It's time we found out why ammo prices keep going up.

[PeteG]

Have any of you wondered why ammunition prices have continued to rise to unprecedented levels, despite the fact that prices for lead, copper, brass and aluminum have all plummeted? For the past six months all forms of metals have been cheap, and the price of energy has fallen. So why is Federal GM308M now $42-a-box?

Then COMPONENTS dried up. Manufacturers of primers are supplying only manufacturers of ammunition, and suddenly there do not seem to be enough primers left for reloaders. These same manufacturers were being supplied a year ago, and six months ago, and three months ago, and there was never a problem supplying primers and brass to the rest of us. What suddenly happened?

This is what is referred to in the law as “parallel behavior.” All the manufacturers announce price increases within a couple of weeks of each other. Then everyone seems to be out of everything at the same time. One can imagine any number of reasons for these parallel price increases; but has anyone looked into what the actual reason is?

Prices have been going steadily up for two years now. At first we blamed the wars. Then we blamed China buying up all the base metals. Now we are hearing that the fact Obama has been elected President is driving panic buying for the past four months. Or maybe this was Obama’s plan all along, put into effect 18 months before he was nominated, to drive prices up so high nobody can afford to shoot!

As each of these explanations faded, another was plugged in. And we, ammunition consumers, have been savaged by two years of parallel, concerted action, driving prices higher than any of us has ever seen or even imagined. Why?

Let me suggest one possible reason for this parallel action by ammunition manufacturers. When materials were in short supply, prices rose dramatically, and people still paid them. Those who manufacture and distribute ammunition said, “Hey! This is great! Look what these people will pay for cartridges! Let’s keep this up!.” Then when materials were no longer in short supply (assuming they ever really were), they simply agreed – tacitly or explicitly - to keep the prices where they were ... or drive them higher. (Sort of like $4-a-gallon gasoline before the speculators got trashed in the Wall Street melt-down.)

This would be (1) concerted or joint action of more than one party; (2) that unreasonably restrains trade; and (3) that affects interstate trade or commerce. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, criminal violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

So, has anybody looked into this?

Of course, there will be an outcry from the pathologically-anti-government wing. I can hear the outraged bellowing now: “Big Government” interfering with the forces of the market! Whiny liberals complaining about free enterprise! Inteference with our inalienable right to fix prices!! Call RUSH!!

But no amount of Orwellian double-speak should obscure the fact that one of the legitimate functions of government is to protect the general welfare by investigating and prosecuting criminal enterprises that operate interstate. We can hardly do that for ourselves now, can we?

So, having dismissed the wing-nuts, is anyone else interested in having our AG take a look at why these prices seem to have been rising in concert? Concerted action can be coincidence, or driven by some market force that affects all the manufacturers at the same time. Or it can be the product of a combination or conspiracy to drive up prices by a variety of anti-competitive arrangements, including but not limited to hoarding or speculation.

It seems to me an association of firearms owners, the members of which have been getting hosed big time, is an appropriate group to ask our AG to look into the matter.

[Emptymag]

Pete, no need to get the AG involved. Prices will come back down. Some people here on this very forum have said so.

All sarcasm aside, I can't see the AG doing any such thing.

[Willtallica]

So bias, because of all things ammunition. You're silly

[Paradigm]

Price goes up because supply goes down while demand goes up.

I'm a new handgun owner, so I'm buying ammo for it. I can't imagine that I'm the only new handgun owner in the country...

If you want ammo prices to go down, add to the supply by either opening your own ammo manufacturing company or stop buying manufactured ammo!

[JoeWilliams]

If you don't want to pay the asking price, don't pay it. Seems to me to be a much more "pro-freedom" step than asking the government to try to force manufacturers to sell you things for less than they think it's worth. That's just a good way to get them to find other markets.

[Paradigm]

Seems to me to be a much more "pro-freedom" step than asking the government to try to force manufacturers to sell you things for less than they think it's worth.

Great point!

The last thing we need is more government interaction (and regulation) in our sport.

[TonyF]

Rome is the mob.

[ChamberedRound]

Rome is the mob.

Couldn't have said it better myself. THAT'S the answer to your question, Pete.

[PeteG]

Oh my GOD!! When I made my remark about resistance from the anti-government wing-nuts, I was being sarcastic. I am astonished that anyone could actually regard enforcement of anti-trust laws as "government interference in our sport" or "asking the government to try to force manufacturers to sell you things for less than they think it is worth." That's like saying prosecution of a used car dealer for turning back odometers is "government interference with motor sports."

Let's make it simple, for those of that persuasion:

If the market is being illegally manipulated by way of agreements not to compete, then "supply and demand" does not operate, "free market" cannot operate (even in theory), and lots of people get hurt, and in once case a major depression was the result. This is why it is illegal.

Anti-trust laws do not "force manufacturers to sell .. for less than they think it is worth." Anti-trust laws are designed to allow a competitive market to determine "worth," as opposed to having that concept defined by a few monopolists who manage to get a choke-hold on a particular market.

Antitrust violations are particularly difficult for individuals to detect, unless they become so blatant one cannot help but suspect what is going on. Even when it gets to the point people suspect they are being victimized by illegal price-fixing or concerted anti-competitive action, they are in no position to investigate the matter. Further, the only thing an individual can do by way of enforcement is to commence the proverbial "federal case," which is far beyond the economic means of ordinary people. Therefore, as a practical matter, there is nothing individuals can do about them (except, maybe, pretend they are not there).

That's why the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as most state governments have anti-trust divisions (albeit gutted and weak after 20 years of "deregulation"). ONLY government has the resources and the duty to investigate and, where violations exist, prosecute. This falls squarely within the duty imposed upon Congress under the general welfare, commerce and powers clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Telling me that if I don't like being exploited by price-fixing I should stop buying is like telling me if I don't like my pocket being picked I should stop going out in public. What ever happened to fighting back as an option?

Stockholm syndrome.


(And, by the way, I am in the ammunition business.)

[Kaos]

You've got my ear, so what do you propose as being the absolute first course of action?