Weapon/Ammo Philosophy

[Camarozz]

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:

Nice, and I was going to mention reloading. Even reloading 9mm I can save abou 30%, obviously .22lr is not on my list to reload, but it should be back before too much longer.

My 45 colt round goes from about $.80/round to $.18/round which makes it much more enjoyable to take to the range.

 

[Moonglow]

The ammo producing plants are finally catching up with demand. I am hoping the price comes down..a little..

 

[Camarozz]

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.

Ive seen a guy talk about having his .45 colt lever action be machined for .45acp.

 

[Camarozz]

The ammo producing plants are finally catching up with demand. I am hoping the price comes down..a little..

Yeah, Im anticipating the ammo will stay about the same now. But here's to hoping.

 

[Youch]

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 see it a bit different, as I use different tools for different jobs. The majority of the time my carry weapon is one of my .40s but I have 9mm, .45, .357,.22 in hand guns that I like to walk outside to the range and shoot. For hunting I keep a varied selection for where and what I am hunting. Then I have ARs for varmints and the range then my fav SKS so I end up with an assortment. Usually when I go out to my range I end up with 5-7 different calibers because I can't choose one

Perhaps the definition of "multiple" wasn't agreed upon. I agree with your post. I guess my point was more toward the dude who has to have a 9mm, a .45acp, a .357, a .40, a .44, etc...

I agree with you. I have multiple calibers, but only 1-2 per application. Example: pistol= .45 and a conceal carry LCP (.380), and everyone should have a revolver, mine, a S&W .357 (requiring the accumulation of two different calibers). Rifle= 5.56 (a few, for the fam), and a 30 cal. Two shotguns, one tactical, one for hunting. Then my 7.62x39 Zastava, which is.....well, anyone who knows already knows. My point is/was, why would I want more pistol calibers? Why would I want another revolver caliber? Why does a person want more than a good .30 caliber and an AR rifle? Look, I know there is the "collection" motive and the "hoard" motive and the enticing appeal of the "must have" addiction....I get it in spades!! But in terms of need vs. wise preparedness, I suggest that the accumulation of ammo over calibers is the key to economic and strategic accumulation.

The genesis of this thread was a conversation I had with an employee who insisted I must get a Glock 19, a 9mm pistol. I had to ask myself, why? If I was a collector for collection sake, then perhaps....otherwise, I'd rather just buy more ammo for what I got.

But, to each their own.... $$ and space being a big factor, of course!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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 see it a bit different, as I use different tools for different jobs. The majority of the time my carry weapon is one of my .40s but I have 9mm, .45, .357,.22 in hand guns that I like to walk outside to the range and shoot. For hunting I keep a varied selection for where and what I am hunting. Then I have ARs for varmints and the range then my fav SKS so I end up with an assortment. Usually when I go out to my range I end up with 5-7 different calibers because I can't choose one

Perhaps the definition of "multiple" wasn't agreed upon. I agree with your post. I guess my point was more toward the dude who has to have a 9mm, a .45acp, a .357, a .40, a .44, etc...

I agree with you. I have multiple calibers, but only 1-2 per application. Example: pistol= .45 and a conceal carry LCP (.380), and everyone should have a revolver, mine, a S&W .357 (requiring the accumulation of two different calibers). Rifle= 5.56 (a few, for the fam), and a 30 cal. Two shotguns, one tactical, one for hunting. Then my 7.62x39 Zastava, which is.....well, anyone who knows already knows. My point is/was, why would I want more pistol calibers? Why would I want another revolver caliber? Why does a person want more than a good .30 caliber and an AR rifle? Look, I know there is the "collection" motive and the "hoard" motive and the enticing appeal of the "must have" addiction....I get it in spades!! But in terms of need vs. wise preparedness, I suggest that the accumulation of ammo over calibers is the key to economic and strategic accumulation.

The genesis of this thread was a conversation I had with an employee who insisted I must get a Glock 19, a 9mm pistol. I had to ask myself, why? If I was a collector for collection sake, then perhaps....otherwise, I'd rather just buy more ammo for what I got.

But, to each their own.... $$ and space being a big factor, of course!

In times of peace and prosperity collect all the firearms you want in any caliber you want.
In a shit hits the fan situation I'd have a 9mm. and a 5.56 a .22 and a 12 gauge because of the availability of ammo. Other than that,I have no use for a 9mm.

 

[Youch]

In times of peace and prosperity collect all the firearms you want in any caliber you want.
In a shit hits the fan situation I'd have a 9mm. and a 5.56 a .22 and a 12 gauge because of the availability of ammo. Other than that,I have no use for a 9mm.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Ellipsis]

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.

Do you let them carry at work?

 

[Roadrunner]

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

Everyone should have at least one .22 rifle, and one .22 handgun.

Ammo is still outrageously priced though, and, not always available nowadays.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Killled a lot of deer, some at fair ranges, with the .44 Mag Handi Rifle.

I guess that is as good a calibre as there is, for both rifle and handgun.

You can load a fairly potent shot cartridge in .44 too.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

It is illegal to shoot squirrels with a centerfire rifle in LA.

The.22 Hornet is not even legal for small game.

 

[Dan Daly]

You can not kill shit with a 22.

Many an assassin would disagree, Gunny.

 

[Dan Daly]

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.

Functionally, job one is to have the right tool(s) for the job(s). While having the same ammo for all those tools would be optimal, it's not always practical.

 

[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.

It is illegal to shoot squirrels with a centerfire rifle in LA.

The.22 Hornet is not even legal for small game.

It wasn't 15 years ago, or no one paid attention. Every house in LaSalle Parish had a .22 at the door and a good squirrel hunting dog was very popular. If it was illegal, no one knew it. Like I said, I haven't owned a firearm in a while, and I'm in a city now.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

It is illegal to shoot squirrels with a centerfire rifle in LA.

The.22 Hornet is not even legal for small game.

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.

It is illegal to shoot squirrels with a centerfire rifle in LA.

The.22 Hornet is not even legal for small game.

It wasn't. Every house in LaSalle Parish had a .22 at the door and a good squirrel hunting dog was very popular. If it was illegal, no one knew it. Like I said, I haven't owned a firearm in a while, and I'm in a city now.

A .22 is a rimfire. In other words legal when shooting squirrels in LA.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

It is illegal to shoot squirrels with a centerfire rifle in LA.

The.22 Hornet is not even legal for small game.

It wasn't 15 years ago, or no one paid attention. Every house in LaSalle Parish had a .22 at the door and a good squirrel hunting dog was very popular. If it was illegal, no one knew it. Like I said, I haven't owned a firearm in a while, and I'm in a city now.

A .22 is a rimfire round. It has to do with the primer that ignites the power in the cartridge.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

i have killed lots of things with a 22

 

[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.

i have killed lots of things with a 22

I've..uh..seen deer dropped with a .22 many times.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Most people have just the 2 hands. So how many guns seems like a good idea?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

More guns and more ammo doesn't make you any safer. Getting good with 1 .357 magnum wheelgun makes you as safe as you're gonna get.