461 said:
Wow. That's a fine looking revolver.
Match that with an 1894 (.44 mag) ... and that's a fine combo.
you need to be able to appear non-threatening sometimes.
Yep, another good point. When I consider that, I get dangerously close to changing my choice.
It seems to me, again, that making such a fictitious choice requires careful consideration of the dominant social, political, economic and even ecological conditions that are the context for such a choice.
Goes to show that you really do need a battery of guns.
Yep.
Being a person who has worked to develop a minimalist gun kit - a small number of fine guns that meet most (even if not all) of my needs - I've played a lot with imaginary games with two, three and five gun kits over the last couple of years, sometimes in threads on THR. That is, if you were going to own only two, or three or five, what would they be?
(Why? I'm relatively poor; can't afford a lot. I'm semi-nomadic; don't want to carry a lot. I have limited training time, and would rather be max proficient with a few rather than mediocre with lots. Etc.)
That exercise has informed development of my kit, which is currently five: 3 levers (.22, .357 mag, .30-30) and two revolvers (.38 spl and .357 mag). My ideal kit will add a larger caliber lever (either .44 mag or .45-70), and perhaps a 20 ga for upland birds. (I'm craving a saddle gun.)
But this game - one gun that's got to do it all - is a challenge I haven't tried before.
Very interesting watching it play out, reading others choices,
which are even more interesting
<cough - hint - /cough> (ahem) when offered with motivation for choices.