Have you ever felt like you have too many firearms?

[Steel Horse Rider]

NO.

 

[StrutStopper]

The only time the thought remotely crossed my mind was when a bill was introduced to register guns to the tune of $100 per. Thank goodness it failed miserably.

 

[Ed Ames]

Ed Ames, . . . . I don't know, I just feel like it is a lot, . . . but I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

In some ways it absolutely is a lot. Even assuming you have absolute junk that's at least $1500 resale value and it wouldn't be shocking or far-fetched for the tally to be closer to $10,000-$15,000. That's enough for one heckuva chicken dinner. It is more than the value of many vehicles on the road.

Looked at in other ways...

6 Rifles isn't enough to represent the major action types. Muzzle loader, falling/rolling block, break action, lever action, bolt action, pump action...didn't even get to semi-autos.

9 handguns would be enough to at least represent the major types of use...training/ plinking, concealed carry, open carry, woods/fishing kit gun, hunting, predator defense, competitive shooting sports - action, competitive shooting sports - accuracy. It still leaves niches unfilled.

A lot of people would say you need at least one shotgun to be well rounded.

I think it would probably pay to figure out the source of your feeling. It may be that you subconsciously think you are spending too much on the hardware and not enough on enjoying that hardware. Maybe you should sell a gun or two and put the money towards training or a hunt. Or a safe so you aren't stubbing your toes on guns when you make 3:00 am trips to the bathroom.

 

[medalguy]

Yeah I did feel that way one time, but I laid down and took a nap until the feeling went away. Seriously I feel that way often but I keep accumulating more of the little guys.

 

[Twiki357]

Please define “Too many.”

I don’t think I have too many, but I do have enough…. At least until the next gun show.

 

[1911 guy]

I did once. Seriously. Some friends and I had a deal, we'd all buy a gun a month for several years. Sometimes money was tight and I was buying Hi-Points, other times things were going well and I'd buy something nice. Every time I went home, I'd take guns with me and stash them in my old bedroom at Mom and Dads place. Then I stopped travelling and got a place of my own. Quite a few trunk loads of guns. I honestly don't know how many.

Then I spent the next several years turning a large amount of guns into a much smaller amount of nicer specimens. I have all my needs covered except for a .22 to teach my daughter on. I have one for my son.

 

[Dr.Rob]

nope

 

[zchry]

Can't say I have, nor do I think I will ever hold that opinion. Mostly because I only have the one rifle right now and I don't plan on buying more than another 10 firearms of various sorts.

 

[Old Dog]

I almost started to feel that way once ... when I pulled a piece from the back of the safe ... that I'd forgotten I even owned. The feeling quickly passed, though. Sometimes rediscovering why you originally bought a piece is as satisfying as the feeling you had when first you acquired it.

And, like Leadcounsel, I buy for the future. If not for my personal needs, then my brothers, sisters, children and their children. We may not always have the luxury of the choices we now have. And there's always that nagging thought that someday, for some reason, we -- or our family -- will need those guns.

 

[Cee Zee]

Someone mentioned moving. That's when you find out what you have too much of. It's amazing how much junk you discover you have when you start to move. Of course before you decided to move it wasn't junk at all.

I keep guns to do specific things and I like to have a backup of each type of gun I own. I have often sold my backup though especially when my primary gun is very reliable and not likely to be needed. But I keep several .22's for different purposes like squirrel hunting, plinking, varmint shooting, varmint shooting at night, target shooting and just because I like them. I could get by with a lot less .22's but they have always been my favorite because of being cheap to shoot. Anybody want to buy some .22's? I find that about 20 guns keeps me right where I want to be. Any more than that and I tend to neglect them including neglecting servicing them. And that's not a good idea. For example I bought a spare SKS because I have one for those never going to happen things we sometimes worry about. I have plenty of ammo and I got to thinking I might have a failure of my primary SKS. But the second one ended up in the safe for two years and when I got it out the bore had rust in it. I hadn't checked it enough. I got the rust out and sold the gun.

 

[USAF_Vet]

No. I can always find another gun I'm interested in owning. I may not shoot all the ones I have, but at one point, they all had a purpose driving their purchase.

I've got a couple heirlooms, one of which is a wall hanger. The other rarely gets shot.

A few are my wife's.

One is my step sons.

The rest are mine.

I don't have too many guns, only because I've learned my lesson in getting rid of them and later having sellers remorse (Hi Point 995 and Mosin Nagant M-44 being the two I regret). I can buy ones that better suit my needs, or have certain features lacking in my current guns.

I'm not a collector, though. I'm an acquirer.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

I like to think that if something terrible happened (who knows, civil war, Russian invasion, something, whatever) that I could keep myself and a bunch of other folks armed if need be. Ammo to go with it too. At least long enough to get someplace safe. So I don't think I'll ever feel like I have too many.

 

[tarosean]

Yep, still do.

 

[bannockburn]

Most definitely not. I have slowed down a bit with my acquisitions but I never grow tired of the hunt.

 

[ejfalvo]

My interest cycles. I go through a buying frenzy, then it wanes and I sell off those I lost interest in - but keep a few gems. A while later I start buying again. At this point I have consolidated to one caliber (45ACP, 223/556) and that limits temptation but I THINK I'm done for now.

 

[SwaneeSR]

In addition to my own guns, I also store a few firearms for my two college-aged sons that were passed down from my dad a couple years ago. I am also storing a couple of guns for my nephew.

So sometimes there seems like there are too many for my 50-gun safe.

However, I am that Uncle that supplies the firearms when a nephew wants to start deer hunting or bird hunting or try trap shooting with his buddies. I supply the .22LR pistol when my niece is going to the range with her fiancé to try shooting. When she likes, we will move her up to something else.


I have reached the age that I am starting to de clutter the house. But I am not going to be too quick with the firearms.

 

[SC Shooter]

Guns and horse power. You can't have too many for too much.

 

[iagbarrb]

No. Never. In fact I would like to buy a nice 308 long range target rifle, a .38 or .357 revolver vith a 6 inch barrel, a rifle to replace my k98 mauser. AP226 sig 9mm.
Then I might habe the guns Iwant.

 

[Tirod]

If you 1) own a computer 2) have Internet access, then you have disposable income. Which slants the responses to those who could afford multiple firearms.

I had - past tense - too many guns. I am still selling them off. Competing calibers means not being able to shoot any single one extensively. Competing "platforms," if it will be excused, means not being as fluent in that set of operating controls.

It has been applauded in the past to acquire as many skill sets as we can - but the reality for a lot of us who can't afford to be more than recreational shooters, is we only get more different ways to do it wrong.

A revolver isn't a single stack single action pistol, isn't a double stack double action pistol. Nobody suggests you rotate thru a different handgun each day. Nobody suggests you rotate thru bolt, lever, pump, AR, and AK at a different rifle stage in a 3Gun match.

I'd like to see one done that way. All it would do is prove even the most expert shooter with one gun isn't so quick with another. And that those who constantly switch back and forth are good jacks of all trades, but not expert at any.

Most of us aren't even that. Possessing a lot of different guns does not mean being good with any one of them. All it means is that you have a bunch of guns. It doesn't mean any more than that. I own three hammers, five saws, two B&D WorkMates, a bag full of carpentry tools, a bag of electrical tools, a bag of plumbing tools, a bag of masonry tools. I'm not any of those trades and none would ever claim me. Owning the tools doesn't qualify you as being knowledgeable. Even competent.

I'm selling off - to have one type of handgun, one type of PDW/carbine. All my practice and shooting dedicated to just those. I get too little as it is, and the reality is so do most shooters.

There's no honor lost in that - and the advantage is being better with what you have. You don't have to play the numbers game. Just be good with what you do have.

Just posting the point of view you won't normally see here. Groups tend to affirm what they collectively gather to share, but it doesn't mean it's the norm.

 

[Baron_Null]

If you 1) own a computer 2) have Internet access, then you have disposable income. Which slants the responses to those who could afford multiple firearms.

Maybe this was true as soon as a few years ago, but that's definitely not the case today. Firstly, the ownership of a computer and internet access was, once upon a time, a luxury. However, with the near ubiquity of internet based services in people's lives, having internet access is getting to the point where it's close to a necessity. And yes, I know there will be outliers who go without, but I have my doubts that they are the norm anymore. Secondly, the price of both consumer grade electronics as well as data access seems to be on a general downward trend, and the existence of public WiFi hotspots is becoming something that is nearly an expected service from businesses rather than an occasional occurrence. Given that most phones sold nowadays have the ability to browse the internet, I believe that the ability to have regular internet access is no longer a good litmus test as to the amount of disposable income someone has.

The bias I can see, though, is that the internet access is being used to get onto a hobbyist forum. Given that most people here seem to enjoy firearms as a primary hobby, I would make the assumption that people entrenched within a hobby far enough to be a part of a community will be naturally inclined to see less downsides to being more involved in said hobby. If someone asked me if I ever felt like I had too many pairs of shoes, for example, I would be inclined to say yes, but as I do not involve myself in fashion as a hobby, and as such I am less likely to see the value in multiple pairs of shoes, and more inclined to see the financial and spacial downsides.

As to the rest of your post, I have to agree. At this point I don't feel I have to many firearms, but too much variety. I have spent far more in hardware than I have in training/range time, and I have little more than a basic proficiency in the firearms I do own. Because of my particular interests in the functional as well as the aesthetic aspects of firearms tend to lean to the "odd" side I have gathered a rather motely assortment of guns. My goals for the near future primarily involve pairing down my collection to what I feel is a good baseline of platforms and building redundancy rather than variety.

Of course, my personal feelings on my own collection are just that, personal feelings. I am in no place to tell others what they do/do not need. Furthermore, my own feelings of having "too much" is based more off of financial and time constraints rather than off of any abstract ideal of "too little vs. too much"

 

[morcey2]

I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.

My thoughts exactly. I think it might just be worded poorly. Maybe it was meant to be something like "Why would anyone possibly think they have too many guns, are too healthy, or to attractive?"

But that's just me. Other than the too-healthy part.

Matt

 

[StrutStopper]

Guns, no. Reloading stuff, no. Ammunition oh dear lord yes. 5 gallon buckets of 357, 9mm, 30-30, and a bucket that was half 7-30 and half .270win, plus box after box of factory ammo and reloads packed into factory ammo trays. Stairs become the enemy very quickly. I'm still looking for a good source of 3 gallon buckets. Then, after that goes the 600 pound monstrosity of a safe....at least I only have 1 safe, and in my next house I will have a vault.

Buy a cat. You'll have a great source for buckets. I've got kitty litter buckets full of brass. All I need is the time and components to reload it all.

 

[EIB0879]

I feel the need to buy a new gun, just because.

 

[Ed Ames]

Maybe this was true as soon as a few years ago, but ...

I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it.

As to the rest of your post, I have to agree.

I don't.

I think the problem with diversity is overstated. There is no "equal time" rule forcing you to divide your practice equally or even proportionately between guns. I have about an equal number of handguns and long guns, and within my handgun heap massve guns ranging from muzzle loaders to cap and ball to top break revolvers to WW-I era steel pistols to modern plastic fantastics. There is over a 3 order of magnitude difference in round counts between the least and most used. As in I have fired my Boer war era (pre-1899) Webley about 10 times, and I have crossed the 10,000rd mark on other handguns.

I am proficient with the guns I choose to practice with, and familiar with guns you have probably never touched, and one does not take away from the other.

There is a fantasy in US folk culture about "the man with one gun" but it comes from an era when quality guns were a LOT more expensive compared to income. When a single accurate weapon cost several months wages and was lobbing pumpkins (slow fat heavy bullets), the guy who saved up for a good gun and practiced with it had a real edge.

 

[natman]

I have too many and yet still not enough.