[Gunner65]

Shotguns for SHTF, have you really thought about it?

Like the title says, have you really thought about it? What I mean by that is simple, ammo weight. There is no doubt the shotgun is a massive close range defense choice but there is the question of how much ammo can YOU carry on your person and factor in a SHTF situation and you want to carry a few other things…

The shotshell as good as it is for what it was designed for also is it’s downfall. You take 15 pounds of shotshells and 15 pounds of let’s say, .223 or 9mm or 44mag even .357mag and I promise you there are many more pc's of the other ammo than shotshells.

So my question is this, How do you fix this problem?..

UPDATE:
Seems nobody really read the OP… This thread is not about if you want to carry a shotgun or rifle or pistol. This thread for the person that IS going to carry a shotgun and has to deal with the weight of the ammo problem…

So far Crutch was the only one that answered the OP question… “So my question is this, How do you fix this problem?..”

This is not a shotgun is best or is it thread, I wanted people that ARE going to use a shotgun to see or hear how others are going to carry the big /heavy shotshells…

Don’t turn this thread into something it is not…

 

[KCChimneyman]

http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/forest-tracker-shotgun

This may educate you in the fallacy of your ways. If you had one weapon and only one weapon my choice would be a shotgun, maybe not the most effective choice in a given situation but it is the most versatile for all of them when you have only one choice.

 

[nick_the_tinkerer]

:thumb:

Thanks

 

[Grotius]

You don't 'fix' that problem.

It's inherent to the weapon.

Plan to carry whatever you want, but take a look at what those who encounter armed conflict routinely carry in 2011.

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not carrying shotguns. Law enforcement agencies have largely gone away from shotguns in favor of carbines, often 5.56mm - both because more officers can qualify with them and fire them more consistently, but also because most shotgun's (unless firing rifled slugs in rifled barrels) don't have the ranges that rifles offer. LEOs have been killed because they exited their squadcars with their shotguns to be met by fire from rifles that were out of shotgun range.

For hunting rabbits or birds, fine....but for an all-around weapon in an environment where longer range lethal threats are possible, ...look at what is being used in most combat zones currently. It isn't shotguns.

 

[ackbob]

Another consideration is to make your shotgun you BOL interior protection/carry while doing chores firearm............ puts out a heck of a scatter pattern and ccan give you time to get back to the BOL for another firearm......... that is if you miss...... plus I think it is a bit louder than many rifles so its report would alert others on your BOL

 

[MikeK]

As much as I like shotguns, I don't see them as a good survival gun. At least not in my region. About the only thing they can do that a rifle can't is take a running rabbit or a flying bird. There are tricks to get a running rabbit to stop long enough to take a shot at it, and birds have to land sometime. Since we don't have ducks and geese low enough to take on the wing here, that advantage is worthless in my area.

Shotguns are bulky, low capacity, slow to reload, their ammo is heavy, and they're limited in range. The range limit might not be a drawback to someone in a wooded area who never gets a shot past 100 yards anyway. But in my open area, it's a drawback that could easily cost your life.

 

[Crutch]

18 inch barrel, mossberg 500 .

It weights much less than most rifles. The ammunition I keep on a belt is one shot, damn near guaranteed one kill.

I don't keep 400 rounds of ammo, because I don't have to.

My shot gun is accurate up to a hundred yards with minimal spread variances. In the woods, nearly everything is 100 yards or less.

I can carry bird shot, Turkey shot, buck shot, or even slugs.

The shot gun is (despite my refusal to name anything the best survivalist weapon ever) in my opinion the most versatile and reliable weapon you can take into the woods. It's far cheaper and easier to reload and the ammunition is easily/cheaply obtained.

Maybe I can only take 9 shells with me? Realistically, all I need is one.

 

[Grotius]

If realistically all you need is one round, then you clearly are not anticipating any sort of firefight involving multiple adversaries.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing - if you can avoid such things your life will no doubt be less stressful.

But I suspect that your situation would not likely be the norm that others would encounter given some sort of event. In fact, it isn't the norm now. I don't know of a single law enforcement agency that sends their officers out on patrol carrying only one round. Same goes for military units. The only guys equipped with one round that I'm aware of are USAF launch control officers who fire intercontinental ballistic missiles out of silos. Everyone else generally totes more than one round...and this is before anything hits the fan...

 

[Tevin]

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not carrying shotguns. Law enforcement agencies have largely gone away from shotguns in favor of carbines....

What you say is technically correct, but it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Soldiers in war zones have a far different purpose than a private citizen hunting for food or protecting his property. There aren't too many situations where Joe Public is going to need to eliminate a threat so far away that only a rifle is up to the task, and even if he did, it's highly unlikely he has the training to make the shot anyway. Nor is he likely to be targeted from that far.

And can you cite some (meaningful) statistic to support your claim, "...LEOs have been killed because they exited their squadcars with their shotguns to be met by fire from rifles that were out of shotgun range"? That statement sounds like it was lifted straight out of a list of nutjob talking points anti-gun activists use as an excuse to ban "assault weapons". Are you saying the cops would have survived if they had something other than a shotgun?

I will bet a whole ton o'money that the data indicates cops are very seldom killed by rifles, and almost never from any great distance. Using your argument, police should not even bother with pistols because they can't shoot as far as a rifle either.

It's good enough (for me anyway) if for no definable reason someone simply prefers one weapon over another. It's ok, really. No need for contorted explanations.

~Tevin~

 

[Crutch]

If realistically all you need is one round, then you clearly are not anticipating any sort of firefight involving multiple adversaries.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing - if you can avoid such things your life will no doubt be less stressful.

But I suspect that your situation would not likely be the norm that others would encounter given some sort of event. In fact, it isn't the norm now. I don't know of a single law enforcement agency that sends their officers out on patrol carrying only one round. Same goes for military units. The only guys equipped with one round that I'm aware of are USAF launch control officers who fire intercontinental ballistic missiles out of silos. Everyone else generally totes more than one round...and this is before anything hits the fan...

As Tevin pointed out, no I don't expect to face armies.

If you notice my belt, it has about 20+ shots ready to be quickly loaded.

IMHO, this would suffice in small skirmishes or enough defense to see me back home.

Mainly however this is for patrols, or hunting. However if a group is bunched together, they might suffer a bad day.

Even in armor, someone shot with buckshot doesn't getup.


The armor may stop the bullet, but the impact still breaks ribs.

 

[Filthy_McNasty]

Shotguns lend themselves well to putting food on the table without damaging too much edible meat, and don't require top marksmanship aim. It's not about how many rounds you can carry, it's about how you put those shells/cartridges to good use. The old anology of the poor farmer using a single-shot shotgun to take two birds with one shot immediately comes to mind.

Small game like cottontail rabbits, tree squirrels, upland game birds (quails, chukar, grouse, and pheasants), and migratory game birds, etc.. will likely be in greater abundance than big game, and doesn't require humping 10,500rds of ammo for some far-fetched mutant zombie raider invasion.


Shotgun for "shtf"? Hell yeah!

 

[Crutch]

Shotguns lend themselves well to putting food on the table without damaging too much edible meat, and don't require top marksmanship aim. It's not about how many rounds you can carry, it's about how you put those shells/cartridges to good use. The old anology of the poor farmer using a single-shot shotgun to take two birds with one shot immediately comes to mind.

Small game like cottontail rabbits, tree squirrels, upland game birds (quails, chukar, grouse, and pheasants), and migratory game birds, etc.. will likely be in greater abundance than big game, and doesn't require humping 10,500rds of ammo for some far-fetched mutant zombie raider invasion.


Shotgun for "shtf"? Hell yeah!

Very very well put.

I will probably do a review on mine once I get my scabbard in.

I honestly think is the "perfect" survivalist weapon. Other then a .22 rifle Which is also awesome.

 

[kenny256]

http://olongapooutfitters.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=56


this is what im going to get.

 

[Griff]

GF, I look at it like this:

For close to medium range defense, I'm going shotgun. Fire one round of buckshot, and you get 8-10 .30+ caliber chunks of lead flying. With a rifle, you'd need to pull the trigger 8-10 times to get the same. That's 10x the ammo to hump, stock, or reload. If I'm going for longer range and precision, then yes, a rifle is more ideal, but I'm learning to make do with slugs if need be.

Maybe not exactly what you asked for, but we're bugging in, so logistics are more of a concern than dimension. Going with the definition of a survival gun as one that's versatile and adaptable, the shotgun wins, too. To stretch it even further, there's always the combo guns, like the M6, Savage 24, IZH 94, Drielings, Vierlings, etc. Get both.

 

[Filthy_McNasty]

Very very well put.

I will probably do a review on mine once I get my scabbard in.

I honestly think is the "perfect" survivalist weapon. Other then a .22 rifle Which is also awesome.

I've always said from my very first post on here that every serious prepper/survivalist should have at least one shotgun, one rifle and one handgun▬many opting to use a .22LR as their primary rifle, with a shotgun loaded with sabot slugs for big game out to 150-175yds. I don't have a problem with that, except that you're limited in range as MikeK pointed out. I do however disagree (with MikeK) about shotguns being unwieldy and slow to reload. On the contrary, i can top-off the magazine very quickly with whatever shell is necessary for the situation at hand from a bandolier like Crutch has in his photo above.

A shotgun is hands down the most versatile firearm a prepper can have at their disposal (in my humble opinion, of course )

 

[Grotius]

I suppose it comes down to what sort of environment you envision yourself in following whatever event you suspect might occur.

If all you intend to do is hunt, or perhaps dissuade a few disorganized refugees or looters from invading your melon patch, then given those parameters your logic makes sense.

Given a scenario where a larger group of individuals have organized and decided that they need your assets and resources more than you do, I suspect you may conclude that other weapons might be of greater value.

It all comes down to what you sort of environment you think you might encounter.

There is no one right answer.....

 

[MikeK]

Very very well put.

I will probably do a review on mine once I get my scabbard in.

I honestly think is the "perfect" survivalist weapon. Other then a .22 rifle Which is also awesome.

It depends on where you live. In these parts, if someone wants a shotgun, they'd just pop the shotgun carrier from a few hundred yards off and take his. And the guy with the shotgun wouldn't have anything to shoot it at anyway that couldn't have been taken just as easily with a rifle.

 

[Jeffrey]

I'm STILL waiting for someone to make a shotgun that is effective at 800 yards....

 

[MikeK]

Soldiers in war zones have a far different purpose than a private citizen hunting for food or protecting his property. There aren't too many situations where Joe Public is going to need to eliminate a threat so far away that only a rifle is up to the task, and even if he did, it's highly unlikely he has the training to make the shot anyway. Nor is he likely to be targeted from that far.

I'm not concerned whether I'm being targeted or not. I'm concerned with intentions. If armed people have breached my fence and are coming towards the house, they have shown their intentions. And I intend to engage from as far away as possible to maintain all the advantage I can get. Preferably before they target us.

 

[Jeffrey]

I've got a 12 ga. and a .45. I don't plan on taking on any armies. My whole plan is to get me and mine out of danger as fast as possible. I couldn't think of a more versatile weapon.

What if the army comes anyway?