They also include the word "profit".
Unless he is selling ammo for no more than his component cost (ie, his time and capital investment is "free"), then he is making a profit, even if it might be a "penny ante" one. There isn't any threshold for how much profit you must make to fall under the code.
Well I recommend against it for the reasons in my post above, but it does say "livlihood and profit". There is a strong legal distinction in many circumstances between "and" and "or". It does not say livlihood or profit, but rather combines them into a set of circumstances with the word "and".
An argument could be made that if it increases your quality of life through substantial profit it is contributing to your livlihood. If on the other hand it is a couple hundred bucks it has no substantial impact on the quality of life of someone making a middle class salary. So is not really a part of their "livlihood" or a second job.
So it is not simply any profit if sold.
However manufacturing them specifically to sell them could be interpreted similarly to building a gun to sell it. It is perfectly legal to build yourself a gun, and then sell it if you no longer wish to own it. You are also free to make a profit when you sell it.
It is entirely different to build a gun with the intent to sell it after. (Or to build many guns with the intent to sell them.)
One requires an FFL and the other does not. Since the law mentions both firearms and ammo with the same terminology I would assume similar may apply to making ammo specifically to sell it.
If you reloaded a lot of ammo, and then happened to sell some it would probably be fine (though I wouldn't for reasons in my above post), but making it specifically to sell it, especially on a regular basis even to friends may be crossing the line.
