Budget Cartridges

[timps]

If a company makes a budget load and a premium load I wonder how much the price increase is actually down to the cost of components.

The staff and the loading machines will be the same so the quality of loading should not be different or more costly to do.

I would like to wager the majority of the price increase is taken up by higher profit margins, sponsorship to top shooters and advertising rather than just component costs.

I have no idea on actual numbers but I wonder if people would feel the same if there was only a £10 difference in component costs between budget and premium.

There is something to be said for being reassuringly expensive.

I am not taking one side or the other having used stupidly expensive loads to budget loads.

I just stick to what I can get a constant supply of that I like, but if there are two I like I will go for the cheaper one. When I first started I would always go for the expensive one, I still do treat myself occasionally though as I am partial to the odd 250 slab of stupidly priced stuff as I just cannot help myself.

 

[chippy]

Unless your averaging over 85% what's the point in buying expensive shells.budget ones are better than you.

 

[jwpzx9r]

timps I think you are right!

Let me put it this way if you sell 100 million budget price and 10 million so called super cartridges and the manufacturing cost is the same for all these the components because it is to with in fractions of a cent. The stuffs that then go into the components that is the primer powder and propellant powders may cost more ... but not significantly, wads don't make me laugh! How much do you need to sell them at to make a profit if volume is a factor.

As one who worked in high end pharma research I have a bit of an idea how the market place operates!

 

[Oldblaster]

A lot of It is just clever marketing, constantly creating a "better" product for us the spend our hard earned money on! 

 

[ips]

I believe quality control has a bearing on the cost.

 

[Macc Ladd]

Nothing wrong with hull superfast, good club/budget cartridge. shoot them and if you like them, keep shooting them!! So many blame the cartridge, when it's usually down to the shooter. When you become more competent maybe you will feel like changing, but you must be confident in your cartridges

 

[jwpzx9r]

"I believe quality control has a bearing on the cost."

I am sorry but I think that is unlikely. If you were talking about something that was measured I would believe it but not with cartridges. They are manufactured but the thousand per hour and if they actually test more one in every five case that goes through the process I would be amazed. Now how would they control the quality? Well the primers would be tested by the supplier.. check the propellent would be tested by the supplier.. check the shot would be checked by the supplier..check you see the trend here the manufacturer does virtually squat! If they test fire one or more per case what are the proving? If you are telling me that the cost of the supplied goods is higher because of this testing... I don't believe that either! A manufacturer is going to want his components tested regardless of what is the cost of his final product it does not cost more to test one primer or propellant over another end of. If you are telling me the cost of the actual powders and shot used is greater because of the manufacturing process and materials used for these then yes there could well be a factor there but quality control sorry don't see it. Research is always expensive I spent more money on one experiment, well on behalf of the company , than you have spent on all your shooting including all of your guns and travel to shoots in your entire life! But I don't think shotgun cartridge manufacturers spend quite that much but if anything is adding to the cost it will be research into the primer and propellants used and they are paying the premium for the newest best available... that's fair enough it may be a while before they come off patent you pay for that privilege.

edit

nonsense is not the right word sorry!

 

[Hamster]

The main difference between budget and better is the grade of lead shot and powder, they also tend to use taller brass (steel) for aesthetics. I think we're mainly singing from the same hymn sheet, I certainly haven't knowingly paid over £200 for anything, ever. In fact I stopped buying Express Super Comp when they broke through £100 as at the same time Eley came out with the Superbs which I found indistinguishable in characteristics but which were £95 or less for a while. 

I also quite like World Cups and Supremes but won't pay £35-£70 more, not so keen on White Gold or Sov's as find them both punchy as well as too expensive which is just as well since they do nothing over and above what I can get a Superb to do. 

Come to think of it, does anyone use World Cups or Supremes any more ?

 

[Finners]

Without wishing to offend anyone it has been widely considered that most club shooters will not gain much by shooting expensive stuff BUT even a single missed target at a relatively high end comp because of any of the component issues hamid eluded to earlier can cost you dearly.

I have lost targets on occasions over the years by a faulty cartridge, believe it or believe it not that's up to you so I know for a fact that this can happen. Yes it can even with an expensive shell but because of quality components and quality control it's less likely and that is why anyone serious enough shoots good stuff at important comps.

Fair comment. 

 

[ips]

John

Last sentence a bit harsh my friend.

The way I understand it from past conversation and info is that high end stuff has more regular quality control compared to budget therefore the production line is slower therfore the end product costs more and is more consistent as a result. The components used are better quality also which obviously effects the price.

That's how I understand it and I accept it. You don't have to that's your perogative.

 

[westley]

I buy an occasional 250 World Cups and always have a box/part box in my bag just in case of one of them there 90 yard minis.

Forgot to say a 250 slab can last a couple of years.

 

[ips]

Ps

Wouldn't it be great if a mfr posted and explained the difference and the reason.

I shall have a word next time I speak to the only one I know.

I am out I can't take any more.

 

[Will Hewland]

This sounds familiar to me.. As a manufacturer of something very different to shotgun cartridges, I too make a range of products, all in a similar vein, but in a range of cheaper to dearer, much as cartridge manufacturers do.

The most expensive part of the product range does have some higher quality ingredients, with more spent on inspection and quality, both of which drive costs up of course. The other factors which make the higher end product more expensive are that they are made in lower volume than the cheaper end, so certain fixed costs are not amortised (shared across the amount of product made) as widely.

Finally, the higher volume / cheaper products tend to be sold at the lowest possible price as there is more of a price-war with lower end products. So, basically it's a bit of everything accounts for the price difference in my experience..

 

[jwpzx9r]

John

Last sentence a bit harsh my friend.

Sorry Ian it is in no way a put down it is to highlight the very high cost of some research activity! That money must be recouped somewhere along the line. The manufactures of these newly researched compounds don't do out of some sense of philanthropy, they do it to make money and the more the better. It takes a lot of money to put together, safely, new and better explosive compounds and I think that those compounds add more to the package than the quality checks. Some cartridge manufacturers will make their own components others, smaller ones, simply buy them in ready tested from suppliers then design and prepare their cartridges. If you as a company buy in primers and powders that are tested by the supplier and certified at say 1 in a 10000 fail rate you have to take their word for it they have the test facilities and you have paid for the testing, you don't set about verifying their results every time you get a new batch in.

 

[jwpzx9r]

My final thoughts on the debate about this subject.

I have bought many different cartridges but nowhere near as many as the more experienced shooters who come on this forum. It has been suggested that greater quality control could be a reason for higher costs and that quality control leads to improved consistency of velocity and reliability of the cartridge. I very often see a quoted MV on the side of the box but never see and confidence limits to back up their test results. Stamping 1425fps mv on the side of the box means nothing really unless you are going to tell me how confident the manufacturer is that figure is correct and what the variance is. The true test of the cartridge is what it does when fired not how it looks. For me that means for a manufacturer to charge more for a cartridge, that may be notionally better than a cheaper one, they have to prove empirically how it performs against the other, it is no good stating a mv or misfire rate, anybody ever seen a figure for that?,if you don't back up your claims with official test confidence limits. Otherwise it is down to the shooter to do his own testing. It would be daft to say that some cartridges are not better than others but it would also be daft to assume just because you are charged a higher price for a cartridge it means that it will perform significantly better than another cheaper one. If on the other hand a manufacture backs up their price with a specification to match the price then things become clearer. I have not looked at any of the manufacturers websites it could be a fact that these specifications are published for their products?

 

[Stan]

It's a very minor point but, why do companies making budget cartidges print their name / logo on them? Surely it would only save peanuts not to but every little helps. Do they have to be printed by law to identify them?

You only really see the logo 3 times - box to pocket, pocket to gun, gun to bin... so where's the benefit in wasting money on printing?

 

[Darkside]

It's a very minor point but, why do companies making budget cartidges print their name / logo on them? Surely it would only save peanuts not to but every little helps. Do they have to be printed by law to identify them?

You only really see the logo 3 times - box to pocket, pocket to gun, gun to bin... so where's the benefit in wasting money on printing?

Seriously???

 

[Will Hewland]

It's a very minor point but, why do companies making budget cartidges print their name / logo on them? Surely it would only save peanuts not to but every little helps. Do they have to be printed by law to identify them?

You only really see the logo 3 times - box to pocket, pocket to gun, gun to bin... so where's the benefit in wasting money on printing?

So that their budget cartridge looks more appealing than the next company's budget cartridge.

 

[jwpzx9r]

It's a very minor point but, why do companies making budget cartidges print their name / logo on them? Surely it would only save peanuts not to but every little helps. Do they have to be printed by law to identify them?

You only really see the logo 3 times - box to pocket, pocket to gun, gun to bin... so where's the benefit in wasting money on printing?

You know that is quite interesting in as much as down here it is very common to buy budget cartridges in 25 shell clear shrink wrap packs with nothing more than a computer printed label to identify them, other than some having the cartridge manufacturers name on the case!

Of course that is probably because a gunshop buys a shed load at cut price and packs them up in 25's for sale to the public.

 

[darthmk38]

i ca,nt believe we,ve got too 8 pages!!!! is this a record

i ran out of popcorn at 4, not sure wether  to get tesco brand or butterkist

is there a difference or is it all in my head  :crazy: