Minimize the arsenal. Maximize the budget.

[RedlegRick]

@dbcooper: I agree a shotgun is a good all-around gamegetter, but I use my little .22 for that as much if not more. I hate picking shot out of squirrel and rabbit, and avoid using my 'do-all' 12 gauge unless I'm hunting heavy brush or treetops.
I might add a good airgun to my collection for the economy factor, but .22 remains a viable game cartridge in my book.

 

[illinoisburt]

Without context of purpose, I can state unequivocally that for hunting you can literally cover everything in North America with a 12 gauge shotgun. For a large number of folks in non-rifle states like the midwest, a pump or autoloader IS their main (and only) hunting arm. Shotshells for small game, birds of all sizes from doves to turkeys and geese, and slugs or buckshot for anything else which walks. Some folks might mix in 22LR but the majority don't since its dangerous to shoot up in trees.

Aside from a solid shotgun (which can pull household protection duties, too) any additional firearms are nice but technically not required. However there's nothing wrong with having a few or even a ton of extras.

 

[Al-jim19]

I disagree that a pistol is not a requirement. It would be tough but I would select a pistol first and then a shotgun. I suppose it depends on your intended use and if recreation is a factor.

 

[DavidABQ]

Lets see; a .22LR rifle and revolver. A .357 revolver and a high powered rifle in either .260 Remington or 6.5 Creedmore. A shotgun to round things out. Probably an 870 in either 12 or 20 gauge.
That pretty covers everything for me.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

If I was going to minimize down to 4 Id go with a Glock 26, a Glock 19 and a PCC that takes Glock 19 magazines. For Hunting I get a 30-30 lever action.

 

[Legionnaire]

12 gauge with vent rib, 18-inch cylinder, and rifled slug barrels.
Scoped bolt actions in .223 and .308.
4-inch revolver in .357 magnum.

And a press and dies for reloading.

 

[Walkalong]

So, I have to downgrade to four of each caliber? Gosh, that will be hard.

 

[Pudge]

If you are dropping the .22 to maximize the budget, you're not shooting much. Lucky gunner has 1000 rounds of 9mm for about 15 cents a round and .22 for 5 cents a round. Every thousand rounds is $100. When learning to shoot a handgun with a measure of proficiency, I shot several thousand rounds of .22. Maximizing the budget involved buying a Ruger .22, rather than shooting a larger caliber. Likewise, practicing and improving your offhand marksmanship at 100 yards with a rifle, is far more economical with a .22. I think an economical argument can be made to expand your arsenal to include .22's.

 

[tubeshooter]

My personal answer that works FOR ME would be as follows:

• Shotgun
• .22 rifle
• Centerfire rifle
• Handgun

For a good little while I was working with just the above. I had a .38 snub, a Marlin 336 in .30-30, a Marlin 60 and an old used Wingmaster 12 gauge. For a core battery, I could have easily just stopped right there (and yes, .357 is more versatile and preferable I agree).

You can debate caliber for your centerfire rifle. In the Southeast, I believe you can get by fine with the .30-30 although of course a more powerful caliber doesn't hurt.

I think it's hard to understate the low cost and portability of .22LR. Yes, you can do a lot of the same things with a shotgun, but try carrying around 500 shells compared to your average brick of the lowly .22; there is no comparison.

Also the portability of a handgun is what it brings to the table. If you're trying to be discreet at all, most any long gun is not going to cut it. A handgun is much more likely to be there when you need it. Not to mention it is quite a bit easier to carry a long gun + a hand gun than it is to carry two (or more) long guns. I guess if you are going to be 100% in the woods and totally living off the land maybe you can forego the handgun. YMMV as always.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

If you are dropping the .22 to maximize the budget, you're not shooting much. Lucky gunner has 1000 rounds of 9mm for about 15 cents a round and .22 for 5 cents a round. Every thousand rounds is $100. When learning to shoot a handgun with a measure of proficiency, I shot several thousand rounds of .22. Maximizing the budget involved buying a Ruger .22, rather than shooting a larger caliber. Likewise, practicing and improving your offhand marksmanship at 100 yards with a rifle, is far more economical with a .22. I think an economical argument can be made to expand your arsenal to include .22's.

I would agree with everything you've posted here. When I was shooting service rifle, I practiced the standing off hand a LOT with a Marlin Model 60 and a 6x scope at 25 yrds. Really made me watch my breathing and trigger control.

The fact that so many people jump to online prices for ammo really makes me appreciate living in Alaska where it is not possible to buy ammo online at all. Although, my local store is having a sale, and cheap bulk 22LR is about 5.5¢/rd right now. Cheapest I have seen it since Sandy Hook. And there is some on the shelf!

I'm stand-offish about 22LR because anything I can do with that, I can do with a shotgun, and I never had to wait 3 years to find shot shells on the shelf. But perhaps you're right-many things I can do with a shotgun, I can do cheaper with a 22LR.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

My personal answer that works FOR ME would be as follows:

• Shotgun
• .22 rifle
• Centerfire rifle
• Handgun

For a good little while I was working with just the above. I had a .38 snub, a Marlin 336 in .30-30, a Marlin 60 and an old used Wingmaster 12 gauge. For a core battery, I could have easily just stopped right there (and yes, .357 is more versatile and preferable I agree).

You can debate caliber for your centerfire rifle. In the Southeast, I believe you can get by fine with the .30-30 although of course a more powerful caliber doesn't hurt.

I think it's hard to understate the low cost and portability of .22LR. Yes, you can do a lot of the same things with a shotgun, but try carrying around 500 shells compared to your average brick of the lowly .22; there is no comparison.

Also the portability of a handgun is what it brings to the table. If you're trying to be discreet at all, most any long gun is not going to cut it. A handgun is much more likely to be there when you need it. Not to mention it is quite a bit easier to carry a long gun + a hand gun than it is to carry two (or more) long guns. I guess if you are going to be 100% in the woods and totally living off the land maybe you can forego the handgun. YMMV as always.

I guess I'm standoffish on the handgun because I don't carry for self defense. (Against people anyway.) I think for most of America, that 30-30 is a fine choice. Out west, or up here, where longer shots are more common, maybe not. (Then again, those archery guys get within feet of their game, so why not? But I took my caribou last year WELLLLL beyond what was possible with a 30-30.)

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I disagree that a pistol is not a requirement. It would be tough but I would select a pistol first and then a shotgun. I suppose it depends on your intended use and if recreation is a factor.

I was deliberately vague on "intended use." I didn't want to lead people to a predetermined conclusion. I wanted the discussion to just go where it would go.

I have to admit, I'm surprised that so many people consider a handgun a core/must have firearm.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

@dbcooper: I agree a shotgun is a good all-around gamegetter, but I use my little .22 for that as much if not more. I hate picking shot out of squirrel and rabbit, and avoid using my 'do-all' 12 gauge unless I'm hunting heavy brush or treetops.
I might add a good airgun to my collection for the economy factor, but .22 remains a viable game cartridge in my book.

Certainly viable. My thought is that the shotgun will provide more assurance of getting your game. (The Model 12 was called the Game-Getter for a reason.) Whereas, the 22 requires more skill set.

 

[Powder296]

..........

I have to admit, I'm surprised that so many people consider a handgun a core/must have firearm.

because we are civilians, as such self defense is the priority. The hand gun is the best tool for that at the ranges we expect to need personal defense. every thing else is for getting food or God forbid defending the homestead

 

[chicharrones]

I have to admit, I'm surprised that so many people consider a handgun a core/must have firearm.

Handguns are a great way to have a gun on you while still being able to use both hands. Long guns tend to get in the way if one is not actively hunting or shooting.

The second gun I ever bought myself was my 6" Ruger GP100 back in '93, if I remember correctly. I still have the holster I bought for it, but it sure wasn't a conceal carry gun as that wasn't legal here at that time.

What I wrote in post 19 is after years of being around other guns. The reality of what my first four guns were was a little different.

 

[mstreddy]

I think I'm going to follow Walkalong's 4 guns for each caliber rule.
Man, I'm short in a lot of calibers!

As to 4 firearms to get down to? Why? What happened?
But, let me play along:
1 - Service size pistol - Glock 17 or 34, or 22 or 35
2 - Rifle - AR - with 6 uppers - 22LR, 223, 300 Blackout, 7.62x39, longer barrel versions 223 and 300 BO. No seriously, why not, I actually have all 6. 3 are 10.5" SBR uppers, the others are 16".
3 - Shotgun - 870 or 11-87 or 500 or 11-48 SBS
4 - Bolt action in 308 or 30-06; or 30-30 Lever.

Another option to work with common calibers across platforms
1 - Beretta 92 with companion CX4
2 - 357 Revolver with Lever
3 - AR as mentioned above or AR in 9 with corresponding Glock
4 - FN 5.7 with PS90

But, thankfully, I don't have to pare down to this.

And, since we are exercising our imaginations I'll go to my preferred method of armed conflict resolution:
A TACP unit with a call in to AC-130 Specter (Azrael); or a former boss "Col type" that answered a call for CAS in a BUFF with "just tell me how wide and how long you want me to drop"

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I don't mind paying a little extra to keep Americans working.

Amen.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Springfield XD45 compact service
Tikka T3 .270
Ruger 10/22
Ar15

Alternate: Mossberg 500

 

[wanderinwalker]

If I'm trimming back to 4, I'm going to be less concerned about budget and more focused on getting exactly what I want. Here's where I think I'd end up:

1) .22LR Rifle - Maybe an Anschutz 1416, with a Leupold VX-2 3-9x3mm EFR scope. Can be used as a new shooter trainer, plinker, informal target shooting and small game-getter. (Also options: Browning T-Bolt, CZ-452 American, accurate Ruger 77/22.)
2) .22LR Pistol - Probably a S&W Model 17. It's not the easiest to carry around, but it is superbly accurate and a lot of fun to shoot. It makes new shooters confident and experienced shooters smile. (Runners up: S&W Model 18, Ruger Mark II)
3) Centerfire Rifle - With where I live and what I actually do with a rifle, I could get by quite easily with my Marlin 336BL in .30-30. Right now it wears a Williams receiver sight, which is an excellent combination. I have toyed with the idea of adding a Leupold 2.5x Scout scope to it though. (Also options: an older Remington Model 7 in .308 Win or a Winchester Featherweight in .308 Win. Mount either a fixed 2.5x or a 1-4x variable and call it good.)
4) Centerfire Handgun - Colt Government Model in .45 ACP. I wanted one long before I became a "gun guy." Mine is a blued Series 70 Competition Model that is absolutely reliable with factory hardball and 230gr Remington Golden Sabers with any magazine I've used. I just plain LIKE this pistol more than any other centerfire I've ever owned. (Other candidates: 4" S&W Model 586 in .357 Magnum, Walther PPQ-M1 in 9x19mm, 4" S&W Model 15 in .38 Special.)

With respect to the shotgun, for what I do with firearms, I don't find the scattergun to be particularly necessary. I don't hunt waterfowl and I'm a very poor wingshot. (It was very sporting for the birds when I was waterfowl hunting. They usually got away...) Any small game hunting I'm likely to do will be better done with a .22LR rifle. And a couple bricks of .22 ammo takes up less space than 4 boxes of shotgun shells.

 

[<*(((><]

Easy comparison, a box of 500 .22lr or a box of 25 12g shells, which one is going to collect more plates of food?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Easy comparison, a box of 500 .22lr or a box of 25 12g shells, which one is going to collect more plates of food?

I sure can't argue with that logic.

You guys are starting to change my mind about the value of a rimfire.

I may dust off my Marlin Model 60 and the pre-drought ammo I have for it. I haven't had it out in about 6-8 years.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

So...

Modifying my initial thinking, but sticking with 1-4 guns...

I would still have some version of a 12 ga shotgun with choke tubes. I shoot an autoloader better, but my fear would be that a pump would be lower maintenance, higher reliability. So probably some version of Mossberg (88 or 500)

I would add in a 22LR rifle. However, I think my only option would be Marlin's XT22-MT because it's a.) bolt gun (easier maintenance, higher reliability) and b.) tube fed (no dropped/lost magazines, no magazine spring issues - the tube magazine on my Model 60 has been going strong for literally 30+ years and it was a used gun when my dad bought it for me.)

I'll stick with my bolt action 30-06 choice. No way to go wrong there. Although, if I were in the Lower 48, especially east of the Mississippi River, I'd likely go with a Model 94 in 30-30.

So that's three. I might pour the cost of a 4th gun into ammo for the other three. If I thought I had to have a handgun - some sort of revolver.

That would work out to...

Shotgun: $231 (Maverick 88)
22LR: $269 (XT22-MT)
Rifle: $409 (Savage Axis)

Total: $909

 

[Al-jim19]

.357 6 shot revolver. A larger caliber would be better if you’re in Alaska but for versatility’s sake and economical use .357 would be better.

Maybe a used Taurus, charter, or Rossi.

 

[danez71]

So...

Modifying my initial thinking, but sticking with 1-4 guns...

I would still have some version of a 12 ga shotgun with choke tubes. I shoot an autoloader better, but my fear would be that a pump would be lower maintenance, higher reliability. So probably some version of Mossberg (88 or 500)

I would add in a 22LR rifle. However, I think my only option would be Marlin's XT22-MT because it's a.) bolt gun (easier maintenance, higher reliability) and b.) tube fed (no dropped/lost magazines, no magazine spring issues - the tube magazine on my Model 60 has been going strong for literally 30+ years and it was a used gun when my dad bought it for me.)

I'll stick with my bolt action 30-06 choice. No way to go wrong there. Although, if I were in the Lower 48, especially east of the Mississippi River, I'd likely go with a Model 94 in 30-30.

So that's three. I might pour the cost of a 4th gun into ammo for the other three. If I thought I had to have a handgun - some sort of revolver.

That would work out to...

Shotgun: $231 (Maverick 88)
22LR: $269 (XT22-MT)
Rifle: $409 (Savage Axis)

Total: $909

With this update, I'd say maybe a Charter Arms revolver.

If you cant convince yourself of having a handgun, then I'd either say a 223/556 or pour it into ammo.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

.357 6 shot revolver. A larger caliber would be better if you’re in Alaska but for versatility’s sake and economical use .357 would be better.

Maybe a used Taurus, charter, or Rossi.

I would agree. However, Charter doesn't make a full size, service revolver, and I have way too little faith in Taurus' and Rossi's reliability to own one. So that puts me in the S&W and/or Ruger world, and that would seriously drive up the cost of my 4-gun inventory.

I do agree with the concept that I can have a handgun alway at the ready, and I do see the value in that. However, I don't see that as an absolute necessity, and it's definitely not a priority.