Run on Ammunition?

[UnrepentantSinner]

For those of us with weapons that eat 7.62x39 rounds, this is not an unfounded fear. That round is used by AK47, AK74, RPK, RPD, Dragunov, and SKS, among others, and are generally the weapons used by politicians as examples of scary-looking guns that need to be heavily-regulated or outright banned.

What about 5.56 or 7.62x51?

 

[FlamingMoe]

I've not had nearly as much trouble finding 7.62x51 as I have x39. I don't have any x51 weapons, but most places I've searched that were out of stock on x39 had x51 available. I don't really pay attention to 5.56 (the only reason I know anything about x51 is because they're usually listed right next to the x39) so I can't tell you anything about the availability of that caliber. There may well be an increased demand for those as well, but it's not as heavy as it is for the x39.

 

[Yjacket]

You're shifting goalposts now.

Nope! It is not I shifting goalposts. I never alluded to the stolen firearm as being the primary choice of the criminal. Go back and note my choice of words.

Great, now all you have to do is quantify the statement with evidence. The ATF in Phoenix would disagree with you that most of the firearms are obtained illegally, except in the part where the people buying the firearms through the legal process are lying about their status as a legal owner. That, however, is much different than the insinuation that guns are stolen from individuals and used in crimes.

Nope, no insinuation on my part - bad assumption on your part.

In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

Source of gun *** 1997 **********1991
Total ********** 100.0% ********100.0%
Purchased from – 13.9*********** 20.8
Retail store ******8.3*********** 14.7
Pawnshop******* 3.8 ************4.2
Flea market******1.0 ************1.3
Gun show*******0.7 ************0.6
Friends or family*39.6************33.8
Street/illegal source39.2**********40.8

The source of my quote is a document prepared by Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D. BJS Statistician entitled "Firearms Use by Offenders."

The reality of it is that most criminals in possession of a firearm obtained that firearm illegally since the documents that I have read consistently point out that firearms use for first time offenders is less than 25%.

That being the case the percentage of criminals obtaining their firearm from "friends or family" is also an illegal act. So from the quoted table we might want to assume only 13.9% of the firearms used in criminal conduct were purchased legally by the offender. Also please note that criminally used firearms being obtained from gun shows is not the big bad boogie man that the anti-firearms lobby group would have you believe.

As I said before, your link was an interesting read but lacked supporting documentation. As to ATF in Phoenix disagreeing with me - it is not me that they are disagreeing with, it published documentation - not conjecture.

While I'd generally agree that current laws should be more widely enforced instead of adding more laws that don't get enforced, I also pointed out that it isn't the owners but the sellers that need more attention for regulation.

This is still a matter of enforcing the existing law, not create new laws.

 

[GreNME]

The source of my quote is a document prepared by Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D. BJS Statistician entitled "Firearms Use by Offenders."

The reality of it is that most criminals in possession of a firearm obtained that firearm illegally since the documents that I have read consistently point out that firearms use for first time offenders is less than 25%.

That being the case the percentage of criminals obtaining their firearm from "friends or family" is also an illegal act. So from the quoted table we might want to assume only 13.9% of the firearms used in criminal conduct were purchased legally by the offender. Also please note that criminally used firearms being obtained from gun shows is not the big bad boogie man that the anti-firearms lobby group would have you believe.

As I said before, your link was an interesting read but lacked supporting documentation. As to ATF in Phoenix disagreeing with me - it is not me that they are disagreeing with, it published documentation - not conjecture.

Ah, and I guess that your "choice of words" in this case-- particularly "obtained that firearm illegally"-- leaves open enough ambiguity that you can pretty much consider any scenario you like outside of walking into a store and passing money over a counter as being considered "illegal" and thus contradicting what I said. Unfortunately, you're reaching that last part by skipping over an important question: where are these street sellers getting their guns? Well, to answer that, let's take a look at some other studies, shall we?

Following The Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers^[linky], a report from the ATF in 2000, lays out the following list of sources from virtually all criminally-used firearms based on their own data using the Gun Trace System Database that started being used in practically all cases involving a firearm during the 1990's (and was used only sporadically prior to that):

• Federally licensed sellers - these statistics aren't damning to the whole sales industry, but while the amount of licensed sellers accounted for only 10 percent of the investigations in the two-year period (meaning a few "bad apples"), they accounted for the highest number of trafficked firearms (over 40,000 in two years). This isn't a guess or hearsay, this is a fact.
• Gun shows - these were the second-largest source of illegally-trafficked firearms at around 26,000 guns over two years.
• Straw purchases - while these guys accounted for the lowest average number of weapons trafficked per investigation (37), the number of firearms found in the investigations tracing sources was also around 26,000 in two years, nearly as much as gun shows.
• Unlicensed sales - these accounted for about twenty percent of investigations, with a total of around 23,000 firearms over a two-year period.
• Theft - the number of thefts comes from reported firearms stolen from homes, carriers, and licensed sellers over the two-year period, with the number of stolen firearms reported coming in at the lowest at around 9,000.

So, it turns out the ATF in Phoenix isn't simply disagreeing with you, it's the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms based on their own investigation data as presented in 2000. Oh, and before you try to claim that your statistician is a more reliable source than the ATF's own study, it should be noted with interest that you failed to mention from the study you cited that "[d]ata for this report are based primarily on personal interviews with large nationally representative samples of State and Federal prison inmates." In other words, the study you're citing relies on personal interviews of inmates while the study I'm citing relies on the actual quantitative data from investigations involving the ATF between 1996 and 1998. The flaw with relation to the subject matter I'm discussion in the study you cite is that the criminals who were prosecuted may not know the origin of their firearm past when they acquired it, while the ATF study follows the origin of the gun as far as possible, starting with the manufacturer and working down to either the last holding retailer or the last holding legal purchaser. The information I'm citing is following the trafficking of firearms, while the information you're citing is following where the criminals who are prosecuted acquired the guns, normally after they've been trafficked into wherever the criminal who acquired them is located.

Your argument's flaw is in how you're using the data you cite, not with the data itself (the study is sound enough), so the flaw lies in the faulty conclusion you're drawing from the data that is not supported by official conclusions drawn using more exact and in-depth investigations of the origins of firearms used in crimes.

This is pretty typical of what I described previously, where the two "sides" of the gun debate are missing the forest through the trees in the available data. As a result, the argument usually mistakenly falls on either putting too much of the onus on responsible owners of firearms or disregarding the large amount of data available out there about where and how criminal elements are actually acquiring the weapons in crimes. The data clearly shows the top offenders for where these weapons are coming from, but since your "choice of words" ambiguously ignores the results of this data-- after all, trafficking is illegal-- your continued ignoring of origination data will probably remain unchanged by what I'm posting here because it doesn't support your predetermined conclusion. A clear case of confirmation bias on your part, and another example of one of the largest problems of the gun debate.

This is still a matter of enforcing the existing law, not create new laws.

I never disagreed with that, but I have specified that the enforcement has to begin with the sales and sellers and not the buyers. The overwhelming majority of buyers are responsible and don't need to be cracked down on. The use of the ATF's gun trace database has been one of the more useful tools, and more concentration of leveraging technology and organization like that would do more to alleviate the fears of those who are pro-gun and would address more of the standing problems that are present with the anti-gun crowd (except for the actual banning of guns). One of the ways that the technology and organization can be used to address the problem would be more enforcement of lost & stolen firearms reporting laws, which has been discussed in some publications ^{[linky] PDF}. Studies have shown ^{[example 1, exmple 2]} that in states where more regulations focused on licensed dealers (shops and shows) were in place and enforced, incidences of trafficking were deterred, which lowers the availability of guns in the hands of criminals. Until both sides of the gun debate let go of the need to be "right" and instead focus on solving the problems necessitating the debate, the reasons feeding the debate will continue to be a problem.

 

[Yjacket]

Ah, and I guess that your "choice of words" in this case-- particularly "obtained that firearm illegally"-- leaves open enough ambiguity that you can pretty much consider any scenario you like outside of walking into a store and passing money over a counter as being considered "illegal" and thus contradicting what I said. Unfortunately, you're reaching that last part by skipping over an important question: where are these street sellers getting their guns? Well, to answer that, let's take a look at some other studies, shall we?

Following The Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers^[linky], a report from the ATF in 2000, lays out the following list of sources from virtually all criminally-used firearms based on their own data using the Gun Trace System Database that started being used in practically all cases involving a firearm during the 1990's (and was used only sporadically prior to that):

• Federally licensed sellers - these statistics aren't damning to the whole sales industry, but while the amount of licensed sellers accounted for only 10 percent of the investigations in the two-year period (meaning a few "bad apples"), they accounted for the highest number of trafficked firearms (over 40,000 in two years). This isn't a guess or hearsay, this is a fact.
• Gun shows - these were the second-largest source of illegally-trafficked firearms at around 26,000 guns over two years.
• Straw purchases - while these guys accounted for the lowest average number of weapons trafficked per investigation (37), the number of firearms found in the investigations tracing sources was also around 26,000 in two years, nearly as much as gun shows.
• Unlicensed sales - these accounted for about twenty percent of investigations, with a total of around 23,000 firearms over a two-year period.
• Theft - the number of thefts comes from reported firearms stolen from homes, carriers, and licensed sellers over the two-year period, with the number of stolen firearms reported coming in at the lowest at around 9,000.

So, it turns out the ATF in Phoenix isn't simply disagreeing with you, it's the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms based on their own investigation data as presented in 2000. Oh, and before you try to claim that your statistician is a more reliable source than the ATF's own study, it should be noted with interest that you failed to mention from the study you cited that "[d]ata for this report are based primarily on personal interviews with large nationally representative samples of State and Federal prison inmates." In other words, the study you're citing relies on personal interviews of inmates while the study I'm citing relies on the actual quantitative data from investigations involving the ATF between 1996 and 1998. The flaw with relation to the subject matter I'm discussion in the study you cite is that the criminals who were prosecuted may not know the origin of their firearm past when they acquired it, while the ATF study follows the origin of the gun as far as possible, starting with the manufacturer and working down to either the last holding retailer or the last holding legal purchaser. The information I'm citing is following the trafficking of firearms, while the information you're citing is following where the criminals who are prosecuted acquired the guns, normally after they've been trafficked into wherever the criminal who acquired them is located.

GreNME I suspect that we are butting heads over something where there should be no conflict. Yes the source I cited does note that the information was derived from convicted felons. The information in the source you have cited does not seem to me to be in conflict. One document supports the contention that the criminal obtained his firearm illegally. The other document shows how the firearm came to be where the criminal could make that purchase illegally. I don't see the two documents as being in conflict nor do I see your citation as refuting my contention that the majority of criminals obtained their firearm illegally. Nor do I see that I have been ignoring where the illegally purchased firearms came from because all I tried to show is that the criminal obtained his/her firearm illegally.

Your argument's flaw is in how you're using the data you cite, not with the data itself (the study is sound enough), so the flaw lies in the faulty conclusion you're drawing from the data that is not supported by official conclusions drawn using more exact and in-depth investigations of the origins of firearms used in crimes.

I guess that missed the part of your document showing that the criminal does not obtain his firearm illegally. Where is my conclusion faulty?

And thank you for making your links available. A couple of them I had not seen before, and in general they support both of our contentions that the existing laws need to be enforced. If it takes more ATF personnel to do what we are suggesting then the addition of any new laws would also lack enforcement personnel.

 

[GreNME]

It's like trying to pin down a politician. Honestly, nevermind.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've not had nearly as much trouble finding 7.62x51 as I have x39. I don't have any x51 weapons, but most places I've searched that were out of stock on x39 had x51 available. I don't really pay attention to 5.56 (the only reason I know anything about x51 is because they're usually listed right next to the x39) so I can't tell you anything about the availability of that caliber. There may well be an increased demand for those as well, but it's not as heavy as it is for the x39.

The reason why I asked is the military effect on supply/demand. The x51s are used for M-60s and M-240, but there's more M-16 and other 5.56 chambered rifles in civilian hands than, say HK-91s, FALs M-14s, etc. so I suspect military demand might not effect that caliber as much.

 

[roger]

Military effect on supply?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc...r_law_enforcement_metals_treatment/index.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142890/posts
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/15/ammo-canada.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/the-morning-call/THNVL8JUSQ8HF1LQF
http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/647700


other factors (lack of metals, etc, but this article has a lot of baseless speculation)
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-bullets1009feb10,0,2201778.story?Buwwets

 

[Autolite]

Is there a 2nd amendmentish section in the Canadian Constitution? If not, then your argument is a non-sequitor.

No, actually there isn't. Was the comment about 'losing their guns' specifically referring to American gun owners only???

 

[BPSCG]

Anyone who thinks it's difficult to buy ammo needs to learn how to shop online. Really.

Spoken like someone who hasn't tried to do it recently, at least in pursuit of 7.62x39 rounds.

I wouldn't know. I have a .38 Special, and can easily get a box of 50 rounds for about twelve bucks.

I hate you.

I don't hate you back.

But correct me if I'm wrong - your interest in 7.62x39 is for hunting or target shooting, isn't it? If so, what you're complaining about is that your hobby/sport is getting expensive. Else you'd probably settle for something smaller for home defense purposes. Like a .38 Special.

 

[rwguinn]

I don't hate you back.

But correct me if I'm wrong - your interest in 7.62x39 is for hunting or target shooting, isn't it? If so, what you're complaining about is that your hobby/sport is getting expensive. Else you'd probably settle for something smaller for home defense purposes. Like a .38 Special.

Ha!
Nothing says "I mean business" like a 12 ga.
The sound of the action working serves notice, and the likelihood of doing damage to anyone beyond the target is small..

 

[GreNME]

Ha!
Nothing says "I mean business" like a 12 ga.
The sound of the action working serves notice, and the likelihood of doing damage to anyone beyond the target is small..

Yup. That's why we had one at the last place we lived (with rock salt, bird shot, bird shot, and the rest buck shot loaded in order) and why a friend has that at his place in ABQ. The sound of the pump shotgun action is a pretty universal "think twice" sound.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yup. That's why we had one at the last place we lived (with rock salt, bird shot, bird shot, and the rest buck shot loaded in order) and why a friend has that at his place in ABQ. The sound of the pump shotgun action is a pretty universal "think twice" sound.

Rock salt has no place in a shotgun except in old wives' tales and second-rate James Bond movies.

Seriously, I assume you're joking, but in the off-chance you're not, lose the rock salt. Now. It will have virtually no effect in a defensive situation, and if you're unlucky you can wind up charged with building a Destructive Device or similar violations. Use factory ammo, and only factory ammo, always, for defensive purposes. It isn't worth the legal risk.

Likewise, birdshot will be nearly useless. (This guy's whole site is awesome, by the way. I love a good amateur experimenter.) Save it for sporting clays.

In a defensive shotgun, the rounds 99% of you want are reduced recoil, 2-3/4" buckshot, anything from #4 to 000. Period.

In my own rig when expecting company I have three rounds of 2-3/4" 00, followed by two BRI sabot slugs. The only reasons I do that are: First, if the buckshot doesn't scare them off, I may be facing a hostage or barricade situation where I need more precision; and second, for some weird reason I happen to be unusually good with them. Know your load, practice, make it as idiot proof as possible.

Yes, the odds of my ever needing to fire them in anger are vanishingly small. Just a hypothetical. [/soapbox]

To the OP, there is surely a "run" on ammunition, but not an outage. Most of the complaints I see are about cheap surplus ammunition disappearing. This is partly because of the extended Obama Boom, as all the rednecks who think the Guvernmint is goin' to take their freedoms away are stocking up, and everyone who always wanted a Black Rifle is buying now, afraid the ban will return. For heavier calibers, I think we're simply running out of surplus 7.62x51, in particular, and surplus lots are showing up from increasingly exotic places.

Military usage won't affect this. Civilians very, very rarely see current military ammo for sale at all. However, new military orders may limit new civilian production -- there have also been widespread reports of components, especially primers, being harder to find. But most of it is mere hysteria.

I've had no problem finding ammo in nearly any caliber, sporting or military, but then I usually buy slightly better stuff -- say Black Hills blue box .223, for instance.

The only things I've had any trouble getting are 16 gauge (this has been true for years) and specialty .22 LR (this is new, and very weird). Not sure what to make of that.

Stay safe.

 

[Drudgewire]

Double .00 buck in the pump action in the closet.

.38 S&W in the nightstand.

Alternate between the Glock 9mm and the Smith airweight for carry.

All still relatively cheap for ammo.

Unfortunately the price of .40 is rising steadily right as I'm about to get my hands on the sweet new Generation 4 Glock RTF.

 

[Pope130]

I visited several gun and outdoor stores today looking for sling swivels for an old Savage 24 (no luck, I'll have to order). Ammo levels are definitely unusually low. .22LR in particular is about a quarter to a third of normal levels. Military calibres (7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 5.56) are also low. In shotgun shells bird shot is plentiful, but buck and slugs are in very short supply.

Robert

 

[R.Mackey]

I visited several gun and outdoor stores today looking for sling swivels for an old Savage 24 (no luck, I'll have to order).

Wow, the combo rifle. Nice.

Certainly one way to gain more options when ammo is scarce. [/off-topic, but not as off-topic as gun control madness]

 

[Pope130]

Wow, the combo rifle. Nice.

Certainly one way to gain more options when ammo is scarce. [/off-topic, but not as off-topic as gun control madness]

1964 production Model 24H, .22Mag over .410. Birthday present from my brother. I like him!

Back on topic, in some stores .22WMR ammo is actually more plentiful than .22LR hollow point. Weird.

 

[Drudgewire]

1964 production Model 24H, .22Mag over .410. Birthday present from my brother. I like him!

Back on topic, in some stores .22WMR ammo is actually more plentiful than .22LR hollow point. Weird.

Not to shill for evil corporate powerhouses, but 22LR HP is plentiful and cheaper than Crunch-n-Munch at Wal-Mart.

 

[R.Mackey]

1964 production Model 24H, .22Mag over .410. Birthday present from my brother. I like him!

Back on topic, in some stores .22WMR ammo is actually more plentiful than .22LR hollow point. Weird.

Your brother kicks ass.

.22 WMR is an interesting caliber. Much hotter than most people suspect, and plenty accurate. I don't own one but my father has an old Single Six revolver that chambers it. KAH-RACKK!!

Basic .22 LR bricks, I can find easily. I was looking for CB solids and Stingers, couldn't find either one locally. I have a hypothesis (with NO data to support it) that a lot of the Black Rifle buying hysteria has overlapped to AR-15 uppers chambered for .22 LR, and this explains the hit.

I've had absolutely no problem finding 9mm Para. If anything it's gotten slightly cheaper..?

 

[Pope130]

R.Mackey,
You could have it there. I know .22LR is popular with the survivalist crowd. Lots of guns it fits, good for small game.

I think it also may be from fear that an ammunition tax might disproportionately affect the .22 shooter. If the tax is levied on a per round basis it will impact the guy who's used to shooting a couple hundred .22s at the range much more than the guy firing ten rounds to sight in his .454 Belchfire Magnum.

I've noticed the same thing with 9mm Para. I'm surprised at that. It's one of the calibres I'd expect people to stock up on.

Robert