Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rav3n

American Eagle 5.56 55gr XM193 29.99 per 90

Recommended Posts

It's not an NRA Show Deal. They've been pricing it there for the past few months most of the time.

 

I think $0.33 per round is marginal but reasonable on clips, since I can't find better. I would pay the extra 10% to have it on clips. I hate putting a case of ammo on clips to put into storage, because I can't use the original packaging and prepping cans is a pain anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!  They had some decent prices on some other calibers so I took advantage of the free shipping!  Ordered on Sunday.  Let's see how long it takes to arrive.

 

1 - Fiocchi .357 Magnun $19.99

6 - Sellier & Bellot 9mm 115 gr $10.99

2 - Federal 5.56 90 rounds on Stripper Clips $29.99

2 - Sellier & Bellot .45 ACP 230gr FMJ $16.49

 

Just under $180 for everything....shipped!

 

                                         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A short 6 days later, ammo waiting at my front door!  :)

 

I don't understand why some people hate on PSA. :dontknow:  

 

This is my 3rd time ordering with them and never a problem. 

 

Thanks Rav3n for the heads up!  Apprciate it.  :good:

 

Sorry...getting ammo make's me break out the emoticons!  :sungum:

I think PSA has gotten considerably better over the past few months.  A year or so ago you would wait a minimum of a month for anything to even be shipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think PSA has gotten considerably better over the past few months.  A year or so ago you would wait a minimum of a month for anything to even be shipped.

 

First time I ordered from PSA was when I ordered my AR upper.  They said it would take about 3 weeks.  I was in no rush.  It came right around the time they said it would.

 

Glad they seem to be doing better.  I've had nothing but good dealings with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • alderferbanner.PNG

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • @Zeke: Seriously, if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, then they can also in all likelihood also afford the annual cost of liability insurance.... If someone cannot afford the cost of liability insurance for a firearm then they would have the choice to use other tools to defend themselves, such as knives, bows/arrows, or other creative methods….    Don't tell me that you are going all Bernie Sanders here and possibly advocating that we taxpayers should pay to provide every American citizen over the age of 18, a FREE firearm......?     AVB-AMG
    • @bennj: I don’t know what planet you are on or from, but on Earth, in our country, owning/driving an automobile, let alone having a job, to work for a living, for the vast majority of us is not a privilege, but a real necessity….  - Other than those who were born into a very wealthy family need a job to earn an income to provide the necessities for themselves and their family. - Other than those who live close enough to their workplace where they can either walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation, they need a car for their essential transportation to their workplace, as well as for running errands, etc..  BTW, while our Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention "unalienable" rights. FYI - More people own cars than guns, which I postulate is due to their choice based on necessity.  As you will see, less than one half of all American adults over the age of 18 who own an automobile, own a firearm.  I believe that in their minds, they have decided that they need cars more than they need guns, which is their choice. This is how I arrived at those approximate numbers: In the 1st Qtr. of 2019, there were approximately 276 million vehicle operating on public roads in the U.S. (see the following link) https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/ As of 2018, there are approximately 327 million people in the United States, of which approximately 78% are over the age of 18, or approx. 255 million people. According to a 2014 Pew Research study, 88% of Americans own a car, or approximately 224 million people. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-and-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/ According to a Gallup survey, at the end of the 3rd Qtr. of 2019, approximately 40% of Americans, own a gun, stored in their home or on their property.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx So, doing the math: 40% of 255 million American adults over the age of 18, is just over 102 million American adults who own guns, which is less than half the number of people who own cars.  Even taking into account individuals who may own 2 or more cars, the comparison is significant in that your so-called privilege vs. right argument does not matter to a vast majority of Americans who have decided that they need an automobile more than they need a gun.
    • @Sniper & @silverado427: Criminals do not respect laws and this proposal is not geared towards them.  It is aimed at all of us legal gun owners to address the aftermath of unfortunate accidents involving our firearms. If you use your firearm for self-defense, presumably inside your home in NJ, it could result in a very complicated and expensive legal ramifications, that liability insurance coverage may address, depending on how the law is written. I am a law-abiding citizen and I buy and maintain insurance for my home, automobiles and personal property, in addition to general liability and professional E&O liability, not to mention my health/medical insurance.  So yes, I do not see a problem with requiring gun owners to have a minimum level of liability insurance. AVB-AMG
    • @Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob: Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for.  I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes.  What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss.  Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything.  This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner. Mrs. Peel: You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed.  I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”.  By removing those, my point is clearer and valid. AVB-AMG
    • @Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob: Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for.  I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes.  What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss.  Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything.  This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner. Mrs. Peel: You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed.  I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”.  By removing those, my point is clearer and valid. AVB-AMG
×
×
  • Create New...