jcwit
member
Whats your time worth while watching some worthless show on TV, and don't tell us you don't unless you have no tv.
You are correct it has been; I was just prophesying.Why its been a great dicussion which relates directly to the OP?
I hadn't really planned to read this whole thread, but I did (taking away valuable time from my work at the office I might add).
Then I got to thinking. When I go home in the evening, instead of reloading, what else might I be doing instead? TV is pretty bad these days, and there's no daylight or warm temps to do much outside. So, if I wasn't reloading, I'd probably drink beer. Now, beer ain't free ya know? If you were to sit at home and drink it, you might spend $1/can. It would be easy to go through 10 cans in an evening, so it would cost $10. But if you wanted to sit at a bar, this cost could easily triple. And of course, there's the possibility of getting a DUI in that scenario, which costs a whole lot. To say nothing of the possible health costs of consuming beer each night instead of reloading.
But even ignoring those types of possibilities, just focusing on the immediate cash outlay of buying beer, it's easy to calculate that by sitting at my reloading bench for 3 hours instead of consuming beer, it has indeed saved me a minimum of $10 in just one evening. Therefore when calculating the ROI of reloading, I need to deduct $10 from the costs for every evening that I spend reloading.
This is indeed a money making hobby!
rellascout said:I will still stand by my statement that the OP is skewing the numbers, his prices for loaded ammo are inflated, and he is not accounting or considering the true costs of associated with reloading.
One thing that most people miss when doing these calculations is that the purchase of reloading equipment is not a cost, it is a capital investment. You really start saving from the first round. Also, quality reloading equipment has a good resale value. Your true cost of the equipment is what it costs you to park the money in the asset plus any "loss" you will recognize on sale. If I amortized my equipment over the 32 years I have been reloading or the 10s of thousands of rounds it has loaded (I am a competitive highpower shooter), the amount per round is infinitesimal. If I had to buy Gold Medal Match, even at wholesale rather than reload, I would have paid many, many times what my equipment cost. .223 match ammo with 77gr Sierras is less that $0.35 per round to reload. So are Bergers. .308 Palma ammo using 155 Sierras is $0.38 plus the cost of brass. Even if you buy Lapua for $0.60 per, you can load it a number of times. I would not use more than a $0.10 per load cost for Lapua brass. That is less than $0.50 per round for top of the line match ammo. Compare it to commercially available match ammo and you are saving at least $1 per round. Hunting ammo with premium bullets is the same. You really would have to shoot very little to justify not reloading.I have run these numbers myself in the past. Just about every 6 months I consider getting into reloading. At first glance it seems like you are going to be way ahead but...
I think the part that is missing from the calculation is your time. Lets put a modest number on that. Say $15 an hour. How many hours does it take you to load that ammo? Time is not free. To do a "real" cost anylsis you have to factor that in.
Also I think that your numbers are high. I can get 9mm most of the time under $.18 a round delivered. So you are saving yourself $.07 x 200 = $14.00each time you head out to the range. 223 costs me about $300 for 1000 rounds of brass cased Federal so your savings on .223/556 is higher.
I know most people will say that reloading is a labor of love but for a real cost savings calcualtion you have to account for time. I won't even bring up space. LOL
rellascout said:Take the example someone gave of changing your own oil. It might take you a hour of free time to complete this task. You can have it done for $50 - $20 of which is labor the rest is parts which you would have had to pay for anyway. When I choose to pay to have my oil changed instead of spending the hour to do it myself I have assigned a $$ value to my hour of free time. That hour is worth $20 to me. It might not be worth $20 to you but it still has a value which I can justify and I have produced nothing that someone wants to buy and I have not agreed to work for anyone. This does not mean I have no free time to spend on things I want to do like shooting or typing here.
If you would like to challenge that assertion I am all ears.
So you're paying someone roughly $92.00 per hour to load it for you. Is your labor worth $92.00 per hour to you?
rellascout said:Thank you for finally validating my entire argument. You have decided that $92 an hour is more than you could make doing something else
See, now you need to add in some calibers to really start enjoying the savings. Might I recommend picking up guns in 44mag, 45 Colt, 357mag to really see the $ start flowing in.davestarbuck said:Even with the cost of the equipment I saved $166 in the first year alone for my weekly practice ammo. This gets even better when factoring in any tactical classes and matches.
I'm glad I started to reload!!!
-Dave
For me the answer is yes. My labor rate is worth more than $92 an hour to not have to sit like a monkey and hand press out ammo.
Rella, you never answered my question. If someone would pay you, your "going rate" to reload your own ammo, would you?
It is ok to just not want to reload, or to not reload because you do not have enough time. Nothing wrong with that at all.
If you don't want to reload rellascout, that's cool. We don't need these silly cost/benefit nebulous cost valuations for your time to support or oppose your reasons. Reloading costs less. Period. So does cooking at home vs. going out to eat. Only a fool would argue otherwise.
I guess in the end you prefer circular reasoning to real analysis.
No, in the end all of this is just a hobby that costs me money. I do not need to tie my own flys, or make my own atlas stones either, but for me it is all about the journey.
Peace Rella, your a good one.
You know, this debate reminds me of a movement for economic redefinition that the Clinton Administration seriously considered for a short while. Back in the late 80's and early 90's a feminist and self-proclaimed "female human rights" activist Marilyn Waring published If Women Counted; What Men Value and What Women are Worth . She posited that the way countries measure GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is unfair to women. She argued that "household production" had a value, but it since it was not acquired through the marketplace it was not accounted for. All that labor, "the women's work" in the home, taking care of the household and children had value. But since no money changed hands it was never accounted for.
She argued that uncompensated work, even uncompensated work of a woman in the home taking care of her family, ought to be assigned some monetary value and accounted for in GDP.
You may not be aware of it, but you're using some of her exact arguments while making your own.
rellascout said:IMHO the original cost benefit analysis is what is silly. Its so simplistic and inaccurate but because you agree with its conclusion you ignore its faults.
rellascout said:Reloading only costs less if your time is = to $0
rellascout said:I guess in the end you prefer circular reasoning to real analysis.
Yeah, well Marilyn Waring's book didn't appeal to me much, either.
My point is and still stands that too many of the standard reloading saves me money are examples of poor accounting.
rellascout said:Continuation of the red herring because you have not proven that she is wrong.