Where did all the ammo go?

John Marsden really isn't comfortable with guns. Interesting attribute for someone who is writing an series of war novels. Why do I say so ? Well apart from small things like calling an "Automatic Pistol" a "Revolver" look at how much trouble he goes to to deny the team weaponry to use. Initially you can overlook it, they have so little that they are better off without them, but as the series goes on they collect a mass of weapons and still don't use them. Apparently they have no ammo. Well, that does seem a little funny.

Buttercup Lane they capture two rifles but don't collect any extra ammo from the bodies. OK, they are a bit distracted but ammo clips are pretty obvious. Then after Harvey's they collect Fi's pursuer's rifle and search his body. Not a single extra round, mmm. Then the rescue of Kevin, another body but no ammo. Then, after Cobblers, two rifles and a pistol plus the bodies of the owners, plus their vehicle, but no ammo (they also apparently leave the guns but do take the equally incriminating 4WD). Then Darkness, they return unarmed, not even a spare weapon in the NZ gear or ammo (they NZ commandoes didn't have any spare ammo? Really? They sure don't as latter in "The Night is for Hunting" Ellie and her friends capture weapons of the same model as the commandos but in "The Other Side of Dawn" they still have minimal ammo for them). Then the officer's rifle and pistol in Wirrawee, they even have his house but no ammo. Then the airfield. Wall to wall rifles, each with a clip of ammo in it but they don't take any spare and run out of ammo just as they escape. Then the fight at the end "The Night is for Hunting". Hundreds of rounds are fired but when it is all over there is very little spare ammo to collect, even though they killed three of their attackers almost before they had managed to shoot, and have all their packs.

The author works very hard to keep the team unarmed, presumably because that is the situation he is most comfortable writing about. Good on him. Much better to have a somewhat implausible situation written about well, than the more believable one written about poorly. Its just the implausibility starts to seep through after a while.