I have always contended that BY FAR the most useful firearm during some sort of societal collapse or SHTF scenario is the handgun. In history, a society collapsing to the point to where people walk the streets with assault rifles is an exceptionally rare event. Yeah, there are such places right now in the Middle East and Africa, but they really have nothing in common with the US so I don�t much worry about such things too much.

What I have noticed in history is the failure of law. When the SHTF for any considerable period of time (generally greater than one week), the first thing to fail, and often the last thing to return is law enforcement, and criminal justice. Therefore, crime tends to escalate somewhat in waves. First comes the looting, which is the low hanging fruit. Most is unopposed so guns rarely come into play. Next comes the timeless practice of �highway robbery� where bandits setup road blocks and rip you off. Then comes random street crime, and home invasions.

Since it�s impractical to tote your AR15 through the mall, the one firearm that truly IS practical is the handgun. Even when there is societal collapse, some sort of �law enforcement� will be present. Whether it�s the existing law enforcement just making a show of it, or some local tuff who�s self declared himself or his organization as �law�. In such instances, they will swarm you and relieve you of your AR-15 quickly. For the random crime and highway robbery the handgun is what you�re much more likely to have with you, and much less likely to be taken away from you. But don�t think that it will never be taken away. If for some reason you come across a �checkpoint�, they may collect your weapons; so extra handguns at home are a good idea. I know this because I have had my under-folder AK and handgun �confiscated� at a �checkpoint� in a 3rd world nation before. If you pass the attitude test and don�t appear a threat, they will just relieve you of your arms. Make a fuss, and you might as well just come out shooting; bad idea�the people who setup these check points typically have thought that particular angle through.

Very quickly you�ll learn to recognize potential threats before they become actual threats; either that, or you die off early. So street sense, and a concealed handgun become the REAL weapons of those who live in the post SHTF environment.

So, save the money you�d spend on a dozen AR-15�s or AK�s and buy a dozen handguns, and some extra holsters. It makes sense to standardize on a single model so they can all share the same magazines and holsters. And when needed, you can give said handguns to friends for mutual support.

A realistic approach would be to own both, plus a good shotgun...

a 22LR rifle is highly recommended as well...

Hunt food with the 22LR as ammo will always be more widely available and cheaper.

Save AR, Handgun, and shotgun for more "serious" occasions.

There is no one approach fits all concept in SHTF scenario's. Your best bet for survival is having options and wisdom.

True, a rifle will never conceal as well as a handgun.....but a handgun will never be the weapon a rifle is. Buy a dozen handguns and a dozen rifles! Balance is essential...

HugA is correct....need to add a dozen shotguns as well.

And a Swiss Army knife...


Sorry Kevin, couldn't resist.

x 12

If my friends aren't as prepared/armed as I am they don't need to bother showing up .

I agree with your thoughts in regards to the role of the handgun. I also see the necessity of the AR/shotgun in the same scenario.

Buy 'em all says I!

george

Being present during a few instances of riots getting out of hand for a few hours or days, I pretty much agree with Kevin.
Maybe this is just true in Kalifornia, but it apparently happens in similar places as well. Or so those I've met on the inside tell me.
What I've noticed over the years is that it happens in the big cities and similar environments. What happens is that the cops get busy with anything, even a so called "peaceful demonstration," and they are no longer responding to calls for assistance. In a full blown riot, they are over whelmed for days, even weeks. Ask anybody who had anything to do with the LA riots, either in the 60's or the Rodney King riots.
BTW, in the RK riots, you had the US military taking over for the local cops and the national guard. That's because many of the local cops and some of the guard refused to confront the rioters. Others were told they couldn't have more than two rounds in each of their M16 magazines.
These places had people manning roof tops in their neighborhoods because car loads of gang memebers would drive through neighborhoods and shoot randomly at the homes there. Small bussinesses in the "riot neighborhood" expended cases of shotgun shells with birdshot trying to drive off looters to their stores.
So, if you need to move about, you are probably better off with a handgun as even the authorities will take away your long guns if you venture away from your home or bussiness with one. But, so far, they don't get around taking them from you at home or at your bussiness.
Since I'm on the subject, I suspect we will see some more of this sort of thing here in sunny Kalifornia. E

Some good comments and I agree, I don't think most of us have nearly enough mags for our key handguns. I think that may be my next project.

I agree whole heartedly and think 10 $200 handguns (police trade in?) with magazines and ammo stashed at various locations (car, house, friends house, buried somewhere...) is better than one $2000 custom 1911. Of course Cooper said a handgun is what you use to fight your way to a long gun (ro something like that).

I don't know if I buy a lot of the assumptions in the OP. Large parts of the US don't have much in common with a third world country. If somebody sets up a "checkpoint", they had best be a world-class badass, and/or have a bunch of buddies, because there's going to be a whole bunch of regular folks with guns not taking too kindly to that. Add on the pent-up hate and discontent that's going to go along with a breakdown of law and order, and I'm not so sure ruling out long guns makes much sense.

That�s what everyone says before it happens. Then they see a half dozen, well armed hard cases and they start thinking very long and hard about when, where, and what to fight over. My first and foremost responsibility is to MY family. So if someone says, hey let�s go take on the hard cases because they�re running a road block, I�ll only do so if it�s directly threatening the well being of my family. When it all hits the fan, most take good stock of what�s really important, and the tough talk just quietly goes away.

I think your theory blows up long before it even gets there. Your half dozen "hard cases" know there's a bazillion other mofos out there with guns. Setting up a checkpoint that can be approached from several directions by several dozen people is a losing proposition from the get go. Your theory only works where ALL the people are sheeple.

The only SHTF scenarios I�ve seen personally were hurricanes and race riots in Miami, and I didn�t really see the latter, just read about them from a safe distance of 27 miles away. From what I recall folks in the periphery of the riot area hunkered down and protected themselves. I remember reading of one trailer park where certain of the residents armed themselves with shotguns and stood at the entrances to the park, preventing anyone from entering that they didn�t know. When interviewed by a reporter one of the guards said a policeman had come by and seeing the openly armed guards encouraged the behavior, saying that they were on their own for the time being.

In the aftermath of hurricanes with power out, trees down and miscellaneous destruction about, neighborhood residents (white middle class neighborhood if that has a bearing) just banded together to help each other clear out the debris. No armed gangs about. One time some kid was driving his ATV through the neighborhood at high speed and words were exchanged, but that was the extent of that violence.

In those two cases folks could stay put. In New Orleans where people had to evacuate I understand that the National Guard was disarming anyone openly carrying but Steve NO or someone from that area could tell that tale better than I.

This is all interesting to ponder and probably means more to folks in some areas of the country than others, particularly those with a more varied socio-economic populace. In Boise, a much more likely SHTF scenario would be if WinCo runs out of a favorite micro-brew.

In such circumstances, the role of the AR-15 and similar carbines would be community security, which assumes the communities are banding together to keep the insanity, mobs, etc., from entering their communities. That sort of weapon would not be what you carry around as a wondering loner among the rabble.

I also think that the two chamberings should be 40 S&W and 5.56.

I think the SHTF scenario depends on where one lives. If I'm away from home I'll probably be without a firearm anyway so it won't matter much. If I'm in my area of operation my custom 1911, when it gets back, and my Ruger SBH will work just fine.

As to road blocks by gangs in Montana not likely unless one considers government retainers (LEO) as gang members.

Like on said on a similar thread on the hunters campfire forum.

Hey, I have a Remington #4 rolling block .22, 2 boxes of .22 long rifle and 2 boxes of .22 shorts a total of 200 rounds! And 4 cans of SPAM, & a loaf of Sunbeam sandwich bread, I am SET!

How long does it take that white bread to start growing mold???

See that's brilliance of Terry's bug-out kit. Penicillin and food all at the same time!

Concealability, the only asset for a handgun, would be a huge factor if you're dumb enough to go to the mall during a period of civil unrest. Sorry, not for me, I don't like malls anyway. But I'm sure you didn't mean malls specifically but instead foot travel of any sort. And you are absolutly correct. I don't know or here of anyone that packs a long gun in their "get home" bag.

But SHTF is a very broad term and in most cases involves buggin in or vehicle travel. So most of the time a handgun is merely a firearm that's harder to shoot straight and less powerful. Do you realize how bad things would have to be for me to be foot traveling in rural Iowa cause home was no longer safe? Not too worried if someone notes I'm packin a 12ga in this case. Might save some poor miscreant's life that way.

Maybe the issue in the debate is defining what constitutes "SHTF".

I've been in war zones and for me, that is about as SHTF as it gets.

In those places, I was the security. I feared long guns far more than hand guns because they were used much more effectively against us.

I'm not saying that there weren't any, but I can't think of a single time I air lifted a wounded soldier or local national that was shot with a handgun.

1000's with rifles though....



Mall's in a SHTF scenario!? Not a chance. Street vendors at best. With a collapsed economy you're not going to have malls....

America isn't Somalia. Law and order will be restored, sooner rather than later.

Joining the roaming vigilance committee is signing yourself up for the Zimmerman treatment when things get back to normal.

It goes without saying that a long gun is a better offensive weapon but my offensive stops at the property line.

I don't think any of us know what form "SHTF" will take, or what will be required in the event that things go that badly.
Taking that into consideration, I think the prudent folks will already have on hand, the tools to handle whatever comes up.
Handgun? Yep, got that

Rifle? Yep got that too

Shotgun? you bet!

Yes, but do you have 4 cans of Spam and a loaf of bread?

Handguns make a lot of sense.

A checkpoint set up by local militia can be put out of business real quick by a single rifleman who knows his craft.

Everything is situational dependant, think METT.

There it is!

Twinkys do not mold...they just get better with time

+1

KG, your initial post poses some good questions and comments. I've heard some very erudite, sensible, and experienced men say similar things, so I think you're working along the right lines.

As to having a dozen handguns of the same type, that's an interesting idea. I've got a number of handguns, a lot of which are pretty much utilitarian pieces. Not to say they're "drop" guns, but I bought them used, have used them some more, and if they went bye-bye, I could live with it.

I have a lot of faith in the 9mm round, despite the disparagement it's always endured. I did a quick check on a couple of online gun stores and see that I can pick up PD-surplus Glock 17's for about $390 apiece, or S&W 6906's for about $370 apiece. If you know where to look, you could get similar pricing on G19's, or Beretta M9's.

You could get a dozen of these pistolas for about what you'd pay for 4-5 AR-15's.

Interesting concept.

Be prepared for all threats near and far.

I read an interesting article about Argentina, I believe. It was about their financial collapse. The author basically said that threats came from near rather than afar. So yeh handguns are probably the best choice.

Maybe somebody else knows of this article.

Just Guns & Butter.

(Read that somewhere?)

For SHTF what you really need is LG&M. It says so right in the song.

I lived in LA at the time of the Rodney King riots, too. I spent the better part of a week carrying a pistol 24/7 and had a loaded 12 gauge within easy reach at home. As for the response by others... the most interesting, to me, was the response by the Korean community, which clearly included some veterans. In some cases, they manned rooftops, set up overlaping fields of fire, etc. I remember TV footage of some engaged in a firefight, laying down suppressing fire with... drum roll here... handguns. Not sure if my memory is completely accurate on this, but I seem to remember seeing more 1911s in their hands than anything.

lewis perkins doesn't really post here anymore but he was a wealth of info on topics like this and his take was - your best bet is to stay under the radar. If you don't there's no amount of force you can have that the bad guys can't top.

If S really did HTF, I'd do my very very best to follow his advice and not become a target in the first place.

In a true SHTF situation there's no doubt a an AR-15 or nice lever gun and a 12 gauge would be my first choice but if we're going with pistols only id definitely grab my Five-seveN and throw my 12 loaded mags into a bag with a few boxes of ammo and be on my way. A pistol that holds 21 rounds of ammo at rifle velocities (2600 fps EA T6 load) sounds pretty good to me!

Yes, I read about the Argentina collapse as well, and one or two authors commented on the necessity for having a handgun or two for protection against predators. It's a bit outside the topic area, but my bro-in-law is looking at retiring in Argentina in a few years, as they have made a very good fiscal recovery in the past decade, and I'm starting to look at doing the same.

Personally, I've always had reason to believe that the handgun is the most versatile form of personal defensive weaponry. Goes back to Dr. Watson, who Sherlock Holmes relied on, suggesting, "bring your revolver" on their more dangerous forays.

The areas where I witnessed such things were in a state of anarchy as their society was transitioning regimes. The comment about not going to the mall made by someone else implies that such a situation will be very short lived; maybe it will, maybe it won�t. Regardless of what happens, life goes on for most. Most societies still function, and mostly function the same. Electricity becomes a hit and miss thing as power companies struggle to provide security for their people, or collect money from those who use their services; often the local currency is all but worthless. In the one nation I was in, they had defaulted to the dollar rather quickly. People still went to jobs, still shopped at supermarkets, still took kids to daycare. The one BIG thing that did change was the level of crime; which had absolutely skyrocketed. The other thing was the political assassinations, which were no longer confined to politicians anymore. Most anyone who was very active on one side or the other of the local politics was a potential target, and bystanders would occasionally get caught up.

This is more the type of situation I envision. I�ve lived through a disaster in my area, and I�m fortunate that my area went through weeks without power during the coldest winter in years and everyone remained rather civil and there was a great sense of community. I don�t see that in large urban areas, but it works here.

When a government falls, the opportunists come out and they can be ruthless. The road blocks are often community based, and have the support of said community. You may find yourself being disarmed by rather nice people. Or you may find yourself being disarmed by thugs; depends on the situation.

As for �dealing� with such road blocks, in Nicaragua in the early �80�s, I never once saw anyone challenge such road blocks until an actual organized army decided to challenge them. When they did so, it wasn�t so much taking out the road block as just sending a message to everyone that one faction or the other was in charge �here�.

I expect that the US government will cease to exist in my lifetime; I�ve maintained that position for at least 15 years and I see more evidence of it, not less. When that happens, who knows what will happen. What I do know is, people will still need power, food, and money. So there may be a short time of �hunkering down�, but that period is very short, and most people try to return to normal out of necessity. And for most things, the �normal� is resumed, but crime skyrockets.

have a friend that retired in Panama, and he seems to really like it other than missing work.


it's appealing to me, other than thinking about being an old, rich (to them anyway) white guy, in a sea of lotsa poor brown skinned folk

but I've had Russian emigrants that have done well here and love this country tell me, it's time to start thinking about moving somewhere else.

I'm gonna have to look into gettin one of these guns you guys talk about though, it seems a prudent move.

I've been to Panama and back in the '80's it was very nice; had a great time. I would really like it if I could carry concealed there.

Hmm, a handgun is the preferred weapon to be sure. Michael Collins of IRA/Flying Squad fame had his killers using pistols as "one does not miss from 2 feet away". The Cairo Gang and many others bit the dust due to his edict on pistols. Heavy caliber revolvers are never a bad thing.

I think that depends on which end you're on.

The biggest asset in the US when the national government collapses is the fact there are fifty sovereign nations already set up. Some of those sovereign nations are already chit holes but others will do quite well and maybe even better without a national government. One reason I don't usually stray to far from Montana is that Montana has slowly but surely put in place laws to deal when it becomes it's own sovereign nation again. More laws are on the way. I think most Western States realize they will be on their own when the national government fails and are in better position to go it alone until they can form regional governments. Hopefully, we have all learned that federalism is a failure for freedom and con-federalism is a better choice for freedom.

What the hell does "METT" mean? Unfamiliar with that acronym?

Thanks!

Good thoughts and suggestions. Also good thoughts on the lowly .22 LR. I have both rifle and handguns chambered for that round as well. The little .22 round could well become currency if things were to really deteriorate.

I'll just keep my 1911 close with lots of clips & boolits!

Found this on the innernet:

METT-T Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops and Time Available

Maybe Shane has all the time he needs.

Kevin,
IMO the best weapon is a 12 gauge pump shotgun. I prefer my old Ithaca 37 LAPD model with 18" barrel and I have a pistol grip to replace the buttstock if need be when more concealment becomes needed.
Everyone who has ever been around a TV set knows what a pump shotgun sounds like when you chamber a round. This can convince people to leave you alone even without firing a shot. If need be you can fire a load of buckshot in their direction which should take care of anyone who is reluctant to abandon the area. You don't need to be a Camp Perry competitor to hit with buckshot, even at night you don't need expensive laser sights just keep on shooting until either they leave or they kill you.
whelennut

I disagree, I will carry my assault rifle, a glock 19 and a Jim bowie knife if society collapses all in plain sight. I will not "bug out to the mountains with a cooler full of steaks and beer.

Only sound my 870 makes before it is ready for use is the safety coming off!

METT-T is just a little planning acronym.

Basically what do you need to do, what do you have to do it with, what/who are you up against, how does terrain figure in. And how much time do you have to git-r-done.

I lived on the fring of the LA (King) Riots. I lived off 190th and had to drive thru a small area of it to get home. I had a loaded .45 and a Loaded shotgun at the ready in my truck.

I have spent time in foreign countries that were not wanting us there. Iraq, Iran, Somalia, and Rwanda. I will say this if you had only a pistol at that time and local you weren't going to make it very long. I will save you the details but in Rwanda alone I zipped more bodybags then anyone should ever have to.

I think in the SHTF here would be a little different. I agree a pistol is top on the list. However its top on the list for concealment purposes and not as major weapon of choice. I agree that society will still go on just in a much different way. When needed to be out in general population it is the go to weapon.

When the actual SHTF I want nothing less then a rifle, shotgun, and handgun locked and loaded. The first 90 days are going to be when the majority of everything goes down. If you bugout you will need to be able to defend your egress. If standing you ground you will need to defend your ground. A handgun alone isn't going to cut it.

Where you live will most likely determine if you need to bugout or stand your ground. As it will also dictate the amount of support you will have from neighbors, or how much resistance you will have.

I wish you was my neighbor for times so described.

As most have said here, I would prefer to have a few (Id guess 5 or so, right now Im at 4) handguns, a .22 rifle for food gathering and such, an AR or two for serious self/family defense and a shotgun for multi-purpose work.

Maybe I've been watching too much Walking Dead, but also a crossbow/bow would also come in handy.

I was living in Los Angeles during the 1965 Watts riot, the 1968 East Los Angeles riot, and the 1992 "Rodney King" riot. The Watts riot and E.L.A. riot were mainly contained in a small geographical location within Los Angeles.

The 1992 "Rodney King" riot saw rioters all over Los Angeles, and in some cases, in L.A. County areas and smaller cities around Los Angeles. It seemed at times the rioters were like locusts swarming. I know of several incidents where citizens protected themselves and property, homes, condos, etc., that never made the news. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, whatever was available were used by honest citizens to defend against the rioters.

Although the initial riot began in the black community of South Central Los Angeles, it spread quickly and all ethnicities partook of the "fun and games." No matter all the teeeveee news pictures seen throughout the nation at that time, after it was finally over, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept., which was the central booking and custody agency, recorded "riot related arrests" by all agencies of 40% black suspects, 50% Latino suspects, and 10% caucasian and Asian suspects.

That's the way it was in 1992 in Los Angeles.


L.W.

Even better, perhaps, than a crossbow:

I think that the biggest problem associated with handguns is that most people do not practice enough and when they do, 15 to 20 yards is the preferred shooting distance. Man sized targets at 100 yds really are not all that hard to hit with a good .45 cal. 1911 after some serious practice sessions. Try it.

I try to always have my .45 available as a rifle, as has been stated, just isn't that easy to conceal and there may come a time when your target, the guy trying to get you, just isn't all that close.

Be ready with what you can have with you.

These days the vast majority of my shooting is with handguns, and as said before; most of that at 150 yards. As a result, I can hit better with a handgun at 150 yards, than I can hit with a rifle at 300 yards (offhand)�cool in one way, a bit pathetic in another. Last month I was at the range with a friend who brought out his newly acquired Steyr Scout rifle. He had a 3x9 variable mounted conventionally, and I missed the 8� gong at 200 yards twice to both of our astonishment. He said �try it again� so I did. I handed him the rifle, pulled out my .38 Super and rung it with the first round. CLEARLY I�m spending way too much time with handguns, and not nearly enough time with my rifles.

I did redeem myself at 500, but that was from a rested position. My rifle issues seem to be offhand beyond 100 yards. Offhand I just hold a handgun much more steady than I do a rifle; need to work on that.

We all know now that you're good enough to have killed Kennedy from the Sniper's Nest with a Browning Hi Power and that you're afraid of being accosted by baddies and relieved of your AK. Really what makes the best sense for you in a SHTF situation, is a Blowgun. That or one of them Chinnk air rifles. Think about it. You can hide all day and then come out at night and kill rats and mice and suchlike for your larder, almost silently. If you're caught with one by the authorities they probably won't even confiscate it. In fact, while they're laughing their asses off you can just slip away.

You bring up an interesting point. I need to re-evaluate my position, i.e. I either shot rifles or I shoot handguns but I don't have the time or money to become proficient at both. I have been thinking about this for sometime.

You are bad, you are bad to the bone!

I've got the most experience with a rifle but I would choose a concealed handgun and a shotgun when moving about. I'll most likely be running in a situation. A pistol does it for me by weight savings and a shotgun by virtue of being able to hit something while moving. I would use the rifles mostly for defensive positions. If limited to just one it would be a high capacity full size 9mm.

I've probably got more handguns than most. My idea is to use the surplus for barter to get the unknown items.

I shoot much better with a rifle than with a hand gun but a hand gun sure is a lot more of a challenge, especially shooting offhand.

The sound of a 230 gr cast bullet hitting a hundred yd gong sure is satisfying but not very loud. I can't do that with every shot but trying is fun.

Jay-zus, EE, who pizzed in your cornflakes this morning?!?!?

THAT IS IT! I also have a Savage 72 (modern Stevens Favorite) I chambered to .22WMR that is killer accurate, guess I will buy a couple hundred rounds for it as well.


Here it is with the #4 Rolling Block


The Lyman sight I installed

Both are Uber-Cool .22's for sure. I have the hot & sweaties for the Winchester pump action .22�s. Have an 1890, 62A, 61, and the Rossi 62�just too much fun, completely reliable, accurate, and a joy to hunt with. And of course, I�m not giving up my K-22 anytime soon.

Still have the Winchester 62A in the family I got when I was six, it resides with my daughter now but I get to visit.

Derbydude,
Try some #4 buckshot in a 12 gauge.
I'm just sayin.
whelennut

REALLY??????

The local range has some old welding tanks set out at 200 yards, these are about 4' high and maybe 8" across (someone familiar with welding tanks could probably give exact dimensions).

Anyway, it's always fun to watch folks miss them time after time with their rifles - from the bench over bags or rests of some kind - and then pull out my little Ruger SR22, Smith M18 4" .22 or M15 4" .38, GP-100 or other handgun, stand on my hind feet and hit them with the first shot.

The easy part is that you have 4' of elevation to work with so front sight holdup isn't too hard but with that narrow target the windage is critical. But as long as you hold the sights centered you get that nice little "ding!" sound as a reward.

It just takes practice (and knowing better than to try this in a strong crosswind. )

In that same vein -

At this same range last summer a rather obese fellow came over to look at my little peep sighted Marlin 16" .45 Colt. He opined as to how it was a neat little rifle but in his authorative and truly expert opinion (I'm enhancing just a tad here) those pistol caliber rifles like the .44 and .45 weren't any good after 100 yards because the trajectory was so curved you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

I remarked, in a voice awed by his knowledge of all things gunny, how that was probably true. Then I stood up and from offhand hit one of those same welding tanks at 200 yards five times out of five with my worthless little rifle.

It's fun being an old guy with a lot of experience shooting.

I realize this is a gun-related site, but let me interject a note of, I dunno, common sense? Yes, it's fun to think about what you would need if the Zombie Apocalypse (spare me!) hits, but a lot of SHTF scenarios (Hurricane Sandy being only the latest and greatest) are not like that.

Put it this way.

When the SHTF, you MAY need a weapon. You WILL need food, water, shelter, maybe heat, perhaps a cooking source, your medicines, perhaps a way to treat/manage an injury until you can get good medical care. A good flashlight and spare batteries may be more useful than a fully tricked out AR-15. Given that none of us have unlimited resources, is it better to have 10 $200 revolvers or 1 revolver and a pantry full of non-perishable food, clean drinking water, a fully stocked first-aid kit (and I DON'T mean a $5 plastic box full of band-aids from the local grocery store), etc. And by the way, if you have a pantry full of canned food, make sure you have a manual can opener, because guess what? You're probably not going to have electricity or water.

Carry on.

All due respect, but the advice you posted is pretty much a given here. "Common sense?" Hmm. Did you actually read the OP?

KG's OP was about the relative utility of "the handgun" as the go-to firearm platform of choice in socially-disrupted situations such as he and others have actually had to live through and work in, and which we might face here in the USA at some time in the not-too-distant future. That is the topic of discussion.

If you REALLY believe you need discuss on�'s overall preparedness for TEOTWAWKI, you might want to try posting on the Hunter's Campfire thread, or over at Accurate Reloading.

Ah, yes. Practice. A rare commodity among internet gunnery experts.

Glad you adhere to your regimen, amigo! Keep dingin' them welding plates.

I read the OP, and it looks like he recommended buying 12 handguns, not the ten you criticized the previous poster for using in his example.

All in all, his post is a lot more rational that recommending buying a bunch of handguns so you can surrender them at a checkpoint instead of an AR.

Doc,
I'm sorry I rubbed you the wrong way, as both Kevin Gibson and you have my respect, as do almost all of the posters on 24 Hour Campfire. Maybe I missed the post where all of those taken for granted things were pointed out - I just don't think it hurts to point it out again. And as I said, most of us don't have unlimited resources, so maybe it does make sense to buy 2 less firearms in order to buy fresh water, non-perishable food, etc.

I do have to say that a true nation-wide SHTF scenario is pretty remote - JMHO, of course and I could be wrong, but this country has had a lot of stuff happen in its past including a full-blown shooting civil war, without descending into the kind of total SHTF that others have seen in, say, Rwanda, etc. Even after Katrina and Sandy, and various riots, there have been local or maybe regional looting, lawlessness, etc. but never nationwide.

I am old enough to remember the Atomic bomb scares in the 50s when a few people were building fallout shelters in their back yards and stocking up with canned goods. Most of those people are gone, their shelters are molding. A lot of the first generation survivalists are no longer above ground either but their vision of a country disintegrating hasn't happened. I'm sure most of them were sincere. I'm also sure the people building bomb shelters were raking it in for a while.

So here's a thought - you can take it as seriously as you like, or ignore it altogether. A lot of times there's warning before the SHTF. If you have enough money to buy 10 handguns, you have enough money to buy a plane ticket out of town, or certainly enough gas to get out of town, at least until the worst is over. Hey, you can always move to Canada! :-) As my martial arts instructors always said, you can't lose a fight you're not in. Now, if you're stuck in a SHTF scenario, well then, maybe 10 handguns is the best solution. But if you're not, evacuation out of the scenario makes more sense to me - but then, I'm a natural born coward. :-)

Jim222

You may very well be right. However there is a big difference from the 1950's and now. The biggest is our dependency on technology. Which everything and I mean everything runs on some sorta of power, mainly electricity. Knock out the electricity on the east coast and you have pretty much crippled the country. If it takes weeks to fix power in a single state imagine what it would take to restore power to the entire east coast.

Another huge difference from the 1950's and today is the political divide we have in this country. I can assure you that every conservitive I know would close their doors to any liberal wanting help, shelter, food, and ect. Remember these are the people that want to take away our rights, our money, and our success.

Is it likely that a SHTF happen? Honestly its a 50/50 unless you can prove otherwise. It only takes one thing to get the ball rolling, if that ball has enough momentum it could very well happen. In my opinion we are ripe for something major to change in our country. I can only hope it not and prepare for the worst.

I guess I'm more of the Jlin 222 school of thought. I to grew up in the 50's when the smart money was on a bomb shelter in every back yard. Coming from a poor family we were the expendable ones so a bomb shelter never entered into the picture which turned out to be just as well.

And then I remember the Carter years when there was no oil and I even thought I would take up sailing (which I never did, fear of water and giant fish don't you know).

There is no doubt that the national government is going to fail but I believe it will fail in stages and for most of us we will notice little affect to our daily lives.

If one truly believes that the world will end as we know it than one should have a bug out kit that is carried every place one is going just in case.

The handgun of choice in the SHTF scenario is a good quality single action in a .44/.45 caliber. Why a single action? Because a single action has the least moving parts so it's likely to keep working with minimal maintenance. I'm thinking a Ruger New Model BlackHawk in .44 Special would be a good choice. One of the Ruger double action would be good to as they seem to be idiot proof as to take down and maintenance.

I'm to old to bug out to any place so I'm staying put. With my 1911 and Ruger SBH in .44 mag. If anybody wants me they can have at. They would be doing me a favor to put me out of my misery.

Derby Dude has spoken!

MontanaCreekHunter
I think you're right about the divide between liberals and conservatives, at least some of them. I remember reading that before Kennedy was assassinated, he and Goldwater talked about doing a national series of debates around the country ala the Lincoln-Douglas debates, because despite their political differences they could still be friends. And it used to be in Congress that liberals and conservatives would beat each other up during the day and go out drinking together at night. That doesn't happen much any more, and I think we are poorer for it. I have friends who listen to Rachel Maddow and friends who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, and I happen to like it that way.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I happen to be more optimistic than you. Maybe because I work at a VA hospital. I know a lot of vets, some of them are conservatives, some of them are liberals, but all of them are united by service to and love of country. And remember that on 9/11, the terrorists didn't hit conservative Montana, they hit liberal New York City, and I think we all felt the same way that day. There is still more that unites us than divides us. JMHO, I may be wrong.

I am not optimistic only because no government/country has stood the test of time. Sooner or later its going to happen. Nothing last forever!

Maybe if things do go downhill in some fashion, we will become Americans again, rather than Rep or Dems, liberal or conservative. I don't know. I would like to think that people would pull together in times of trouble. But there is a decided lack of character and virtue out there today, so unfortunately, I will not hold my breath!

duckster if and its a big IF the SHTF for real, there will only be so manny you can help/support. I am inclined to help more people like myself. As oppossed to those that have tried to chip away at my rights, beliefs, and force their opinions on me.

My first duty/responsiblity is to my family and after that it is friends and who adds value to my group.

If you ever find yourself in NW Arkansas, swing by and we'll do some shootin and you can see for yourself. Be forwarned, I'll make you do it too and it will be a lot of fun; maybe even addicting.

Look, the bottom line with a good pistol is that it tends to be with you AT ALL TIMES!!! Hell, I was in a Vietnamese whorehouse and when I was shaggin' the gurl, I had my 45 in my hand under the pillow. In a bad situation such as implied here, it is NOT the amount of trouble you can get yerself INTO but how much you can avoid. Distance is time. Time is an ass saver. Up close and personal would be the real threat and having the heavy caliber revolver is the magic ticket to living.

I didn't know you were that young Terry. I thought that Winchester '66 you used to have was one your daddy got you new...

I have a bunch of ex-friends that probably listen to those turds. [bleep] the commies.

LOL, it seems that way some times for sure but alas I was born in the 20th century just before WWII.

My 62A was made in 1940 and bears SN 993XX, 7 years later it was mine.

I agree with you. Family and close friends first. Just kind of sad overall.

JL, you're right, and I apologize for being a tad snippy with ya. It was a b!tch of a week/weekend at work, not much sleep, etc. I for one am interested in people's take on KG's original premise, which I think has some potential relevance. F'rinstance, I'm curious to know if anyone was in NOLA after Katrina, and carried or needed a handgun. We read that cops were confiscating homeowners' guns, but I have to wonder, would that have happened if they'd been carrying concealed handguns? Or was the confiscation issue a couple of isolated instances? I was hoping for a more far-reaching discussion, rather than folks just giving their preconceived notion of what the best "gunfighting" gun would be.

Your point is well-taken. I have always believed that the best gunfight outcome is when you avoid the gunfight altogether. But the concept of "getting out of town" is oftentimes problematic... and if we're looking at SHTF in the CONUS, it's pretty likely the S will HTF in Canada at about the same time, only it'll be colder.

I was not in New Orleans after Katrina, but I did experience a total break down in government back in 2005, Miami. Back to back Katrina, then Wilma.
I carried then, just as I do now, but experienced no need to use the handgun or the AR that I carried in the truck.
As opposed to NO, there was very little civil unrest in Miami, despite most of the county being without power, and flooded, for two week.

Pretty sweet getting one nearly new. My first .22 was bought for me by my Dad too. It was also a Winchester pump purchased new at Simmons Gun Specialties in Olathe, Kansas. Model 270. It was kinda a lemon or maybe it was just the model. They made a semi-auto that looked just like it. I traded it several years later on my first handgun, an H&R 949 which, despite total disdain by most who looked at it, never let me down and killed lots of stuff.

Those ole H&R's were good guns.

Doc,
We're good. I get snippy myself sometimes. As for your question, the closest I've come to a Katrina or Sandy scenario was when I was still in training in New Haven when hurricane Gloria hit in 1985 (the eye when through West Haven, where I was living at the time). Power out for several days, trees down everywhere but remarkably little disorder, no Lord of the Rings stuff, at least that I could see. That was before I had ever fired a gun, let alone owned one, and I didn't feel at all unsafe - maybe I was naive, maybe I was lucky, but nothing happened, at least that I knew about.

I think you meant Lord of the Flies. Lord of the Rings would be Hobbits setting up a checkpoint.

The Hobbit motion picture, part one, is coming out this Friday

We put antifreeze in both the s**t and the fans up here for that very reason. We don't have as many guns, but we have..... Buckley's Cough Mixture. (There was a thread on that here on the Forum a couple of years back.) The plan is to leave a bunch of it around in beer bottles for the unwitting miscreants and while they're gagging and their eyes are bugging out we'll walk up and hit 'em with a big stick. Only if that fails will the .45 come out.

How do you put the cap back on the bottle?

If SHTF, any gun will at best be of marginal benefit unless you remain at home. I'd expect metal detectors at all locations, especially where you'll have to queue for governmental distributed food.

If FDR was able to force Americans to turn in their lawfully owned personal cache of gold under threat of $10,000 fine & 10 years in prison, government can get Americans to surrender their guns. Before confiscation occurs, look for governmental control of the Internet.

We still have to work out a few details....

Let FDR try... I dare him.

That $10,000 in today's money would be about $175,000...

Don't get your panties in a wad dude. Looking at my post I guess you could read it the way you did also but since FDR is dead it was tongue in cheek.

OK. I nominate this for Thread Hijack of the Year.

Hi Captain,

FDR's seizure of privately owned property wasn't so much the issue as is compliance of Americans. I have a pronounced premonition that were Americans ordered to surrender their weapons, they will. There might be grumbling and posturing, but when they see platoons of heavily armed cops/soldiers/national guard troops driving down their street in armored personnel carriers, they'll dump their weapons on their front yards.

With a few rounds into a home from an XM307 mounted atop an APC, Americans will throw their guns onto their front lawns.

Before confiscation occurs, and I am nearly certain it will, look for complete censorship of the Internet. In fact, I'd suspect cessation of the Internet prior to confiscation. But I could be wrong about the whole thing.

I'm old and I'm more than willing to commit suicide-by-police.

Actually, the most likely scenario for voluntary surrender will be through the creation of an annual Federal property tax. Gun owners will be given the choice of paying the tax or surrendering their guns and receiving a one-time tax credit equal to the tax they would have otherwise paid.

In practice the tax might be a notional $2500 per gun. If you owned ten guns the annual tax would be $25000. If you chose to surrender your guns then you would receive a one time $25000 tax credit.

Suppose a gun owner decided not to pay the tax. Well, he would be in violation of the tax laws, as well as being in possession of an untaxed firearm, which would be the same as being in possession of untaxed alcohol or tobacco. This takes the onus of enforcement out of the hands of local law enforcement and places squarely in the hands of Federal law enforcement agencies.

When it comes to the bureaucratic deviousness of governments there are two things to remember.

(1) There is more than one way in which they can skin a cat.
(2) You are the cat.

Some cats may resist being de-clawed.

I'd hope SCHITLOADS of them would have the balls to band together in armed resistance at that point. If not, then we truly deserve whatever we may get, for we have become a nation of COWARDS and undeserving of freedom.

Very likely how they'd do it.

I' m thinking wine bottles.

What if the government required us to carry a liability insurance policy on each firearm just like motor vehicles.
There could be severe penalties for possession of an uninsured weapon. That way the rich people could still keep theirs.
Others would be outlaws.
whelennut

Lets not give the bastoids any more ammo. They read these pages too you know!

Obama is proof that we deserve what we're fixin' to get.

Corks! Not all Ch�teau Pissoir comes in screw cap bottles nowadays. It's our version of an IED (Improvised Expectorant Device.)

It's all moot anyway as everyone knows the world is going to end on Dec. 21.

The American electorate wasn't given a good choice in that election. They got a choice between a neocon in the pockets of the big banks or a Marxist in the pockets of the big banks. We didn't get a choice to vote for someone who wasn't in the pockets of the big banks, who wasn't an advocate for one or the other big bank agenda.

That's the way the big banks get their agenda through, i.e., by arranging things such that you never get to vote against it ... only for one aspect of it or the other. So, if you vote Democrat, you vote for an intensification of the welfare state without a pull back from the police state or foreign militarism; and if you vote Republican, you vote for an intensification of the police state and foreign militarism, without a pull back from the welfare state. So, step by step, we always move further in the direction of the police state, foreign militarism, and authoritarian socialism, never being given the option to pull back from this bankers' agenda, back towards limited constitutional republicanism, sound money, and free markets.

Right on and that's the way it was set up in the beginning by the bankers. From everything I've read to date shows that the bankers were the power behind the throne.

The American electorate was given a choice in 2012: Obama, Romney (just as bad), Johnson, or abstaining. The fist two were horrible choices.

If you can deduce the end result, then you can figure out what's in store for us.

But our corrupt political system is set up to disadvantage third parties, to the point they're excluded from public debates and have a hard time getting on the ballots in most states.

That was VERY well said Hawk; one of the most profound things you�ve ever said on the subject of politics.

Now, to be honest, Obama is a far cry from a Marxist. I actually know two Marxists, honest to goodness dedicated communists (and they�re into guns, and support the 2nd Amendmen � Don�t ask, I don�t get it either), and both of those guys call Obama right wing�I just burst out laughing when they say that, but then they make their case and from their viewpoint, he�s rather right wing.

And Romney as a NeoCon; I don�t know. I just see him as a populist who will adopt any position that will bring him power�Oh wait, just like Obama. See, you were right; not much difference at all. And both are firmly in the right and left hand pockets of the big banks.

Yeah, the incidental differences between them mean little in the larger picture, since they are both in the pockets of the big banks. My point being, they're both about expanding government at the expense of liberty from one angle or the other. For those more interested in retaining and restoring liberty than anything else, there's not much to choose from between them.

Which is why the electoral college has to be changed in order to give third party candidates a realistic chance of prevailing. Winner-takes-all assures that the ruling elite will never lose its grip on power to the detriment of the rest of us who are ruled.

Interesting point, Raisuli.

You caught that too, eh?

I'm actually only about 90% sure it's him.

The electoral college doesn't need to be eliminated; where the change has to be made, and the only place it can be made, is on the state level. If the electors from each state were proportioned according to the percentage of votes received by each candidate then the system would be more truly representative of the wishes of the electorate. It is the individual states, not the federal government, who select the electors and who determine how those electoral votes should be cast.

I agree, BUT does your theory fix the problem with 2 counties in an entire state, swinging the whole state???

Like nevada, reno and vegas carried the whole state for Obammy

I have the answer, let's elect the electors instead of the presidential candidates. Let the electors campaign in their respective states for the vote and than let the electors vote for the president as they do now.

Actually that is the system currently in place, with the exception of having the electors campaign in place of the actual candidates. When you vote in a presidential election, you are actually electing a slate of electors. These electors then go to Washington DC where each one of them casts two votes -- one for president and one for vice-president. These ballots are then sealed, and passed to the president of the senate, who tallies them, and announces the result to congress. Five days later the president-elect is sworn in as president.

It's hard to believe this thread was nominated for Hijack of the Year, BEFORE it degenerated into a political discussion. It was headed in a much better direction with Hobbits.

By apportioning the electoral vote, a candidate would have to receive 100% of the popular vote to pick up all of the electoral vote. For example, in Nevada where population centers (Reno and Nevada) can carry the state, by apportioning the electors between the candidates based on the percentage of the popular vote, a candidate with 60% popularity state wide would only receive 60% of the electors, the other 40% would be pledged to the other candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote.

The advantage of this system is that the "fly over states" -- the true heartland of America -- would become just as important as the states with the largest population in determining who is elected president.

Here's how this would work in the real world:

At the last election Obama took 50% of the popular vote in Florida (a key "battle ground state") and Romney took 49.1% of the popular vote. Because Obama had a 0.9% lead, he received 100% of Florida's 29 electoral votes. Under an apportioned system Obama would have had only 15 electoral votes, and Romney 14 votes. The same would have been true in Michigan, where the vote split 53/46 in favor of Obama who picked up 17 electoral votes, instead of the 9 he would have received under an apportioned system of voting. That would have made the electoral vote 24/22 in favor of Obama instead of 46/0 in his favor. With the vote split 24/22 Utah's 6 electoral votes would be crucial to both candidates. With the vote going 73/26 to Romney, he would have picked up 4 electoral votes, with 2 going to Obama, giving both men 26 electoral votes, as opposed to a 46/6 vote lead for Obama under the current "winner take all" system used by the states.

Would this have made a difference at the last election? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it would have forced the candidates to pay attention to those people living in states where their vote is largely symbolic.

I hadn't thought of the government forcing us to purchase prohibitive liability insurance on our guns as a method of de facto confiscation. If government can legally force us to buy health insurance under penalty of prison, then why couldn't it force us to buy gun liability insurance?

The implication is clear: confiscation is within sight.

Somehow this thread got sidetracked from SHTF guns to a treatise on elections..


LOL...

Redneck whats in your bugout bag? That might help get it back on track! LOL

Gotcha, and that is a great idea

Ah nope. The electors are chosen by each party and the party that wins the general election for president gets to vote for president which is usually for their party. Some states have modified that a little. The electors meet in their respective State capitals usually in the Secretary of State's office. None go to Washington. They no longer vote for president and vice president. They for president and the vice president on the same ticket. I've been to an electoral college and I've read the US Constitution. I know of what I speak of.

What I was speaking of is voting for individual electors and letting the electors pick the candidate of their choice.

There's truth in that! And I'm guilty as charged. Back to our regularly scheduled programing.

i'll agree that when the [bleep] hits the fan, that knowing a gun is handy and ready can be comforting.

I put 3,000 rounds (all loaded on a Dillon) through a S&W M&PL in the last 5 days.

TAK, that's an interesting statement. Were you at some kind of training, or did you just feel like abusing your hand?

Range report not just required, but DEMANDED!!!

Please post a picture of your thumb after loading all those magazines.
whelennut

Likely used a loading device.

Haven't made one yet - that's on my "to-do" list.. But I'm considering a choice between a pair of .22s - mainly because of ammo being cheap and 2-3 bricks of 22s can take care of a lot of things if need be while keeping the weight down overall..

Yes, please do! I've filled enough Kahr magazines to have waaay too much familiarity with what that will do to you over the course of a few days.

I've had people come to firearms classes with Kahr pistols who had to leave class after about 200 rounds due to blistered/lacerated thumbs from loading those infernal little magazines. I have new students tape their thumbs at the beginning of class now.