FerFal wrote a post on first guns. To be honest I sort of hate this kind of hypothetical stuff but somehow keep coming back to it. Everybody should get at least a good centerfire pistol, a pump shotgun, a centerfire rifle and some sort of .22. I suggest a Glock, a Remington 870, an AR and a Ruger 10/22. Having bought them I am fully aware these are not cheap guns. Matter of factly I believe almost all people (its tough if you are truly disabled and on a small pension, etc) would be well advised to get quality modern firearms like the ones I named above. Scrimping, saving and working extra hours to get good guns sucks (I once worked full time over Christmas Break to get an AR) but you will not regret it in the long run. Guns aren't the place to scrimp and try to save a few bucks. Commander Zero wrote a great post on this awhile back.
To not get too focused on debating this gun vs that gun really the possible combination are almost endless and provided you stick to common caliber (.38/.357mag, 9mm, .45acp for pistols and .223, 7.62x39, 30-30, .308, 30-06 for rifles of course 20 and 12 gauge for shotguns) firearms in common model/manufacturers (S&W, Ruger, H&K, Glock, Sig, Colt, Browning, Winchester, Mossberg, Remington, Marlin, AR, Mini-14, AK, FN-FAL, HK-91, M1A, etc all) you will probably do fine.
You need a centerfire pistol for carry and generally being discretely armed. Shotguns are probably the king of home defense and generally a great utilitarian gun to have (we will talk more about them later). Rifles are useful for hunting, plinking, and really the only decent option to shoot just about anything past about 100 meters. I think everyone should also have a .22 (I would suggest it be a rifle) because they are so darn useful and dirt cheap to shoot. These 4 guns will not deal with every possible situation in hunting, plinking and potential defense. The rifle you want if things to truly to hell is almost invariably a magazine fed semi automatic and not the one you would want to hunt Moose with and it might be convenient to get a subcompact carry pistol for EDC. I suggest these 4 basic guns because they will be good for most situations in defense, plinking and sport and are the foundation of any good home firearms battery.
However what would be best for people to get while they are on their way to this basic 4 is part of the question at hand.
I used to say a shotgun but FerFal's wisdom changed my mind. Some folks say a rifle but I think they are more wrong than the shotgun crowd. The thinking behind a pistol is that it is the only weapon you can have with you all the time without being arrested or causing a scene. Also you can answer the door or investigate that strange sound outside armed without giving Granny Smith your neighbor a heat attack. A shotgun is probably better strictly for home defense and a rifle might be better for a genuine TEOTWAWKI but both fail to take into account far more realistic and probable situations.
Shotguns for home defense also came up in the post which inspired this one. I am not saying that a pump shotgun is a talisman. No matter what any add says or infers no gun is going to turn you into a Grizzled Master Sergeant from CAG, sorry. I honestly believe the best all around gun for home defense is a short barreled pump shotgun. Mossberg and Remington are the best options since Winchester kicked the bucket. Some have noted that shotguns hold a relatively small amount of ammunition @5-9 shells and used that for a reason either pistols or rifles are better for home defense. I would mention that the average gunfight is a couple rounds at spitting distance but well we plan for the worst not the best or average. Shotguns are better for home defense than pistols for many reasons. First without getting really far into the weeds on ballistics and round selection I don't think anyone has ever seriously questioned the man stopping power of 12 (or for that matter 20) gauge shotguns loaded with buckshot. Someone who takes a load of buckshot to the torso is probably going to be out of action very quickly or at lest as quickly as any other weapon we are discussing.
The other fact which I think mitigates the relatively low capacity of shotguns is that most people shoot them far better than pistols. No matter what anyone says you have to aim shotguns to hit anything. The reason I say people shoot them better is that the combination of being on your shoulder and a good cheek to stock makes shooting much more intuitive and easy. Take a bunch of folks to the range and have them shoot at a variety of targets at defensive ranges with a pistol and a shotgun, bet almost all of them will do better with a shotgun.
This has turned into a really long post and I am just getting to the actual new unique thought. The just get a pistol and a rifle idea (or getting them first in priority) has popped up here and there from time to time. To be honest I can only see two situations where it makes sense. The first is if you want/ need a rifle and space is really limited (living on a boat, etc). The second is if you had a rifle already, bought a pistol and are waiting till you have the cash for a shotgun. Lastly maybe for whatever reason you just really don't want to have a shotgun, can't see why you wouldn't want a dozen of them but different strokes for different folks.
The reason most people don't just decide they need some guns and go to the store to pick up a Glock, a Remington 870, an AR, and a Ruger 10/22 is that they cannot afford to do so. Guns, particularly modern quality guns are expensive. Really the only reason this comes up at all is that it takes lots of folks some time to save and scrimp together enough cash to get a nice basic firearms battery.
The reason I believe a rifle as a second gun (after a pistol) is a bad course of action is not so much about the individual attributes of shotguns vs rifles but is all about economics. You can buy good used Mossberg or (to a slightly lesser degree) Remington pump shotguns for less than $175 all day long until you run out of cash or get bored. These days you can't touch an AK for much less than $450ish and once you get 20 mags at about $9 a piece the cost goes up considerably. An AR which wasn't made in somebodies basement is going to cost at least $700 or more depending on how name centric you are. Mags cost about $12 for Mil Spec and a bit more for MagPul. I don't even want to talk about how much good semi auto .308's cost, the M1A I want and will some day get is going to cost about a pound of flesh.
For a shotgun all the accessories you need are a sling, a buttstock shotshell carrier. Plus of course ammo. You can get a good shotgun with its needed accessories for less than you will spend on rifle mags alone! Shotguns are far cheaper than quality defensive rifles and thus you can have a long gun and a pistol far sooner by going the shotgun route. This way you will be as well armed as possible while saving up enough coin to get a rifle.
Here is where someone is going to mention surplus bolt guns. I covered my opinions above but lets reiterate as it applies to the long gun for defense. Yes some older style and WWI-II surplus rifles can be purchased for much less than modern quality rifles such AK's and AR's or various .308's but they are almost universally a horrible choice for defense particularly inside the home or in close quarters. They are big and heavy/ cumbersome, slow to reload and a potentially deadly choice given the potential for multiple adversaries in close quarters. For someone married to the idea of a close quarters defensive rifle without the desire to get something semi automatic (and probably mag fed) I would suggest a lever action 30-30 as they are relatively cheap, compact, fast to reload and generally the best of the undesirable options in this range.
In conclusion I think it is smart to buy a defensive pistol, pump shotgun, centerfire rifle and a .22. I believe quality modern guns are worth the money and that most people should make the choices necessary to get them. For those who have no guns buying a defensive pistol first and a pump shotgun second is IMO the best course of action with a centerfire rifle and a .22 to follow at a later date when funds allow.
Thoughts?
Looking for New Customers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
I agree with your ideas here. If someone lives in a place where they can keep a pistol either on their person (CCW) or in their car all the time, pistol is really the ideal first choice firearm.
Take for example my current situation, recently sold off my defense pistol with the intention of upgrading. Now I find myself with just a shotgun. Of course when I'm at home that's dandy, but now whenever I leave the house I feel naked.
bottom line, purchase order should be pistol > shotgun > rifle
My Model200 & Model 1300 Defender are still quite ALIVE!
Adam, While I would never suggest someone break the law I can note that if they were to say travel to somewhere that carry was legal a pistol owner could be discretely armed.
Seems like your no pistol situation is pretty temporary and will soon be rectified. Out of curiosity what did you sell and what do you plan to get?
The ability to be armed is a good thing.
Stephen, Tis true. Maybe I didn't quite say what I meant on that subject. I am not suggesting every American who owns a Winchester shotgun should get rid of them any more than I would suggest the millions of Americans who own their 30-30's or Model 70 series rifles do the same. My point was that for someone looking to buy a shotgun Mossberg or Remington are pretty much the two good options these days. Winchesters are currently costing 1.5-3x as much as an equally functional Remington or Mossberg in comparable condition because of a lack of supply. Over time spare parts will become less available and more expensive which will become an issue.
I think that a concealable handgun is absolutely the first purchase. The ability to carry any time nearly anywhere is by far more important than anything else. And if TEOFTWAWKI never happens is still a good investment for general crime.
After that it becomes more debatable. However, I tend to agree with you simply because I don't see the world ending to the point that one could get away with shooting people at distance anyway. Good luck explaining that as self defense. Home defense is the second most likely scenario one would need to be armed for. And I agree with you a shotgun is a better choice in that regard.
However, the most obvious argument against it is the spread of the shot vs the single trajectory of a bullet and collateral damage. Sure its far more likely to hit the target your aiming at. Its also far more likely to hit more than just the target.
Chris, My main point with a shotgun over a rifle was economics. As for the spread of shot and collateral damage I would say that buckshot shot doesn't spread all that much at home defense ranges. One inch of spread per yard of distance is a general rule. I think when you look at collateral damage the penetration of rifles is a bigger issue than the potential for a few pieces of shot missing. If the concept of shot somehow still scares you just go with slugs.
CHRIS FROM AK...
I'd like to suggest one alternative twist instead of a glock and an AR. I think a .357 revolver and .357 lever gun (such as the Marlin 1894C) works pretty well for many situations.
Revolvers are simple to operate and better tolerate adverse conditions or lack of MX. These qualities make them great for new shooters. Later on, a .38 special snubbie can be acquired for better CCW and it will all use the same ammo.
Lever guns are easy to operate and you can pick up an 1894C relatively inexpensively. If you are ever involved in a defensive shooting, the lever gun will look a hell of a lot better to the jury (looks like Grandpa's deer rifle) than a "Scary Black Rifle." Again, the lever mechanism is simple enough for a new shooter to easily disassemble it.
Both of these weapons share a common type of ammo, also helpful. The .357 cartridge -- especially out of a carbine -- is capable for taking medium game as well. With hard cast buffalo bore ammo a .357 might give you a chance against even larger predators (perhaps up to black bear in size) or heavy cover.
The main limitation I see is that you are limited to ~100 yards. However, I think you'd have a hard time getting a defensive shooting beyond that range to fly in any situation where law and order is still intact.
The other downside is smaller capacity for the wheelgun vs. a semiauto.
Chris from AK, Admittedly choice of guns is pretty personal and there are a lot of right answers. I like and own .38/.357mag revolvers. I don't believe that any stock wheel gun can put up with the abuse a Glock can. As for being easier to shoot than Glocks I am not so sure. You have to manually load the chamber in an auto and have to be able to clear a (very rare) malfunction but other than that they are both point and click operations.
The biggest issue with the pistol caliber carbine is that they are very anemic and thus wanting in terms of power and seriously wanting in terms of range. They offer a bit more energy than the same round in a pistol because of additional barrel length but just do not compare with rifle cartridges. While nice to have around these do not fill the rifle niche and thus would be a very poor choice for someone who is only going to own (at least for awhile) one rifle.
Being able to have a big heavy .357magnum and a little snubby .38 that are compatible for ammo is sure nice.
Buying two types of ammo isn't that hard and is well worth having a rifle powered rifle.
Chris from AK, I think stopping power and capacity are the big benefits for a rifle for potential home defense. Range is just in case everything goes to hell.....
Thanks for the contribution.
I personally pretty much went your suggested route when I got into guns.
Started with a Mossberg 500 with both a standard and 18.5 defender barrel. I've since added a rifled barrel, so I can reach out and touch something (someone) well past 100 yds. with sabot slugs.
I then got an SW 686P (.357 mag, 7 shot) for more home defense and portability. Another consideration was that my wife just doesn't shoot enough to be comfortable with a semi-auto. The wheel guns are much more easily operated.
Added a Henry Survival rifle in .22lr, and a Kel-tec SU16ca carbine in 5.56mm.
Then I went shit-crazy and bought all kinds of semi-auto handguns (I'm a Glock lover, as well), more wheel guns, a 10/22 and more shotguns (I'm now an 870 lover over the Mossberg).
I'm torn about getting a bigger bore rifle. I just have difficulty envisioning a realistic scenario where I'll need one. That may change, but for now, I'm leaning towards a lever rifle chambered in .357mag.
TOM, Seems like a good collection to me. I also got a Mossberg 500 first. Like the 870 a lot better myself also. No plan to sell my Mossberg but future pump shotguns will be Remington 870's.
Rifles are sort of a good thing to have around. I agree it would have to be a pretty dark scenario for a rifle to be truly useful though they came into use during the LA Riots and Katrina. You could always zero it and put it in a case that says "In case of Zombie apocalypse break glass"
I recall you mentioning liking lever action rifles not too long ago. I would suggest you think hard on what a pistol caliber long gun will actually add to your collection. A 30-30 is a real rifle with a variety of bullet weights and the Marlins (really the only option for new ones since Win is RIP) are easy to scope which might be a plus. Given California's laws aside from maybe an M1 Garand I can't think of a better rifle to have than a lever action 30-30.
The AR is a fine rifle but if I could only have ONE rifle it would be a hunting caliber rifle, even if that was an AR variation. AR's are probably the most popular rifle at the clubs I belong to. Sadly most of those AR's only see time at the range and never make it into the field. I believe a HUGE part of being a competent rifleman is experience with ones chosen weapon in the field. Hunting is an excellent way to develop skills in a wide variety of conditions and circumstances. It'll also let you know if all those tacti-cool doo dads are worth packing around in cold, rainy and grimy conditions.
@Other Mike S --
I'm in a similar situation as far as centerfire "true" rifles go...
Like the OP I eventually want to get a true semiauto battle rifle (Garand, M14, etc). I can't justify dropping the money on on a semiauto now but <$100 for a Mosin Nagant that I can also use for hunting is a reasonable expense.
At close ranges I see a lever gun or scattergun as being quite adequate, and I assess short ranges being "most likely," so that's where I dropped most of my resources up front.
(from AK)
@Ryan,
One additional advantage of the .357 lever gun is the fact that they are quite ambidextrous. My wife is a lefty and I'm a righty so its nice to have controls that work equally well for both of us.
I personally prefer the .357 lever gun to a 30-30. It is a highly versatile round:
- Light .38 special "Cowboy Action" loads for cheap and plentiful target shooting/practice or for small game hunting.
- Shot shells for snakes or other small pests.
- Quality .38 special defensive ammo for two legged predators.
- Quality .357 hunting loads for mid-sized game up to deer or maybe elk.
- CORBON or Buffalo Bore heavy .357 loads for some effectiveness against bear/wild boar sized critters.
Recoil is quite manageable with all of the above loads, even the heavy CORBONs that kick a bit in the revolver.
Sharing ammo with my sidearm is a great plus for my specific situation:
- I am military, and its really hard to move ammo from one duty station to another.
- Additionally, up in AK, its really hard to get a good deal on ammo, so being able to stock deep in one caliber via mail order is important.
- AK is cold. I can shoot the pistol calibers at an indoor range. I cannot shoot .223 indoors.
So, minimizing calibers stocked is important to my situation.
Of course, the wife went and decided she really liked the S&W M&P .40 so now I am stocking .40 SW... :-P
If minimizing calibers isn't such a big deal then glock + AR/AK may be a better plan. The only real downside I see to the .357 though is limitations beyond 100 yards. I don't think most folks will have cause to engage out past 100 yards though.
Chris from AK, To be honest I do not think a pistol caliber carbine fills the rifle niche. As for moving ammo I have done it and it sucks but the issues are size and weight of said ammo not caliber. As for purchasing it is easy enough to click on two types of ammo online. I don't think the benefits of the same caliber cancel out the fact that it is not a rifle.
I like lever action RIFLES and shotguns a lot. Will have to check out the difference in performance between 30-30win and .357mag this evening.
MO, You have a good point there. For someone who hunts big game and is just going to have one rifle it will need to be in a big game caliber. However my advice would be that if they pick up a second rifle it should be the opposite (semi auto or bolt/ lever action hunting).
Post a Comment