Why do people "downgrade" for the survival rifle?

E

EdInk

New member
Like the title says, why do people downgrade when picking their survival rifle?

You see it all the time. A guy will own a Colt AR-15 with an Aimpoint, Arsenal SGL-21 with folding stock, Springfield M1A and a couple of nice hunting rifles that are all reliable and they shoot frequently. However, they own a WASR-10 or something that will be their gun of choice for when life is actually on the line.

Is there a need to keep your nice rifle looking pretty even when it means using it for it's intended purpose? (Gotta keep your safe queen pretty even during the apocalypse... or what?)

It's like leaving your Corvette in the garage and taking your Camry to an event when you may have to drag race for your life. I don't get it.
 
Beats me.

I'd think that one GOOD rifle is cheaper than several so-so ones, but that's just me. But then again, I don't know how many guys do this- if somebody has spent the cash for a good quality AR, top shelf optic, etc., I don't often see those guys then buying a garden variety AK for use if they find themselves in a survival situation. That's kinda the point of buying quality- if you actually do find yourself having to go to hell and back you have the weapon capable of doing just that.
 
That's what I always thought too. I own several pretty nice rifles. My doomsday gun will be my Arsenal AK, simply because it's lightweight and I prefer the round over the 5.56 NATO. I wouldn't have a problem using one of my other rifles though.

I just want to know the logic behind the original scenario in question.

I want to know why people would leave their good rifles behind and grab a Century AK with their bug out bag.
 
I've always wondered that myself. My survival rifle would be a common .22 LR, probably in a semi-auto. I've got several in the locker and they run all the time, ammo is cheap and plentiful, not to mention light-weight.

A good .22LR will do anything I want a survival rifle to do, including making boogie-men go look for an emergency room. Accurate, light weight, easy to shoot, ammo is everywhere. Lots of guys over-think this whole thing.
 
Over at the shotgun forum there's a plethora of postings requesting suggestions about the cheapest HD shotgun available. Perhaps they figure, since it may never be used, why spend the money? But, these are typically HD blasters, not bug out rifles.
 
Some will never use the gun, I think the above poster nailed it.

Many preppers have secondary caches of survival gear, nobody wants to bury their 3000$ AR in the woods.

A cheapo AK or single shot 22 is worth three ARs in the gun safe that you can no longer get to.
 
Probably the same thinking of those who have a wide selection of top quality, even customized, firearms but will will rely on a plain vanilla straight from the factory handgun for bedside or CCW use. When the Balloon Goes Up you want Old Reliable, that doesn't need a lot of babying and constant maintenance and lubrication and tinkering with, is not particular about is ammunition and can take rough handling and being knocked about.
 
You see it all the time. A guy will own a Colt AR-15 with an Aimpoint, Arsenal SGL-21 with folding stock, Springfield M1A and a couple of nice hunting rifles that are all reliable and they shoot frequently. However, they own a WASR-10 or something that will be their gun of choice for when life is actually on the line.
Click to expand...
Easy,they know the WASR AK will function when the chips are down.Of course the SGL-21 would as well,but who wants to scratch that?
 
SIGSHR said
" Probably the same thinking of those who have a wide selection of top quality, even customized, firearms but will will rely on a plain vanilla straight from the factory handgun for bedside or CCW use. When the Balloon Goes Up you want Old Reliable, that doesn't need a lot of babying and constant maintenance and lubrication and tinkering with, is not particular about is ammunition and can take rough handling and being knocked about."

+1 good response. For a "survival" rifle, my finely tuned tackdriversl give way to the utterly reliable. I'm no SK/AK fan (or owner) but would think of those before an AR or similar at "bug out time." My choice instead, a .30-30, but neither has my GI M1 Carbine *ever* let me down (and is top choice among rifles for HD). I'd still probably pick the .30-30 (or my ol' Win 69A .22) for their lack of any gas/piston and related small parts--though they've never been an issue--if cast out into the wilderness. Ditto, no ultra tuned, custom tight-tolerance 1911. For this discussion, give me a standard Springfield or even RIA or, better yet, an old Model 10/65/66 or Blackhawk/Vaquero/Single Six when PRCTS (push really comes to shove :) ).
 
My point is who the heck cares about scratching something when your life depends on it? It's stupid. What imaginary collectors market do they believe will exist in a world that's gone belly-up?

Let's leave the 2012 Chevy Duramax Diesel Z71 extended and take the 2002 V6 Gasburner Regular Cab work truck. We may need to go off-road. Better not scratch the newer one that's made for that exact purpose, even though it is MORE RELIABLE, MORE COMFORTABLE ANDADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SAID PURPOSE.

Leave the Glock 19 and grab the HiPoint 9mm is a good example of this scenario but with pistols. Neither are really special. But don't use your trusted mid-level Glock. Grab a bargain basement Hi-Point. :roll eyes:
 
At a glance, those rifles that run pistol ammo might be a good call.
Something like the Kel-Tec 2000 that runs your pistol magazines, take your pick.
Marlin carbines like the ones in this thread seem perfect for the task.

I've never read up on how good the performance is compared to a similar dedicated rifle round.... example, 9mm vs 223, is it worth carrying a second type of ammo?
 
I'm never far from a 94 Winchester with six in the tube and 12 more in a nylon glove pouch on the sling. If I ever need a rifle for other-than-recreational purposes, long odds are that'll be the one that gets used. I load for it, shoot it often and know where it prints between rock-throwing distance and 300 yards. Heck I've even got a fairly quiet 900 fps cast load worked out that shoots to the sights out to 60 paces or so.
 
I want to know why people would leave their good rifles behind and grab a Century AK with their bug out bag.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is telling you which gun people consider the 'good rifle' deep down in their subconscious...

A good .22LR will do anything I want a survival rifle to do, including making boogie-men go look for an emergency room. Accurate, light weight, easy to shoot, ammo is everywhere. Lots of guys over-think this whole thing.
Click to expand...

Aint THAT the truth...
 
IMO most "survival" guns are acquired to fill a niche or void in a collection rather than an actual need. Heck, that syndrome is not limited to survival guns but includes most gun purchases. When people think survival guns they don't think about the best, nicest guns available but instead old reliable like SIGSHR said. No one thinks of a pimped out 1911 as a survival gun instead they think of a good ol' GI clone. It's a mindset. Acquiring a survival rifle is a want not a need for most guns owners in the U.S. already own a gun that will suffice a survival role. The Op asked, if you already own x, why buy y? The answer: Because I want to. In reality that is the answer to most gun purchases.

LK
 
The "I'll never use it" theory seems to be the most logical basis to my question.

I hate to think people are so obsessed with keeping a mass-produced non-collectible firearm prestine that they would puposefully choose an inferior quality gun just to prevent scratching it. (e.g. They own an Arsenal SGL-21 but goes with a Century AK for survival.)
 
Don't confuse bugout with burying guns. Of course I'll be wearing a party dress to the EOTWAWKI dance. A .22 is a foraging weapon, not much more.
I think you'll need to throw at least a brick of .22 ammo, to dissuade anybody that's even half as--d determined. Don't confuse foraging with defense.
Just saying. I, like most vets, was trained on the AR like M-16/m4.
It would be an unnatural act for me to grab something besides the little colt.
 
MORE RELIABLE, MORE COMFORTABLE ANDADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SAID PURPOSE.
Click to expand...
If its a SHTF situation,I'll take a WASR over an AR anyday.The only advantage the AR would have (and it could be a big one) would be ammo availability.
 
My buddy does the same. He has more rifles then even i do and a bunch of ars. He bought 6 cheap military surplus bolt guns at dunams for about a 100 bucks a piece. Figures he could stash them in differnt places with ammo and if someone found one or took one away from him he wouldnt be out much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top