NRAA Ammo Survey.

For general announcements, and anything which does not fit into one of the categories below.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Wakey7
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:18 pm

NRAA Ammo Survey.

#1 Postby Wakey7 » Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:27 am

What are peoples thoughts on the NRAA Ammo Survey ?

bainp
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:05 pm
Location: Wagga Wagga, Australia

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#2 Postby bainp » Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:45 pm

I had hoped there would be space for a general comments at the end of the survey. During the survey they asked quite specific questions, and then gave you various options for answering but you couldn't give an answer that was neither yes or no, agree or disagree, or one of the options that the survey setter provided. As I remember there were only 3 questions where you had the freedom of giving an answer that was neither of the options provided.
I felt that the survey was structured around respondents that were either TR or F standard competitors.
I am a Match Rifle competitor, which is a very experimental discipline, so asking me if it would be OK to limit the bullets for my discipline to a few that the NRAA would approve or become the agent/importer for, was never going to be accepted by me or other shooters of MR or F Open. These disciplines are all about experimentation not limitation.
Philip

RJNEILSEN
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:17 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#3 Postby RJNEILSEN » Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:58 pm

I gave up and did not submit my survey. I feel that the limited choice of answers will reduce the quality of my submission. All multiple choice questions should either have extensive options or should have a "other" option with a field for written comment. On very large surveys, poor quality submissions can be filtered out of the data easily. Not so easy with a survey like this with such a small audience.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#4 Postby bruce moulds » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:42 am

i have not seen the survey.
from comments here it suggests that it is about a way to regain control of the bullet tax, rather than explore real ways to make money.
in light of the fact that they could not manage the bullet thing previously, the question should be asked, can they do it now?
particularly without holding back the disciplines.
when they learn to think differently, things will go differently.
limiting potential answers and then producing an outcome in a positive light is not a road to success.
keep safe,
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

PeteFox
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#5 Postby PeteFox » Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:46 am

The survey is fundamentally flawed. No credentials are required to access the survey as far as I can see, no login, what is your member number etc., etc.
Nothing to stop the same person submitting multiple surveys to push a particular viewpoint.
Pete

Barry Davies
Posts: 1196
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#6 Postby Barry Davies » Thu Nov 22, 2018 12:46 pm

I've done it twice and still have another computer and phone to go--so what's the point.

Old Trev-39
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:07 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#7 Postby Old Trev-39 » Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:58 pm

Regardless of the outcome of the survey nothing will change. Shooters will buy supplies from who has what they want and the cheapest price. On another issue, on an American forum I read that Berger have shifted their factory. Maybe that is why we cannot get Berger projectiles. Has anybody heard of this move?
Cheers,
Trevor.

Tim L
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 7:11 pm
Location: Townsville

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#8 Postby Tim L » Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:27 pm

Old Trev-39 wrote:Regardless of the outcome of the survey nothing will change. Shooters will buy supplies from who has what they want and the cheapest price. On another issue, on an American forum I read that Berger have shifted their factory. Maybe that is why we cannot get Berger projectiles. Has anybody heard of this move?
Cheers,
Trevor.

Yes. The moved from Californiastan into Arizona due to stupid rules.

pjifl
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Innisfail, Far North QLD.

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#9 Postby pjifl » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:12 pm

BRT had a fairly comprehensive newsletter about Berger maybe 6 months ago. I cannot find a copy. anywhere. If anyone knows how to view their older newsletters it is well worth a read. Best description of the Berger Saga I have read. It is complex. If it ever does eventually resolve itself, that is not likely in less than a year or so.

Peter Smith.

bully_eye
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:45 am
Location: Sydney

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#10 Postby bully_eye » Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:21 am

pjifl wrote:BRT had a fairly comprehensive newsletter about Berger maybe 6 months ago. I cannot find a copy. anywhere. If anyone knows how to view their older newsletters it is well worth a read. Best description of the Berger Saga I have read. It is complex. If it ever does eventually resolve itself, that is not likely in less than a year or so.

Peter Smith.


Hi Peter. Here is an excerpt from the BRT newsletter I think you are referring to.

“The second important things was to have a meeting with Berger (now called Capstone Precision) about the situation of bullet supply. Many people will already be aware that Berger Bullets was purchased by the NAMMO Group back around late 2016. Whilst nothing changed for a while they were preparing to move manufacturing back to Arizona and away from Kalifornia (sic). They have now built a new facility in Phoenix. The Nammo Group also own brands like Lapua, VihtaVuori and SK.
At a second location a distribution hub for the bullets has been established near the physical centre of the USA close to Kansas City.
We (at BRT) had been concerned like many dealers around the world that supply is extremely short so I was keen to dicuss first hand the latest situation. On my way to the meeting I ran into Bill Gravatt and I was glad to learn that Bill has now come on board to manage the new Berger business from the Nammo Group point of view. I have known Bill for maybe 25 years as he is an active benchrest shooter. Bill and Fred Sinclair owned Sinclair International which they sold to Brownells many years back. Bill had remained on with Brownells for quite a few years to manage the transitioning change. He has extensive industry knowlege and partricularly good awareness of end user (final customers) and supplier situations and needs. So together we went to the meeting with our International rep I was able to learn that there is going to continue to be short term pain for supply of bullets but long term things should substantially improve. With the larger resources now avaialble and the investment by Nammo eventually product shortages will be all but gone. Plus lots of development of new products. The short term problem is that whilst production is up and running well in the new plant the sheer backlog is so large that it will take some time (many months) to catch up. BRT have 3 separate purchase orders in the system all placed last year. Not counting our back orders. But we have to wait till our turn in the queue comes up.”

Michael

Barry Davies
Posts: 1196
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#11 Postby Barry Davies » Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:53 am

It's a bit late for all of this now. The flood gates for projectiles ( 308 ) have been almost fully opened and nobody is going to like partially shutting them.
My suggestion to the NRAA would be to fully open the gates to any max. 156 grain projectile to be sourced by individuals whereever they can get them from. We have at least one Aussie manufacture that can supply a VLD projectile. Encourage him to manufacture a tangent ogive 155 gn and limit their ( NRAA ) involvement to supplying those. If the NRAA don't want to do that then shooters can purchase direct.
No good limiting usage of projectiles to one or two types and/or manufacturer as we all know there are those out there who would use what they like anyway without the risk of being caught, as next to no ammo checks are now done.
All of this would leave the NRAA without a source of income -- so what, they will simply up the membership fee.
The states could get involved with the purchase of projectiles and make some cash that way --they are doing it anyway.
My feeling on this survey is that the NRAA are not making as much money as they would like from projectile sales and see two ways of doing this --- control ALL projectiles ( FO and F/TR ) or get out and up the membership fee.
I rather think the latter will happen.

bsouthernau
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#12 Postby bsouthernau » Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:16 pm

RJNEILSEN wrote:I gave up and did not submit my survey.



Took me three tries before I could bear to continue to the finish and even then didn't answer quite a few questions. As Phil points out, it's TR and F Std centric and much of it doesn't make sense in the context of other disciplines. As to what possible bearing the gender of the respondent could have on the issue I am at a total loss.

BUT it is at least an attempt to move forward, let's hope some good comes of it.

Barry

argh
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:25 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#13 Postby argh » Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:58 am

It seems like its a survey slanted at a justification for increasing fees.

As has been said by others, with the increase in FOpen, and people buying projectiles direct from the manufacturer or from other retail outlets, the NRAA are not making any money on their bullet tax like they used to.
They have three options:
1). Keep with the existing scenario with a tax on Target rifle and FStd 308/155gr projectiles. Some in this group may feel like the are unfairly propping up the NRAA funds compared to shooters who dont pay the NRAA bullet tax.
2). Stop taxing the projectiles and increase the fees across the board for all. knowing that as the market sets the price for projectiles, it probably wont drop the price on projectiles much anyway.
3). Tax a wider range of projectiles in the popular 6mm/6.5mm/7mm and the heavier 308 FTR projectiles so that all shooters (Target/Fstd/FOpen/FTR) all pay the bullet tax. But they would have to limit the use of projectiles in F Open for example to only the "Approved" one that they are taxing. Sort of limits the appeal/objective of FOpen if you cant pick and choose which projectile you are able to use.

Nobody wants to unfairly pay more than their share of the governing bodies fee base compared to others, but at the same time no one wants to pay more yearly fees to the NRAA ?

Which way do you go. Think about these options before you take the survey.

BTW, what is the bullet tax per projectile anyway? if its a 1 or 2 cent per projectiles tax, the average weekly shooter might shoot 1,000 to 1,500 per year - that adds anywhere between $10 and $30 per year, per shooter to the NRAA income. Would this be the sort of money that they are wanting as additional income per shooter, or even half that to capture loss of projectile purchases, as an increase in fees?

Just my thoughts
Adrian
Last edited by argh on Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

tom1
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:54 pm
Location: Western Australia

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#14 Postby tom1 » Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:13 am

I think your maths is way out. 500 projectiles per year @ 3 cents is $15. Most shooters wouldn't shoot any more than 1000 per year = $30. Those of us paying the levy are going to get cranky if we are hit with a fee increase bigger than $30.
Brad Probert.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: NRAA Ammo Survey.

#15 Postby bruce moulds » Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:25 am

well if they thought out of the square (thought at all), they would already be running an eshop selling products like the ssaa does.
this would include products like hats and stubby holders which promote nraa and long range shooting in general.
done properly it would raise far more money than a bullet tax, and avoid a fee increase.
the sneaky way they have thought this fee increase through would have required some effort.
equal effort spent more productively would not be another nail in the coffin of nraa, brought about by management.
if people want to shoot our disciplines it is their choice whether thay want to pay the money.
nraa are making the choice harder in a cynical manner.
keep safe,
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880

http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM


Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests