Weapon/Ammo Philosophy

[PredFan]

7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.

What is 100 rounds now, $200.00 + bucks?

Close, about $150.00

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thinking about buying a 22LR as well. Saw a good article about those being perfect survival weapons.

You can not kill shit with a 22.

Would that be like saying you can't kill anything with a .223/ 5.56?
Both are 22 calibers

Big difference. Those rounds rely on hydrostatic shock to kill.
But you can most definitely drop a deer with a .22.

Yes I know that but 223 is a 22 caliber and Gunny said you could not kill anything with a 22
I'm not going to split hairs or rehash one of the oldest debates in the gun world about the 22

Must have miss read your post.
Thought you said "

7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.

What is 100 rounds now, $200.00 + bucks?

Close, about $150.00

500 rounds for 200.00 bucks for 5.56.

 

[Moonglow]

Thinking about buying a 22LR as well. Saw a good article about those being perfect survival weapons.

You can not kill shit with a 22.

Would that be like saying you can't kill anything with a .223/ 5.56?
Both are 22 calibers

Big difference. Those rounds rely on hydrostatic shock to kill.
But you can most definitely drop a deer with a .22.

Yes I know that but 223 is a 22 caliber and Gunny said you could not kill anything with a 22
I'm not going to split hairs or rehash one of the oldest debates in the gun world about the 22

Must have miss read your post.
Thought you said "

7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.

What is 100 rounds now, $200.00 + bucks?

Close, about $150.00

500 rounds for 200.00 bucks for 5.56.

That;s not bad, do you reload?

 

[PredFan]

Thinking about buying a 22LR as well. Saw a good article about those being perfect survival weapons.

You can not kill shit with a 22.

Would that be like saying you can't kill anything with a .223/ 5.56?
Both are 22 calibers

Big difference. Those rounds rely on hydrostatic shock to kill.
But you can most definitely drop a deer with a .22.

Yes I know that but 223 is a 22 caliber and Gunny said you could not kill anything with a 22
I'm not going to split hairs or rehash one of the oldest debates in the gun world about the 22

Must have miss read your post.
Thought you said "

7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.

What is 100 rounds now, $200.00 + bucks?

Close, about $150.00

500 rounds for 200.00 bucks for 5.56.

That;s not bad, do you reload?

I reload 30-06, 44 Magnum, 223, 32 H&L Magnum, and 25 ACP. I don't yet own anything that shoots 7.62

My 44 Mag:

 

[Moonglow]

I reload shotgun, shelled and cast ball.. I have a hard time keeping gunpowder though, I like to blowed it up more than shoot it and make home made canons...

 

[MXdad]

What is 100 rounds now, $200.00 + bucks?

I assume you meant 1000 rounds not 100. If so the last 7.62X39 I picked up was around $220 for 1000 but that was on a deal for 4K rounds. I usually see it for around $250 per 1000

 

[WinterBorn]

Fewer calibers means more ammo.
7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.
Same as with 5.56
But what I try to do is have one caliber that will work with a hand gun and rifle
45 ACP comes to mind.
You can get this caliber in revolver, semi automatic handgun, lever action rifle or bolt action and semi automatic rifle..

I would think there were calibers better suited to multiple guns. The .45ACP can be fired in revolvers if you use the half moon clips, and I have not seen a lever action or bolt action in .45ACP.

 

[WinterBorn]

Meh, I'm still thinking about buying one. The are pretty cheap too.

Buy a Ruger 10/22. I have shot most varieties of .22 rifles, including hunting with more than a few. I think the 10/22 is the best .22 for the money on the market. It will take abuse, keep working, and be as accurate as you need a .22 to be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fewer calibers means more ammo.
7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.
Same as with 5.56
But what I try to do is have one caliber that will work with a hand gun and rifle
45 ACP comes to mind.
You can get this caliber in revolver, semi automatic handgun, lever action rifle or bolt action and semi automatic rifle..

I would think there were calibers better suited to multiple guns. The .45ACP can be fired in revolvers if you use the half moon clips, and I have not seen a lever action or bolt action in .45ACP.

Bolt action .45ACP Armalon-Sarony Enfield b a PC rifle
You may be right about the lever action because I may have confused the .357 mag lever action with a search FOR A 45 ACP. the one I thought I had found years ago had a detachable magazine But can't seem to locate now

 

[whitehall]

What concept are we dealing with here? Collectors might collect one caliber or examples of every caliber. People who enjoy shooting might stick to a shotgun or a .22 or they might collect every caliber they can find. When you talk about an "arsenal" and stockpiles and a massive bulk of ammo you have gone beyond shooting sports and collecting and are entering a different world.

 

[Politico]

The crazies on the survival forums and such rant about caliber this and that. And the 20 guns they won't be able to carry when they BO on foot with their BOB to get to their BOL after TEOTWAWKI. Survivalistboards is the most hilarious example. In the end caliber consolidation is best. That way if one weapon fails you have others that will fire the same ammunition.

Thinking about buying a 22LR as well. Saw a good article about those being perfect survival weapons.

You can not kill shit with a 22.

What a stupid comment.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have different calibers for different tasks. The idea of one caliber for both sidearm and rifle is great. But it means compromising the abilities of each gun, especially the rifle.

 

[Missourian]

I have many employees, some of whom are enthusiasts like myself. Recent conversations with some of them prompted this post.

I hear so often that people want to buy this caliber or that caliber, to "add" to their arsenal.

I disagree.

My philosophy is different. I suggest to them, that accumulating calibers is not the ideal thing, but instead the accumulation of ammo is the thing to do. In other words, I'd rather have multiple 45s with a massive bulk of ammos, rather than multiple caliber weapons with few or no stockpile of ammo.

The point is, ammo is the key, not the number of calibers one might possess.

Depends.

As a hunter, I need a battery of different calibers for different circumstances, situations, game sizes and distances.

A .22lr is a terrific squirrel round...out to 75-100 yards.

Want to hunt longer distances...you'll need a .17hmr.

A 30/30 is about the greatest brush gun for whitetails in history...but it's range is limited to 150 yard...want to hunt longer range, you'll need a 243, or a .270.

Elk and moose...brush gun 45-70...longer range, at a minimum 30-06...and likely a 7mm rem mag.

Great bear country...458 win mag, 375 H&H or a 338 win mag, among a few others, needs to find a home in your battery.

So, while I agree that SOME ammo stockpiling (.22lr, .223 rem, 7.62x39, 9mm and 44 win mag) is recommended...they really cannot do it all.

 

[Missourian]

Fewer calibers means more ammo.
7.62X39 is cheap ammo you can accumulate tens of thousand rounds in no time.
Same as with 5.56
But what I try to do is have one caliber that will work with a hand gun and rifle
45 ACP comes to mind.
You can get this caliber in revolver, semi automatic handgun, lever action rifle or bolt action and semi automatic rifle..

I would think there were calibers better suited to multiple guns. The .45ACP can be fired in revolvers if you use the half moon clips, and I have not seen a lever action or bolt action in .45ACP.

Me either...there are some 45LCs out there though.

 

[Missourian]

I have different calibers for different tasks. The idea of one caliber for both sidearm and rifle is great. But it means compromising the abilities of each gun, especially the rifle.

I've mulled this over...I just don't see the advantage of the most popular handgun chambered rifle offerings...357 and 44.

Instead, I've kicked around purchasing a Rossi Ranch Hand Mare's Leg style 44 Mag lever action "handgun" in lieu of the pistol/rifle combination...short enough to be handgun-esque, and long enough to be rifle like.

Have to shoot one first...see how much of a compromise it actually is...

 

[WinterBorn]

I think t

I have different calibers for different tasks. The idea of one caliber for both sidearm and rifle is great. But it means compromising the abilities of each gun, especially the rifle.

I've mulled this over...I just don't see the advantage of the most popular handgun chambered rifle offerings...357 and 44.

Instead, I've kicked around purchasing a Rossi Ranch Hand Mare's Leg style 44 Mag lever action "handgun" in lieu of the pistol/rifle combination...short enough to be handgun-esque, and long enough to be rifle like.

Have to shoot one first...see how much of a compromise it actually is...

he Mares Leg is cool, but I have not figured out how you would aim it well. Not without bringing it up to your shoulder and it being very awkward. I tried holding one out like I would a handgun, and it felt very strange and unsteady.

 

[Missourian]

I've mulled this over...I just don't see the advantage of the most popular handgun chambered rifle offerings...357 and 44.

Instead, I've kicked around purchasing a Rossi Ranch Hand Mare's Leg style 44 Mag lever action "handgun" in lieu of the pistol/rifle combination...short enough to be handgun-esque, and long enough to be rifle like.

Have to shoot one first...see how much of a compromise it actually is...

I think the Mares Leg is cool, but I have not figured out how you would aim it well. Not without bringing it up to your shoulder and it being very awkward. I tried holding one out like I would a handgun, and it felt very strange and unsteady.

Shame you couldn't add that two inches that would make it comfortable to shoulder. Short Barrel Rifle laws should be struck from the regulations. They never made a lick of sense.

 

[WinterBorn]

I've mulled this over...I just don't see the advantage of the most popular handgun chambered rifle offerings...357 and 44.

Instead, I've kicked around purchasing a Rossi Ranch Hand Mare's Leg style 44 Mag lever action "handgun" in lieu of the pistol/rifle combination...short enough to be handgun-esque, and long enough to be rifle like.

Have to shoot one first...see how much of a compromise it actually is...

I think the Mares Leg is cool, but I have not figured out how you would aim it well. Not without bringing it up to your shoulder and it being very awkward. I tried holding one out like I would a handgun, and it felt very strange and unsteady.

Shame you couldn't add that two inches that would make it comfortable to shoulder. Short Barrel Rifle laws should be struck from the regulations. They never made a lick of sense.

I agree. The laws make no sense and basically do nothing.

 

[Tresha91203]

I haven't owned a firearm in a while, but I was like you are, wanting both the same caliber. I went with the .22. Great for squirrel and rabbit, which are plentiful here in Louisiana. The 243, not so much because head shots are hard.

For defense, I gave up a bit, but figured I'd empty it anyway. About the largest game we have around here is whitetail. I'd likely not take him down, myself. The thing for me is that I was comfortable firing both the rifle and the handgun. Mentally, I felt good with them. The bullets were plentiful and dirt cheap, so could practice a lot and got good.

This was both during the Y2K hoopla and a serial rapist around here. I felt confident I could feed myself and fend off an attacker.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have many employees, some of whom are enthusiasts like myself. Recent conversations with some of them prompted this post.

I hear so often that people want to buy this caliber or that caliber, to "add" to their arsenal.

I disagree.

My philosophy is different. I suggest to them, that accumulating calibers is not the ideal thing, but instead the accumulation of ammo is the thing to do. In other words, I'd rather have multiple 45s with a massive bulk of ammos, rather than multiple caliber weapons with few or no stockpile of ammo.

The point is, ammo is the key, not the number of calibers one might possess.

I think part of this depends on why you buy firearms. I know several people who buy with an eye towards survivalist ideas. There is nothing wrong with that.

But I have been shooting since I was 8 or 9. I have been buying, trading and inheriting guns since I was old enough to do so on my own. I bought some guns for specific hunting needs. I bought some because I liked the gun. I bought some because I liked the caliber. The idea that I would have to choose only one or two goes against my grain. I have some that I might like more, but I want more guns in more calibers, not less. Overall, I probably have as much ammo as most people. I just have a greater variety. Looking to pare down my guns to 1 or 2 would mean a great deal of compromising on performance. I can afford to shoot my .22s far more. But none of them will come close to what my .308 can do as far as accuracy at ranges. My .308 won't hold a candle to my 12 gauge or my M1911 for home defense.

I like having a decent number of firearms, and ammo for them all. Rather than having 5,000 rounds for one gun, I'll take 500 rounds for ten guns. I have the same number of shots, but can do better at the specific tasks I ask of my guns.