Ammo Manufacturer Sues Dick's Sporting Goods For Breach Of Contract

While most people try to be good people, many of us fall very short of what we hope to be. I am no exception in that regard, but I’ll admit that there are times that I don’t even try. That’s especially true when I experience the sensation the Germans call “schadenfreude.”


Basically, that’s deriving joy out of the misery of others. Now, I won’t pretend this is the mark of a good man by and large, but considering the one suffering right now is Dick’s Sporting Goods, I think I’ll give myself a pass.

Citing breach of contract and fraud, Nevada-based Battle Born Munitions filed suit in federal court against Dick’s Sporting Goods this week.

At the root of the filing is what BBM says was the failure by Dick’s to hold up their end of a contract for the ammo distributor to supply the retailer with Field & Stream-branded ammo for resale in their stores. The delay by the big box sporting goods outlet, argues the filing, resulted in BBM losing out on a multi-million dollar contract to supply helicopters to an overseas U.S. ally.

The 11-page lawsuit filed Tuesday in a Pennsylvania federal court details that the two companies entered into an agreement in January 2016 to supply ammo packaged with Dick’s trademarked Field & Stream packaging. Acting on the contract, BBM paid two ammo manufacturers — Bosnian-based Igman and Hungarian-based RUAG — a total of $4.5 million for the product and made the munitions available to Dick’s by November of the same year, a delivery timeline stipulated by the contract. However, BBM says Dick’s then left them holding the bag for almost a year, refusing to pay them or take delivery of the ammo.

The house-branded ammo, which could not be repacked and sold to another retailer due to the Field & Stream headstamp on the cartridges, was eventually accepted by Dick’s but the intervening storage, at BBM’s expense, cost the ammo distributor $200,000. Further, since BBM’s cash was tied up in the stalled deal, they could not fill a contract with Lebanon for a batch of Bell helicopters, losing out on an additional $5 million, which they are seeking to recoup from Dick’s.

The filing says the actions by Dick’s went beyond just holding up the ammo delivery.


I’ll be honest, despite the schadenfreude, I’d rather this not be going on. Not because I have any affection for Dick’s at this point, but because BBM isn’t part of that and it has already had to suffer. It’s the one who got screwed over here.

If the facts presented here are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they’re not, then it’s clear that Dick’s dropped the ball at pretty much every level. You can’t leave someone holding the bag like that and not expect them to want something in return. In this case, they want the costs associated with basically being their warehouse.

A lot of people don’t understand the costs of ammo just sitting in storage like that. After all, isn’t it just there? Well, yeah, but a lot more goes into it including BBM not being able to use that space for inventory that will sell.

Dick’s should be liable for that, even if the company hadn’t taken a solid anti-gun stance this year. The fact that it did, though, makes me enjoy the idea of a judge lowering the boom on it even more.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member