Quote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 07:08:27 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:58:34 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 06:38:57 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?That's the one. $1 a shell....A buck a shot would be a killer deal on .50 AE. Usually stays north of $1.50 per, and in your local retail store will be more like $1.75 per. Three times in life I've come within inches of buying a .50 AE Desert Eagle, most recently about three weeks ago. They're fun and they're sexy...just not terribly practical. Friend of mine bought a .45-70 revolver recently. I asked him if he was headed for Alaska. Nope. Then why? "Just because I can."Hard to fault that logic. I'm sure they have most of the ammo repacked at the range, so that might be part of the reason. Fun place to go as they have about anything you might want to fire for rent....very reasonable, but it's the ammo that gets you.
Quote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:58:34 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 06:38:57 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?That's the one. $1 a shell....A buck a shot would be a killer deal on .50 AE. Usually stays north of $1.50 per, and in your local retail store will be more like $1.75 per. Three times in life I've come within inches of buying a .50 AE Desert Eagle, most recently about three weeks ago. They're fun and they're sexy...just not terribly practical. Friend of mine bought a .45-70 revolver recently. I asked him if he was headed for Alaska. Nope. Then why? "Just because I can."Hard to fault that logic.
Quote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 06:38:57 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?That's the one. $1 a shell....
Quote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?
Quote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.
Quote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.
Quote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.
Quote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society.
I'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told.
Chit, I will be up all night watching this, may have to call in sick tomorrow.
Quote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 07:13:28 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 07:08:27 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:58:34 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 06:38:57 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?That's the one. $1 a shell....A buck a shot would be a killer deal on .50 AE. Usually stays north of $1.50 per, and in your local retail store will be more like $1.75 per. Three times in life I've come within inches of buying a .50 AE Desert Eagle, most recently about three weeks ago. They're fun and they're sexy...just not terribly practical. Friend of mine bought a .45-70 revolver recently. I asked him if he was headed for Alaska. Nope. Then why? "Just because I can."Hard to fault that logic. I'm sure they have most of the ammo repacked at the range, so that might be part of the reason. Fun place to go as they have about anything you might want to fire for rent....very reasonable, but it's the ammo that gets you.It's always the ammo that picks your pocket. I went through a hundred rounds of .40S&W on Saturday. Would have been $50 if they hadn't been handloads.
Quote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 07:13:28 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 07:08:27 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:58:34 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 06:38:57 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?That's the one. $1 a shell....A buck a shot would be a killer deal on .50 AE. Usually stays north of $1.50 per, and in your local retail store will be more like $1.75 per. Three times in life I've come within inches of buying a .50 AE Desert Eagle, most recently about three weeks ago. They're fun and they're sexy...just not terribly practical. Friend of mine bought a .45-70 revolver recently. I asked him if he was headed for Alaska. Nope. Then why? "Just because I can."Hard to fault that logic. I'm sure they have most of the ammo repacked at the range, so that might be part of the reason. Fun place to go as they have about anything you might want to fire for rent....very reasonable, but it's the ammo that gets you.That in GA?
Quote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 07:19:04 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 07:13:28 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 07:08:27 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:58:34 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 06:38:57 PMQuote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 06:37:34 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 06:22:49 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 06:18:01 PMQuote from: razgueado on April 27, 2015, 05:57:13 PMQuote from: SLY on April 27, 2015, 05:02:38 PMI'd like all the banter brothers to weigh in if you care to share your knowledge and experience. If you had to choose only one of each, one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun for one's personal safety and hunting which 3 would you choose, keeping in mind value/price, reliability, ease of use, maintainence & security. Of interest also would be a decent number of rounds that it can hold without reloading and shooting long guns off of left shoulder. (right handed but opposite eye dominant), or so I've been told. You didn't specifically mention a SHTF type of global or national catastrophe, but given that I live in earthquake and volcano country I have to consider the possibility. So if I only get three:Handgun: Glock 17 (9mm)Rifle: Remington 700 in .308 NATOShotgun: Remington or Mossberg 12 gauge.Simple reasoning: These are all at or near the top of the list of most popular weapons of all time, especially among law enforcement and military. So ammo, parts, and accessories would be easy to scrounge, steal, or seize. I don't include a military-style rifle (AR, AK, or the like) because:A) They are not great hunting rifles, and the rounds for which they are most commonly chambered are not great hunting roundsB) They are designed to be most effective in support of squad-based tactics, not individual self defenseC) They require careful maintenance to remain operable.D) I don't believe that in a SHTF scenario the general populace will suddenly become battle-hardened and competent at squad tactics. So I can deal with the likely threat scenarios nearly as effectively with a .308 bolt-action and the shotgun as I could with a semi-auto military-style rifle, and still bring down about any size dinner-on-the-hoof.But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group.Of course, if Mt. Rainier goes up, it's an academic discussion for me, because I'd be vaporized in about 8 seconds.If you believe the likeliest threat scenario is personal or property crime, then go for the Glock 22 (.40 S&W) for a handgun and make the shotgun a short-barrel. If you believe you'll be stuck in an urban environment, make the rifle an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO.Yes, I know you can get AR's in .308, but if it breaks and the power is out you'll have difficulty sourcing parts.You'll notice I don't include any compact or sub-compact weapons. If I can only have one, it has to be full-sized. Compact weapons only have value in a relatively ordered society. Thanks, Raz, for your input, especially for including your reasoning ... because that helps ...very interesting that you said, " But if you let me have four weapons instead of three, then I'd want to add an Armalite-style rifle in 5.56 NATO, just for dealing with the possibility of being surprised by a marauding group." because that's exactly what's going on only 40 miles to the north of us, and has non-stop local news coverage going on ... they aren't even stopping for commercial breaks ... no other coverage, just this with news copter footage. Before I was aware of what was going on, I spoke with my North Baltimore, CiL, about our CFest plans, smokes we've had over the weekend (FWIW, he liked the Nica Libre 25th Anniversary torpedo that I sent him), and an upcoming cigar dinner. This stuff hadn't really broken out yet at that time.Shit I did not know we had to have a reason. Glock 31 because it carries a devastating punch without brutal recoil and holds 15 rounds.Fired a Desert Eagle for the first time two weeks ago. I was amazed at the lack of recoil.In .50 AE?That's the one. $1 a shell....A buck a shot would be a killer deal on .50 AE. Usually stays north of $1.50 per, and in your local retail store will be more like $1.75 per. Three times in life I've come within inches of buying a .50 AE Desert Eagle, most recently about three weeks ago. They're fun and they're sexy...just not terribly practical. Friend of mine bought a .45-70 revolver recently. I asked him if he was headed for Alaska. Nope. Then why? "Just because I can."Hard to fault that logic. I'm sure they have most of the ammo repacked at the range, so that might be part of the reason. Fun place to go as they have about anything you might want to fire for rent....very reasonable, but it's the ammo that gets you.That in GA?Yes, Athens area, so is a nice gun shop.http://athensgunclub.com/about-us/http://www.clydearmory.com/
Time to head back to the hotel....happy hour is upon us and cigars don't smoke themselves.
Baltimore
Quote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 08:33:06 PMBaltimoreYea, just got off the phone with my daughter. She's pretty well removed from the main areas but close enough to be disconcerting.
Quote from: Travellin Dave on April 27, 2015, 08:51:37 PMQuote from: Texas Redfish on April 27, 2015, 08:33:06 PMBaltimoreYea, just got off the phone with my daughter. She's pretty well removed from the main areas but close enough to be disconcerting.Thankfully she is at least in a safer area .
