How much ammo is enough?

What I try to keep onhad at all times is:

300 rounds 5.56
150 rounds 38 special

anything else is just range ammo that I keep in my bag to be used without much consideration.
 
Hal said:
Things didn't turn out much better @ Wake, or Thermopylae either...
It's the thought that counts though.

I believe what Bill was pointing out was that even if you lose, sitting put makes the other guy pay an expensive price.
Click to expand...

Thermopylae - 300 Spartans, 700 Thesians and 400 Thebans blocked the pass while the bulk of the army withdrew. King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans took the point against .... approximately 200,000 Persians. And they held on for three days of battle with the odds at 142:1 against them! Of course, only the Spartans would consider that a "fair fight", but I digress. The real point is that the narrow pass funneled the Persian force until it had to meet the Greeks head-on. Every man there knew it was only a delaying tactic to allow Greece to regroup. Each man knew his honor guard in hell would be determined by the number of the enemy to sent there ahead of him.

Alamo - about 250 vs 1500 - merely 6:1 odds against and again what Texans and Tennessee scrapers might call a "fair fight". They stood off 1,500 regular Army soldiers for thirteen days. Without the Mission at Alamo, they would have been quickly annihilated in the open.

Wake Island - 15 days of battle in which less than 170 defenders were killed or wounded against over 1,000 Japanese attackers killed or wounded. The Japanese strength could be counted in the thousands. Coming the day after Pearl Harbor, the US Navy could not reinforce or supply Wake island. But they made the Japanese pay a 4:1 price (or more)

While not entirely successful, each one shows the advantages of fighting from a fortified positions even against overwhelming odds. Like anything, there is a limit to how much it will help you.¹

Considering the disasters that afflicted mobile defenders - like the battle of Isandlwana in 1879 - fortified defenders inflict far more casualties than they receive.²

¹ A fortified position doesn't guarantee success but it greatly increases the odds.
² Until the advent of air power -and precision munitions- fortified defenders often had to be bypassed unless the attacker was willing to spend the blood to dig out the defenders.
 
Last edited:
Curious example with Islandlwana. The loss was not attributed as much to the battle being a meeting engagement but more to the poor logistics and bad tactics. The ammo for example was sealed in cases that required tools and several minutes to open. When the Brits started running out of ammo they were overrun.
 
A fairly recent archeological survey of the battlefield at Islandlwana showed the British soldiers to be much more widely spaced on the line than had been previously thought. MUCH wider. When the two sides then met face to face in the open the soldiers were simply overwhelmed and unable to support each other. The ammo in the sealed crates likely was a factor, but as it turns out, the improper deployment of the line allowed charging Zulus through when they should not have been able to do so. The same Zulu army then attempted to wipe out the small contingent at Rorkes Drift and were not able to defeat the British. In this case about 150 troops, 39 of which were in hospital beds, defended successfully against about 5,000 Zulu warriors, often hand to hand.
 
Never enough. Well, I suppose if you have to close off one of your rooms because you can't shoehorn even another .22LR cartridge in there, it might be time to give some to me.
 
While fortifications are usually of great assistance in repelling an assault, much more so than is generally appreciated today, there can be surprises. Corregidor Island in Manila Bay is an example of both. The Japanese had an awful time capturing Corregidor in 1942 because of the resistance of the defenders, who mostly ran out of water before they ran out of ammunition. But when the tables were turned and it was the Americans assaulting the island, the results were curious.

It was unusual in that the numbers of invading forces, most of which were from the 503d parachute infantry and the 34th Infantry (24th Division), were barely larger than the defending Japanese. There were about 6,000 to 7,000 on each side. Virtually all the Japanese were killed (as usual) but in comparison, the American casualties were relative slight, with about 200 killed and less than 700 wounded. Apparently the Americans at least had plenty of ammuntion.

In one of the interesting trivialties of history, the C.O. of the 34th Infantry later went to jump school and later commanded the 503rd, which also ironically became part of the 11th Airborne Divison and was stationed in Augsburg, Germany. The 11th Airborne was reflagged as the 24th Division in the late 1950s but kept the 503rd parachute infantry for a while. And it so happens I was with the 24th Division in Augsburg for a while, too.
 
Last edited:
The consensus seems to be generally that you can't have too much ammo.¹

One of the more pertinent questions should be...

a. How much ammo can you move under exigent circumstances?
b. How much of your gear, weapons and ammo can you move in less than 1-2 hrs?
c. What will you likely leave behind?

Other questions that are relevant to the discussion is the weight of the ammo you intend to take with you - vs. the load capacity of your vehicle. Can you carry the ammo and all your food and prep gear?

One other item as food for thought...
The closest we ever came to needing to evacuate was in 2003 when a rail car of ammonia derailed and began leaking. Fortunately winds were high and we were upwind. The bad news was I had a bad case of bronchitis at the time and lifting a six-pack into the fridge was about the limit of my strength! Lesson: You might be prepared, but unable to load your gear by yourself or need a lot more time.


Ammodump.jpg





¹ Unless you are on fire, fall into the water or have more than your parachute(s) will support.
 
What Garm said ...
"I think around 2000 rounds of each centerfire caliber and 10000 rounds of .22 is about enough. "

Actually I keep a lot of the 3 staple calibers, .22LR, .22WMR, and 9mm (in a couple of bullet types). The rest I make sure I keep a few boxes of (.223, 30-30, .45acp, .40sw, ect). If I ever get that M&P Sport, then the need for .223 will fall into the staple category (darn handguns keep bumping it down the list a notch).

I also keep reloading supplies (and a lot of accumulated brass) on hand so if another ammo shortage comes, I can continue to shoot no problem.

Basically if I see it on sale for a good price, I pick a couple of boxes of something up.
 
Read some history. Being stationary is not necessarily a disadvantage compared to being mobile. For reference, see static defenders:
Battle of Thermopylae (480 B.C.)
The Alamo (1836)
Battle of Rorke's Drift (1879)
Battle of Wake Island (1941)
Battle of Monte Cassino (1944)

And Mobile defenders:
Battle of the Little Bighorn (1876)
Battle of Isandlwana (1879)
Click to expand...

I do read. Extensively. I may be picking nits here but:

The Battle of Termopylae was a tactical defeat although it achieved its objective as a delaying action enabling the eventual final defeat of that particular Persian campaign. In any case, they fought there by choice, not because their baggage train bogged them down.

The Alamo was heroic, but a defeat. And a defeat with debatable tactical or strategic purpose. It seems to have been more of a "member" measuring contest. Sun Tzu wouldn't have liked that. And I say this as a former resident of San Antonio, Texas at a young enough age that I had to take Texas history in Junior high. Again, the spot for the battle was picked by the defenders. Never been sure why.

Rorke's drift proves MY point, not yours. The British were tied down by their duty to defend the hospital and supplies there. They would presumably preferred not to have engaged the Zulu's at such a disadvantage, but had to do it anyway.

Wake Island was another defeat. By a garrison that did their best, but was unprepared for the assault. Failure of planning and leadership. Heroic, but avoidable. (I'm a former Corporal in the USMC too).

Monte Cassino was a defeat for the defenders, albiet at huge cost for the attackers. I'm not very familiar with that one.

As to the mobile defenders. That makes MY point again. Both your examples are defeats for the defense (in Little Big Horn the 7th was initially on the attack but badly underestimated the opposing force and the roles reversed in the course of the engagement). Don't defend. Be strong enough that you don't get attacked, or be mobile enough that you're not there to attack. That is the essence of Sun Tzu.

Defense is always a last resort, or a mistake. If you really want to interpret strictly I'd say FIGHTING is usually a mistake, unless it's the only thing left after all other means are exhausted.
 
I cannot resist the double post as I missed this the first time thru:

Not to mention, the guy who's holed up because he's armed to the teeth and has so much ammo that he can't move it all doesn't exactly make the most tempting target for a sane person.
Click to expand...

Unless you happen to want some ammo. Why does anything ever get attacked? Because the rewards for attacking exceed the risks of attacking.

I don't mean to discourage anyone from stockpiling ammunition. It is one way of handling things. But since the general consensus of posters on the topic seems to be "more is better" I decided to present my alternative view: More isn't always better. Enough is enough.

This is basically a question of supply. A big pile of ammo resolves a supply problem. But it creates a maneuver problem. These two elements of planning are always in opposition.

In defending a position, if you fail in supply you get Dien Bien Phu. If you succeed you get Khe Sanh. A little more mobility might have changed the outcome at the first and shortened the battle in the second.
 
I'm go by how much I'm willing to lose in a fire, and how much more damage will those rounds do in the event of a small fire.

That said I usually keep 500-1000 rounds. I live in a condo and just don't have storage space for much more anyway.
 
If you don't shoot much, you don't need much. 500 rounds?... that is 10 boxes of 50 or 25 boxes of 20; That is nothing to sneeze at in terms of volume and far more than you would be willing to carry on your back in addition to other supplies.

People prepare for what emergency? Oh... when "all hell breaks loose" and society fails.... a few hundred rounds would probably be sufficient for any normal regional emergency short of a national war scenario. Then you have far larger problems than how much ammunition you have.

So, you should have on hand enough to make you comfortable that you can continue shooting at your present rate for a month or so. If that means 10,000 rounds of 45ACP or 9mm, so be it. But in an emergency, you stop shooting and it becomes a self rationing proposition. Hence, your normal monthly use will likely last for at least a year. But I would keep a couple of boxes of ammo around however. There is no maximum, but I suspect there is a comfortable minimum.
 
Legend has it that Abraham Lincoln was once asked how long a man's legs should be. His reply was:

“I have not given the matter much consideration, but on first blush I should judge they ought to be long enough to reach from his body to the ground.”
 
I keep on hand 500 rounds each of .22, .38 and 9mm, and 100 rounds each of .380 and .45. I don't shoot the last two very often. I replace as need to keep at this amount.
 
How much is enough?

Heck I don't know. I will tell you when I have enough. Everyone start mailing me all of your ammo. I will let you know when I have enough.:p


Ok just kidding. (You can still mail me all of your ammo if you want to.)

I reload so enough to make it through a couple of range sessions before my next time at the loading bench is enough.
 
I suppose that if you are of a certain mindset, you could ask yourself - "Do I have enough ammo and components to make more... that if I was forced to stop buying loaded ammo and reloading components, and make do with what I currently have for a matter of years ('til the revolution foments, rages and comes to a conclusion?), could I defend myself and my family adequately with an adequate reserve and perhaps ammo to use to purchase things I need?"

... but I think a more reasonable question might be...

"Do I have enough ammo that if I saw that supplies were getting tighter or much more expensive over a matter of months or years, could I manage to get by on what I have or can make for an extended period of time?" You can fill in your own possible events and contingencies that you might need for SD, bartering, or whatever.

I think these are the kinds of questions one might ask oneself in figuring out how much is enough, and the answer will be different for any given person. Whether the answer is 50 rounds or 50K rounds, I don't presume to judge for anyone other than myself. I do hope that we never get to the point where I am concerned about how much ammo we may or may not have on hand.
 
I'll say one thing for sure. This is much more fun and informative than discussing which round is the best one shot stopper.
 
I am going to buck the trend. I have a hard time buying into the apocalyptic scenarios that have me needing to kill someone every two steps I take. I base my ammo inventory on range needs. I currently keep enough ammo around to take a friend to the range 3 to 5 times without being compelled to shop for ammo. When it was harder to get, I kept a considerably larger stock by buying in bulk online. Now I can buy anything I want, with no artificial restrictions on quantity, at a competitive price, at a store 10 minutes from my house. It doesn't make sense to me to put my money on the shelf for long periods of time; rather, I let the store put their money into inventory for my benefit.
 
How Much?

Enough to last a lifetime.
What that number would be I have no idea. That is why I buy two boxes every time I shoot one box.
And I learned to handload many years ago, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top