Last weekend, friends of mine gathered at my house and we all enjoyed last season's episodes of the "Walking Dead". Over beer and snacks, our discussion almost immediately turned to the variety of firearms being carried by some of the characters in the show. This turned into a question of availability of munitions in the event of such apocalyptic crisis.
The question turned to this: We all agreed that in a survivalist event, we would all want at least one rifle, and one handgun. Some opted for two rifles and a handgun. Seeing how having a rifle and handgun already produces a dual ammunition problem, would you want a second rifle? Would it be best to have two rifles of the same caliber, as to simplify ammunition supply? Or would it be better to have two rifles of differing calibers, so as to diversify the ammunition availability.
Remaining in one place vs. moving decided the weapons question: if remaining in static mode: two rifles and one handgun. If on the move, only one rifle and one handgun. Again, it's not so much a question of what kind of weapons as opposed to ammunition availability.
I thought this could be fun. Your thoughts?
The question turned to this: We all agreed that in a survivalist event, we would all want at least one rifle, and one handgun. Some opted for two rifles and a handgun. Seeing how having a rifle and handgun already produces a dual ammunition problem, would you want a second rifle? Would it be best to have two rifles of the same caliber, as to simplify ammunition supply? Or would it be better to have two rifles of differing calibers, so as to diversify the ammunition availability.
Remaining in one place vs. moving decided the weapons question: if remaining in static mode: two rifles and one handgun. If on the move, only one rifle and one handgun. Again, it's not so much a question of what kind of weapons as opposed to ammunition availability.
I thought this could be fun. Your thoughts?