Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
I've seen guys shoot a deer fly @ 200 yards with an HMR. I hate deer flies!
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
Not a trained military sniper. But someone who has spent considerable time concealing themselves from wild animals and is (or should be) capable of making one kill shots out to 250+ yards. No threat to Carlos Hathcock's records, but serviceable nonetheless.
Vs. a deer? Maybe, but I doubt many have hunted anything past 100 yards. Also deer don't wear body armor and do the Baghdad shuffle. or shoot back (usually first).
Like I said, I don't think there'd ever be a reason, but if for some reason a group of people decided to fight the US military, their only chance would be throwing people away and hoping for a war of attrition.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
Not a trained military sniper. But someone who has spent considerable time concealing themselves from wild animals and is (or should be) capable of making one kill shots out to 250+ yards. No threat to Carlos Hathcock's records, but serviceable nonetheless.
Vs. a deer? Maybe, but I doubt many have hunted anything past 100 yards. Also deer don't wear body armor and do the Baghdad shuffle. or shoot back (usually first).
Like I said, I don't think there'd ever be a reason, but if for some reason a group of people decided to fight the US military, their only chance would be throwing people away and hoping for a war of attrition.
There is also the potential of what is happening in the ME. The fighters hide in the general population. The only way to root them out is to be brutal to the entire population. Quite unpopular.
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
Not a trained military sniper. But someone who has spent considerable time concealing themselves from wild animals and is (or should be) capable of making one kill shots out to 250+ yards. No threat to Carlos Hathcock's records, but serviceable nonetheless.
Vs. a deer? Maybe, but I doubt many have hunted anything past 100 yards. Also deer don't wear body armor and do the Baghdad shuffle. or shoot back (usually first).
Like I said, I don't think there'd ever be a reason, but if for some reason a group of people decided to fight the US military, their only chance would be throwing people away and hoping for a war of attrition.
There is also the potential of what is happening in the ME. The fighters hide in the general population. The only way to root them out is to be brutal to the entire population. Quite unpopular.
There is that, but then that's assuming that those resisting can provide for the masses to keep their support.
But you are describing these wars I've listed where the rate is still very very poor for survivability for those who fight against the US military.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
Not a trained military sniper. But someone who has spent considerable time concealing themselves from wild animals and is (or should be) capable of making one kill shots out to 250+ yards. No threat to Carlos Hathcock's records, but serviceable nonetheless.
Vs. a deer? Maybe, but I doubt many have hunted anything past 100 yards. Also deer don't wear body armor and do the Baghdad shuffle. or shoot back (usually first).
Like I said, I don't think there'd ever be a reason, but if for some reason a group of people decided to fight the US military, their only chance would be throwing people away and hoping for a war of attrition.
There is also the potential of what is happening in the ME. The fighters hide in the general population. The only way to root them out is to be brutal to the entire population. Quite unpopular.
There is that, but then that's assuming that those resisting can provide for the masses to keep their support.
But you are describing these wars I've listed where the rate is still very very poor for survivability for those who fight against the US military.
I think the US population would be very supportive.
I have always maintained that, once the US military is beaten, the population would surrender fairly quickly. At least on the surface. But we are a spoiled, whiny, rebellious population. We would be a nightmare to subdue.
Exactly after shtf day youre not going to be blowing though it like a fag at a san fran pride parade .I recently bought a 1000 round case of 9 x 19mm.
I also have a spam can of x39mm that's lasted awhile.
I can burn thru some ammo when I am at the range often. But I wouldn't be doing that in a SHTF scenario.
And I really like the video shooting down the "Ammo as Barter" part. That never made sense to me.
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
Not a trained military sniper. But someone who has spent considerable time concealing themselves from wild animals and is (or should be) capable of making one kill shots out to 250+ yards. No threat to Carlos Hathcock's records, but serviceable nonetheless.
Vs. a deer? Maybe, but I doubt many have hunted anything past 100 yards. Also deer don't wear body armor and do the Baghdad shuffle. or shoot back (usually first).
Like I said, I don't think there'd ever be a reason, but if for some reason a group of people decided to fight the US military, their only chance would be throwing people away and hoping for a war of attrition.
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
How'd it work out for the british when they went against a bunch of farmers who knew how to shoot?
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
How'd it work out for the british when they went against a bunch of farmers who knew how to shoot?
Again, a war of attrition. And granted that was in an battle where the difference between rifles and the best military weapons was much smaller than today. Remember the colonies were their own army. People raised tough on the land, fighting natives. Not some guy in a deer stand thinking he can shoot US troops.
This guys wrong on so many counts I dont even know where to start.
He talks in absolutes and tries to compare the wild west to a modern day SHTF scenario.
People didnt live in cities by the millions that totally rely on outside sources for their survival.
Back then you could survive off the land and many people did just that.
Small arms cant go against the military?
Afghanistan and Vietnam says different,IED's,blowing bridges and railways,there are endless ways to stop the flow of supplies to a modern military. Besides,Americans are very unlikely to face a military force of a foreign nation,and the idea that American forces are going to shoot their friends,family and neighbors is complete bullshit.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
How'd it work out for the british when they went against a bunch of farmers who knew how to shoot?
Again, a war of attrition. And granted that was in an battle where the difference between rifles and the best military weapons was much smaller than today. Remember the colonies were their own army. People raised tough on the land, fighting natives. Not some guy in a deer stand thinking he can shoot US troops.
YEp most police and sheriffs departments will also be callin in sick day 1Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
How'd it work out for the british when they went against a bunch of farmers who knew how to shoot?
Again, a war of attrition. And granted that was in an battle where the difference between rifles and the best military weapons was much smaller than today. Remember the colonies were their own army. People raised tough on the land, fighting natives. Not some guy in a deer stand thinking he can shoot US troops.
Whata dumbfuck.
Who in their right mind would shoot from a deer stand?
And do you really believe US troops are going to be firing on their friends and family?
There would be mass desertions if they were ordered to do so.
Yer gonna get a beatin.
HA!
Probably not. Small guerilla tactics work great against a superior force. Unless you expect armed civilians to meet the foreign forces in pitched battles.
A quick Google search showed that there are 12.7 million hunters in the US. If half of them hunt some sort of bigger game, that puts over 6 million snipers in the field.
I guess if you want to lose a LOT of lives for a cause.
Give or take 1 million north vietnamese lives lost to less than 60k for the US. 100k or so in Afghanistan to 2500 US in OEF. Bosnia was a few thousand vs. a few dozen. Haiti we lost 1, and they lost a couple hundred. Kosovo we lost 2, they lost 1800. Pakistan 15 vs. 30k. Grenada 19 vs. 115..
I think what you see again and again is the "great" return is that if you can keep replenishing your ranks and live with being killed off at a 10-1 to 40-1 rate, maybe the US will grow tired of killing you in MUCH greater numbers. And remember most of those places... life is a LOT harder than the US. It's not wearing realtree camo to walmart because you think it looks cool. It's hardened people, used to living off the land, growing up in war.
Now I don't see a reason for that to ever happen, but if you have 12.7 million hunters, maybe some are snipers. The overwhelming majority of them are hunters though and have ZERO training in military small arms tactics. Just cause you wear hunt deer and put 100 rounds a weekend through your rifle and sit up in a deer stand a few times a year doesn't mean you are a sniper.
How'd it work out for the british when they went against a bunch of farmers who knew how to shoot?
Again, a war of attrition. And granted that was in an battle where the difference between rifles and the best military weapons was much smaller than today. Remember the colonies were their own army. People raised tough on the land, fighting natives. Not some guy in a deer stand thinking he can shoot US troops.
tell it to the VC and Afghanis
Exactly after shtf day youre not going to be blowing though it like a fag at a san fran pride parade .I recently bought a 1000 round case of 9 x 19mm.
I also have a spam can of x39mm that's lasted awhile.
I can burn thru some ammo when I am at the range often. But I wouldn't be doing that in a SHTF scenario.
And I really like the video shooting down the "Ammo as Barter" part. That never made sense to me.
Ive heard all different estimates of what you should keep around
To much is never enough ?IN some bad shtf scenarios you could probably always use some for barter
one never knows do one
Exactly after shtf day youre not going to be blowing though it like a fag at a san fran pride parade .I recently bought a 1000 round case of 9 x 19mm.
I also have a spam can of x39mm that's lasted awhile.
I can burn thru some ammo when I am at the range often. But I wouldn't be doing that in a SHTF scenario.
And I really like the video shooting down the "Ammo as Barter" part. That never made sense to me.
Ive heard all different estimates of what you should keep around
To much is never enough ?IN some bad shtf scenarios you could probably always use some for barter
one never knows do one
The barter idea was discussed in the video.
Do you really want to help arm random people?
I found this video on YouTube. Looks like solid info. I'll still keep my own stockpiles, but the idea that you need tens of thousands of rounds might be nonsense.
I've reloaded two spectrums of general ammo for years. One spectrum is for plinking and maintaining skill and weapon familiarity, the other is for fine tuning custom and wildcat rounds for hunting and special purposes. In a real life SHTF or disaster/survival situation my primary objective is to possess enough ammo to acquire more ammunition, if that makes sense. I've got a map in my head of waypoints in specific order just to accomplish that. Factoring in competition for food, gas and other basic necessities and others in my area who might have similar plans, the number of rounds required to do that varies.
I found this video on YouTube. Looks like solid info. I'll still keep my own stockpiles, but the idea that you need tens of thousands of rounds might be nonsense.
Naturally renewable arrows? This guy's out of his ever-lovin' mind!
I ruined an arrow and almost cried! Yeah, I shot my steel spinner target with it. In hindsight, that was a very stupid idea.It was a target tip and it crushed the shaft right behind it.
