Best SHTF Scenario Firearm?

[Kelley]

I just started a prepper business. If I do well, I am getting my FFL as well.

As for my favorite SHTF firearm. I would say a 22 rifle of some sort. Ammo is cheap and it has many uses.

My Ruger KP345 is my protection weapon... but I really don't recommend it. While it is not bad, it has for more safety mechanisms than needed. I chose it because I am new to guns, and felt it would be safer until I got used to handling them.

Still, it is not a bad gun, and only cost me 350.

My next gun will be a simple Mossberg 500... and after that, a Ruger .38 Revolver.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

FYI - it is perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons (to include the M249 SAW) in the United States. I've been suprised in the past at how many people don't know this. You have to fill out a shitload of paperwork, background investigations, fees, etc with the ATF. I don't feel like finding all the sources and forms again, but you can google it to find out which forms you need, and what all is involved.

Of course, most people here probably wouldn't want to go through the extensive orifice check the feds are going to put you through to obtain the license.......or be on "The List".

The big problem with even bothering to own a legal fully automatic weapon, is they will use any excuse that they can to harass you.

[Brent McKaskell]

Anderson: "FYI - it is perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons (to include the M249 SAW) in the United States."

Well, okay. Good to know that. Offhand, just what is the cut-off point for being legally allowed to own "exotic" weapons? I hear all kinds of opinions, as you might expect. On the one hand, I hear a lot of talk about the government taking away our gun-ownership rights, and then I hear it's legal to own a M249. So, why would the US government bleat about "assault weapons" in such negative terms and then allow someone to own such a crowd-slaughterer as that? Rather contradictory, if you ask me.

Really, if the government went on TV, demonstrated the rapid-fire killing power of the M249, and then said, "We're outlawing this weapon for public use. Hope you folks can see why. After all, there's simply no reason for John Q. American to own one of these when there are plenty of other legal weapons out there that he can."

And you know? That sounds like a perfectly reasoned argument. After all, what does an American need with an M249? He can't argue to Mr. Government that he might "one day need it to wipe out gangs of looting, raping, and killing niggurz" because Mr. Government would simply reply that in the event of civil unrest, people's lives and property would be "secured" by National Guard troops, and so there's no valid argument justifying military-grade weapons in the hands of private gun owners.

So that begs the question: You say it's legal to own an M249 light machine gun - but why is it legal? Because if that is the case, then our government is far less draconian than a lot of WN's make out.

WHERE'S THE CUT-OFF POINT?

Is this weapon (below) legal for private citizens to own? I'd say not, but then, you might say otherwise. Gun laws are not my specialty.


Pictured: Mk19 rapid-fire grenade launcher

Mjodr said: "As for my favorite SHTF firearm. I would say a 22 rifle of some sort. Ammo is cheap and it has many uses."

In your area (Montana) you've the benefit of a largely-white, lightly populated region where massive street violence isn't likely. So a .22 pop-gun would suffice. But in an urban environment, trying to fend off rampaging hordes of armed niggurz and spics, your home (along with you) would probably be taken out quickly - unless you were packing heavy fire power.






.

[notmenomore]

Originally Posted by Brent McKaskell

WHERE'S THE CUT-OFF POINT?



.

The cut-off point can be found through study of the National Firearms Act of 1986 and the corresponding ATF regulations. It would benefit those interested in legal ownership of fully automatic firearms to gain some familiarity with the NFA.

Although it's true that anyone who can legally own a gun can usually obtain an ATF Form 4 (with the required tax stamp), allowing possession and ownership of an NFA firearm, it is likewise true that only firearms that were REGISTERED before the cutoff date in 1986 can be held by non-military, non-law enforcement individuals.

If you're a plain old civilian, then with a class 3 FFL (or the aforementioned Form 4) you can own registered NFA firearms. Unfortunately, unless and until Congress changes the law, no fully automatic (among numerous other criteria) firearm manufactured since 1986 can become registered. This (and the per transaction tax stamp) is the main reason for the ever increasing price of the smaller and smaller pile of available NFA firearms.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by notmenomore

The cut-off point can be found through study of the National Firearms Act of 1986 and the corresponding ATF regulations. It would benefit those interested in legal ownership of fully automatic firearms to gain some familiarity with the NFA.

Although it's true that anyone who can legally own a gun can usually obtain an ATF Form 4 (with the required tax stamp), allowing possession and ownership of an NFA firearm, it is likewise true that only firearms that were REGISTERED before the cutoff date in 1986 can be held by non-military, non-law enforcement individuals.

If you're a plain old civilian, then with a class 3 FFL (or the aforementioned Form 4) you can own registered NFA firearms. Unfortunately, unless and until Congress changes the law, no fully automatic (among numerous other criteria) firearm manufactured since 1986 can become registered. This (and the per transaction tax stamp) is the main reason for the ever increasing price of the smaller and smaller pile of available NFA firearms.

That sounds about right, without re-looking it up. One of the things, however, is using an ATF form 4, a person can buy and own, but never sell or transfer the firearm, unless it's to somebody with a class 3 FFL, if memory serves correct.

As far as the largest? I'm not sure. I know we have a friend of the family that has a fully restored and operational (to include the main gun) WW2 Sherman Tank. It looks pretty in his flower garden - litterally.

This is owned by a private individual.......here in the US. As far as this being the max (as the video claims) I don't know. There are collectors who have replica (and original) civil war cannons that are in working order, not to mention things like 81mm Mortars.

The 40mm Machine Gun!!! - YouTube

The 40mm Machine Gun!!! - YouTube

[Brent McKaskell]

I watched the video on the Bofors gun. According to the Russian host (who sounded just like Ensign Chekov on Star Trek)private citizens can own one. Wow, is all I can say. Is that true, Mr. Anderson? You would know.










.

[notmenomore]

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson

One of the things, however, is using an ATF form 4, a person can buy and own, but never sell or transfer the firearm, unless it's to somebody with a class 3 FFL, if memory serves correct.

That's my understanding also. Any transfer would have to be via a class 3 FFL and to another Form 4 holder. And another tax stamp each and every time. There are some specific areas of (partial) exceptions concerning inheritances/estates, and there are also different requirements when the owner/Form 4 holder is a corporation.

At one time I was interested enough in obtaining a Class 3 FFL to research some of the requirements. Afterwards, I lost all interest. Too damned complicated, and too much ATF looking always over the shoulder. Even if you're going to be totally, squeaky-clean legal, itz still a terrific amount of hassle for not much. It also is VERY expensive to shoot anything full auto.

[notmenomore]

There's much to be said for the humble .22 rifle: cheap and very lightweight ammo, a lightweight gun, and not too loud - especially with some of the slower ammo.

No doubt all have seen the gatling gun arrangement that uses two Ruger 10/22s. Using a couple 50 - 100 round drums, now available for the 10/22 and one of these rigs would enable a rather decent hail of fire, I'd think. Nothing like a .223 with one of the "bump-fire" stocks, but (again) not nearly so heavy or costly.

Me, I'll continue on with my Saiga 12. 12 & 20 round drums with 00 buck: itz probably as good a home defender as any...

[Roy Wagahuski]

Originally Posted by Kelley

My next gun will be a simple Mossberg 500... and after that, a Ruger .38 Revolver.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.ph...t_detail&p=111

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Brent McKaskell

I watched the video on the Bofors gun. According to the Russian host (who sounded just like Ensign Chekov on Star Trek)private citizens can own one. Wow, is all I can say. Is that true, Mr. Anderson? You would know.










.

The "Russian" thing is just an act, FYI. It's amusing, in small doses, however. As far as owning one, I don't see why not. It's pre 1986, but like others have said, the sheer amount of paperwork and invasive investigation by the feds usually turns most people off to the idea. Like I said, I have a friend of the family (heart surgeon) that has a fully operational Sherman Tank sitting in his flower garden.

[Kelley]

Originally Posted by Brent McKaskell

In your area (Montana) you've the benefit of a largely-white, lightly populated region where massive street violence isn't likely. So a .22 pop-gun would suffice. But in an urban environment, trying to fend off rampaging hordes of armed niggurz and spics, your home (along with you) would probably be taken out quickly - unless you were packing heavy fire power.

.

I chose to move here for a reason. To stay in negro dominated areas in that situation is idiotic anyway. Doesn't matter how armed you are when hordes are going after you. They know White people be gotten food and shit.

I was talking about many uses, from defense to hunting.

Also, if a 22 is the only firearm you have, well, that would be your fault.

This thread was for best gun for SHTF... not only gun for SHTF.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Kelley

I chose to move here for a reason. To stay in negro dominated areas in that situation is idiotic anyway. Doesn't matter how armed you are when hordes are going after you.

I was talking about many uses, from defense to hunting.

Also, if a 22 is the only firearm you have, well, that would be your fault.

This thread was for best gun for SHTF... not only gun for SHTF.

Don't hold your breath for a response.....he's been banned.

A .22lr - given a 100 round magazine, and fully automatic - well - it could lay down a lot of lead very quickly. And while the .22lr would be my preferred weapon for a zombie apocalypse (2 rounds would effectively destroy the brain) - I wouldn't necessarily want it for my only SHTF weapon. A back up/survival weapon for sure - but I wouldn't want to trust my life to it. The same exact reason I wouldn't want a .223/5.56mm. Just too small of a round for man stopping, IMO.

[Roy Wagahuski]

You know why the debate is unending? Because there is no objectively 'best' gun.

Penn and Teller bullshit "The Best" - YouTube

Penn and Teller bullshit "The Best" - YouTube

[notmenomore]

Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski

You know why the debate is unending? Because there is no objectively 'best' gun.

Penn and Teller bullshit "The Best" - YouTube

Works for me.

[Mr A.Anderson]

Originally Posted by notmenomore

Works for me.

Indeed. Too many variables. Urban/Rural. Offensive/Defensive. There are so many situations that one can think of that are relevant to their own personal situation, there really is no "one single" answer to the question. That's what is so great about discussing it.

You can really get an appreciation for everybody's opinion. Most of us can't think beyond our own personal experiances or expectations. Discussions like this can make us think outside of our own little box of parameters.

If nothing else, it can lead us to our "secondary" weapon of choice based on somebody else's situation.

[keifer]

I will say it again, for most americans the answer for survival begins and ends with the fire arm. So little attention is paid to what all is involved between those perimeters. Which firearm for which situation rather than how much water for what situation. An undressed AR15 with 30 rounds weighs 2-3 pounds less than a gallon of water. My big bore battle rifle with stainless barrel and just ten rounds tops out at 13 pounds. My full house stainless battle pistol is no feather weight either. From experience, I know based on my personal conditions that I sacrifice a significant amount of water buy choosing the bigger rifle over the the AR. That would amount to about three days worth of water If I were in a static activity situation and protection from the elements. The bigger the firearm the bigger and heavier the the work load and the lesser number of rounds that can be carried. Ya gotta survive before you can fight. There will always be something worth while that is negotiated away when choosing any fire arm.
I will choose water over ammo anytime for the simple fact that dehydration is my first and foremost enemy in any scenario. So, before you head off to the gun show with that tax refund ask yourself two questions. How much water can you carry and expect to consume under the most extreme conditions relative to your living environment. Then ask the same question to the weakest member of your party/group rather they are a child/wife or elderly person. It just so happens that the weakest member of my group is my wife who has a deep resume in medical. It would be worth it to have to carry her share of water even if she were not my wife.

I say this with a certin amount of reservation but, you can have your M60 strapped to your back, and I'll take a five gallons of water strapped to an ALICE pack and we will see who lives longer.

If you have to rely on a firearm for survival then I am sorry to say but you're not going to make it.

[M.N. Dalvez]

It's the rule of 3s - you can live:

3 hours without shelter/warmth
3 days without water
3 weeks without food

... if the preceding conditions are met. So your point about the opportunity cost of carrying the biggest/heaviest weapons was well made, I think.

[Roy Wagahuski]

Who doesn't keep secret underground caches throughout his region, he is left wanting.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Not everyone lives in a setting which allows then to do so, unfortunately. (I'm relatively lucky, I have my own house and land.)

[Roy Wagahuski]

If you're too un-daring to bury treasure off your property, that's too bad.