Note: This post is about "General Firearms Discussion" although I got on the kick while researching ammunition manufacturing regulations.
I recently looked into requirements for manufacturing (for profit) common ammunition (not legally defined as armor piercing, explosive, etc…) and here is what I found:
Requirement to manufacture ammunition for sale: Type 6 FFL (I'm not sure if this is only required if the manufacturing is for profit, or if this would be, for example, required to reload for a friend at cost (no profit), but monetary transaction. Obviously, reloading common ammunition for personal use is unregulated.
The real problem: To manufacture ammo for profit, in addition to holding Type 6 FFL, you must register with the U.S. State Dept. under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), even if you don't buy/sell ammunition internationally. Minimum cost for this is $2100, and cost increases with scale of manufacturing. This is for "liability insurance".
Implications for small scale ammunition manufacturing: Say I want to open a small business handloading match ammunition for percision rifles, I am required by law to get a type 6 FFL (reasonable in my opinion), BUT, I am also required to register with State Dept. under ITAR, which effectively costs a minimum of $2100 per year. Conclusion: Due to ITAR incurred costs, small scale ammunition manufacturing for profit cannot be undertaken practically. ITAR creates too much of a barrier of entry.
Essentially, these laws and regulations cater to large companies and government owned facilities, who produce ammunition in enormous quantities, and can do enough business to justify paying the yearly ITAR costs.
This also means that, since ammunition ends up coming from only a few facilities producing 10s of millions of rounds per year, the ammunition that these facilities produce is the only readily available ammunition on the market. Since many of these facilities are owned by large arms companies, there is incentitive for them to only produce ammunition for use in their profitable line of firearms.
This means a cartridge cannot "catch on" and become widely available unless an "Arms manufacturing giant" wants to produce it. Even if a small company wanted to start producing a specific cartridge for an uncommon firearm platform, they could not do so profitably on a small scale.
Implications for the general firearms industry: When you shop for a firearm, you are limited to firearms that are chambered in a cartridge that is widely produced by one of a few "Arms manufacturing giants", many of whom only want to produce ammo on a mass scale if it is for firearms that they sell. Otherwise, you must reload.
I believe if the ITAR could not regulate manufactures unless they were selling/buying internationally, we might see firearms readily available in a wider variety of calibers, with more access to ammunition. Then a cartridge like the .300 whisper might catch on and become widely produced, rather than it taking years and having to be picked up by AAC and Remington and tweeked to the new .300blk before getting SAAMI approved.
My thought is that these regulations really inhibit firearms chambered in new or less popular cartridges from becoming popular.
Thoughts?
I recently looked into requirements for manufacturing (for profit) common ammunition (not legally defined as armor piercing, explosive, etc…) and here is what I found:
Requirement to manufacture ammunition for sale: Type 6 FFL (I'm not sure if this is only required if the manufacturing is for profit, or if this would be, for example, required to reload for a friend at cost (no profit), but monetary transaction. Obviously, reloading common ammunition for personal use is unregulated.
The real problem: To manufacture ammo for profit, in addition to holding Type 6 FFL, you must register with the U.S. State Dept. under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), even if you don't buy/sell ammunition internationally. Minimum cost for this is $2100, and cost increases with scale of manufacturing. This is for "liability insurance".
Implications for small scale ammunition manufacturing: Say I want to open a small business handloading match ammunition for percision rifles, I am required by law to get a type 6 FFL (reasonable in my opinion), BUT, I am also required to register with State Dept. under ITAR, which effectively costs a minimum of $2100 per year. Conclusion: Due to ITAR incurred costs, small scale ammunition manufacturing for profit cannot be undertaken practically. ITAR creates too much of a barrier of entry.
Essentially, these laws and regulations cater to large companies and government owned facilities, who produce ammunition in enormous quantities, and can do enough business to justify paying the yearly ITAR costs.
This also means that, since ammunition ends up coming from only a few facilities producing 10s of millions of rounds per year, the ammunition that these facilities produce is the only readily available ammunition on the market. Since many of these facilities are owned by large arms companies, there is incentitive for them to only produce ammunition for use in their profitable line of firearms.
This means a cartridge cannot "catch on" and become widely available unless an "Arms manufacturing giant" wants to produce it. Even if a small company wanted to start producing a specific cartridge for an uncommon firearm platform, they could not do so profitably on a small scale.
Implications for the general firearms industry: When you shop for a firearm, you are limited to firearms that are chambered in a cartridge that is widely produced by one of a few "Arms manufacturing giants", many of whom only want to produce ammo on a mass scale if it is for firearms that they sell. Otherwise, you must reload.
I believe if the ITAR could not regulate manufactures unless they were selling/buying internationally, we might see firearms readily available in a wider variety of calibers, with more access to ammunition. Then a cartridge like the .300 whisper might catch on and become widely produced, rather than it taking years and having to be picked up by AAC and Remington and tweeked to the new .300blk before getting SAAMI approved.
My thought is that these regulations really inhibit firearms chambered in new or less popular cartridges from becoming popular.
Thoughts?
