Another vote for .357 levers & wheels. Fast handling, lightweight, reliable, common caliber with a huge power range. If you have to drop the rifle you still have all the ammo for the pistol. Offers all the firepower you need to hightail it out of most situations and live! Watch some of the cowboy action shooters.
SHTF Rifle/caliber for handgun shooter?
- Thread starter fulloflead
- Start date
- Status
Foxtrot427
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 512
Depends on your surroundings mostly.
Wide open/country:
obviously something with a little more power. Not only to reach out accuratley but also to get some food with. Wouldnt want to go after a deer or something with a pistol cal. carbine. I wouldnt go any less powerful than a 5.56 or 7.62x39. An AR, AK, AR-180B, M17S, M1 variant, FAL, .357 lever gun would all make good choices. Its all about what your most comfortable with. They all have pros and cons. AR, 180b, M17 are in the common .223 that has good power but isnt too heavy or too powerful. Also the AR is very common and parts would be easy to come by. Its just apparently not the best for getting beaten up and getting really dirty. ar-180bs and M17s are not the most common and parts may be scarce so you may want to have parts kits around. The .380 options are all very reliable guns and semi-common. The .308 may be a little much if your not in too wide open an area. Pretty heavy and very powerful.
If your in a more urbanized area...maybe a pistol cal. carbine could work. A suburban area probably would be the best place for one. Not so many heavy barriers as in a city which would be good for a 5.56 or 7.62x39. As for pistol cals there are alot to choose from. Hi-points are ugly but known to be pretty reliable. The compact kel-tec sub2000. Beretta CX4s seem to be very nice.Id suggest anything is .45 or at least .40
Wide open/country:
obviously something with a little more power. Not only to reach out accuratley but also to get some food with. Wouldnt want to go after a deer or something with a pistol cal. carbine. I wouldnt go any less powerful than a 5.56 or 7.62x39. An AR, AK, AR-180B, M17S, M1 variant, FAL, .357 lever gun would all make good choices. Its all about what your most comfortable with. They all have pros and cons. AR, 180b, M17 are in the common .223 that has good power but isnt too heavy or too powerful. Also the AR is very common and parts would be easy to come by. Its just apparently not the best for getting beaten up and getting really dirty. ar-180bs and M17s are not the most common and parts may be scarce so you may want to have parts kits around. The .380 options are all very reliable guns and semi-common. The .308 may be a little much if your not in too wide open an area. Pretty heavy and very powerful.
If your in a more urbanized area...maybe a pistol cal. carbine could work. A suburban area probably would be the best place for one. Not so many heavy barriers as in a city which would be good for a 5.56 or 7.62x39. As for pistol cals there are alot to choose from. Hi-points are ugly but known to be pretty reliable. The compact kel-tec sub2000. Beretta CX4s seem to be very nice.Id suggest anything is .45 or at least .40
The best SHTF rifle is the one you have. Pick one you like and then shoot it a lot.
There is no one perfect rifle for every possibility.
Myself, I like the revolver/levergun gun idea, but I think it's more important to have a rifle that you're comfortable with.
Just my $.02
There is no one perfect rifle for every possibility.
Myself, I like the revolver/levergun gun idea, but I think it's more important to have a rifle that you're comfortable with.
Just my $.02
SpeedAKL
Member
You can't go wrong with an AR or AK....you can find a solid AK in either 7.62 or 5.45 for well under $900...Bushmaster and DPMS sell AR carbines for under that price as well. Check them both out and decide which one you like better, a lot of it comes down to personal taste. I personally prefer the accuracy, modular platform, and light weight of the AR.
The AR is a superior rifle if well maintained. It is not tolerant of neglect. Make sure you have a supply of cleaning gear if this is your choice. The AK is unsurpassed for reliability. Too bad it's not very accurate. The AK was design with full auto as the primary mode, and at relatively short range. It excelles at this.
Marlin 45 carbine
Member
I agree with posts that suggest having a carbine that uses same cartridges as your handgun. whether lever or semi-auto it's a good choice. .357 really picks up speed out of an 18" bbl. or 9mm or .45 for that matter and some semis use pistol mags.
Newkid
Member
Good Morning. If we are in a situation where we would need to survive in such a way that it is necessary to forge for food ammo, weapons, it doesn't necessarily mean that bigger is better or that one type of caliber for both rifle and handgun would make it easier to carry. If you are any good with a rifle in the first place you would realize that windage and elevation are the first thing that should come to mind when choosing a rifle. You should first focus your attention to the sights or available sights and then find the rifle that will best benefit from those type of sights. Whether it be open sights or scope sights determines exactly what you intend to use the rifle for. Just something I think a lot of people overlook. A thought for the day.
TimboKhan
Member
I am not trying to pick on you here Newkid, but could you clarify what you mean a little bit? If I understand you, your saying that you should figure out what kind of sights that you want and then pick a rifle around that, right?
I have to agree with TimboKhan on this one. I don't even consider sights as really a PART of my firearm. To me, they are an accessory. Considering I've bought bolt actions that don't even have sights, this is a supported statement. Oh, don't misread me-- a firearm without a means of sighting it is practically useless for most cases, but I don't understand the above consideration quoted.
-- John
I like a good set of irons, but as I get older, I have pretty much converted to all optics. As long as the rfile in question has Picatinny rails, I am GTG.
BTW, AK sights suck big time, and are revealy about the Soviet idea of precision fire. Fortunately, we have things like the ultimak to fix this shortcoming. With today's modern optics, there's no reason for iron sights at all excpt as a backup. An with scopes like the ACOG, if you break the scope, you've probably broken the rifle too. Irons in this case are strictly for the belt and suspenders types.
YMMV
BTW, AK sights suck big time, and are revealy about the Soviet idea of precision fire. Fortunately, we have things like the ultimak to fix this shortcoming. With today's modern optics, there's no reason for iron sights at all excpt as a backup. An with scopes like the ACOG, if you break the scope, you've probably broken the rifle too. Irons in this case are strictly for the belt and suspenders types.
YMMV
Ah, a classic SHTF discussion. I guess I will dispense some of my opinions, and get a few groans from the audience.
I've talked about it before, but I just want to take another look at extreme range shooting (i.e. anything past 300 or so yards).
First, most people do not have the skill for this. Note I say most!
Lets face it though, even with a telescopic sight the vast majority of shooters would have difficulty landing good hits past 300 yards without a benchrest. Missing twice before nailing the target doesn't count; if it was a game animal the thing would already be hauling for the county line. If it was an opponent they probably would have already started running for cover and alerted their buddies of your general position.
Next let us consider hunting at such extreme ranges. As stated before, there is the good chance of scaring off the target. Your chances of being unable to track the animal are much greater too, due to the fact that hits are less precise at range and you need to travel a ways to get on the trail. This is not a good use of time and resources. The likelyhood of the hunt's success goes up exponentially if a stalk is executed to get closer to the animal.
Now onto people defense. Extreme range shooting is very hard to justify. I have thought about the "Killzone Defense" before:
Plus there is the whole morality issue. Most people are not out to kill and commit crime; how can a reasonable person just shoot anyone who walks onto their property?
I'm am not ragging on .308 rifles, they do have their uses. People just seem to paint them as "Thor's Hammer" when their advantages over other calibers are more marginal.
And there is a definite downside to .308 ammunition, namely that it is expensive. Twice as much steel cased .223 and 7.62x39 can for the same price as .308, and even the brass cased .223 is about 30-40% or so cheaper.
Let us move on to another controversial topic, namely the pistol caliber carbine. I think there are many reasons to reccomend these:
1.They allow commonality between a sidearm and a longarm (as mentioned before).
2. Pistol ammunition is cheaper than rifle ammuntion, for the most part (allowing more practice and a larger stockpile for a given amount of money).
3. The PCC (new acronym!) is reasonable in price, comparable to a pistol. While the Beretta is in rifle territory at $650; a Hi-Point sells new for around $200, with the Kel-Tec not too much more. Both the Hi-Point and Kel-Tec are cheaper than a full size rifle.
4. Many people argue that most PCCs offer only marginally improved ballistics over a pistol and cannot compare to a rifle, which is true. However, try shooting a pistol at 100 yards, then a PCC. While the ballistics aren't great at 100, they are still useable.
I've talked about it before, but I just want to take another look at extreme range shooting (i.e. anything past 300 or so yards).
First, most people do not have the skill for this. Note I say most!
Lets face it though, even with a telescopic sight the vast majority of shooters would have difficulty landing good hits past 300 yards without a benchrest. Missing twice before nailing the target doesn't count; if it was a game animal the thing would already be hauling for the county line. If it was an opponent they probably would have already started running for cover and alerted their buddies of your general position.
Next let us consider hunting at such extreme ranges. As stated before, there is the good chance of scaring off the target. Your chances of being unable to track the animal are much greater too, due to the fact that hits are less precise at range and you need to travel a ways to get on the trail. This is not a good use of time and resources. The likelyhood of the hunt's success goes up exponentially if a stalk is executed to get closer to the animal.
Now onto people defense. Extreme range shooting is very hard to justify. I have thought about the "Killzone Defense" before:
Plus there is the whole morality issue. Most people are not out to kill and commit crime; how can a reasonable person just shoot anyone who walks onto their property?
I'm am not ragging on .308 rifles, they do have their uses. People just seem to paint them as "Thor's Hammer" when their advantages over other calibers are more marginal.
And there is a definite downside to .308 ammunition, namely that it is expensive. Twice as much steel cased .223 and 7.62x39 can for the same price as .308, and even the brass cased .223 is about 30-40% or so cheaper.
Let us move on to another controversial topic, namely the pistol caliber carbine. I think there are many reasons to reccomend these:
1.They allow commonality between a sidearm and a longarm (as mentioned before).
2. Pistol ammunition is cheaper than rifle ammuntion, for the most part (allowing more practice and a larger stockpile for a given amount of money).
3. The PCC (new acronym!) is reasonable in price, comparable to a pistol. While the Beretta is in rifle territory at $650; a Hi-Point sells new for around $200, with the Kel-Tec not too much more. Both the Hi-Point and Kel-Tec are cheaper than a full size rifle.
4. Many people argue that most PCCs offer only marginally improved ballistics over a pistol and cannot compare to a rifle, which is true. However, try shooting a pistol at 100 yards, then a PCC. While the ballistics aren't great at 100, they are still useable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked