Simplification - best set up for now and what may never happen...

[Fat Boy]

What a title, huh?

OK, a shotgun, to me, is a necessity in a gun battery; it can shoot birds, clay targets, can be used for home defense, and could, with practice and slugs, be used to take game up to deer sized, I think. So that is the first necessary firearm in a collection, in my thinking.

Now, from there, it seems a .22 would be next; good for plinking, small varmint control? and taking small game, and in a worst-case scenario could see use as a defensive weapon and is easily "packable" with quite a bit of ammunition-

So, is a rifle necessary? or would the shotgun suffice? Thinking about hunting- I understand the defensive angle of a battle rifle, but wonder if a shotgun with an extended magazine and plenty of shells wouldn't work pretty well? (Pump gun, by the way)

Finally, for the present; if a guy wants to go with a concealed carry permit, what is the recommendation with the above? And how good would a "concealable" handgun be in a SHTF scenario?

Finally, (I know, I already said that, sorry) would a 1911 with a .22 conversion kit be acceptable as a "one handgun" for all purposes?

Thanks for listening; I hope this is understandable

 

[Sky]

00 buck shot or a slug can do some damage that is for sure; problem is just can't reach out and touch something very far away with good accuracy. The price of .22 pistols that shoot pretty well are probably closer to the price you pay for a .22 conversion kit for the 1911. Seems to me it also gives you a good excuse to purchase another stand alone gun.

 

[Iam2taz]

Ok... I like the shot gun theory. It all works nicely. If you want to go that way you can. The .22 would be nice too. However, you can only carry so much weight. I'm am more for the battle rifle being my next choice. 1. Self defense. 2. Hunting - Deer. 3. a 22. conversion kit and you could hunt small game quietly. Definitely a CCW weapon. You would need something that no one can easily see and in a caliber that is common. .45 or 9mm in my opinion. (Lots of ammo for Bartering!)
That being said... I have the shot gun. 12 ga. rem.; Walther P99 AS; Working on the battle rifle (Christmas) to go with my .308 Rem SPS. My son or wife can carry either the battle rifle or the long rifle along with a .357. My thoughts are that I want common calibers that are easier to trade for or find.

 

[kayak-man]

So, is a rifle necessary? or would the shotgun suffice? Thinking about hunting- I understand the defensive angle of a battle rifle, but wonder if a shotgun with an extended magazine and plenty of shells wouldn't work pretty well? (Pump gun, by the way)

I like pump shotguns as much, maybe a bit more, than the next guy, but a shotgun alone does not a gun collection make. I think that "rifle" is a very broad term, and you need to determine what you want to use it for. For self and home defense, I think the shotgun/handgun combo would be acceptable, but YMMV. As far as hunting goes, is it for sport or survival? If its for sport, (just my opinion) a "rifle" rifle might be a pretty good idea - 30-06 or 7mm magnum can go a bit farther and kill some bigger stuff than a shotgun or carbine. Big 5 and the like usually have the Mosin-Nagant rifles on sale for $99. (I don't know how that would work for this application) Hunting for survival a shotgun would probably work pretty well. Have you considered a .22 rifle? Good for harvesting small game, or pest control.

Final thing: Pick up a BB gun. Not a Pellet gun, just a regular BB gun that has a good 450-600 fps. If you ever get mice in your house, it can be very handy.

IMHO, YMMV.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I guess I may just be different, but I never saw the shotgun as being all that versatile. The only thing it does better than a rifle is shoot birds in flight, and you know, that's just not that important to me. If I am hunting food for survival, I can subsist on rabbit or wait for the bird to land. Eating game shot with a shotgun sucks anyways--you either deal with meat that is pulverized into oblivion or pick out the birdshot. And being that limited in range? Point being, I could be perfectly content not owning a shotgun for anything...

A good .22 rifle is a nice thing to have. I don't see myself parting with my 10/22. Plenty of economical utility there. Then I would think a good centerfire rifle would be nice. In my case, I'll keep my M1A around. It can do anything from hunt to hold down the fort, and can do so at longer distances, with greater accuracy, and less recoil than the shotgun. Beyond that, a nice centerfire handgun that is powerful enough for defense and small enough to conceal would be nice. Personally, I am thinking Glock 19 9mm or a Commander-size 1911 .45 from a reputable manufacture.

 

[DasFriek]

I have limited income to buy guns and even more limited on what i can feed them, So i must choose wisely. Ill admit i have about 5% of my gun collection with SHTF in mind.

I am pretty close to my goal gun wise and will sell and trade after that but not add more than i need.

1. I need 3 ccw weapons, Small. Medium, And large.
Kahr MK9mm, XD SC .40, PT1911 5" in .45 This covers all my needs in carrying day to day. I dont have the Kahr yet, It gets added in 2 months.
It can be done with one gun i know, But i enjoy my carry guns so i like a selection and its more fun at the range than just owning 1 gun.

2. Pump shotgun- I have a Mossberg 500SPX 12 gauge that has sight similar to an AR so longer distance shots will be easier. The collapsible stock is right off an AR also. Thats great for clearing rooms. And NO its not "Tacticool" its exactly how the gun came from Mossberg as a self defense gun. I have no added anything on it, No lights or lasers. But ive thought about a light since it is for HD but i keep reminding myself my house always has some type of lights on everywhere. So i keep it bare.

3. .22lr pistol and rifle for practice and small game hunting. I can live without the pistol, But its just too much fun to not own. But you need at least 1 .22lr

4. High caliber rifle. I dont own one as i cant afford to shoot it. And i figure if SHTF ill pick on up off the ground somewhere.

Seeing #4 is the most expensive gun to buy and feed and i don't really have a need for at this time, Ill hopefully find one when needed. As i said i don't plan for that type of issue per-se as i take care of my actual real needs of today.

Ill admit i do have 4 large ammo cans full of every type of ammo my guns eat.
Im trying to keep 500 rounds for each caliber except .22lr as its so cheap i keep more.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

The centerfire rifle is the most expensive, but it's also the most useful. It can do pretty much everything a shotgun or .22 can do, and still provides capabilities well outside the whelm of either.

In most SHTF-type scenarios, you're going to want to limit your movement. Moving will always expose you to risk. More than likely you'll be holding down a fort, only venturing forth when necessary to look for supplies. A rifle affords you greater standoff capability and the ability to defeat threats wearing body armor or behind light cover. If all you have is a shotgun and a .22, then anyone with a $150 SKS or $300 scoped rifle combo bought at Walmart can rain terror on you with impunity until they run out of ammo or simply grow bored.

 

[killchain]

Sounds good, but I will keep a Mosin Nagant in the battery just for those "long range" shots. (~250+m)

 

[russ69]

A 6 inch .357 revolver does it all, except maybe bird shooting. Smith 686, done.

Thanx, Russ

 

[JohnBiltz]

If you live in Montana I'd agree a shotgun is not that useful compared to a rifle. Back east or in a city that is not as true. Believe it or not most places you don't hunt rabbits with a rifle and there are a lot of birds that are good eating, pheasants and turkeys for example.
SHTF can mean a lot of things. You want a concealable handgun in most of them. Particularly the ones where things are bad but not so bad you can walk around with a rifle.

 

[HarleyFixer]

When the West was being settled, the settlers had basically the same dillema. Almost all picked a shotgun first and a rifle second. A pistol was an expense that many could not afford.

 

[Patriotme]

I don't think that comparing a shotgun with slugs to a rifle is that great of an idea. Since you're talking about SHTF and battle rifles let's compare a shotgun's easy of use to a battle rifle.
Even with an extended mag a shotgun is not going to have the capacity of a rifle.
Can you fire your pump shotgun quickly in the prone position? How fast is that reload going to be?
I won't even go into the range comparision between the two.
Let's talk about trajectory. Are you going to shoot enough slugs to be able to judge the drop at different distances? Can you judge distance accurately? It's not as big of a deal for a rifle and if it's more than a few hundred yds you may (want to) have time to avoid or disengage.
Just something to think about.

 

[DasFriek]

Lets keep in mind the original question

Simplification - best set up for now and what may never happen

Most people who live in urban area's have very little use for a centerfire rifle on average.
On the simplification of now, You gotta go with a pistol, Shotgun, and a .22lr rifle preferred over pistol for all out usefulness. But a .22lr pistol is so cheap there is no reason not to have one.
I will admit a center-fire rifle is the king of guns when SHTF hard, But in most cases its gotta be really bad out there to get to that point.
And if that is the case i feel confident my shotgun or pistols could buy me time to scavenge a rifle and ammo.

I don't think the forum likes these kinds of threads, But i do see purpose in this one as being a human you should be at least aware of the future and prepare some but not base your life around it.

I remember the day of 9-11 when i had to wait in 1 hour lines to buy over priced gas so i had enough to get to the hills where my family could stay with other family members in seclusion and more apt to protect our selves.

But im not gonna go out and buy a $400 Ak and a 1k rounds of ammo just because of what might happen in the future. That is cheap and a affordable amount also.
But i have little to no use for it except pleasure at the range with it and even then it gets expensive.
If my monetary situation was better id get a good centerfire rifle for 50% pleasure now and 50% "What if".

 

[LaEscopeta]

“…and what may never happen”

I like it. Maybe AWMNH can be the new SHTF or TEOTWAWKI.

Anyway archeologists have plenty of examples of societies that fell apart and went back to being primitive. It did not always happen with wide spread violence, although it did often enough. Just about every society that has collapsed did so in a different way, and descended into something different. So I don’t think thinking up scenarios and preparing for them is particularly useful; we can’t predict where we might end up. We have better knowledge of the past than of a future that has not happened, so I think preparing for what life was like before development has a better chance of being successful.

And as far as needing a firearm for food, anthologists say the native Indians in most of North America relied on meat for only a small portion of their diet. Farming corn, beans and squash, gathering wild plants and fishing provided most of their food. (The Eskimos and buffalo hunting plains Indians are 2 exceptions.) Predators in North America that are about the size of people (wolves, cougars) need lots of land to provide enough meat, like dozens of square miles. Bears, even brown/grizzly bears, are omnivores and need much less land to support them, despite being several times larger than humans/wolves/cougars. Wilderness survival manuals (including those from the US Military) talk about catching small game with snares and traps as being more effective than shooting. So if all you have after AWMNH is a bunch of different firearms and a ton of ammo for each I’m thinking you are going to be pretty hungry.

And as mentioned above settlers on the American frontier tended to chose a shotgun first, and a rifle second if they could afford it (the cost of the rifle, cost of the ammo and to cost of the extra weight vs. not carrying something else.) So that’s what I’m going with.

 

[Rexster]

A pump shotgun can do much, so for for one on a budget, such a gun can be a good thing. OTOH, if one has a fighting rifle and handguns, a shotgun is no longer such an important thing to have, unless a guy just likes them. A shotgun is a long gun that performs well at pistol-fighting distance, but a wisely-chosen rifle can fight at pistol-fighting distance as well as much farther out. This rifle can fire a cartridge less likely to overpenetrate in building material than pistol bullets, namely the .223/5.56.

The prone-firing issue presented by patriotme is VERY valid. A few years ago, I dropped into prone, and found myself facing two violent felons hiding under a house. Moments before, they had been in a shoot-out with narcotics officers, with blood spilled on both sides of the fight. I was VERY cognizant at that moment, of how CLUMSY it is for me, with my long monkey arms, to pump that action when prone. Fortunately, they'd had enough fighting, and had dumped their Glocks across the street, in an alley.

The next time I am armed with a shotgun, and drop to prone, I am transitioning to a pistol. At this time, the only long gun I can carry at work is a pump gun. I am waiting to take a 2-day update course to become re-certified to carry a rifle. Even when certified to carry a rifle, I am only supposed to deploy it under certain circumstances.

When I retire in the one to eight years, and no longer have my weapon choices dictated to me, I may not even keep any shotguns around at all. I have no desire to hunt birds.

To be clear, however, a pump gun IS a very devastating weapon to have when standing on one's hind legs and shooting at something. I will not minimize a shotgun's terminal effectiveness.

 

[Sky]

http://www.rapidtrends.com/surving-argentinas-economic-collapse-part-1-3/

A real possibility that happened to Argentina in 2001. Pistol was the most important weapon.

 

[LaEscopeta]

As far as a firearm for protection, studies of combat in WW II and several Arab-Israeli wars found most of it happened at ranges of less than 100 yards. (I think studies of other wars came to the same conclusions but I’m not remembering which wars.) Despite the fact almost all soldiers in those wars had 30-something caliber rifles capable of hitting a man at >600 yards. This is because soldiers quickly learn how to employ cover and concealment to protect themselves from long range shots. Battlefield sniping is common enough during stalemates when each side is dug in, but this is more to lower the morale of the other side and show your side that they are doing something, then to achieve any military objective.* When you read about criminal gangs (both in the US and the drug gangs in South America) shooting each other they tend to be close in affairs. I’m thinking if long range rifle fire has an advantage one of these gangs would have figured it out by now and would be doing it. Finally plenty of world leaders have been assassinated since a sniper killed JFK in 1963, but I’m not remembering another one killed from long range.

So I’m guessing I’m going to be better protected after AWMNH being able to hit a threat hard at close range with a shotgun then I would be with any type of rifle.

*I’ve read US sniping in Iraq recently apparently had the effect of preventing insurgents from moving parallel to US lines, and US/NATO snipers in both Iraq and Afghanistan have stopped fire from enemy mortar and machine gun crews, but I think these are rare exceptions.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Believe it or not most places you don't hunt rabbits with a rifle and there are a lot of birds that are good eating, pheasants and turkeys for example.

I've shot plenty of rabbits with a shotgun--enough that I don't do it anymore. A well placed HP from a .22 LR is just as effective as a load of birdshot and leaves more edible meat with less shot to pick out. And I've eaten a lot of birds, including grouse and wild turkey. Thing is, they all have to land some time, and I can tell you from experience, a .22 rifle is just as effective on them when they do as any birdshot load from a 12 gauge out to at least the range you can get from even a tightly choked shotgun. Even with a longer barrel, extra full choke, and some 3 or 3 1/2 inch magnum turkey loads, you're looking at what...50 yards of effective range. I can easily do head shots at that range with any off the shelf bulk pack .22 LR and my 10/22 in a system that is much shorter and handier than any 12 gauge.

As far as a firearm for protection, studies of combat in WW II and several Arab-Israeli wars found most of it happened at ranges of less than 100 yards. (I think studies of other wars came to the same conclusions but I’m not remembering which wars.)

Well there was the Marshall study after WWII. I believe it concluded that most engagements are within 300 yards, which is about the range most soldiers can identify targets and fire with any chance of hitting anything. The only numbers I've seen from the conflict in Iraq puts the average engagement distance at around 60 yards. And guess what...that is still twice the effective range of most buckshot loads. In fact, even with the urbanization of warfare and the acceptance that most engagements occur well within 300 yards, no modern military has adopted the shotgun as a standard issue weapon. None. Why? Because even though most militaries, including our own, have shotguns to issue, they admit that the shotgun lacks the versatility and utility of a rifle. They are extremely limited in what they can accomplish, and are as such issued only in limited numbers for specific roles, such as to assist in door breaching and room clearing. The standard issue weapon for every military in the world remains a rifle for the very simple reason that the rifle simply offers greater capabilities, and is more useful by orders of magnitude.

And roving drug gangs in Columbia and Mexico have little to do with the current discussion. These guys have notoriously poor marksmanship, weapons handling, and training, overall. I am sure if they thought they could hit anything from longer range, they would, but it is so much easier just to drop a mag from an AK in a single burst as you speed past your target leaning out of a car window. Still, even holding their Kalashnikov sideways and ignoring the sights completely, they can still easily out-range even a skilled user with a shotgun or handgun.

 

[goon]

To my way of thinking, a shotgun is useful but not necessary.

You can shoot small game with a .22 rifle or handgun. You can't shoot birds out of the air with one (well, I can't), but it's still way more efficient than launching an ounce of lead at a bird that only weighs a few times more than that. As the fellow from MT said, birds do have to land some time.
For the weight and space of one 12 gauge shell I can probably carry a dozen or more rounds of .22 LR. Which one will put more meat in your stomach?
I like solids and avoid HP's whenever possible. So what if they expand? What are you shooting with a .22 that needs expansion? And how is it useful to destroy more meat on a rabbit or squirrel when a solid through the head or behind the shoulder kills just as well? And if you're overmatched and stuck with a .22, I'll take solids that might penetrate to something over HP's that make a larger but still superficial wound every time.

A decent repeating rifle works fine for defense from contact distance out to three or four hundred yards.
A shotgun does the same thing but only out to about a hundred yards. There is a danger of overpenetration with a rifle but that can be minimized in many cases with the correct choice of ammunition.
Overall, I still think a 30-30, AK or SKS, AR, or something like a Marlin 1894 in .357, .44 mag, or .45 LC beats any shotgun on pretty much any point except price.

A good concealable handgun should be a priority for everyone. You can take it with you most of the time when legality or practical concerns would force you to leave a long gun behind. It works just fine for close range defense in your home.
I also think a .357 revolver is about the most versatile single handgun (and maybe the most versatile gun at all), at least for me. With a 4" barrel and adjustable sights it does cover a lot of uses from hunting up to medium sized deer and down to small game with lighter .38's. It's a proven choice for self defense and once you learn where to hold and get a steady position, hitting close enough to dissuade or take out an attacker far past the range of buckshot isn't impossible. And revolvers are generally tolerant of ammo - if it fits in the chamber it will generally go off. The same can be said for many semi-autos, but I'd trust a revolver more with with that last box of JHP's that I'd never tried in my gun before than I would a semi-auto.
Having said that, it is a bit big for constant CCW use (again, at least for me). I'd probably stick to something just a bit smaller for that, maybe a 3" SP-101. I'm also considering another mid-sized semi-auto 9mm or .45 ACP when finances allow it.

If you have a shotgun and like it, by all means, use it. Go with whatever feels right to you.
But IMO, they're not the "swiss-army knife" of the gun world that many make them out to be and pretending that they are only limits you for no real reason.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Quote:
Believe it or not most places you don't hunt rabbits with a rifle and there are a lot of birds that are good eating, pheasants and turkeys for example.
I've shot plenty of rabbits with a shotgun--enough that I don't do it anymore. A well placed HP from a .22 LR is just as effective as a load of birdshot and leaves more edible meat with less shot to pick out. And I've eaten a lot of birds, including grouse and wild turkey. Thing is, they all have to land some time, and I can tell you from experience, a .22 rifle is just as effective on them when they do as any birdshot load from a 12 gauge out to at least the range you can get from even a tightly choked shotgun. Even with a longer barrel, extra full choke, and some 3 or 3 1/2 inch magnum turkey loads, you're looking at what...50 yards of effective range. I can easily do head shots at that range with any off the shelf bulk pack .22 LR and my 10/22 in a system that is much shorter and handier than any 12 gauge.

My point is this, where I grew up and learned to hunt you just don't get those shots at game because there is too much ground cover. What you end up getting is quick shots at flushed game and it helps to have a good dog or two to help with the flushing. Now I've never lived in Montana but I've been there and I've lived in Wyoming which is pretty similar in terrain and hunting would be a very different experience than where I grew up. You don't have the ground cover because you don't have the rainfall year round for it to exist. Its open country with trees around water. In Ohio or the south brush is everywhere except where it has been cleared and hunting is a much more up close experience. I've live out west the last 13 years and yes, a shotgun is a lot less useful out here. But terrain and situation will always dictate proper tactics.

 

[browningguy]

I don't like simple.

I'd get a box or two of .22 Pistols:



Various sizes of small bore centerfire pistols:







A few BHP's:





A pretty pistol for when you have to get all dressed up:



And a small pile of black and brown rifles:



But in an emergency my Mossy 500 with extended magazine, A BHP with a .22 conversion, and an AR in any of the calibers I currently have would probably be fine.

 

[bluetopper]

I have my wide assortment of firearms because I WANT them and enjoy shooting them.

That's the only reason I need.

Just as my forefathers for going on 300 years in this great country.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

If you have a shotgun and like it, by all means, use it. Go with whatever feels right to you.
But IMO, they're not the "swiss-army knife" of the gun world that many make them out to be and pretending that they are only limits you for no real reason.

+1

That is my point exactly. People always make too big a deal about the different sizes of shot and different length of shells available for the shotgun, erroneously assuming it increases the versatility of the shotgun into something it isn't. But it doesn't matter what length of shell, what size of shot, or even if you load slugs, a shotgun is still limited in capabilities compared to a rifle because no matter what size of shot and choke you run, you're still limited in effective range to under 50 yards, and even with slugs can only double that distance or a little farther, depending on your sights. Any rifle on the planet can reach twice as far with little to no effort. Additionally, it doesn't matter if you load some super premium 3" Mag buckshot, slugs, or whatever else, you're always going to be more limited in the type of targets you can engage with a shotgun. A rifle to can loaded to minimize penetration in urban settings, sometimes to the degree of even making it safer than buckshot in limiting risk of collateral damage. A shotgun can't be loaded to maximize penetration against body armor or cover, or disabling a vehicle. That's just another way a rifle can do what a shotgun can do but a shotgun can't do what a rifle can do. Additionally, shotguns have greater recoil and reduced capacities compared to most rifles. This limits their usefulness against multiple targets...or did you think the looters were just going to come at you one or two at a time, all choreographed like in the movies?

So basically, contrary to popular misconception, a shotgun is nowhere near as versatile as a rifle, and is, in fact, an extremely limited tool for very specific roles. It doesn't have the utility to be considered a "must have" for any collection or situation, and is more of a luxury item to be considered after more useful tools have been acquired. Now if you're confident in your abilities with a shotgun and want one around, fine, but don't do yourself the disservice of pretending it is something it isn't just so you can sleep better at night. Be realistic about its capabilities, and get yourself a rifle, because in terms of individual firepower, the rifle is king of the hill and will be until we have plasma rifles.

 

[CraigC]

Well folks, around here, a shotgun will yield a hell of a lot more game on the table than a rifle. If it's about efficiency, I can walk into the woods (on my property) with a shotgun and shoot my limit in squirrels in a short time. With a rifle (and I am no slouch so-armed), I'll be lucky to get half that. How about all those running rabbits and squirrels you have to watch get away? Around these parts, the squirrels don't run up a tree, they hit the ground and change zip codes. So your chances at getting a rifle shot at a disturbed squirrel is slim.

Yes, birds have to land sometime but you're giving away all those flying overhead. Last I checked, it's extremely difficult to shoot a dove or quail with any rifle and have anything left to eat. Any that are flushed after your one shot with a rifle, are free to leave.

So IMHO, you're giving away a hell of a lot of utility in not having at least a $200 pump shotgun.

My choices, while I prefer doubles and subgauges, would be a two barrel set 12ga pump, a good packable big bore revolver, a .22 rifle and a centerfire rifle.

1911 conversions are great training tools but I think you'll get much more out of your money with a $300 Ruger MK-series or Browning Buckmark.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Around these parts, the squirrels don't run up a tree, they hit the ground and change zip codes.

We actually have better luck here with setups like mine--a 10/22 kept pretty much stock except for an improved trigger, with a 2-7 Weaver rimfire scope on it. The canopy is the only place in some areas that provide critters with any degree of concealment, so they tend to stay high. A decent scoped rimfire allows you to find them easier as you can search in greater detail on 4x than with the Mk I eyeball. It allows you to place your shots through those narrow openings in the branches, and doesn't require you to spook them trying to get within range--any varmint within 100 yards is fair game. And on 2x, the optics provide a wide enough field of view to track them as they scamper for higher ground. When combined with the featherweight balance and handling of a little rimfire carbine, I've never felt like I was giving up much. I'll gladly trade all the squirrels I see get away because I couldn't get a bead on them for all the ones I am able to snag off their perches because they were too used to people with shotguns and thought they were safely out of range of my rifle.

And even then, in my area, I don't know why I'd try to feed my family on squirrels when I could shoot an deer, elk, bear, moose, ect. I'll be completely honest...in a breakdown of society, fish and game laws aren't going to mean much to me. I'm not starving if I have the means to feed myself, and I am not going to care much what some Pine Cone Cop has to say about it. In season, out of season, doesn't matter. There's more deer in this country now than there was 200 years ago. Screw squirrels and doves, I'm eating backstrap.