Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
"Nothing is over!"
Joined
·
702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Me and a good friend of mine decided once that when it came to guns, we wanted one of every type made! I have a lot of different types. Hunting, deffense, cowboy, surplus, and competition, we like'em all. But I'm not really sure it makes a great survival arsenal. I know that being able to interchange ammo, and parts between weapons would make alot of sense. How ever if it comes to scavenging ammo I might have a better chance of finding ammo for something I own. For some of my odd or more expensive cartridges I try to keep at least 60-100rds on hand at any given time.

So the question is, who thinks it would be wiser to standardize my aresenal to use just a few cartridges as well as gun parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
The more the merrier.

I've never liked the "standardized" approach as I don't want to be limited in this hobby and that can be boring.

Of the "important" hardware I have backups of backups and plenty of ammo for many calibers. Of some of the firearms I may not use or are of an odd caliber I might only have a thousand rounds for each firearm in those categories.

So get/keep them all but load up on some specifics.
 

·
Sua Sponte
Joined
·
976 Posts
Both, I think.

Let's say you have twenty weapons.

Let us further say that you intend to have each of those weapons employed by someone (so twenty buddies with you).

In that case, you will need enough ammo to run each gun. If one gun gets run harder than another, you end up with an ammo imbalance.

Because of this having twenty guns of the same type/ammo would be to your advantage at this point.

On the other hand, if you had twenty guns and only expected yourself to be using them - you would be better off with differing ammo types. As in this case you only need enough ammo to run any one gun. So ammo, regardless of type, becomes equally valuable.

Where you are on that number line, twenty guys to just yourself, will decide which direction you want to lean.

YMMV,
Chad
 

·
that's like, your opinion
Joined
·
17,825 Posts
Are you serious? If I had less then 5000 rounds I would run to the store and buy some more.
you seem to have overlooked the infinite killing skill of john f***ing rambo my friend. for example in his last movie i saw him take out an entire 750 man burmese battalion with a single 100 round box of dishka ammo... he has a x7.5 critical hit bonus cuz he's john GD'ed rambo mofo, and don't you ever forget that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
you seem to have overlooked the infinite killing skill of john f***ing rambo my friend. for example in his last movie i saw him take out an entire 750 man burmese battalion with a single 100 round box of dishka ammo... he has a x7.5 critical hit bonus cuz he's john GD'ed rambo mofo, and don't you ever forget that.
Oh yeah. I forgot. Rambo does not need no ammo or gun for that matter. Rambo can kill whole army with his survival knife as long as it has compass on the back of the handle and fishing kit inside of the handle!
 

·
Super Moderator and Walking Methane Refinery
Joined
·
68,589 Posts
You'll probably get a big split in opinions. I'm a fence setter. I think that commonality of ammo, magazines and parts is a huge bonus.

But I'm also a gun collector and can't be bothered to buy a whole bunch of the same gun when I can diversify and enjoy them more. I do have multiples of a few, like ARs because each of mine has a different purpose, or SKSes because I bought them when they were cheap.

If I run into that odd box of 7.7 jap, or .45-70 that nobody else wants, I can use it.

As long as you have spare parts and mags, I wouldn't sweat it too much.
 

·
My Temperature is Right
Joined
·
5,578 Posts
For defense you need multiples of the same weapon and lots of ammo for those weapons. For your hobby guns 60-100 rounds is ok till you take them to the range.
 

·
that's like, your opinion
Joined
·
17,825 Posts
Oh yeah. I forgot. Rambo does not need no ammo or gun for that matter. Rambo can kill whole army with his survival knife as long as it has compass on the back of the handle and fishing kit inside of the handle!
BOOM, now your getting it :thumb:

we are probably going to tease poor john rambo into changing his screen name, but honestly i can't stop laughing. it works in every single thread, you can just bring out some rambo movie scene and just get the whole thread off topic.

we love you john rambo and never change your screen name.
 

·
Cat Person
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
If I could afford it, I would want these weapons:

1. M1 Garand
2. .30-06 Bolt Action w/scope (own this, M1903A3 Sprinfield, no scope though)
3. 12 gauge shotgun
4. 1911 style pistol in .45 ACP
 

·
"Nothing is over!"
Joined
·
702 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
BOOM, now your getting it :thumb:

we are probably going to tease poor john rambo into changing his screen name, but honestly i can't stop laughing. it works in every single thread, you can just bring out some rambo movie scene and just get the whole thread off topic.

we love you john rambo and never change your screen name.
Don't worry Ricky Bobby, I won't change my user name. "One of you turds is getting ready to get smacked in the mouth."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
If I could afford it, I would want these weapons:

1. M1 Garand
2. .30-06 Bolt Action w/scope (own this, M1903A3 Sprinfield, no scope though)
3. 12 gauge shotgun
4. 1911 style pistol in .45 ACP
You have to have a weapon in most common calibers. 223 and 22.

What good is the gun without ammo? Crowbar is better weapon then empty gun.
 

·
Cat Person
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
You have to have a weapon in most common calibers. 223 and 22.

What good is the gun without ammo? Crowbar is better weapon then empty gun.
Yeah, from a purist standpoint, a 5.56 rifle and a pistol that shoots 5.56 rifle rounds (these do exist) would be the most versatile.

However, 5.56 (or .223) lacks stopping power (our troops in a SHTF like situation in Iraq were actually dusting off old M14's to use), isn't good for any but the smallest game (which a 7.62, or .30-06 would allow you to hunt small or large game) so it is far from perfect.

The advantage would be needing to stockpile only one kind of round. And it's a round you can carry lots of at low weight. But it is not without disadvantages.

If you were going to use only one round you'd probably be better off with .45ACP than .223. Anyone make a carbine that shoots .45ACP?

Edit, they sure do!: http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0...-caliber-rifles-the-new-home-defense-shotgun/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
Yeah, from a purist standpoint, a 5.56 rifle and a pistol that shoots 5.56 rifle rounds (these do exist) would be the most versatile.

However, 5.56 (or .223) lacks stopping power (our troops in a SHTF like situation in Iraq were actually dusting off old M14's to use), isn't good for any but the smallest game (which a 7.62, or .30-06 would allow you to hunt small or large game) so it is far from perfect.

The advantage would be needing to stockpile only one kind of round. And it's a round you can carry lots of at low weight. But it is not without disadvantages.

If you were going to use only one round you'd probably be better off with .45ACP than .223. Anyone make a carbine that shoots .45ACP?

Edit, they sure do!: http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0...-caliber-rifles-the-new-home-defense-shotgun/
Well , then add 308 to the short list of must have calibers. 308, 223, 22.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top