Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Thursday that the Department of Homeland Security is using roughly 1,000 rounds of ammunition more per person than the U.S. Army, as he and other lawmakers sharply questioned DHS officials on their "massive" bullet buys.
"
It is entirely ... inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition," Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a hearing.
The hearing itself was unusual, as questions about the department's ammunition purchases until recently had bubbled largely under the radar -- on blogs and in the occasional news article. But as the Department of Homeland Security found itself publicly defending the purchases, lawmakers gradually showed more interest in the issue.

Democratic Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., at the opening of the hearing, ridiculed the concerns as "conspiracy theories" which have "no place" in the committee room.
But Republicans said the purchases raise "serious" questions about waste and accountability.

Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees holding the hearing Thursday, revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock. He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents.

Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier.

He noted that is "roughly 1,000 rounds more per person."
"Their officers use what seems to be an exorbitant amount of ammunition," he said.

Nick Nayak, chief procurement officer for the Department of Homeland Security, did not challenge Chaffetz's numbers.

However, Nayak sought to counter what he described as several misconceptions about the bullet buys.
Despite reports that the department was trying to buy up to 1.6 billion rounds over five years, he said that is not true. He later clarified that the number is closer to 750 million.

He said the department, on average, buys roughly 100 million rounds per year.
He also said claims that the department is stockpiling ammo are "simply not true." Further, he countered claims that the purchases are helping create broader ammunition shortages in the U.S.
The department has long said it needs the bullets for agents in training and on duty, and buys in bulk to save money.

While Democrats likened concerns about the purchases to conspiracy theories, Republicans raised concern about the sheer cost of the ammunition.
"This is not about conspiracy theories, this is about good government," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chairs the full Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he suspects rounds are being stockpiled, and then either "disposed of," passed to non-federal agencies, or shot "indiscriminately."
If that is the case, he said, "then shame on you."


Read more: Reps challenge DHS ammo buys, say agency using 1,000 more rounds per person than Army | Fox News
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,278 Posts
Just so long as they aren't supplying to bullets for the fast and furious guns.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
840 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,002 Posts
Let's see - taking the numbers without challenge (which may be a mistake)

116,000,000/70,000=1,657 rounds per year / 12=138 rounds per month - less than 3 boxes per agent per month. I don't know if they are actually training that much, but it is not much if they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awoodpd13

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
Let's see - taking the numbers without challenge (which may be a mistake)

116,000,000/70,000=1,657 rounds per year / 12=138 rounds per month - less than 3 boxes per agent per month. I don't know if they are actually training that much, but it is not much if they are.
Would you quit with the math...? It annoys the tinfoil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,171 Posts
I thought tinfoil reflected math.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
If, according their own testimony, DHS has 260 million rounds in stock and only uses around 100 million rounds a year, how is that not stockpiling?
Well if you are accepting the numbers as given they are shooting more than they are buying. How is using up more than you buy stockpiling?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
Well if you are accepting the numbers as given they are shooting more than they are buying. How is using up more than you buy stockpiling?
They testified that they are buying around 750 million rounds per year for the next 5 years instead of 1.6 billion. That comes out to 150 million rounds they are purchasing a year. They are shooting 116 million round a year and have over 2 years of ammunition on hand. They could not purchase a round for a whole year and still have plenty. I see no reason why they should be buying any when we are running huge deficits and it should have no effect on their training levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
They testified that they are buying around 750 million rounds per year for the next 5 years instead of 1.6 billion. That comes out to 150 million rounds they are purchasing a year. They are shooting 116 million round a year and have over 2 years of ammunition on hand. They could not purchase a round for a whole year and still have plenty. I see no reason why they should be buying any when we are running huge deficits and it should have no effect on their training levels.
They did not say they were buying that much. They said they reserved the right to buy that much. Big difference.

As far as no effect on their training levels that assumes that staffing levels remain exactly as they have been. The exact same number of retirements and new hires each year. A guy who has been on ten years and only does his quarterly qualifications is going to require significantly less ammo than a new hire attending FLETC isn't he? What is going on with the work force today nationwide? What are the baby boomers doing? With more retirements if you keep staffing levels static you must have more new hires to replace them. Same number of employees but your ammo usage just went up.

And again, with numbers you provided they fired 13 million more rounds last year than they bought. How is that stockpiling?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
And again, with numbers you provided they fired 13 million more rounds last year than they bought. How is that stockpiling?
Definition of STOCKPILE
: a storage pile: as a : a reserve supply of something essential accumulated within a country for use during a shortage b : a gradually accumulated reserve of something

They have more than 2 years worth on hand right now. That is the definition of a stockpile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
Which they are reducing. "Stockpiling" would be actively accumulating a reserve supply wouldn't it? That would require buying more than they are shooting which by the article they are not. While they may have in the past accumulated a stockpile they are now reducing/eliminating it.
Or is something I have just stated here factually incorrect?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,051 Posts
OK, let's do some more math (I know it bounces off the tin foil, but ...)

From the article, "However, Nayak sought to counter what he described as several misconceptions about the bullet buys.
Despite reports that the department was trying to buy up to 1.6 billion rounds over five years, he said that is not true. He later clarified that the number is closer to 750 million.

He said the department, on average, buys roughly 100 million rounds per year."

So, they aren't buying 1.6 billion rounds in 5 years, ONLY 750 million. But he also said they buy, on average, 100 million/year. So, they have increased their buying by 50% over their average. Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
If you read the articles from the last hearing and other ones from this you will see that the writer here is misleading a bit. They are not buying 150 million rounds per year. They are reserving the right to buy that many.
That means if prices double during this contact year the vendors are obligated to honor their price for up to that quantity for the remainder of the year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
OK, let's do some more math (I know it bounces off the tin foil, but ...)

So, they aren't buying 1.6 billion rounds in 5 years, ONLY 750 million. But he also said they buy, on average, 100 million/year. So, they have increased their buying by 50% over their average. Why?
I buy ten widgets a year from you at a contract price of ten dollars per widget. Our contract allows me to buy up to fifteen widgets per year at that price, even though I normally only buy ten. If the production cost of widgets suddenly doubles, I (if I can come up with the money) buy an additional five widgets from you this year at ten dollars per. I know you are not going to renew the contract at this price. I order my additional five widgets. Next year, under the new contract I only have to buy half as many widgets at the higher contract price.

Instead of buying my ten widgets this year (cost $100) and ten next year (cost $200) I buy fifteen this year ($150) and five next year ($100) and save money that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,975 Posts
As I have said from the start it is all a legitimate purchase. Every Agent uses about 1200 rounds a years for training and qualification. Qualifications for the Border Patrol are 4 times a year and each is 72 rounds, for 2 pistols. I don't know about you, but for a Federal LEO that may or may not have to fire his gun in a situation with 1 or 2 hostiles and a hundred or more friendlies I want them to be way more proficient than your average grunt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,742 Posts
70,000 agents in an agency that did not even exist a short time ago. Lets see a bomb just went off in Boston. It was known that that the older brother was a radical muslem nutcase before the incident. Just exactly what do these elite agents do besides target shoot on our dime?

Just asking
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
That means if prices double during this contact year the vendors are obligated to honor their price for up to that quantity for the remainder of the year.
Ahhh...now we get to it. The rub; the surprendre.

Shall we follow some good ole' capitalistic logic?

1) Mr. Manufacturer of ammo can have a signed contract in hand for the purchase of (X) number of bullets for (X) years at a price of (X) with a guaranteed promise to pay by a financial institution. The really cool thing is that Mr. Manufacturer can price his ammo at (pro-forma) taking into account inflation.

OR​

2) Mr. Manufacturer can take a chance that client (2) MIGHT purchase (X) amount of bullets over (X) amount of time with the price of
bullets possibly fluctuating up and down.​

Client (1) is the Gov, client (2) is you and I, the general public.

This is a easy decision for anyone who owns their own business or has taken business 101.

Sorry to burst anyones bubble, but Mr. Ammo Maker is not your friend. The $$$ is their friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,731 Posts
70,000 agents in an agency that did not even exist a short time ago. Lets see a bomb just went off in Boston. It was known that that the older brother was a radical muslem nutcase before the incident. Just exactly what do these elite agents do besides target shoot on our dime?

Just asking
Same thing they were doing before they became part of DHS. Very little of DHS was actually "created" after 9/11. They mostly took agencies from other federal departments, renamed them, and put them under Homeland Security.
Customs Service under Treasury and Immigration and Nautralization Service under Justice became CBP and ICE. FLETC used to be under Treasury. Coast Guard used to be under Transportation, Secret Service used to be under Treasury.
It is much like when the NFL restructured and created the "AFC South". The Texans were new but everybody else was already in the league.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top