Possible New Bullet Venture

[tangodown]

That's why I'm doing my due diligence... But, From the response's I've had on this forum and other forums... I think I can do OK... A little more investment upfront in automation. But, it will work out in the wash...

 

[SidecarFlip]

What great feedback! I want to address the question of Cost/Price. It's not my intention to get rich at the expense of a few. Pricing will be more than reasonable. I will try to provide Military Discounts to Retired and Active Duty members of our Armed Forces. I'll even do Firefighter and Law Enforcement too. But, I'm not up to that point yet. Right now I'm at the stage known as Due Diligence.

Yes, I think there is room for another bullet maker. I will make bullets that are unlike anything on the market currently. And, I will offer them at a reasonable price. I will start out producing a dozen or so key items where there appears to be demand and go from there.

All Copper - No Problem; Partitions - No Problem; Plastic Nose Tips - no problem; Consistent Metplats - no problem; Bonded Bullets - no problem; Secant Ogives - no problem; Tangent Ogives - no problem ... Combinations of the above - no problem. Am I going to select a price point that allows me to recoup my investment in machines and dies - of course, I am a capitalist - It's my intent to produce excellent bullets at a reasonable price for you guys - the consumer/customer so we both win.

I will also produce bullets in small quantities for selected folks to try the bullets out - and get them "right" before I start cranking out projectiles.

I'm using my own money to fund this venture so I need to get the business model right the first time

Nothing wrong with those planks, so am I and so is Len and Andy. Due dillegence is all about ascertaining where your profitability lies and the rate that you can recoup your investment (which will be substantial, including, but not limited to machinery and personnel.

Of course everyone wants their caliber produced in their favorite weight and design but thats not always practical and thats not what keeps the lights on because even producing those 'specials' will entail a cost per unit equation thats in keeping with the competition, in other words, you can't price yourself out of the market producing special orders, swaging is about quantity and quality, not a box of this then a box of that. That entails tooling changes and time is profit wasted and profit pays for the infrastructure, but, you already know that.

My observation would be to concentrate (at first) on calibers that are the most common like (for instance) 308 Winchester, 300 Remington Ultra Magnum, 223 Remington and calibers where you can produce quantities of projectiles, offer them at competitive pricing and pay for the infrastructure and then branch off into specials because if you start out with niche projectiles, you'll one, struggle with your capital investment, two, price yourself uncompetitive and three, never grow because all you'll produce is specials.

Everyone wants their 'favorite' produced, I get that everyday and so does Len and Andy, I'm sure. You have to take the 'long' look at what the whole wants verses the few and offer and produce what pays the bills, because the bottom line will be, if you can't produce even the 'specials' competitively, you won't stay in business and your venture will become insolvent and I'm sure, leave a bad 'taste in your mouth''.

BTW, thats why I posted what I did at the outset of your thread. You already have concerns out there producing 'specials' (we all buy from them, not that we like the pricing because everyone wants a deal, thats human nature and it's human nature that everyone wants free samples or gifts but in reality neither pay the bills, in fact, they cost you money....). So, at this juncture you need to decide what road you will embark on, the payback time on infrastructure (if it's going to be a hobby or an actual, viable business venture) and your goals.

The ' he wants this bullet design and caliber and she wants this is all well and good but you will need a basic design/caliber and price that to sell at a profit (to pay the bills) and then fiddle with the niche market.

I run what I (and the IRS) considers to be a for profit business. Sometimes I consider it a hobby, sometimes a viable venture and most times a PITA.

Just saying....

 

[MontanaRifleman]

My observation would be to concentrate (at first) on calibers that are the most common like (for instance) 308 Winchester, 300 Remington Ultra Magnum, 223 Remington and calibers where you can produce quantities of projectiles, offer them at competitive pricing and pay for the infrastructure and then branch off into specials because if you start out with niche projectiles, you'll one, struggle with your capital investment, two, price yourself uncompetitive and three, never grow because all you'll produce is specials.

I agree, that's why I mentioned the calibers I did. I though about the 22 cal, but IME most of the market there is going to be for the conventional types of bullets. Most of the bullets i shoot are from a 223 and next is a 22-250, But I have factory 12' and 14" twists in them which are not suitable for "Long Range" bullets. When I rebarrel the 22-250, I'll probably go with an 8" or 10" twist to shoot the heavier Bergers, but I wont be looking for or wanting to pay extra for "LR hunting" bullets in the 22 cal. The real hunting bullets start at the next level - 243.

The way I see it, Peter is going to either go head to head with similar existing designs at a lower price or offer something new at an acceptable price. Something new would be a high BC jacketed bullet that offered a level of predictable controlled expansion. Right now the closest thing to that is the Nosler ABLR's which claim extraordinary BC's but in fact are mediocre BC's. Nosler is playing it safe. They are producing bullets for the common twists and claiming BC's for the tighter twists. Their 308 210 gr bullet will stabilize in an 11" twist. It is physically impossible to produce a bullet that stabilizes in an 11" twist with the BC they are claiming. That's another challenge... less than honest/honorable marketing by companies like Nosler. I remember a few years ago, Barnes put out a misinformation campaign against Berger to gain a share of the LR market.

IME, offering something new for an acceptable price is the way to go. A no-kidding high BC jacketed, controlled expansion bullet similar to what I previously described. There is a big hole in the 308 10 twist category which is most of the 308 chamberings out there. There are also holes in the 243, 6.5 and 338. In the 284, the ABLR's fill all the holes, so it would be head to head meaning you would have to show your bullet was better in someway, like a higher BC and/or a better/more predictable controlled expansion.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Mark...

As a business model, you always need a volume/profit offering to keep the lights on, so to speak before you start into making/selling specialty items (in any product line), no matter what it is.

The bread and butter offering I call it. Len knows what I'm referring to.....

Thats why (and I can't look inside Peter's head to see what his thoughts are) but thats how I'd approach it.

We all know that 308 caliber and 22 caliber are exceptionally popular as well as 22-250. If I was embarking on bullet swaging, the first offerings would be in those calibers. never discount the AR crowd. Those guys (and gals) expend tons of projectiles, one reason companies like Joyce Hornady's outfit offers 22 caliber in bulk packs of 1000 or more.

Projectile design is complex (just ask Berger or Sierra) so there is a lot of pre-production issues to work out.

Bottom line is, the machinery and the infrastructure have to carry themselves. No business like this is non-profit, only the government is......

Furthermore, what is an acceptable price? Thats a crapshoot too. Do you price your offerings with the big players? Can you exist at that price point? What is the markup versus cost to produce? Companies like Cutting Edge and Precision Bullets exist because they produce one off specialty products and charge accordingly. Do I like to pay the toll on custom made projectiles, not really but I know in both cases, I'm getting the best there is, so I pay the toll. However, not everyone looks at it like I do and of course, we still have the government screwing with the Second Amendment and the UN wanting to completely remove forearms from public ownership. If that occurs (and Obama would like nothing better), is a venture that produces projectiles for handloaders as a primary income going to be viable? I don't believe so.

In actuality, this is a lot more complex than going out and securing suppliers for gilding metal, procuring machinery, setting up a place to operate, securing the necessary permits, possibly hiring employees and becoming a bona fide business entity. You have the government in the background, constantly attempting to insure that you don't remain in business, or even start a business.

Not sure where the BATFE plays into this, but I'm reasonably sure they do. It's firearm related so the government will be more than patently curious.

To appeal to the masses and sell to the masses a mass produced item, you one, have to be competitively priced and at the same time, offer something special, like a high BC or very controlled expansion at low velocity, something to 'wet the apetite of the buyer'.

It's a very delicate balance between profitability and bankruptcy. Myself, my business only makes major purchases of machines when it can pay cash but then. I've built my business and reputation over a decade so I'm 'word of mouth' with a lot of my customers. Peter is just starting out.

You have to ascertain, from the beginning, just how strung out you want to get and stick to that premise. Building a reputation isn't a 5 minute proposition either.

Lots of things invoilved besides swaging bullets. Thats probably the easy part.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I agree that the 22 cals are extremely popular and no doubt are the highest volume sellers. That said, Peter has said he is interested in offering bullets suitable for long range hunting. I just don't see a viable market in the 22 cals for LR hunting. Using myself as an example, I plan to (and do) shoot 53 gr Vmax out of my 223 and rebarrel the 22-250 for something like the 80 gr VLD. Both these rifles will be used for recreational shooting and gophers, Pd's, coyotes, etc. I simply would not be interested in a 22 cal "hunting" bullet for let's say antelope and deer. I have a 6mm and a 6.5 mm for that. my guess is that the vast majority of 22 cal shooters are very much the same. I would guess that 80-90% of 22 cal bullets shot are for recreational shooting and the AR's eat up the majority of those.

So....if Peter wants a share of that market, he's going to have to compete with the existing offerings at their price level. If he can do that, fine. It seems to me that market is probably very competitive with myriads of existing offerings and it would be extremely difficult for a new guy to break in to it.

I could be wrong, but I think his best chance is to fill the existing holes in the popular cals and twists with a new offering that meets the user requirements I outlined in a previous post. A long range hunting bullet that does it all. Good terminal performance at short, mid and long ranges with the highest BCs possible.

just my two pennys....

 

[tangodown]

WOW! Have you guys been taking a ride in my head?

,22 bullets are a PITA at anything less than current market value. There may be some interest in a High BC hunting bullet of some sort. I have the capital to try things out for a group of select folks. The things that work become offerings - the ones that don't - well - you know.

I am working with a number pieces of bullet design kit. We'll see what we can see. "Existing" dies for a particular design take X amount of time to get. Non-standard dies take (X * Y squared) either in time or in money. Hence the desire to get "it" right the first time. There is a standard design for 30 cal with 1/10 twist rates. There are two existing designs for .303 Brit. aka .311 -- I'm a softee for the .303 Brit. Never make any money on it but I'd have fun...)))

I will have more info in the days to come and I need all the input I can get!

I need to find out how I can use the "Poll" function to get wide input. Who do I go to make the poll function happen?

-- Peter

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I think to "get it right" the first time, you'll need a ballistic engineer/ballistician and even then, coming up with something new that works right the first time is a long shot. I get the feeling Berger went through a lot of R&D/trial and error to come with their hybrids.... especially with the 300 gr 338.

I would think you would want a similar design as the hybrid. Not sure if a bullet shape can be patented but if it is then you have to come up with something similar but different.

If you could insert a tungsten core into the tail and shank of a ULD bullet that had an expandable lead core nose, you could increase the sectional density of in the same shape and increase weight and BC of a particular shaped bullet.

I.e., if you took the shape of a 308 215 hybrid, which requires a 10" twist, and put a tungsten core in it and increase the weight to say 225 gr, you could theoretically stabilize that bullet in an 11" twist. The bullet CG would change which might require a slight modification of the shape. Likewise you could do the same with the 230 gr which is the heaviest of that shape that can be stabilized in a 10" twist. A denser core would enable you to offer a bullet with higher weight/SD and BC in a 10" twist. On top of that, the tungsten core would make an excellent terminal projectile. Something to think about...

When you open the "start a new thread" option, there should be an option for a poll at the bottom.

 

[barnesuser28]

I think to "get it right" the first time, you'll need a ballistic engineer/ballistician and even then, coming up with something new that works right the first time is a long shot. I get the feeling Berger went through a lot of R&D/trial and error to come with their hybrids.... especially with the 300 gr 338.

I would think you would want a similar design as the hybrid. Not sure if a bullet shape can be patented but if it is then you have to come up with something similar but different.

If you could insert a tungsten core into the tail and shank of a ULD bullet that had an expandable lead core nose, you could increase the sectional density of in the same shape and increase weight and BC of a particular shaped bullet.

I.e., if you took the shape of a 308 215 hybrid, which requires a 10" twist, and put a tungsten core in it and increase the weight to say 225 gr, you could theoretically stabilize that bullet in an 11" twist. The bullet CG would change which might require a slight modification of the shape. Likewise you could do the same with the 230 gr which is the heaviest of that shape that can be stabilized in a 10" twist. A denser core would enable you to offer a bullet with higher weight/SD and BC in a 10" twist. On top of that, the tungsten core would make an excellent terminal projectile. Something to think about...

When you open the "start a new thread" option, there should be an option for a poll at the bottom.

Tungsten can get pretty spendy, remember the MRX bullets from Barnes?

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Tungsten can get pretty spendy, remember the MRX bullets from Barnes?

Yup, but how spendy are CEB's ?

 

[SidecarFlip]

Mark...You have to be careful about what is inside an projectile. Hard meterials like tungsten or steel of a high rockwell, make the projectile armor piercing and thats a big no.

The only supplier that sells civillian that I know of thats licensed to make armor piercing projectiles is Lake City Armory.

Maybe Peter has the wherewithall to make niche projectiles but I don't see it being profitable and profit is a prime motivator far as I'm concerned. I am a capitalist after all.

Heck, I'd like to see a ballistic tipped 338 caliber somewhere between 250 and 300 grains.

I like Sierrra's but the meplat is a PITA on their ballistic tipped game bullets as Riley and I both know too well.

 

[barnesuser28]

Yup, but how spendy are CEB's ?

Ya got me there.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Flip, you might have a point about the tungsten... I dunno. I suppose if Peter is interested in that idea, he'll be fining out. Barnes used in their MRX. Maybe the jacketed lead core nose would mitigate it.

As for being successful in a niche market, don't know about that either... I expressed my reservation in my first post. I do think he'll have a better chance if he doesn't go head to head initially. Besides, in the 5 years I've been reading the threads here, the LR hunters need a bullet that can do it all both far and near... no such bullet yet exists. If he can offer it at an acceptable price, he'll get a lot of business.

 

[tangodown]

Guys, I've looked at the fixed cost of doing business and will get a handle on the variable cost of business in a week or two or three. It's looking like it will be my own personal IRR. So, let's put the talk of failure on hold for a while... please...

Tungsten has been used for years by bullet makers. The new Barnes bullet has a tungsten back end... No AP worries. Plus, there are other metal compounds available that may do the same thing at a lower cost - but - I'm not there yet...

How about (regardless of caliber) a heavy metal back end, bonded lead front end with either a soft point, OTM, or plastic tip (just something to put the initial crush to the front end), I can pre cut the front end as well. Of course we're going to have to bond the lead up front...

The secret to getting low velocity fragmentation or mushrooming if you prefer is the initiation stage - physics does the rest from there. I'll ensure that the jacket is most thin at the forward end. I'll figure out someway (OTM, etc,) to initiate the process. If the jacket is thin enough - I won't need to pre score it. If the bullet starts to fragment in flight - I'll have to thicken up the jacket some. There are other tricks too... Just remember, it's just physics lightbulb One part of my life I was a rocket scientist

I don't know what else to say, I've got the manufacturing part down, I'm working on the materials science part, I've got aerodynamics to work on too. It is what it is... I've got to go through a start up period. OH! I almost forgot I need to get my FFL 6 back from the ATF. However, they say it "should" take only 30 to 45 days and that's shorter than the time it takes to get equipment in and set up...

I hope my explanation helps.

-- Peter

 

[barnesuser28]

If the heavy metal back end wouldnt fragment like lead, then i think bonding the front wouldnt be necessary. No soft point, just too much variance in BC, OTM sounds like the best, but a plastic tip would be alright with me (probably not so much with others). My 2 cents.