Which would be best??

R

rugerfreak

New member
With the recent attack on American soil. Its really got me thinking about what the best weapon to have if things went really bad and I were to survive a nuclear--chemical---biological attack.

I've been looking at:

1. An AK-47--several 30-rounders and a couple thousand rounds of ammo.

2.One of the defence shotguns--either Winchester or Mossberg--esp the 1300 Camp Defender since it has sights and choke tubes.

3. An AR-15 lower---I already have an upper--magazines and ammo.

4. Just stock up on 10000 rounds of .22 lr.

5.Get a scope and mount for my M-44 and several thousand rounds.

6.A Ruger Mini-30 a scope and bunch of ammo.

It seems like the .22 or shotgun would be good for getting food and such (if there's anything left to hunt). The shotgun would be very versitile with slugs and different shot sizes.

The other rifles would be good for all round use---but too powerful for small game.

I know this is a lot of choices---but I'm just wondering what would be the best to have. I'm just kind of wondering out loud if I'm missing any of the possibilities if something like that were to actually happen.

Please give me your suggestions on these or on something else you might have in mind and why it would or wouldn't be a good choice.

Sorry to bring up such a bad topic-----but I think the question should be asked.

Thanks
 
"The other rifles would be good for all round use---but too powerful for small game. "

Not if you take head shots. Took a wabbitt out of the garden once with a .405 Winchester. Iffen twooda been a head shot mighta had sumpin to eat.

Sam
 
You're getting into the "total breakdown" stuff we kicked around during the Y2K wonderings and musings, back in late 1999. I imagine that pretty much the same sort of stuff would apply.

It seems to me the initial survival problem would be one of not attracting attention to yourself, until those who were gonna die or kill each other off did so. That's hidey-hole, canned food and water--and if you have a family, you have your work cut out for sure. A month? Three months? Dunno.

To some extent, then, low noise-level defense is important...Hunting would come later; possibly much, much later. First, just survive.

I'm more than a bit dubious, however, the existence of suitcase nukes or no--or anthrax, etc. But, just guessing, a disease-attack could possibly be worse than small nukes.

Art
 
I'd go for a 12ga shotgun, even though I claim to be a tried and true rifleman.

Reasons:
Availability of ammo and guns.
Hand-reloadability of ammo, even if typical store-bought components are not available (paper for wads, rocks for shot, pack a primer with match sulfur, use gunpowder from bullets lying on the ground or , in a pinch, use match sulfur, and you have a rabbit/small bird load).
Accuracy not as important if you were quivering in fear and/or hunger.
All-around good hunting weapon.
It'll lay enough fire so you can RUN!
A pump shotgun with a towel wrapped around the end - as quiet as you need to be.
Broken firing pin in a pump? Just jam a sharpened small finish nail in the bolt and operate by pump.
 
Actually, the more I see this stuff debated, I end up thinking that a lot of non-firearm issues will be much more critical.

For example, who's going to watch all those guns while you're off finding food?

Not saying that it isn't wise to consider good, practical tools for self defense and survival. I just think it is also wise to take the planning much further .... spare parts, tools and compact cleaning kits for the chosen firearms, family preparedness, a safe redoubt away from urban areas, knowledge / books re: food gathering and so on.

Go camping for a week with very little "civilization" available. It will quickly become clear how tenuous existence would become under such circumstances. Even a small tent becomes a greatly appreciated luxury ... expecially if it becomes damaged or destroyed. Such a trip would help to highlight the great challenges to a true survival situation.

Get sick in the woods sometime, without clean / dry clothes and sleeping conditions. Impressively miserable.

For firearms, I'd have a Rem. 870 12 gauge, FAL with scope, and a Ruger 10/22. Handguns would be very concealable ... Glock 26/27, small revolvers, that kind of thing ... I tend to think the main reason for a handgun in such scenario would be for concealability. Wouldn't be worried about political correctness or laws in such a situation, but it would be wise to be able to conceal protection on your person for tactical reasons.

Regards from AZ
 
I agree. Tactics, not hardware, will determine if you live or die. For an individual, one decent rifle and 500-1000 rounds is all you need from a weapons standpoint. Think about it. If you honestly shoot your gun 500 times in anger - you will be:

a. Dead
b. Alive with a real cool new gun collection.

Partnering with neighbors, survival supplies and the right mindset will be the real key issues.

Dave
 
In the kind of scenario you are talking about, I would recommend a good .22lr & a 12ga. They are useful tools and would cover a broad spectum of needs. Also their ammunition would be equal to currency in a survival situation. IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top