In an email from an outdoor retailer, I received this article about what the author regards as the ultimate SHTF gun.
I read it and started thinking "WTF?"
Here's why: First off, let's quickly dispense with the point about .22LR ammunition being plentiful. I'm guessing that Our Correspondent hasn't been inside of a gun shop recently. The only .22 stuff I routinely see on the shelves in any quantity is Eley target, which is more expensive than W-W "white box" .38 Specials.
Second, Our Correspondent admits that what he wanted was a Freedom Arms .22 revolver with a Trijicon ACOG sight. That's a revolver with a MSRP of $2,270 and a sight that costs another grand on top of it. Which gives you an idea of what he is playing with for costs.
So what does he go with? A Ruger MkIII Hunter (MSRP $679), $324 in tools to fix the gun, and $946.50 in parts to tune it up the way he wants. Close to two grand, and that's before smaller costs, such as a few bulk boxes of shells and some extra magazines.
So what would I go for?
First off, I'll accept the point that stainless steel is preferable for a low-maintenance situation. And if the situation is such where you don't want to be seen openly carrying, a long-barred .22 automatic with an optic mounted on top seems kind of, well, counterintuitive.
So what would I prescribe? Something cheap, reasonably durable, and more than one of them. And a revolver, which means that you're not losing magazines. You could buy three Taurus 94s or Charter Arms Pathfinders for what Our Correspondent is paying in parts and tools. Sure, you're not going to be shooting squirrels in the head at 50 yards with either revolver. But you are going to be able to shoot .22 shorts or CB caps in either one, which you're not going to do with any ease in an autoloader. For if you are playing the "SHTF What-If Game", you can imagine a scenario where not announcing to everyone for a mile or so around that you have just used a gun may be a good idea.
Neither of those revolvers in .22 are fancy guns. They'll probably last longer than you will and if one were to break, you've got two more.
Unless you either think that society is going to melt down real soon now, or if you have a hell of a lot of spare cash lying around, spending two to three grand on a .22 for the SHTF scenario seems kind of dumb to me.
The Hurrying Harrying
1 hour ago
5 comments:
I couldn't agree more. I have seven or eight .22LR handguns lying around, including three revolvers. If the SHTF, a few of them will find their way into my go-bag.
I also suggest multiple Glocks as worthwhile SHTF handguns, if only because they're uber-reliable, ubiquitous, and not too expensive. Furthermore, different models in the same caliber can share the largest model's magazines. That's pretty useful in a pinch.
I'd go for a bunch of pump air rifles in .22 cal as they have enough punch (some hit 1000fps) for dinner. Also pellets are cheap and compact. Saves what could be scarce once only stock of rimfire (and or centerfire) ammo for harder targets.
There are two reasons for firearms in the SHTF case, food and defense. Seems to me that food should be gathered at the lowest cost (effort, depletion of one time supply, and so on) and defense has the priority on the potentially limited supply of ammo.
That and a handgun is for close in work and a few good .22lr rifles
with good iron sights or reliable low light glass are a reason in themselves.
Too many zombie hunters. No doubt the scoped up pistole comes with a drop leg rig too.
Feh!
Eck!
Paying that kind of money for a .22LR is so far past ridiculous it borders on insanity.
I figure the point of "prepping" is to spend all your money now, because it won't be worth anything later. This seems like an effective way to do that.
I think the ammo panic is easing up. Here in Northern California, I recently bought a couple of bricks of .22 LR for $60 each. $0.12 per round is petty close to pre-Sandy Hook prices.
Post a Comment