Having multiple shtf weapons is a good idea except for carrying them. I'd look at what LRRPs or SF carry and keep the load light. I'd also accept that very small groups avoid a fight.
You know, I actually came to this thread while thinking about how nobody had interjected this little bit of wisdom at all into the "AR-10 vs AR-15" thread. My "grunt time" 40 years ago was spent running LRRPs and this was really the key to success (read "survival")...though I didn't much care for the job and only spent the required 6 mos before going for much better living conditions gunning on a Huey. People write about wanting an MBR that will make the shots at 600+ meters...while survival alone or with a few others, especially in a forested area, means that one should be moving the other way if there is a target 600 meters away. If a small group is forced to fight, the object is usually to put as many pieces of metal as you can downrange as fast as you can...while you concentrate on breaking the engagement. I have .30s, 7.62s and .308s for static defense...or in case (though I really don't see it happening under most scenarios) I have a need to attack a static defense. However, if I am forced to hit the woods, I'll be taking one of the ARs or the the AK chambered in 5.56. I see E&E as the basic priority in most cases. As always...JMO...YMMV.
Even with the knowledge of being able to assault a fixed defensive position, or the ability to sabotage, infiltrate, and subvert the enemy, I will more than likely err on the side of evasion. It all comes down to the math, folks. The Nazi's weren't defeated by superior equipment and highly trained experts; the Allied forces were mainly comprised of quickly trained men, and most we would consider "kids" today. No, the Aliied forces prevailed only due to shear numbers alone. Ask any historian worth a damn or any veteran if they preferred their Sherman tank. The Americans were outgunned, they were facing a far superior trained force, and they were often times placed in precarious situations. The Germans, fortunately were over-extended and quick to wear down, because what they possessed in quality of materials they lacked in spirit. So, what I am getting at is this: your equipment isn't worth a spit compared to the spirit and mind of the professional. Never forget this. Mind will always defeat matter, especially in war.
Well, I am not one to burst anyones Bubble, but the Germans Lost WWII, for the same reason the Japanese, lost WWII. Logistics.... That is why ANYONE loses a War. the Germans ran out of OIL, and had their BASIC War Production bombed out of existence, Where the Allies had, the good Old USA producing everything, in War Production completely unscathed. We could build and replace EVERYTHING, twice as fast, as the Germans, even with our Super Extended Supply Lines by using the UK as a Super Giant Supply Dump. D-Day wasn't even contemplated, until the UBoat threat in the Atlantic was solved by Technology and Convoy Tactics, because we couldn't sustain the Logistics. Same basic reason Japan lost as well, even though they had shorter Supply Lines, than We did, they HAD Serious OIL, and Raw Material Issues that couldn't be solved by water transport, simply because they couldn't rid their waters from our Gato Class Fleet Submarines, and therefor, could NOT replace their lost Navel Vessels, Planes, and Material, due to lack of Raw Materials. We built a MASSIVE Fleet after Pearl Harbor, and they had problems even completing Navel Vessels, that were on the ways, at the Start of the War. OIL was their MAJOR Achilles Heel, as they have NO Oil Production on the Home Islands, and almost ALL of their Oil came from Indonesia, by water transport. We knew this, and their tanker fleet was the PRIME Target for our Sub Fleet, after Navel Vessels. They basically just ran out of GAS.... This same reason was why we stalemated in Korea. We had the North Beat, whipped beyond recovery, before the Chinese entered that conflict. Our Supply Lines, were extreme, and the Chinese Supply Lines, were short. They only had to be from the Chinese/Korean boarder, to their Troops in the field, because Truman wouldn't let McArther wage war across the Yalu River, and take out the Logistics. Enchoen worked because it cut the Logistics to the Red Army, and they lost a good share of their Men, and War Supplies, but we couldn't get the backing of our people, for a sustained push North. Then Truman fired McArthur, for purely POLITICAL reasons, and the Troops Morale left with him.
Our past lives have some similarities. The 600 yard shots are few and far between; plus shooting others or at others does draw attention; so why ask for the attention one doesn't want? On the other hand, preppers have a vested interest in staying where they are; so they will need to learn defense because they have something to defend. I know what Patton said about fixed positions; however, Patton's job was to take ground not grow food. An Army travels on it's stomach means logistics win wars.
I completely disagree, big fella. I worked in logistics. If the Germans weren't over-extended in Russia, we would be living in the Holy Reich. Poor spirit led to inadequate tactics, which led to hasty decisions, and THAT lead to logistical breakdown. It's simple, don't make it harder than that. The fact that the allies made any progress at all came as a direct result of POWER IN NUMBERS. Period. Your gas theory is a crock. Sure, that may have been a factor, but that's not why the Germans lost the war.
I'd say that both Brokor and BTPost are right. Of course, part of logistics is people. People are are looked upon as a limited resource (remember METT-TC?). Oil was also a limited resource to the Germans. The Germans certainly had their lines stretched. This was admitted by Rommel in North Africa. The Sherman is an interesting topic of discussion. Some will say that Patton built the Sherman for simple mass (like it or not, it is a principle of war). Others would say that the Panzer was far too complicated to be able to repair or build fast enough to win. This kind of gets into the idea of protection and maneuverability. There is a trade off. My point is this- Armys win with the "perfect" balance of protection, firepower, and maneuverability. Perfect is 100% dependent on other factors. Neither WWII army would win in Vietnam against the same enemy. The SBCT won't win in the Fulda Gap. Your battle rifle won't win in an Eastern woodland. A 5.56 rifle may not cut it in the open deserts of AZ or UT. Potential travel only complicates things. Have both. Learn to fight as a team. In the absence of an M240, a long range, precision rig will work as a support by fire position. That is the tactic you should strive toward. Learn to use two guns. I learned this important lesson while deployed. Carry a long gun for the overwatch position and a carbine for the low ground you use to get there. Swinging and acquiring with a BR inside a building (cover) sucks. Using a 5.56 in windy conditions to shoot 400M+ sucks. Having both... priceless. Terrain can vary tremendously inside a single state, within walking distance. Eberlestock can help with the burden. I own one now and wish I had it circa 2006-2007.
I remember the days when it was only METT-T, then moved up to METT-TC, and in my last unit it was METT-TCM (final = Media). Well said, Al.
Everyone is familiar with the term "tip of the spear" and it is an excellent analogy as without the wooden part the "tip of the spear" becomes an unwieldy knife. It takes a complete package to win.
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d1d1e1; COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1> <!-- google_ad_section_start --> The only issue i have with this is we are comparing apples and oranges... LRRP's and SF are fighting a limited engagement (intel gathering, Political strike, FAC, etc) in a combat situation with resupply and areas that they can fall back to.... in a SHTF situation where you have to bug out... most of their benefits will not appply... 99% of the time we will not be participating in missions like these... Your objective will be to remain low key and get from point A to point B with enough provisions to survive to your BOL and/or to build a new BOL... pack and plan accordingly...
Remaining low key getting from point A to B while avoiding the bad guys is some of what they do. "Trained to live off nature's land" helps also. Basically what you will need to do; they are trained to do. In addition, they are war fighters.
I have a 9mm and .357 for each member of my family as far as handguns go. Each member has a 12ga and SKS or AK for longarms. We try to keep calibers compatable.
Tikka, I think you and Hispeedal are saying the same thing, as the M240 is a 7.62mm MG (FN MAG, to our allies) - it's the M249 which is the 5.56mm SAW (although the Army no longer uses the SAW designation - it is either the M249 LMG, deployed with a lightweight tripod, or the M249 Automatic Rifle with the integral bipod only). And Hispeedal makes the same argument you do regarding a larger caliber rifle capable of precision fire as the prepper's proper emphasis - comparing prepper tactics to military tactics.
While the WW II ideas are interesting, too many things involved for any one thing to be "it". In WW I the troops died of disease, more died of illness than bullets. The Allies ONLY won because the US came in late and were able to keep pumping in fresh meat faster than they could die of disease and Germany was bleed dry by that time. The AR in various cartridges is an interesting idea. A bit expensive, but what does a dieing cost? Get two and you can set up a .223, 6.8 SPC, 7.62x39, .458 SOCOM, .50 BMG (I'm not sure how well the lower stands up to the recoil over long term, but they sell the uppers for it, and of course it is only a single shot), and one for .30 Mauser (see the SGN for how to), 9mm, .40/10mm, .45 ACP and probably others. I love my Contender, but finally figured it was a dead end. Sure I have a few dozen barrels, but if the reciever has a part go, the whole thing is worthless. Plus the rifle barrels cost as much as I can buy a complete H&R Handi-Rifle for. The Handi-Rifle, like the Contender, is a single shot and can be used with multible barrels. I am seriously (OK, sort of seriously) thinking of getting one in .30-06 and then adding a .45-70, .30-30, .223 and 12 ga barrels to it. At less than $100 a barrel, I still will only have about as much in it as a base AR would cost. Why not get two? The 1911 can be had in 9mm/.38 Super, .40 S&W/10mm (NOT recommended by me for the 1911), .45 ACP as well as adding barrels in .30 Mauser and/or .30 Luger (the .30 Luger 1911 is sold in Europe, but NOT the US), and con kits for all of these (except the .30 Luger/Mauser, .40 S&W/10mm) are readily available as are .22 con kits. You can even set the 1911 up to shoot .38 Special wadcutters! The Savage 110/111/whatever is easy to swap barrels out in and if you have a few extra bolts (you actually need the bolt heads, but the entire bolt is easier) can be used for quite a few different cartridges of varying head sizes. The long action could have .30-06, .280 Rem., .270 Win, .25-06, 7mm Mauser, 8mm Mauser, and .35 Whelen barrels added that would be easy to swap out. Get one with a detachable mag and a spare bolt and add various magnums (.300 Win Mag, .338 Win Mag, .458 Win Mag). The short action could have the .22-250, .243 Win., .260 Rem, 7mm-08, .308, .358 Win. barrels. Get the one with the detachable mags and add a spare bolt and add a .223 barrel.
Each us has to assess our particular needs. I decided to invest in an MGI Hydra - an AR with both a quick-change upper and a lower which has interchangeable mag wells. Right now I'm set up to run 7.63x39R with either AK or AR magazines; in the near future I will be buying bolt, barrel and magazines to expand that capacity to include 5.45R and 5.56. The idea being that no matter the circumstances I should have the best possible chance of finding ammo and mags for it.
You are probably correct; where I stumbled was the precision fire part. I shoot bolt guns also; precision to me is sub MOA, my ooops. Preppers aren't usually mobile so they need to plan for defending their preps; a 7.62N has both reach and penetration which is an asset. After the first shot hits or misses; pickings will be slim so a precision bolt gun could be very convincing.
The shotgun and the bolt action are pointless for shtf. If money is short, sell them and use the proceeds to get a sound suppressor for the AR-15. A Ciener .22lr conversion unit for the AR-15 costs no more than a 1022, and it handles exactly like the suppressed 223, when the suppressor is removed from the 223, that is. You can't carry more than one longarm, and getting caught by AK or AR wielding enemies, when all you have is a 1022, shotgun or boltaction will mean your death. With subsonic 22lr ammo, the suppressor makes your .22 unit sound like a BB gun, so popping a rabbit won't call in every enemy within 2 miles, as a 12 ga blast is sure to do! Practice shooting with the 1022 will not make you skilled with the AR, and you can't carry both. If shtf, it will be necessary to have the choice of small game or livestock taking, or the 223's 200 yd utility on deer, or 500 yd sniping capability. I recommend a shorter barrel, for concealment, taken down and stashed in your pack, or with the stock retracted and the rifle slung under your arm, under a coat. With a scope, drop in trigger job, match bhtp ammo, free float tube and bipod, a short barreled AR-15 will still have 400 yd capability on men. Realistically, that is plenty of range, because shtf will mean you need to stick to either thick cover or darkness, and conserve your ammo.
