More guns or more ammo?

P

Pep in CA

New member
A general question. Is it better to spend money on more guns or more ammo?

We all know the adage: a gun without ammo is no good. So I ask, should I devote my discretionary spending on acquiring more guns or more ammo?

My current philosophy favors the latter rather than the former. I tend to think I need only one gun for each purpose, and I feel more secure knowing I have plenty of ammo. More ammo means not only more security but more training and more practice.

PS -- my one gun for each purpose philosphy doesn't mean I should only own one gun, nor that I should own only one gun of each type. It only means that every gun I own or intend to own should serve a specific purpose, without duplicates.

If I have duplicate guns, I'd rather have ammo instead. Am I wrong?

Thoughts, tips, and opinions welcome.
 
I guess it depends on what you have for guns and ammo. As for me, its a continual battle to get more of both. What I try and do is keep my ammo supply at 1000 rounds for each chambering, minus the .44mag, 30-30 and the .22lr. The 44 I typically keep a couple of hundred rounds on hand, the 30-30 I typically just pickup when I feel like shooting and the .22lr I keep at over 2,000 rounds simply because I go through them fairly quickly.
If I am below that, its ammo time, if not, I save up for my next gun.
 
Pistolay, I say bravo. You and I think alike.
I would rather have few guns and lots of ammo than a lot of guns and little ammo.
 
Last edited:
I go back and forth. Its usually aquire one gun, then aquire a comfortable amount of ammo for said gun, then save up for another gun and wonder if I need more ammo for that last gun. Which turns into more ammo and another gun. And a wife who yells at me.
 
I expect ammo will not hit the fluctuations seen under the Obama admin, so I'll focus on more ammo / reloading under President Trump.
 
I have been selling a few guns recently that I don't use. I have not been selling ammo (except if I sold the only gun that shot that caliber).

I can only use so many guns. I can always shoot more ammo. More guns are great but unless you are really active in many different disciplines of the sport you can get by with just a few.
 
Pep,

I'm with your philosophy, which extends beyond firearms. I plan on having 1 for each purpose, and after that I'll just add ammo or upgrade the accessories.

(Right now) my plan is no more than 6 total, some of which I have and others not yet. Three pistols, 1 full size, one compact for conceal carry, and 1 small .380 for deep concealment. Three rifles/carbines, my PS90 for targets at 200m or less, a 5.56 for mid range and competition, and a .308 or .243 for long distance precision fun.
 
Pep/gun geek.....no shotgun? The swiss army knife of firearms? Good for birds, medium game, trap shooting and home defense? I think you need an 870 also
 
Pep in CA:
So the election results give you more cause for optimism about the future, or are CA politicians about to pass even more nonsensical, restrictive regs,?
 
Ignition, CA legislatures have already passed nonsensical restrictions and the ballot measure on ammo control just passed too.

Mississippi, I have an 870 shotgun but it is a pure home defense weapon. I currently do not hunt. In the future, if I take up hunting, another shotgun built for hunting will make sense and still fit my philosophy of 1 gun for each purpose.

In the mean time, I'm stockpiling ammo because of CA regulations. Ammo purchases will require background checks like guns and no out of state ammo purchases allowed.
 
Mississippi,

For myself I don't hunt, and I personally have never found shooting clay pigeons fun enough to continue to do so. For home defense, I wouldn't want to have that level of a concussive blast to go off indoors. I understand the reasoning for those who go this route, however in my opinion a pistol caliber carbine is a better option. This is what I recommend to friends who just want a home defense gun and won't shoot regularly. My PS90 is also really great for this purpose and for new shooters, although it costs more than a 9mm carbine.
 
Ammo is a good thing. If stored correctly It doesn't go bad. During the 22 shortage I was good to go, had plenty to shoot. I do same with every caliber.
I have shot without a problem WW II surplus 45acp ammo. It all went bang.
 
"More" is not better. Better is better. What I mean by this is if you are really concerned about a ban on semi-autos, buy the best that you think you will ever want, even if it means trading or selling off some of the ones you no longer want.

Same goes with ammo.
 
More guns? Yes
More ammo? Yes
But do it smart.
Buy guns that fill a need. Buy ammo to support those guns that fill your need. Don't buy a gun(s) just to buy them. And know that starting in January every ammo purchase you make is tracked (and will cost more) so buy smarter.
 
I believe in the saying that "Two is one and one is none ".

When you only have "one" of each type of gun you want to own, and something happens to disable that gun, then you have "none" of that type of gun that is functional.

Unless it is only for recreational purposes and you don't care if you are without that type of gun while repairs or replacements are made, then it is better to own at least two of each type of gun.
 
04L, that is sound reasoning and I would be wise to accept it. It's wise to have a backup, especially for something as important as home and self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top