Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/20/2004 7:49:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 7:51:26 PM EDT by Templar]
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:58:22 PM EDT
ok no names?? no dist names?? keep us updated
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:59:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 9:02:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 9:03:13 PM EDT by AROKIE]
wow good deal, hope fully it will get out soon. ammo is drying up
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 1:25:25 PM EDT
I don't see why this would affect the ammo firing, nor raise pressure, so why is it rejected?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 1:33:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By billclo:
I don't see why this would affect the ammo firing, nor raise pressure, so why is it rejected?



Reading is fundamental.


Apparently, there is a fairly large lot that they had to reject because the primer sealant is contaminated with dust during manufacture.



Link Posted: 10/27/2004 2:02:15 PM EDT
DT I think what he meant was, "will the contamination have any adverse effects on our rifles?"
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:24:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 2:24:30 AM EDT by billclo]

Originally Posted By die-tryin:

Originally Posted By billclo:
I don't see why this would affect the ammo firing, nor raise pressure, so why is it rejected?



Reading is fundamental.


Apparently, there is a fairly large lot that they had to reject because the primer sealant is contaminated with dust during manufacture.






I read it correctly, you sanctimonius twit. I still don't see why the sealant being contaminated would affect anything.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:42:55 AM EDT
Ok, the .gov has specs that say...

A glass of water shall have no more than .0002 deleterious material.


When a lot being sold to them has .0003 deleterious material, it is rejected.

I will guess dust is not in the spec for ammo sealant. If it caused a liability, I would further guess it would not be on the market.

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:19:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 3:21:13 AM EDT by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By CavVet:
If it caused a liability, I would further guess it would not be on the market.


You mean like olympic ammo
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:55:02 AM EDT
Take it your not talking about the LC M855 sold by: www.ammoman.com?

It's not my choice for SHTF ammo, but he's got some, unless there's something I don't know about it........

Mike
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 5:41:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:15:32 AM EDT

We need lot numbers

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:27:54 AM EDT
more ammo on the market is always a good thing
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:39:42 AM EDT
I guess as long as it goes BANG and doesn't damage my rifle or hurt anyone with an accident, I'll shoot it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 9:01:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CavVet:
A glass of water shall have no more than .0002 deleterious material.

When a lot being sold to them has .0003 deleterious material, it is rejected.



What about Total Desolved Solids? Why would the Gov buy water by the glass?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:10:18 PM EDT
As a side question, is there any way to find out why the other lots of LC were rejected? I've had zero trouble with my lots 7 and 10, and plan to buy more when I can find some, but I was just curious.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 5:17:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stryfe:

Originally Posted By CavVet:
If it caused a liability, I would further guess it would not be on the market.


You mean like olympic ammo



Olympic is not from the Lake City Federal Plant. I dont think they would release it is my inference. As for Olympic, its like Wolf, people shoot it everyday, but its still (IMHO) trash.

Top Top