Do bullet producers pay royalties

>>34699494
Most of them cook up their own proprietary shit or make publicly owned caliber.

So no. Usually not.
And If they are making snowflake rounds they didn't invent, they're usually making it for someone paying THEM royalties because they're the only producer of the ammo for a special snowflake gun.

A lot of traditional trademark probably gets wiped when its submitted to SAAMI
.300 blackout is technically ".300 AAC blackout" because AAC invested a lot standardizing .300 whisper
How much are they making off of .300 blk rifles/ammo? I'm guessing none.

generally no because most bullet types are public domain by now and new bullet designs are generally marketed and sold by only one company. prior to WW1 the german company DWM sued the US government for copying their patented type of spitzer bullets, but due to the outbreak of WW1 the US government just ignored their case. after the war they would pay royalties after it was decided the US did unlawfully produce patented bullets.

>>34699494
Very, very rarely does a caliber inventor patent/trademark/ copywrite a round, as it tends to guarantee it won't be popular as it guarantees ammo will be expensive and hard to find. However, when one is dumb enough to do so and an ammo company is dumb enough to then produce it in a country bound by copywrite/trademark/patent laws, yes they pay royalties.
>the only example I can think of for this happening in living memory is Bill Alexander patenting the 6.5 Grendel and hornady producing it under license

And of course, if it's a good design the chinks and russians will either copy it or simply produce it without license (like tula and barnaul did with 6.5 grendel for 15 years); or an enterprising company will change it just enough to not violate the IP while retaining compatibility (like Les Baer did with the .264 LBC).