you up for my weekly trend report where I discuss some of these points with data.

    • Bill

      Data? Your mean actual facts? And research and stuff? That takes all the fun out of it.

  • stephen

    With the social communists in California that want to pass a law that requires background checks for ammo, I would start stocking up now.

    Just saying its only going to get worse. with that said I have 5K rounds due in this week as part of my base load (stuff I don’t touch). Also looking to take advantage of using SIRT products, the LASR program (10% off with code SAR) and getting into airsoft to work on tactics/force on force stuff.

    Interesting times.

  • sb

    no shortage on price hikes…..

  • Full Name

    There never was an actual shortage. There were hysterics who were hoarding, and a$$#0les who were buying up ammo and flipping it.

    • DaveK

      Hoarders hoarded because of the shortage. A shortage of a product creates this behavior. Hoarders don’t exist with products that are plentiful. Does hoarding make a bad situation worse? Of course it does.

      • Twilight sparkle

        I horded before there was an ammo drought, I didn’t buy a single round of ammo from 2013 to 2014 because I already had a nice little stockpile and prices were too high… okay there was probably an exception when I bought my ps90 but that’s because I didn’t have anything in 5.7 before that

        • DaveK

          You stocked up and got lucky, kudos!

          • Twilight sparkle

            It’s smart to stock up now while prices are low, the people who don’t will be at my store in a year or so complaining about prices.

          • DaveK

            That begs the question,…..at what point does stocking up become hoarding?

          • Twilight sparkle

            Pretty much never, people who don’t stock up will accuse others of hoarding though.

          • DaveK

            I don’t agree. There are obvious differences. Buying 5-10 boxes of 9mm a month is stocking up. Calling all the gun stores in one’s area daily to see if they received any 9mm so one can buy as much as they can is hoarding.

        • n0truscotsman

          Time is now! I always warned people to stock up in good times.

      • tts

        Hoarders don’t necessarily hoard because of shortages.

        They also frequently hoard out of fear or sometimes greed. Depends on the market you’re talking about and the situation.

        In this case ammo shortages didn’t start to happen until around election time for Obama in 08′ and prior to that ammo was generally fairly easy to find for a reasonable price with no hint of shortages. This is pretty good evidence to me that the hoarders are ruining the market out of fear that is being egged on in online echo chambers and various media outlets to some extend too.

        What is really surprising to me is that its gone on for this long. I am starting to see some signs of “fear fatigue” though in people near where I live. In a few cases others have doubled down harder on their fear driven concerns and bought even more stuff while going in even harder on the whole survival stuff. They’re very hard to talk to now about anything, its all conspiracies for them: “Blue Helmets” this “agenda 21” that and now on and on about Vince Foster and REX84 stuff.

        Not sure how all this is really going to pan out really.

        • Manfredi1

          Not for anything, but you do realize rex84 and agenda21 were/are real plans right?

          • tts

            Sure the but nonsense about them (they’re gonna kill us all!!, THEY are gonna take over the country!!!, etc) that got public play wasn’t.

            The people I know now that go on and on about them really believe the govt. is going to go and kill most everyone and take their guns any day now. I don’t believe the govt. is perfect or beyond reproach but this is a paranoid conspiracy.

            Its gotten to the point with one or 2 that I’m starting to wonder if they have a mental illness. But how the hell do you tell someone that gently? Especially when they also believe the pharmaceutical industry is really there for mind control purposes at the behest of the govt?

          • Manfredi1

            Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the objectives of the agenda 21 meeting. If you still find your friends’ position to be nonsense afterwards so be it but I think you’ll feel differently.

          • tts

            I’ve already read up on that. Its a non-binding voluntary resolution that was signed for “political optics” purposes in the UN back in 1992.

            It is frequently presented as a clandestine and insidious plot to destroy America by Obama/Dems/NWO/etc. by various far-Right conspiracy minded blogs/meme sources over the last few years but that is straight up nonsense.

            Agenda 21 is a big reason why some of the people I know think the UN “blue helmets” are coming to kill them and I’m sick of hearing about it.

          • Manfredi1

            I didn’t say to look up a one-line description of what the meeting was. Look up the objectives of agenda 21. Yes, it’s a voluntary resolution,…….that better than 160 nations elected to sign onto. Not sure how anyone can admit the event took place, read the objectives, and then suggest it’s conspiracy theory.

          • tts

            The objectives are all voluntary and non-binding so they litterally do no matter at all. Their is also the non-minor detail that all those resolutions have gone nowhere in over 20yr so there is nothing to freak out about here.

            The number of nations signing doesn’t matter at all either, especially when they don’t seem to care much about the objectives either as far as I can tell. What matters is what our country does, not what others do here.

          • Manfredi1

            You keep touting “it’s voluntary” and guess what, 178 nations (including America) volunteered. (And if you think those resolutions have gone nowhere you haven’t been paying attention.)

          • tts

            You left out the “non binding” part. You have to include that too in your assessment of its effect on the US. Its a legal document so you can’t ignore stuff like that.

            1,000 nations could’ve volunteered and it wouldn’t matter at all to proving if any of the conspiracy stuff surrounding it was true. That is a obvious logical fallacy you’re presenting there.

            And yes it has gone nowhere and yes I have been paying attention. All the hype about it is pure paranoid conspiracy nonsense that has been played up recently since Obama has been in office despite the plan being signed in 1992 and in development well before that in the UN.

            We’re well into 2016 and Obama is almost out of office now so it’ll be interesting to see how the conspiracy nuts react. My guess is they’ll just smoothly pivot to Clinton being the new Evil Overlord of the NWO with no solid evidence needed.

          • Redman88

            Hey tts, nothing Manfredi stated was false in any of his posts. Yes, the meeting was real. Yes, 178 voluntarily signed onto it. Furthermore, listen to interviews with people like Rosa Koire on how it’s being implemented. Local and state legislators don’t just announce “We are doing this in accordance with agenda 21.” Also, there are plenty of books and documentaries in the subject. To underestimate the UN’s influence on the policy of sovereign nations, including America, is ignorant. America also signed on to the UN Small Arms Treaty. Now tell me I’m wrong and show your ignorance on that topic too.

    • Renegade

      Da, capitalist pigs should be punished for making profit!

    • Don_R_P

      Shortage: a state in which there is not enough of something that is needed.

      @Full Name,
      If people need it and can’t find enough of it, there is a shortage… no matter what ‘it’ is. The reasons or cause is not important as to whether or not there is a shortage. Back in the 70’s there was a toilet paper shortage that is commonly blamed on a Johnny Carson joke. The manufacturers were producing as much as they had been, but some people remembered hearing something about a shortage and bought extra. Other people went to the store, saw that there seemed to be less on the shelves than normal and they bought extra. Soon there was none on the shelves… a shortage.

      Has anyone stopped to realize that one cause of the shortage and high price of ammo is the fact that there are no longer any lead smelting facilities in the U.S.? You can thank the EPA for that.

      Yes, there are people who realize they can buy something and sell it for a more… sounds like a retailer. That reminds me of the magazine shortage a few years back. The only place I remember having magazines in stock back then was charging at least three times the normal price and ironically named Cheaper Than Dirt. The only reason the people who greatly overprice their merchandise keep doing so is because people keep buying their overpriced stuff. Supply and demand. Once the demand decreased, they lowered their prices because nobody would pay that much.

      Exactly how much ammo does someone have to have on hand in order to qualify as a hoarder? I have heard some define it as when they have an excessive amount. Personally, that reminds me of a psych class I attended years ago, which I always think of whenever the term ‘excessive’ comes up. The topic was about sexual perversions and they had an asterisk next to ‘excessive masturbation’ on the board because it was being removed from the list of sexual perversions. The professor explained that it was being removed from the list because in order to qualify as a perversion, it had to be abnormal or unacceptable. In order to be called ‘excessive’, you had to be able to determine how much is excessive. So, how much is excessive? Once a year? Once a month? Once a week? Once a day? Once an hour? He said that most people seemed to define ‘excessive’ as any more than they did themselves. So I have found that, when referring to ammo, the term ‘hoarder’ is usually used to label someone who has more ammo on hand than the person using the label. Actual amounts will vary. It might also be due to a bit of jealousy because they can’t afford more ammo.

      Personally, the reason I use for having a sufficient amount of guns and ammo is due to the recommendation of the federal government. A number of years ago the CDC made an announcement that included the recommendation that you should be ready for any type of disaster… including a zombie apocalypse. Since most people know that the most efficient way to dispatch a zombie is to shoot it in the head, everyone should stock up on guns and ammo. (That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.)

  • The4thMusketeer

    if you want to do some actual journalism instead of this stereotypical fear media story. How about instead you try do some real journalism work and interview ammo manufacturers to see what their plans are to prevent bare shelves. Give us a look inside their thought processes like only a pro gun rights news source can. It is so frustrating how the media would rather inspire fear than educate. If I want to read fear mongering I will stick to the regular media.

    • tts

      I’d up vote this if I could.

      So sick of the fear mongering.

      None of the fear mongers even try to give a realistic path to gun ban legislation through Congress, just hint that Hillary can do whatever she wants as President as if the President can even make laws which is factual BS.

      What is even sadder is so many just go along with it. No rationality or even attempts to adhere to facts at all.

      • ChierDuChien

        Hillary will have a democrat Congress..
        It will do whatever she wants.

        • MrEllis

          Because, traditionally democrats have always done what every president wants, ever… Sec Clinton has no interest in banning guns, just in garnering a few votes by mentioning it. Remember how President Obama was gonna ban every gun ever, including the little ones GI Joe’s use? He was also gonna ban democracy, white people, capitalism, mom, baseball and apple pie. We seemed to have suffered through his dictatorship fine. It’s a good thing we rose up and overthrew the evil tyrant!

          Are we done yet?

      • Billy Jack

        Executive actions, ATF rulings and a leftward majority Supreme could make life more difficult than it is now. Way worse. If they could ban a type of ammunition without ever thinking about congress they can make guns worthless without reloading equipment. Who’s to say they can’t virtually ban gunpowder and any other component used to reload? Yeah the NRA will go to court and meanwhile we will be waiting unless a judge issues a stay until it winds its way through the courts. That doesn’t make me feel great about their not being able to get a bill through congress. The govt has many ways to skin a cat.

        • tts

          Nah all that stuff you’re talking about is pure fear mongering.

          Making it so all store bought ammo is de facto banned is pure fantasy. It’d piss off voters so much Congress would ram through the equivalent of a giant middle finger to Hillary and basically force everyone to own guns/ammo lol.

          Stop making up stuff guys and just deal with reality as it is. It really is bad enough, you don’t need to make it worse.

          • Billy Jack

            Really? So far you are the only person making things up in here.
            The ATF banning and unbanning various products based on their interpretations of law hasn’t occurred? I imagined that in my fearful mind? I imagined the proposed M855 ban too right? How many executive orders are being implemented right now? How many have been overrided in court or Congress? The Supreme Court wouldn’t hear any cases regarding the 2nd? What country are you in?

            Force everyone to own guns? How old are you? Do you not recognize the existence of millions of people in the largest populated cities in this country giving up their 2nd Amendment rights with a smile on their face? Did Obama have to have the Supreme Court help him win an election? There are large numbers of persons in the US who couldn’t care less about the majority of their civil rights and they show that over and over in the voting booth and in the streets where there is nothing but traffic and business as usual. The only thing saving us is the congressional district map, the GOP gubernatorial p0wnage and the GOP state congressional p0wnage. If the people behind Hillary were to duplicate that state based organization we’d be dead.

            There’s fear mongering and there’s reality. You are claiming things that we’ve all seen in practice are impossible. I understand not wanting those looking to gain by inflating fear and prices to succeed but your dishonest propaganda campaign is almost no better. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt with your obvious agenda posting non-stop in regard to everyone who believes there is any significant threat to our rights. The sky isn’t falling yet but thinking meteors don’t hit the Earth is ignorant.

            (Not trying to be political here but just addressing the means to keeping and losing our legal right to own and use what this blog is discussing.)

          • tts

            The ATF has generally gone after individual products though! The sort of ban you guys keep talking about (all or nearly all ammo/guns) would be a clear cut ridiculous over exertion of powers that would get them smacked down thoroughly even in a Lefty SCOTUS.

            And I was trying for humor about “force everyone to own guns/ammo” hence the lol at the end there.

            Look you guys need to come up with something better than “executive orders” to justify your fear at this point. If super anti gun Obama couldn’t do what you guys fear with executive orders Hillary isn’t going to be able to do it either. And if she can’t do it with executive orders (and she clearly can’t) then all she has left is the legislative route which is a non-starter thanks to Congress. That is reality.

          • Billy Jack

            I never specified that the ATF would issue broad rulings since that isn’t their MO. When you have a bureaucracy dedicated to ending certain activity it isn’t as difficult as one might think to shutdown something. It’s stupid to think that they would try an avenue towards success that is blocked to them such as Congress. But ATF rulings, staffing, budgets at the ATF and many other managerial and Executive branch duties are there to sabotage. I imagine manufacturers need some sort of ATF licensing and possibly inspections. Defund that department and you have a market with supply drying up. No conspiracy theories about masonic illuminati templars slitting our throats after forcing us to hand over our hardware. Just paper pushers and political prostitutes serving their masters. I don’t relish this happening. They are literally battling in the press over who is more serious about being pro or anti 2nd. Clinton said day one she’s going to do her best to sabotage our rights and I believe her. Apologies for assuming you’re trolling. I just think the threat is real and life can get much harder for us if things go certain way on election night.

          • tts

            Like any politician what she says and what she does or can actually do are 2 very different things.

            Sorry if I came off as if I was trolling.

    • Their plans are the same as their regular business model: produce as much saleable product as possible given available capacity. Manufacturers aren’t the ones jacking up prices at the wholesale level, that’s entirely on the merchants at the retail level, and once panic buying sets in, merchants are also directly responsible for a lot of those bare shelves; pawn shops located near sporting good stores are notorious for buying scarce ammo in bulk literally the moment it hits the shelf, then reselling it at absurd mockup.

  • Brian Hert

    I don’t see this as fear mongering so much as an accurate prediction of what will happen based on the past few election cycles. And a good suggestion, ensure you have a basic stock of your chosen calibers.

    • Katie A

      Thank you, Brian. This is simply a daily post – as opposed to an article – meant to generate discussion and, in this case, offer a single point of advice, which you mentioned in your comment. I’m frequently surprised by how many gun owners have little to no ammunition, so if the gun store is out of stock or restricting sales to two boxes, they cannot even hit the range for a little practice.

  • nova3930

    First paycheck of the month – buy magazines. Second paycheck of the month – buy ammo. Be prepared before a panic hits…

  • Pistolero

    The other thing is .22LR is now treated as a commodity, similar to gold and silver in that hoarders see their purchases as ‘investments’. And given the steady rise in price over time, possibly due to a self-fulfilling prophecy, their probably right.

  • Lee Attiny

    Blame politicians all you want, the truth of the matter is the ammo shortage had nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with paranoid dipshits buying up everything in sight.

    • Paranoid dipshits have always been a smaller part of the problem than greedy scumbags clearing the shelves and reselling at a markup. A lot of the big box sporting good stores have instituted purchase limits not to discourage hoarders, but to keep pawn shops and local gun shops from camping at the ammo counter and buying literally everything in popular calibers as soon as it’s stocked, so they can put it right back out on their own shelves for an extra five or six bucks. They do the same thing with online sales.

  • Cal.Bar

    Let me add to the “panic” The CA Senate just passed 11 (yes eleven) anti-gun measures.
    One of which (if signed by the Gov.) would ELIMINATE on line sales of ammo AND would require background checks AND a license just to purchase ammo. Now, CA’s population over 10 percent of the total US population. Now, guns are not very popular in CA, but I’d hazard to estimate there are more hard core shooters in CA than in many other “red” states combined. Can you imagine what the ammo landscape will look like when 10% of the US population realizes that their access to ammo will be significantly curtailed?

    • ChierDuChien

      Hillary’s SCOTUS will uphold those new laws.
      Her court will have 4 to 6 Kagan/Sotomayors on it.
      Those laws were rushed into being so that they could be first in line at the looming anti-gun Supreme Court.

    • Marcus D.

      Only Newsome’s ballot initiative requires an ammo purchase license. The bill to which you refer does not exactly require a background check either, at least not in the traditional California background check for firearms purchases or a NICS check. Instead, the purchaser’s name and identifying information is scanned against the DOJ’s computerized list of prohibited persons, which takes second to run. And it does not eliminate on-line sales either, as long as the seller is willing to ship to a California licensed ammo vendor, who will run the check for a statutory fee of $10. The question is how many vendors will willingly accept out of state shipments from a competitor for a $10 processing fee. I am sure the big box stores will not. But then again, this is the result the Legislature clearly intends: no bullets, no killings. Supposedly. (NOT!) To restate, if you can’t ban the guns, ban the bullets, or make them too expensive for anyone to buy. Gun control by the back door.

    • MrEllis

      O noes!

  • Treyh007

    Oh here we go…… Don’t start this again!

  • Marcus D.

    I still have MiniMags I bought prior to the 2008 election. It became to elusive that I just stopped shooting it, and when it could be found, it was for 3X what the hoarders paid for it when the stores opened (cleaning out the supply for everyone else). At those prices, I’d rather shoot 9mm. Of course, 9 mm and .45 were pretty much unavailable too, although .40 was always in supply. Go figure. But I didn’t own a .40, and I guess not many other people in town did either. When the drought eased, I started to put aside a meager supply, but periodically the kids waft through town and most of what I have goes up in smoke. I’ve been buying in bulk, even resupplying my daughter in another state. I have, I think, at least 500 rounds of everything I shoot except .45 Colt. It is at least a start. Hopefully I will be able to at least double that before the end of the year, even if my wife cringes every time the UPS driver comes by the house.

  • MrEllis

    Did you really mention The Man buying up all the .22LR? Why didn’t you add “so he could take care of gun owners with it when a million Black Panther Ninjas in Muslim Squad were dispersed by Chairman Obama to kill all the good, wholesome, honest Americans with silencer .22 Death Guns?!?!?”

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    We still haven’t completely emerged from the last ammo shortage. Of course, prices never return to what they were, or even the inflation adjusted prices, but we’re not even close. This is having a deleterious effect on segments of the firearms market. Example: I wanted to buy a fun 22 WMR but bought another 12 gauge shotgun yesterday because for all practical purposes I still can’t get 22 WMR ammo, and I can’t reload it. I also bought 500 12 gauge hulls because I CAN reload 12 gauge.

    Once again, Katie’s article seems long on speculation and short on substantiation. I wasn’t expecting a religious revelation, but I was looking for some new insight beyond, “sales could skyrocket depending on which candidate wins.” Most of the article was the same unanswered questions, along with the same speculations.

  • Talos

    I have been slowly building up a stockpile precisely because of the upcoming election. I don’t really fear anyone is going to “take our guns” because even during the 90s with the assault weapon ban, they weren’t really banned now we’re they? Those with an assault type weapon before the ban still had them after AND they were worth about 3x more on the market. You could still buy them during the ban, but they were expensive OR ugly due to the need to get around the restrictions. In any case, let’s say Hillary is going to win (most likely) and the Dems MAY regain a bare majority in the Senate. They most certainly will not regain control of the House and even in the Senate they won’t have a filibuster-proof majority, so there will be no new assault ban, and there will certainly not be tight restrictions on ammo. That said, I am stockpiling a bit just in case as I’m certain the price will be going up for a bit before and after the election, partly due to a buying rush, partly due to gouging by manufacturers and sellers.

    • maodeedee

      You’re forgetting about the supreme court aren’t you? If Hillary appoints 3 Liberal judges the second amendment would most likely be nullified. And don’t forger that “Republicans” like Ryan and McConnell side with the liberal Democrats.

      • Talos

        Not add simple as you think. Plenty of presidents appointed SCOTUS judges thinking they would be conservative or liberal only for them to completely miss expectations. Souter is one example. Appointed by conservative president worth conservative expectations only for him to become reliably liberal. Also, it’s not possible to specifically ask a candidate what they would rule or what they believe on any specific issue. First, any attempt to do so gets shot down hard in hearings or gets ignored by the candidate. Second, making an explicit statement on their intentions on ANY contentious issue would get them voted down or filibustered by the opposing side.

  • Leo

    Stop posting non-sence, stores are full of ammo!

  • Geoffry K

    Here in South Carolina there isn’t a single round of .22LR, much less a brick, in any Walmart I’ve been to, and that is a lot. Along the coast and upstate. I don’t even buy it anymore, even if I find it. Which is at Bass Pro or Academy, who sometimes have it overpriced, don’t know about Cabela’s or Gander. Dick’s doesn’t have any.
    I did get one box of Federal AutoMatch at BPS during Black Friday last year. I have a 1966 Stevens Arms Westpoint Model 121 single shot rifle my Father bought for me on my 16th birthday. Oh, it’s now 50 years old and a C&R! I sold my other .22 rifles years ago when the shortage started.
    Actually I haven’t bought any other caliber of ammo in 3 years since I started reloading.

  • JMHO

    Was it the “Master Plan”, or a Coincidence, or a Conspiracy? Isn’t it convenient the recent supposed ammunition shortage rapidly disapated and how almost all ammunitions became routinely available after the average retail cost per round increased 400 to 800 percent?

  • tts

    Be careful of polls out this far + you have to consider Clinton is still contending with Sanders even though her nomination is pretty much a done deal at this point.

    Trump is riding his nomination clinch high there, Clinton has yet to see hers and won’t until mid to late June most likely.

    I also wouldn’t put much stock in political polling effecting ammo prices. Until a non-Clinton winner is declared the fear mongering will not stop.

  • John Wisch

    Hording is good !!! Just ask the U.S. Government.
    They take our money from us, i.e. Tax Dollars then Horde everything from guns to ammo to food to fuel to oil and more.

    Then tell the American people don’t over purchase supplies of any of these things. WHAT ?

    The statement. Do as I say, not as I do !!! (Come to anybodies minds here)?

    As for the whiners is the Forum do what you want, I will do as I have always have done !!!

    It is not fear mongering moron. The next President is appointing several Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court that’s not to be feared it is to be planned and prepared for.

    Ignorance is bliss I guess. I wouldn’t know.

  • markrb

    That’s why I started reloading and can cast my own bullets. 😁

  • DL

    What would we do if all the black and brown skins escaped and ran away? Would the deviates and commies provide the same challenges and thrills? The Horror.

  • maodeedee

    22 Long rifle is still scarce in most parts of the Pacific northwest unless you happen to live next to the CCI factory in Lewiston Idaho.
    And my guns are fussy about what ammo they like to shoot so it doesn’t do me any good if Remington Thunderbolts or Federals are available because my guns prefer CCI blazers or mini-mags.

    • Pedenzo

      I live next to CCI/Speer in Lewiston…..and .22 ammo isn’t as abundant as you might think…most of it gets shipped out of the valley…..

  • Retired lawyer

    Dave Y, is spot on. This is a worthless article without any journalist integirty. Just stirring the pot with zero data. For example, why not interview a couple folks in the industry and report their comments? Or why not report how many actual billions of 22 ammo was produced in each of the last 10 years? There is zero data here and the article does not purport to ask any valid question or spur any legitimate discourse…..it just uses space to stir controversy. Get this crap off the TFB or dump this person and get a journalist to report on something….duh?

  • Robert

    It appears some of you guys are to stupid to understand the article. The point is to buy now and on a regular basis, so you’re not part of the panic buying that follow the election of a anti-2nd amendment type. I personally have not bought one round of .22lr since Sandy Hook, because I bought when there was plenty on the shelf. Not Hoarding because like I said there was still plenty on the shelf. So in six month do not come back crying because you cannot find any ammo. It will not be because of me or others that bought when there was plenty. It will be because of all of you that didn’t!!!!!!

    • Katie A

      Robert, you are certainly right that it’s better to simply buy ammo as you go along. I agree with that, 100%. It only causes more problems when people panic, and they frequently panic for groundless reasons. And when they panic, it has a ripple effect. My point is not to panic – not sure where that idea is coming from – but to approach these things rationally.

  • Meanwhile, everyone out there with a Dillon or Hornady or Lee bolted to the workbench will be increasingly Smuggo McSmirkface the closer the election gets. Given the tendency of the courts to err on the side of The Bill Of Rights whenever local gun bans hit the docket, it’s only a matter of time before the Clintonistas at the heart of failed state-level gun control policies around the nation start focusing on more constitutionally murky ammo limits instead. Since the heart of gun control is near-total ignorance of firearms and how they work (and don’t work), it should be a much longer time before they have enough of a clue to go after reloading supplies; hopefully long enough that the Democrat Party will grow up and realize that gun control is one of the primary reasons they poll poorly among rural voters and working class urban White people, and the Republican Party will grow young enough stop basing their party line on racism, sexism, and corporate welfare. It would be nice to be able to choose between candidates who aren’t lunatics for a change.

  • ElderAmbassador

    Buy up ALL the components you need to make your own ammunition. If you do things right it will be Much more accurate in Your firearm. Then buy up .22 sub sonic by the thousands. Easier to do “business” with a home brew suppressor if the ammo is sub sonic.

  • Old Vet

    Unless there is an all out civil war coming, I am pretty sure I have enough ammo to take me into the “last days of the Bible’ kind of scenario. I worked for awhile in a small gun shop and stocked up before the shortages. It is all stored in ammo boxes with desiccant and should be good to go for years, probably long after I take my dirt nap.

  • HAHA73

    im headed to walmart anyone need anything?

  • AirborneSoldier

    Combination of factors. Most of you think things will be on the shelves and buy minimal quantities. Buy bulk, stock up. Your not going to lose money.

  • Katie A

    Reloading is great, it amazes me how few shooters do it. Just the other day I was running a rifle for a gun review and a guy showed up at the sportsman’s club for the sole purpose of grabbing spent brass. Not my brass, darn it, that was made clear early on!

  • tts

    But I’m not and haven’t even brought them up.

    If you want my opinion on them: IMO Unions are like any other large organization and can be terrible or good depending on who is running them and their competency.

    And I haven’t said prices can’t go up. I’ve been saying its all meaningless and irrational fear mongering that has been driving the prices up. If you want to disagree with me then fine, but please disagree with something I actually said!

  • Camilo Emiliano Rosas Echeverr

    “Maybe it was hoarders’ fault. Anyways, start hoarding”
    Wut?

  • Bob

    RELOAD.. but then during the ammo shortage….there was and still IS a shortage of various powders (can’t find Varget in PHoenix), there was also a shortage of primers for a while.
    Without these two items your reloading is nill !

  • 1inidaho

    The current capacity of established manufacturers of 22 rimfire ammo is something on the order of 10 million rounds per day. All manufacturers run three shifts. The Sportsman’s Warehouse close to where I live usually does not have 22 rimfire in stock. They have not had 22 magnum available in about a year. This is a major big box retailer. The Cabela’s close to me also is very spotty on rimfire ammo. Everything else seems to be readily available at this time. Keep in mind that President Obama has been the greatest gun salesman the country has ever had. I believe that in the seven years plus he has been in office, more than 65 million guns have been sold. A good proportion of those guns are being fed a steady diet of ammo and a goodly number of those guns are going to be 22 rimfire.

  • lol

    Invest in Lead, and encryption software.

    Its the first two things they will come for.

  • Gary Hoffmann

    I don’t see the article as fear mongering, I see it as a wake up call. An early warning to start getting prepared now, not after the election. I was caught short during the Sandy Hook shortage, but never again. And, it’s not just elections that bring on gun and ammo shortages. It can happen any time. Buy more during times of plenty, and you won’t suffer a shortage during the famine.

  • Something that took me *far* too long to truly understand.

    You don’t need to turn your basement into an ASP capable of supporting a rifle company for a month of combat, but you’re a fool not to have a case of practice ammo for anything you shoot more than a box a year of. Sure, it helps with supply droughts, but mostly it’s a cost issue.

    Buying the first case *sucks*, but before you get half way through it, you’ll generally have saved enough money to buy the *next* case. Me, I like to keep an unbroached case in each of my primary calibers – before I open the last case, I’m already ordering its replacement. That way, when panics hit, I’m good for a while, hopefully until the panic passes.

  • JoelM

    So you mean to say we should kick the ammo rush off early then.