[andy]

is a real laugh. It might have made sense when there was no such thing as a real long range rifle, or scopes, or men who really UNDERSTOOD long range riflery. Today, however, a (7 lb) scoped 223 carbine can easily reach 1/4 mile, or handle .44 mag carbine type shots on deer, and it can also have a 1 lb, 20 second swap to .22lr. So why lug around a 7-8 lb rifle that only has a 150 m capability, because it's chambered in a pistol caliber? That's just plain silly. Why lug around 3 lbs of .44 mag pistol, when you can do the same job with a 2 lb lw Commander, chambered in 460 Rowland, and have a gun that's capable of hitting twice as fast for defensive use, has a .22lr conversion unit, can fire .45 ACP'S, or 9x19 for practice-use, is a lot easier to conceal, etc, than the .44 is, hmm?

6 lb CAR, 1 lb scope and mount, 1 lb of .22lr conversion unit, and 2 lbs of alloy framed 1911, or 7 lbs of lever action, 1 lb of scope and mount, and 3 lbs of .44 mag, to have MANY times the potential use with the the CAR and 1911? Only a dummy chooses the lever and the revolver.

 

[John in AR]

While it would be "imperfect" or "non-ideal", it would be a mistake to dismiss such a setup as "ineffective".

You've many times said you see no need to shoot defensively beyond 150 meters, and the AR isn't a great hunting round past that range, so it sounds like anything beyond 150 yards is largely irrelevant anyway. And inside 150 yards, the .357 carbine does fine on most game-size animals. (I know this from personal experience.)

The .357 revolver, again while "non-ideal", is another that would be a mistake to label "ineffective" or "worthless".


My personal defensive setup isn't a same-caliber handgun/rifle combo, although my 'woods' setup used to be. (Not anymore.)

But again, while it's easy to dismiss as a "cheesy" setup, many an old-timer with a model 29 and a Winchester 94 would be more than capable of being a real threat.

Imperfect or even 'second-rate' doesn't necessarily mean "worthless".

 

[Clint Boyer]

Good point John

Just because something is not ideal, doesn't mean it can't get the job done.

There are situations in which same caliber weapons would be ideal. There are many special application weapons that only produce minimally acceptable results in uses they were not designed for. Is a shotgun loaded with skeet loads worthless at close range on intruders? I wouldn't want to be at the muzzle end of that shot gun at 5 ft.

 

[andy]

so what? you don't want a pellet gun

pointed at you, either. When it's for BLOOD, having less than the BEST gear is just plain stupid. Settle for half assed if you want to, but it's stupid to do so.

You never saw me saying 150m is the limit of effective firing with a rifle, on MEN. The 11" CAR is practically 100% on head on prone men (ie, 10" circle) scoped, at 300 yds, and ditto on fully exposed torsos at 400 yds. For just sport hunting, I see no reason to bother with lugging around ANY longarm. Since it doesn't matter if you score or not, a ccw pistol is adequate for sport hunting. Big game is RARELY in season, so 90% of the time, you aren't legally shooting anything but varmints, anyway, or at best, "legal" small game. .22's handle that, so why bother with a 357 or .30 carbine, hmm? I see no reason to even own such. An sks is a better bet, for half as much money, and 1/4 as much per shot, for practice ammo.

 

[Clint Boyer]

Why not own some of everything? Hmmm?

You are advocating gun control according to what you think.

Why limit yourself to defensive weapons only? Why limit yourself period?

 

[andy]

because I don't live in fantasyland.

SKILL is what matters. The more guns you have, the less ability you have with each one, because NOBODY has enough TIME, especially not working stiffs.

 

[Clint Boyer]

So go ahead and lead your limited life with your limited views. I hope your SKILL is good company.

 

[andy]

It's FAR better "company" than ignorant

jerkoff secondhanders, who THINK that they know something.

 

[John in AR]

Re: so what? you don't want a pellet gun

...You never saw me saying 150m is the limit of effective firing with a rifle, on MEN...


Not exactly those words, but you have said the following (These are pastes from the other forum you & I often visit, no need to name it here):

...Fully 90% of the non LUCK hits occur inside ONE HUNDRED METERS...

...Like I said, REALISTIC defensive firing is 100m and less...

...All your "fights" BETTER be silenced .22 ambushes, or you're screwing-up. Or at least, they'd better be the sort of thing that a .22 rifle COULD handle...

... By definition, you should VERY rarely engage at anything that the canned .22 can't handle. If it can't, YOU can't, most likely, with any rifle or load, especially a noisy one...

...MOST of your shooting BETTER be handled with silenced, subsonic .22's...

So, if it "better" be .22lr ranges, that means certainly no more than 150 yards, doesn't it...?

And you did say that "REALISTIC defensive firing is 100m and less". Your words, not mine. That is pretty decisive and specific. You didn't say "most realistic defensive firing", or "usually, realistic defensive firing", you made a specific statement that it's either within 100 yards, or it's not "realistic", right?

 

[andy]

but WHO said ALL shtf firing will be

"defensive", John? The point is,why give up ANY advantage,when you don't have to? WHAT pistol caliber carbine is ANY more effective, or even CLOSE to the price of the sks? only the 9mm ammo comes close to the 7-8c ashot AK ammo, either. Lever .44's are so close in price to a kit built CAR that a mere 1000 rds of ammo fired thru them equal same cost. Ditto if buy and use .22 unit for that 1000 rds. So the pistol carbine comes up sucking, all around. So do revolvers, of course.

 

[John in AR]

None. the sks, while not my first choice, is a decent weapon. Basically a ten-shot autoloading .30-30; definitely respectable. I've lately been considering buying two or three of them (they're what? $80 or so now?) and just throwing them in the safe "just to have". I already shoot the caliber in one rifle; these could make decent, cheap, additions/supplements. (My oldest son is now old enough to use something 'heavier' than the M1 carbine, and the youngest is only several years behind. By "use", I mean "lug around all day if necessary", not just handle it shooting through a window.)

In a vein we've discussed bofore, $300 or $400 could buy two or three guns and a lifetime supply of ammo; a "post-shtf" lifetime supply, at least. Cheap insurance, if an admittedly "imperfect" option.

My point is just that although it isn't "my first choice", and neither is a pistol-caliber carbine, the danger in dismissing them off-hand, is dismissing their capabilities in someone else's hands.

That's what I'm getting at. I don't want to use a levergun/revolver same-caliber combo as my only weapons. But even once that personal decision is made, it's still prudent to respect the capabilities of the setup; if for no other reason than having respect for what some opponent may some day be using.

 

[andy]

in enemy hands, u'd better respect 00

buck to 125 yds, #2 birdshot to 80 yds, 22 lr to 250 yds, etc, right out to the ranges where the stuff basically "bounces off" of you. A pump or auto shotgun, or a 22 auto rifle (especially one converted to full auto) would make a fine weapon for looters. All they would have to do is fire a couple-3 fast shots into a group of you and yours, and WAIT a few days, for the infection of the wounds to weaken you, before they came in at night and finished you off. The offensive risk is far higher than the DEFENSIVE capability, because for defense, you need an INSTANT stop, which takes face hits with the .22 and birdshot, basically, limiting the ranges to a mere fraction of the range at which they are still capable of "merely" wounding. Everyone, with a firearm, has to be either shot on sight or avoided, if shtf. It's also quite likely that they will be carriers of some contagious disease.