Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/20/2004 6:49:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:51:26 PM EST by Templar]
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 7:58:22 PM EST
ok no names?? no dist names?? keep us updated
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 7:59:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:02:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 8:03:13 PM EST by AROKIE]
wow good deal, hope fully it will get out soon. ammo is drying up
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 12:25:25 PM EST
I don't see why this would affect the ammo firing, nor raise pressure, so why is it rejected?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 12:33:31 PM EST

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 1:02:15 PM EST
DT I think what he meant was, "will the contamination have any adverse effects on our rifles?"
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:24:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 1:24:30 AM EST 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 1:42:55 AM EST
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 2:19:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 2:21:13 AM EST 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 2:55:02 AM EST
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 4:41:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:15:32 AM EST

We need lot numbers

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:27:54 AM EST
more ammo on the market is always a good thing
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:39:42 AM EST
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 8:01:33 AM EST

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 1:10:18 PM EST
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 4:17:21 PM EST

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