StealthyBlagga
Member
Either:
1) Glock 17 + Advantage Arms .22LR conversion.
or:
2) AR15 + Spikes .22LR conversion
1) Glock 17 + Advantage Arms .22LR conversion.
or:
2) AR15 + Spikes .22LR conversion
Which gun, for a one-gun user, in a worse-case scenario?
- Thread starter Gildersleeve
- Start date
- Status
It's better to look like a victim instead? There's more to survival than simply carrying a firearm.
Do we take up shotguns against our enemies? Or rifles? Do our enemies fight us with shotguns? Or rifles?
There is no denying a shotgun can be devastating or that a handgun has it's place. Still if, heaven forbid, limited to only one, mine will be a rifle. Greater versatility, better range and when chambered for rifle calibers, greater power. It's the first weapon my father taught me to shoot, the first my father learned to shoot and the first my grandfather was taught to shoot. The rifle what I first taught my sons to shoot.
There is a reason why we are first and foremost, riflemen
Seattleimport
Member
I'll go ahead and cheat, and suggest The Wizard: http://www.rossiusa.com/news-detail.cfm?newsID=28
It shoots pistol rounds. It shoots rifle rounds. It shoots shotgun shells. You can even dump raw powder straight down the barrel, follow with wad and ball, and shoot it muzzle-loader style.
So... yeah. That's the one gun I suggest. Essentially: every gun.
If that's too cheaty, then I'd recommend a shotgun with collapsible stock.
It shoots pistol rounds. It shoots rifle rounds. It shoots shotgun shells. You can even dump raw powder straight down the barrel, follow with wad and ball, and shoot it muzzle-loader style.
So... yeah. That's the one gun I suggest. Essentially: every gun.
If that's too cheaty, then I'd recommend a shotgun with collapsible stock.
Cubes
Member
OK - my answer for entertainment's sake. Someone also said earlier if you could have two long guns in your crew, so just because I can (and would):
-A 12ga Mossberg 590 pump for the animals (various loads, birdshot, buckshot, slugs)
-An AR-15 in 7.62 for the people/zombies/mutants/whatev
Of course, this is after playing far, FAR too much Fallout3. And leaving home unless it's on fire or radioactive (at which point you're probably toast anyway) or underwater is probably a bad idea anyway - it's the one place on Earth that *most* people can actually shore up to be defensible, and safely store large amounts of supplies with a minimum of transportation. If you do have to move, you'll need a truck/suv, a trailer and a crapton of gasoline. And that AR-15 to keep people away from the gasoline. Just kidding. (Unless they are trying to eat you/your truck/your gasoline)
During the Hurricane Rita fiasco in Houston, I actually managed to get to Nacogdoches in 9 hrs by driving in the blank parts of the map and using my mad Eagle scout skills to navigate. Most people just got stranded on the road, and many even died during the exodus. Of course, the stupid hurricane followed me, but that's not the point Let's just say, unless you are facing nuclear/biological/fire annihilation, stay in your home. When Ike came around, pretty much everyone in Houston rode out the storm and it went surprisingly well. No power for two weeks, but we were well stocked and prepared, and made it pretty comfortably.
It has been said by many already, but it is more practical to have a lot of sterile water and non-perishable food, along with a modest cache of weaponry, than your own personal National Guard Armory. But this is all kind of a tangent, so I'll stop now.
-A 12ga Mossberg 590 pump for the animals (various loads, birdshot, buckshot, slugs)
-An AR-15 in 7.62 for the people/zombies/mutants/whatev
Of course, this is after playing far, FAR too much Fallout3. And leaving home unless it's on fire or radioactive (at which point you're probably toast anyway) or underwater is probably a bad idea anyway - it's the one place on Earth that *most* people can actually shore up to be defensible, and safely store large amounts of supplies with a minimum of transportation. If you do have to move, you'll need a truck/suv, a trailer and a crapton of gasoline. And that AR-15 to keep people away from the gasoline. Just kidding. (Unless they are trying to eat you/your truck/your gasoline)
During the Hurricane Rita fiasco in Houston, I actually managed to get to Nacogdoches in 9 hrs by driving in the blank parts of the map and using my mad Eagle scout skills to navigate. Most people just got stranded on the road, and many even died during the exodus. Of course, the stupid hurricane followed me, but that's not the point
Let's just say, unless you are facing nuclear/biological/fire annihilation, stay in your home. When Ike came around, pretty much everyone in Houston rode out the storm and it went surprisingly well. No power for two weeks, but we were well stocked and prepared, and made it pretty comfortably.It has been said by many already, but it is more practical to have a lot of sterile water and non-perishable food, along with a modest cache of weaponry, than your own personal National Guard Armory. But this is all kind of a tangent, so I'll stop now.
Tallinar
Member
Given the OP's original criteria: AR-15 with 16" barrel.
In the event of the "zombie apocalypse", ammunition and parts will be easier to come by than some other options.
In the event of the "zombie apocalypse", ammunition and parts will be easier to come by than some other options.
chaim
Member
Did some more thinking, and while I highly suggest you consider more likely scenarios for your first gun and buy your second or third gun thinking about your end of the world as we know it scenario, I have refined my thinking a bit.
I still highly suggest the .22lr rifle (if you can carry a rifle). Still, in an end of society scenario I'm with those who say it is better to be as low profile as possible, so I'd probably go with a .22lr pistol. Small game will probably be more plentiful than large game (many people will have the same idea as you, smaller game is more plentiful already and it reproduces faster) and the .22 will destroy less flesh. Further, with well placed head shots at short distances you could easily take large game as well- in a normal situation with any gun available to you people don't usually do it due to humane considerations (though people do hunt bears with .22s, relying on hiding out until they can get a good head shot), but in an every man for himself survival situation things are different. Also, you can store 10 500 round bricks of .22 (for 5000 rounds of ammo) in about the same space as 200 rounds of 12ga, 800-1200 rounds of pistol calibers, and 300-500 rounds of most centerfire rifle calibers (and with a similar financial investment assuming the less expensive rifle calibers). A big advantage (remember, the best defense is not to draw unwanted attention and to stay out of firefights) is that .22 is pretty quiet so one or two shots may not be heard a distance away, and would be hard to pinpoint the location if it was heard. In a pinch, it could be used for self defense (though I may cheat in such a situation and take my .22 pistol and something like my compact Taurus PT140 Millennium Pro or Commander sized S&W 1911SC- far less weight and size than one rifle, both guns could be easily concealed yet accessible, and I'd have a good self-defense caliber and a good subsistence caliber).
For subsistence I think I'd be looking more at fishing though. Broken down you could strap your rod and reel to your pack with virtually no additional weight, you can take plenty of tackle in a limited amount of space, and you can dig or catch your own worms and small fish (bait) when/if your artificial lures run out (you can carry TONS of hooks in a small space and with little weight). I'd bet the fish population would hold out longer in such a situation than the game population, especially on the coasts or in more isolated areas.
If you really are worried about a long-term, end of society survival situation, I highly recommend this for your next vacation:
http://www.rootsvt.com/
In addition to food, we would have many other issues: water, surviving the elements, and especially shelter. Your tent would only last so long, and if you are thinking about building a permanent shelter, why not just stay with your house. Plus, it just looks like fun.
I still highly suggest the .22lr rifle (if you can carry a rifle). Still, in an end of society scenario I'm with those who say it is better to be as low profile as possible, so I'd probably go with a .22lr pistol. Small game will probably be more plentiful than large game (many people will have the same idea as you, smaller game is more plentiful already and it reproduces faster) and the .22 will destroy less flesh. Further, with well placed head shots at short distances you could easily take large game as well- in a normal situation with any gun available to you people don't usually do it due to humane considerations (though people do hunt bears with .22s, relying on hiding out until they can get a good head shot), but in an every man for himself survival situation things are different. Also, you can store 10 500 round bricks of .22 (for 5000 rounds of ammo) in about the same space as 200 rounds of 12ga, 800-1200 rounds of pistol calibers, and 300-500 rounds of most centerfire rifle calibers (and with a similar financial investment assuming the less expensive rifle calibers). A big advantage (remember, the best defense is not to draw unwanted attention and to stay out of firefights) is that .22 is pretty quiet so one or two shots may not be heard a distance away, and would be hard to pinpoint the location if it was heard. In a pinch, it could be used for self defense (though I may cheat in such a situation and take my .22 pistol and something like my compact Taurus PT140 Millennium Pro or Commander sized S&W 1911SC- far less weight and size than one rifle, both guns could be easily concealed yet accessible, and I'd have a good self-defense caliber and a good subsistence caliber).
For subsistence I think I'd be looking more at fishing though. Broken down you could strap your rod and reel to your pack with virtually no additional weight, you can take plenty of tackle in a limited amount of space, and you can dig or catch your own worms and small fish (bait) when/if your artificial lures run out (you can carry TONS of hooks in a small space and with little weight). I'd bet the fish population would hold out longer in such a situation than the game population, especially on the coasts or in more isolated areas.
If you really are worried about a long-term, end of society survival situation, I highly recommend this for your next vacation:
http://www.rootsvt.com/
In addition to food, we would have many other issues: water, surviving the elements, and especially shelter. Your tent would only last so long, and if you are thinking about building a permanent shelter, why not just stay with your house. Plus, it just looks like fun.
Last edited:
Without question a 12-gauge pump action shotgun. Nothing beats it in utility.
Only thing it really lacks is range. Think the max effectiveness of a slug round is about 100 yards. Sabot can get out to about 200 I think.
Mossberg or Remington exceedingly easy to maintain and there are millions out there for spare parts.
Only thing it really lacks is range. Think the max effectiveness of a slug round is about 100 yards. Sabot can get out to about 200 I think.
Mossberg or Remington exceedingly easy to maintain and there are millions out there for spare parts.
A Mossberg pump with three barrels 18 1/2", 28mod and a slug barrel. A 22 cal rifle or a good pellet rifle, may need less noise. I like revolvers, S&W or Ruger. I have a single six Ruger 22 lr/22 mag. A 38 chief special S&W. A sp101 Ruger. A gp100 Ruger. All these are outstanding guns.
I don't know how many people actually hike with weight on their backs, but if you have a rifle (8-10 pounds) and 200 rounds (6 pounds for .223, and 10 pounds for .308) you are well burdened. Add a pistol and you got 25 pounds before you have a drop of water or a Snickers bar. Add water, food, shelter, a raincoat and a knife, and pretty soon you are at 60 pounds, which will slow you right down unless you are pretty fit. Not to mention And if recent history is any guide, a long gun makes you a target for over-enthusiastic deputies and Blackwater types.
If you have a decent handgun, you can carry 80-100 rounds and keep the whole thing under 5 pounds. Mobility in emergencies is key, so ideally you will be carrying under 30 pounds. And, importantly, it is concealed and lightweight. A modern handgun is effective beyond 50 yards with practice. Imagine trying to explain to the police why you shot someone from 50 yards when the situation normalizes. And imagine shooting more than 100 rounds in the 5 days-week it takes for the problem to resolve as you get your family to high ground.
With a concealed handgun you can hunt game, defend yourself, and move quickly while still being able to access emergency services without getting yourself in trouble. I know we like to imagine Mad-Max style marauders if the SHTF, but if you look at natural and social disasters in the US over the last 150 years, that just hasn't happened. I can't think of a bad situation in the last century and a half where you would have needed more than a decent modern fighting handgun. We don't live in Somalia where battle technicals roam the earth. Even in the Rodney King riots, a handgun would have kept the crowds away from you. Crowds hate getting shot.
And I don't buy the whole EOTWAWKI scenario - that is a fantasy (albeit a fun one). A reliable handgun in a decent caliber is the realistic choice.
If you have a decent handgun, you can carry 80-100 rounds and keep the whole thing under 5 pounds. Mobility in emergencies is key, so ideally you will be carrying under 30 pounds. And, importantly, it is concealed and lightweight. A modern handgun is effective beyond 50 yards with practice. Imagine trying to explain to the police why you shot someone from 50 yards when the situation normalizes. And imagine shooting more than 100 rounds in the 5 days-week it takes for the problem to resolve as you get your family to high ground.
With a concealed handgun you can hunt game, defend yourself, and move quickly while still being able to access emergency services without getting yourself in trouble. I know we like to imagine Mad-Max style marauders if the SHTF, but if you look at natural and social disasters in the US over the last 150 years, that just hasn't happened. I can't think of a bad situation in the last century and a half where you would have needed more than a decent modern fighting handgun. We don't live in Somalia where battle technicals roam the earth. Even in the Rodney King riots, a handgun would have kept the crowds away from you. Crowds hate getting shot.
And I don't buy the whole EOTWAWKI scenario - that is a fantasy (albeit a fun one). A reliable handgun in a decent caliber is the realistic choice.
ROSCOE, You're right if you intend to walk. I don't walk, I have bad joints. I use a motorscooter or motorcycle to walk the dogs, to go to the pond. Believe me we could have some bad problems. Lack of food for long periods of time. If this was to happen you would have to defend your food and family. There is woods all around me, you may have to hunt for meat. These woods are full of Turkeys, I'm not sure I could get close enough to hit one so I added one more gun to my collection, a Marlin MD 55 Goose gun w/36" barrel. I have also stocked up on flour, cornmeal, coffee, salt, sugar, grits and rice. I vacuum sealed everything. Even if nothing happens I have saved money because these items are going up in price everyday.
SSN Vet
Member
I would suggest that one of the least important aspects of "living off the land" is what caliber of type of firearm you employ.
My quite limited hunting experience has led me to believe that hunting involves a lot of skill and experiential knowldege about both your hunting grounds as well as your prey.
Sure there are a lot of guys who have gone to hunting camp primarily to drink beer and managed to score a lucky buck. But if you're going to rely upon the fruit of you hunting to feed people, you're going to need repeatable performance.
Keep in mind also, that in the unlikely TEOTWAWKI scenario you describe, there are going to be a lot of people trying to do just what you've described. So a realistic plan would include the contingency that all the woods withing easy access of suburbia will be game free within weeks.
Having some place in the remote country to go is, imho, the real key to that scenario.
Laying hens and a fresh cow named Daisy will likely go further than a hunting rifle of any caliber.
But just for kicks and giggles, my vote is for an M1 Carbine.
WaywardAce
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 67
Lever Action Rifle - Marlin 1894C in .38spl/.357 magnum
Handgun - Ruger GP 100 .357 magnum
Handgun - Ruger GP 100 .357 magnum
islandphish
Member
10-22
I don't like the OP's criteria as I don't think they realistically reflect the needs that would be faced.
I don't like the OP's criteria as I don't think they realistically reflect the needs that would be faced.
easyg
Member
What's with all the talk about "enemies"?
Even in a mass disaster the majority of folks will not instantly become vicious killers right out of The Road Warrior.
Yes, there will be some predators, but most folks will only be interested in keeping what they have, not taking what you have.
And just because one chooses not to carry a long-gun that does not make one look like a victim.
robby101
Member
Which gun, for a one-gun user, in a worse-case scenario?
Worst case scenario? Um, er, gee, well, I guess, a minigun gift wrapped in a Huey Supercobra.
Worst case scenario? Um, er, gee, well, I guess, a minigun gift wrapped in a Huey Supercobra.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
Cobra would work.
230therapy
Member
SHTF? Caliber heavy enough to fight and to hunt?
The rifle is the way to go. A handgun is only a sidearm. The rifle gives you versatility and range.
A bolt gun is a great hunting gun, but I wouldn't want to fight with one.
Take a hard look at the AK-47 in 7.62x39mm. It is reliable and accurate enough for short range hunting. If you get a higher end gun like an Arsenal, it will be a bit tighter and higher quality. You can get one with a rail and add an Aimpoint Micro optic on it for very fast target acquisition.
Another alternative is to consider a FAL by DS Arms, M1A, or an AR-10. DS Arms' FAL rifles can handle both 7.62x51mm and 308 Winchester ammunition. M1A's are held in high regard. AR-10's can be expensive so do your research.
A Garand can be had for around $600 from ODCMP. It's a serious consideration if you need to get something quickly. Acquire two bottles of Brite-n-Kleen, steel wool and get to work on that stock!
Yet another option is an AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel or other caliber. I like the Grendel's performance at long range. Do some investigation into this caliber. You can get a gun with an upper in 5.56x45mm and buy a 6.5 Grendel upper later. What's great about the AR platform is the modularity. Mounting optics on Garands and M1A's can be expensive; the AR is built for it.
There are so many options...you can spend as much or little as you want.
The AK-47 or the Garand may be the way to go for initial entry.
The rifle is the way to go. A handgun is only a sidearm. The rifle gives you versatility and range.
A bolt gun is a great hunting gun, but I wouldn't want to fight with one.
Take a hard look at the AK-47 in 7.62x39mm. It is reliable and accurate enough for short range hunting. If you get a higher end gun like an Arsenal, it will be a bit tighter and higher quality. You can get one with a rail and add an Aimpoint Micro optic on it for very fast target acquisition.
Another alternative is to consider a FAL by DS Arms, M1A, or an AR-10. DS Arms' FAL rifles can handle both 7.62x51mm and 308 Winchester ammunition. M1A's are held in high regard. AR-10's can be expensive so do your research.
A Garand can be had for around $600 from ODCMP. It's a serious consideration if you need to get something quickly. Acquire two bottles of Brite-n-Kleen, steel wool and get to work on that stock!
Yet another option is an AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel or other caliber. I like the Grendel's performance at long range. Do some investigation into this caliber. You can get a gun with an upper in 5.56x45mm and buy a 6.5 Grendel upper later. What's great about the AR platform is the modularity. Mounting optics on Garands and M1A's can be expensive; the AR is built for it.
There are so many options...you can spend as much or little as you want.
The AK-47 or the Garand may be the way to go for initial entry.
wlewisiii
Member
.22 rifle
12 ga shotgun
.38 Special revolver
No one weapon can do it all but these three come closest in my experience.
12 ga shotgun
.38 Special revolver
No one weapon can do it all but these three come closest in my experience.
TrickyDick
Member
Well, as everyone knows, an AK is what works best in and "end of world scenario" it can handle any climate, and has ammunition all over the world, as well as parts. It is big enough for some big game but maybe a tad bit much for a squirrel unless you can take his head clean off and leave the body for eating. But to most people's knowledge and experience, The AK is the gun you want to be able to maintain with little to no effort at all. even a shoelace with knots along it could prove to be sufficent enough to clean the barrel in a jif. It's simple operation is reliable and consistant, As long as you have a well built AK then you should have no problems. I personally suggest the YUGO M70AB2 model.
huntsman
Member
If import ammo ever gets banned will there be enough domestic manufactured ammo to feed all the AKs ?
blacktailhunter
Member
I think a 308 is all a person needs .good for big game ore small game
piece of meat
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 179
all i would need is a lighter and a roll of duct tape. and maybe a box of paper clips
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, considering the size of the market. I believe 7.62x39mm is probably the #2 centerfire rifle caliber sold in the United States annually, so if imports are cut off and there is a 7.62x39mm crunch, the domestic ammo manufacturers will cut back their production of less-common rifle calibers to meet 7.62x39mm demand, just like they cut back on less common handgun calibers in 2008-2009 to devote more production to 9mm, .40, and .45. It would be more expensive than imported ammo is now, but it would be available.
There's also the fact that 7.62x39mm ammunition is currently one of the least expensive centerfire long gun calibers on the market; it is a lot cheaper to set aside a rainy-day stash of 7.62x39mm than (say) .30-30, .270, or 12-gauge.
The main downside of 7.62x39mm is weight, IMO. It's not as heavy as 7.62x51mm/.308, but it is almost twice as heavy as .223, compounded by rugged-but-heavy magazines for the platform. Loaded steel 7.62x39mm AK magazines weigh in at just under two pounds each, so three loaded mags weigh almost as much as the empty rifle. Not a problem if it is a home/neighborhood-defense carbine or if you are evacuating a natural disaster in your car, but be realistic about the weight if you're envisioning hiking somewhere carrying six months' worth of supplies on your back.
- Status
Similar threads
