If for some reason all semi-autos were outlamed but all other types of actions were legal what would be your pick and why. I would choose either my Marlin 30-30 or .357 lever actions. I feel that they are quicker to the shoulder and have adequate power for most all of my needs for a rifle. As for a sidearm I would use what I use now, either a Ruger Blackhawk or Security Six both in .357.
alternative? piece of black pipe,cap,nail,rubber band and a u shaped piece of steel. in sizes from .22 up to 12 ga. it's not the guns that are going to be hard to come by, it's the ammo. taser1
If all the semi-autos are outlawed, do you really think that the bolts, pumps, levers, and doubles won't be outlawed too? Do you think that there are ANY firearms that would be allowed by the liberals/UN gun grabbers?
The government doesn't get a vote in what I have to defend my life and property with, after all, I might be defending it from them. I probably woldun't hunt openly with a so called "illegal" weapon unless it was on my own property, but breech the pallisade and see what awaits you. they don't get a voice in my bedroom, politics, or gun closet; period.
Options and choices The survival battery concept applies to non-auto fire arms as much as to auto fire arms (or a combination thereof). No firearm can perform superlatively ALL the conceivable roles that may be required of it; At best a single firearm will trade off some advantages for some disadvantages, hopefully the disadvantages are in areas that are unlikely to come into play, or the consequences of using a putting iron as a driver are likely to be less important.fficeffice" /><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comThe .357 pistol ammunition rifle/revolver combo, has some advantages, as those in the 1800’s found. Commoness and commonality of calibres makes logistics simpler; reloading and bullet casting simpler; and opportunities for salvage and trade better than some uncommon calibre round; recoil is less savage than a .308 / 30-06. Round, so may be more manageable for a female or youngster. Disadvantages: The well can run dry quickly in a firefight, and at close quarters running out of ammo can turn a deadly weapon into a somewhat less deadly club. Pistol rounds, even pushed through a rifle lack the accurate reach of a conventional full rifle round. Reloading of tube magazines is much slower and less convenient than most military centrefire bolt action rifles. Given that this a thought experiment that is within the realms of a reasonably realistic reality, and assuming that I have substantial resources and I am providing for a family’s needs my solution is as follows: Pistol .357 magnum revolver/s. With bullet reloading and casting gear and components for .38 special and .357 magnum as a defensive handgun and as a hunting calibre. .22 calibre revolver/s for small game hunting, training, and use for defense by trained, responsible younger folk. May be kept as a backup gun. An air-pistol for training / short range varminting Defence: Rifle: Military bolt action for each adult male; preferably .308 calibre with a good supply of stripper clips. It has the reach and knockdown power that is needed in a firefight, and with some judicious reloading tweaking it can double as a hunting rifle for medium to large game. A low magnification scope would enhance the rifle as a hunting rifle / sniping rifle. Alternatives to .308 would be 30-06 or .303(British) depending on where in the world you are located. The .303 SMLE has a 10 round magazine, which is handy. .308 Mausers only have a 5 round magazine I think, so reloading is needed more frequently, and is less flexible than the SMLE. (edit....I have seen a .303 SMLE conversion to .308 conversion with a 10rd detachable box magazine which is quite nifty, but rather expensive at about A$1400) Shotgun: Pump action shotgun with a magazine capacity as large as legally permitted. Hunting: .223 or .243 centre fire with a good scope for small to medium game…allows for reloading .357 magnum tube magazine rifle (a lower priority, but as a secondary defence / hunting rifle) .22lr for small game / varminting – accoustic signature much lower than larger centrefire calibres, so less likely to attract unwanted attention. smaller calibre / lower power calibre will mean more useable meat from small game. sub-sonic round with sound suppressor combo may have some surviaval advantages. .177 and/or .22 air rifle: training and varminting rifle Reloading and bullet casting gear and components for all calibres / firearm types is essential. A swaging tool for making use of spent .22 rimless rounds would be a nice touch also. VisuTrac – An excellent observation showing much insight, and a reminder that it is worth at least having the knowledge and the materials to be able to improvise weaponry if needs be. Gray Wolf, Seacowboys, Bat1, Tacmotusn: You are fighting the problem. It is a common fault among students learning tactical problem solving, where instead of applying themselves to solving the problem posed, the student ends up producing solutions for problems not required of them to solve. In solving the thought experiment as posed, you are testing your own knowledge and assumptions related to fire arms and their suitability for particular purposes. It is a good intellectual discipline to develop as a generalised survival skill. Hispeedal2 – Agreed in principle, particularly where long range engagement is the norm, however, at close range, and defending a dwelling against forced entry, the .357 magnum (with speed loaders) and rifle/revolver combo may have some merit.
Chelloveck, . Not that I expect an honest answer in an open forum, as that would put you at risk, but what did you do when they outlawed semi-auto firearms in your neck of the woods. . I am old enough at this point, and with so little to lose, I would rather fight than submit.
Chell..I agree with part of your assumptions however i think you missed the Pump shot gunoptions fordefense and or hunting...
The pump shotgun is a dual purpose defence / hunting weapon with the best all round flexibility, though, getting back to the concept of having a battery of guns, having a single / double barrel or a rifle/shotgun combo just for hunting and as a backup defence weapon in 4-10guage / 20guage / 12 guage would be worthwhile too. Having a few calibre options may enable one to take advantage of windfall / trade opportunities. Having reloading equipment and components for some of the alternative shotgun shells might make for some home business trade opportunities. Added to the shotshell gear should include the ability to smelt your own salvaged lead and being able to cast your own lead shot. If one was to go for broke, preparing for a TEOTWAWKI scenario.......having a black powder rifle and/or smoothbore fowling piece would probably be a good idea too....particularly as having learned from this site, the rudiments of manufacturing black powder. I think I'd be inclined to ditch the pumps and purple taffeta for a more buckskin look if I'm totin' a Hawkins though ; ) I haven't forgotten you Tac, just that WD 01's response was quicker to answer, and I have to go out to do a little shopping. p.s. if buying an ex military bolt action, try and get a matching bayonet, it may prove useful if the magazine is inconveniently empty or if there is a malfunction that can't be fixed quickly. A .303 sword bayonet atttached to a SMLE can be a pretty intimidating thing when wielded aggressively at close quarters by someone who knows what they are doing.
Fighting the problem? There is no problem, it's a hypothetical question with no basis in reality. There is not going to be a situation where the event occurs as posted, so there is no point to the exercise. That is what Sea, Tac, and myself are pointing out.
This thread isn't about the 2nd Ammendment Your post is irrelevant to the thread topic, but I’ll humour you. The treat topic is not about the right to bear arms or the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps if you and others actually answered the thread opening post, then more might be actually learned from your knowledge of firearms.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /> Tacmotusn said: “Not that I expect an honest answer in an open forum, as that would put you at risk,….” Reply This statement could be interpreted in a number of ways. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and not interpret it as a slur upon my personal integrity nor as a slur upon my personal courage, moral or otherwise. Tacmotusn said: “….but what did you do when they outlawed semi-auto firearms in your neck of the woods….” Reply Perhaps the question may be in part answered in what I did not do. Did I take the streets and protest? No. Did I donate money to shooter’s lobby groups? No. Did I write to the newspapers complaining? No. Did I join the Australian equivalent of the NRA? No. Did I join the Australian Shooter’s Party? No. Did I write to or lobby my State and Federal Parliamentary representatives? No. Did I take a pot shot at Prime Minister John Howard with my Pea-shooter? (notably called Howard the Coward, for wearing Body Armour to a meeting with fire arms owners and shooter’s groups at the time) Although the idea was very appealing and despite being sorely tempted………… but No! What DID I do? I did what most every other law abiding citizen did at the time, and complied with the letter of the law. Strictly speaking, semi-automatic rifles, and large magazine capacity automatic and pump action shotguns are not outlawed. It is just that ownership and possession of such firearms are limited by license, and issuing such a license is stringently regulated to the point that the average Joe Blow can’t rock up off the street and just get one to do a little ‘roo shooting or duck hunting. The tightening up of gun laws in relation to semi- automatic firearms and large magazine capacity shotguns were actions in response to an aggregation over some decades of massacres of groups of people by assailants equipped with those kinds of firearms. The catalysts being: 1. The Hoddle Street Massacre Aug 1987 - Assailant – Julian Knight Outcome: 7 dead – 19+ wounded - Knight surrended and convicted 2. The Queen Street Massacre Dec 1987 - Assailant – Frank Vitcovic Outcome: 9 dead - 5 wounded - Vitcovic – died escaping 3. The Strathfield Massacre Aug 1991 - Assailant – Wade Frankum Outcome: 8 dead - 6 wounded -Frankum suicided 4. The Port Arthur Massacre Apr 1996 - Assailant – Martin Bryant Outcome: 35 dead – 21 wounded – Bryant surrendered and convicted. Four massacres with a total of some 59 killed and 51+ wounded. Each of the incidents within themselves could well justify a university thesis in criminology, and it is not my intention to go to that kind of length in explaining the general context of the movement to severely restrict ownership and possession of these kind of fire arms, but I will give a brief explanation of what in my opinion was the motivating logic. 1. The common thread in these incidents was the lethality and sustained output of fire of the kind of weapons used, rather than the particular expertise or competence in the users of the weapons. Semi-automatic and shotguns with large capacity magazines were able to kill and grievously wound large numbers of people at close range in short periods of time. From start to finish, Knight’s spree went for about 45 minutes, surrendering when he ran out of ammunition. Most of his kills were at medium to longish range from a sniping position outdoors; Vitkovic and Frankum went amok in enclosed spaces, Vitkovic in an office building and Frankum in a small shopping mall. Vitkovic was disarmed by two of his grievously wounded victims and Frankum only committed suicide when he realised that escape was futile. Bryant killed some 20 people with 29 rounds in the space of some 90-120 seconds in one location, only stopping to change magazines. His killing spree continued on in a few other locations before ending in a siege. 2. The perpetrators were extremely disturbed people who had obtained their fire arms without much apparent difficulty; some owned them quite legally and were licensed owners. 3. It was considered that victims of an attempted massacre might have better chances of survival if not faced with high volume semi-automatic fire, with better chances of overwhelming and disarming perpetrators when a firearm with a smaller magazine capacity weapon became empty. 4. Police attending each crime scene were armed in the main with .38 special service revolvers. It wasn’t until well after Port Arthur that Glocks became standard issue to general duty police officers. In each case the perps were more heavily armed than the initial attending officers, and parity or superiority in firepower wasn’t achieved until SWAT type police arrived at the scene, somewhat later. The move to restrict ownership and possession of semi-automatic and large magazine capacity pump and automatic shotguns was pushed by the Australian equivalent of the Republican Party….(The Australian Liberal / Country Party Coalition) under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, John Howard. Note, the Australian Liberal Party aren’t “liberals” in the American political context, but are conservatives. Just to confuse things further….The left wing of the Liberals called “Wets” are probably more “liberal”(in the American context) than the right wing of the Australian Parliamentary Labor Party, whom most conservative Americans would label as socialist, or even communist. The centre factions of both parties, are perhaps roughly comparable in that they are about equally despised by both extremes of each of their respective parties. The then Prime Minister, leaped at the political opportunities that the Port Arthur incident offered, in establishing his “Law and Order” credentials with the Australian electorate, and using the issue as a wedge to divide State Governments, some of whom were governed by Labor Governments. It was a move that was broadly popular and supported by most in the electorate, except for some gun owners, shooting and hunting advocacy groups; and firearms suppliers and retailers. So, there you have it…..the potted version of how and why the rules changed. To the best of my knowledge, since the initiation of the Liberal / Country Party “Gun Buy Back Scheme”, there has not been a copy-cat killing spree / massacre with semi-automatic firearm of the kind perpertrated by Knight / Frankum /Vitkovic / Bryant. Tacmotusn said: “…I am old enough at this point, and with so little to lose, I would rather fight than submit.” Reply That is a nice rhetorical flourish, made at a time when your actual resolution to follow through with your stated intention isn’t likely to be tested. If by fight, you mean, using legal and political process to lobby against such an eventuality, that is entirely your prerogative and you are welcome to try your darndest. If you mean “fight” by the use of force with the arms that you possess, are you prepared to lose your-life or, indeed to take a law enforcement officer’s life to prove some abstruse point of principle?? Are you also prepared, assuming that you have survived this “fight” of principle, to spend what remains of your life in prison, or risk the prospect of execution if you live in a hangin’ / fryin’ / shootin’ / Injectin’ jurisdiction? I doubt it, but who knows. I am a little more pragmatic. Fight the battles (figuratively or literal) that can actually be won without forfeiting the aim of the game….living as good a life as one can on the best terms that one can get. I cannot see that my long term survival prospects and my ability to protect myself and mine will be enhanced by being in prison for the rest of my natural life, which is getting alarmingly shorter enough as it is as every day passes. The way I see it….the privilege of owning a bolt action rifle on the outside is much more preferable, to not owning a firearm at all, and infinitely better than having to worry about dropping the soap in the shower block on the inside of stir. I’m for obeying the law, and if I have to defend myself when the time comes with an atlatl, bows and arrows, sword and buckler, cunning and guile….then so be it. Hoddle Street Massacre http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/ergo/hoddle_street_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Street_massacre Queen Street Massacre http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Melbourne-remembers-Queen-St-massacre/2007/12/06/1196812912743.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qdueen_Street_massacre Strathfield Massacre <CITE>http://cumberland-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/strathfield-massacre/</CITE> <CITE> </CITE> <CITE>Port Arthur Massacre</CITE> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/03/28/1143441154819.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
I'd be an outlaw and keep my autos. Big Brother won't let you keep any sort of repeater. He MIGHT let you keep a single shot muzzleloader, or a x bow. MAYBE. Japan and England didn't. They won't let you have a sword in your home, or carry so much as a pocketknife. So I would not waste my money on inferior weaponry, just to "have to" give that up as well. I'd sell all my other property, buy gold coins, and prepare to leave the country, never to return.
Chelloveck, For a country founded by penal colony castaways for the most part you folks have evolved to an unrecognizable degree. Your history is in other ways unlike ours. We threw down the gauntlet before Jolly olde King George for real and perceived wrongs, and founders of our Country, the writers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution had the forsight to address the possibilty of the need to take up arms against a tyranical government in the future. Many in this country will not stand mute and without action if in many meaningful ways the county does not take note that ours is supposed to be a government of the people. The mid term elections here were not i ringing endorsement for the Republican Party here. It was a condemnation of the status quo, of the incumbants, and of the corrupt way of doing things most recently in Washington D.C. It was a ringing endorsement for Smaller Government, fair taxation, a return to the ideals of the Constitution. We do have a very important 1st and 2nd ammendment to our Constitution that will not be Trifiled with. What will be will be, even if that means a revolution. Washington has just been given a slap in the face. The gauntlet has not been thrown down yet. One would hope the wake up and realize what the people want. . ps; your interpretation of the meaning of both my posts was bonkers. You have no clue. Sorry.
In the states we've had some massacres too. Not just by guns but bombs and planes. we didn't try to outlaw flying, nor rental trucks. In oklahoma city i think it was 150+ dead and 600+ injured in just a couple seconds. here in Detroit, we average 300+ murders a year. and i'd feel pretty confident that nary a one of the weapons was obtained legally. if the US ever decided to outlaw guns, only the Police,Military and Criminals would have guns. The criminals would ignore the law because well they are criminals. The sheeple that turn in their guns are just letting themselves become victims of the criminals,police and the state. We were a nation founded in armed struggle against an oppressive regime. I think that our elected officials would do well to remember that bit o' history. Well, I guess i'll go back to my tinfoil lined room and grind some more red,white and black powder propellent for the well pipe cannon.
Tac, maybe we should not be too hard on Chelovick There is no way that a person from another country can possibly understand the principles that our country was founded upon, it is too alien to their life's experience. They have no basis for understanding that some of us have already taken lives and sacrificed their own lives in defense of these principles, and it surprises them that many of us are willing to do it some more to preserve this nation and pass the freedom that we have intact to the coming generations.
The original post was American in origin. Several of the replys were American as well. He chose to reply with input that rang of a holier than thou attitude that also later indicated that the only thing to do was comply with the law as he did. The Constitution is my law, and laws in conflict with it aren't worth the paper they are written on. Although they might be good toilet paper. I'll give him this much.... It's an American thing! You might not understand! We don't care. So sorry.
Agreed. Ideally, a good revolver and bolt action rifle will get you through most meeting engagements. In order of importance, I would say a bolt action rifle first and a revolver second. If a .22LR is introduced, I would say .22LR first, bolt rifle second, and revolver third. The reason for my ranking is this- it's entirely possible to have only a foraging weapon and avoid contact with hostiles. If those hostiles aren't of the same idea, a bolt action rifle will hold them off long enough to make escape possible (I have seen an old .303 Enfield stop a maneuver PLT with a couple well placed shots). Close up fighting is not ideal with any of the weapons we are discussing, but I have recently become a revolver fan and have come to appreciate the value they have. Tactics wise.... this is, of course, a last resort. My recent experiences with a .44 Mag revolver at distances of 100 yds leads me to believe that one could get by with just a .44 mag revolver. With practice, 200 yds is completely possible even with iron sights IMHO. Small game hunting wouldn't yield much, though . This is kind of a lame topic as indicated by others. I don't see this happening, in my lifetime anyways.
