Is this the stuff that the Feds buy by the boxcar-lot for training purposes?
What is the point of "non-duty hollowpoints"? Wouldn't ball ammo be cheaper and just as suitable for training use?
Friday, November 13, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A dealer who was selling similar (repackaged...) said that they were lots that didn't pass quality control checks for reliability. The ones he were selling had marked primers to distinguish them from full quality rounds.
All the Federal agencies I know of (and I used to train them) use duty ammo for practice and qualification, for a number of reasons:
Consistency. You don't get inflated scores due to reduced recoil of training ammo.
Simplified acquisition. Believe it or not, the savings of buying cheaper, less satisfactory training ammo is less than the expense of having to test and purchase two different types of ammo. Using the same ammo for everything is actually cheaper.
Defensibility. If a Federal officer or agent shoots someone, the agency can prove that the agent was proficient with the specific type of ammo that was used in the shooting. (See #1.)
The government can find zillions of ways to waste our tax money, but this isn't really one of them.
Old 1811 pretty much has it. But there's an additional principle at work too. The notion is that you should train the way you fight. If you are going to be proficient in a firefight you need to have trained with the same ammunition so you're not surprised at how it behaves. So getting the practice rounds out of the same factory with the same powder and same bullet as what's used for duty purposes is pretty much 100% guaranteed to give you the same felt recoil etc. as when you have to use your service weapon in a firefight.
Post a Comment