What's a good price for these.
Maverick 88 is the economy variant of Mossberg 500 and is around $250 brand new. That is the most reliable choice at a lower price point.
Yes, that's a good choice too. I both didn't think of it, but also know that some people take issue with some of the ... cost cutting measures that go into the design. They may not be functional problems at all, but I know I would get a real 500, or modify a Maverick to match myself. What do I know though, my only shotgun is so old that the government doesn't even consider it a firearm. lol
If you're talking about a breakdown of society, an AR-15. Those fire very small high velocity rounds though, so you would need to worry more about over-penetration and effective range should you miss.
(Attachment Link)
Not the configuration that I would prefer, but it will work for now.
I never got this argument. So many people in the US talking about these sporterized modern Army rifles as if they were a good choice for a "survival situation".
Just no. 5.56 NATO is quite simply inadequate for many hunting applications. Most if not all Medium and of cause large game cannot be reliably taken down using such a intermediate cartridge. Same goes for taking down humans...
What you want is a Full powered rifle cartridge, at the very least a .308, ideally something bigger like 30-06 or 300 Win Mag.
A semi-auto rifle is not of much use in a survival situation, and tempts you to waste your ammo. They are more complex and inherently less reliable. Less easy to clean, maintain, repair etc.
You want a time-proven, rugged, simple Bolt-action chambered in a widely available full-powered military or hunting cartridge. Something like your enfield or a nice pre 64 Winchester 70 in 30-06 would be ideal. An optic would be nice too.
Show Image
But certainly no 5.56 semi-auto.
You never got the argument, because you're not addressing the argument.
I don't think anybody advocates for 5.56 for hunting, besides for coyote, etc. That has nothing to do with a breakdown of society. 5.56 is plenty for human targets, when you're not talking about level 4 body armor, and affords you the sweet spot for follow-up shots and/or maintaining situational awareness without a major decrease in effective range, etc. There's a reason that most of the modern world moved away from 8mm, 7.62 (Which NATO even wanted to avoid back in the 50s if it weren't for the U.S.' insistence), etc. It meant less ammo carried, smaller magazine capacity, and more recoil, with no significant practical benefits besides effective range and barrier penetration. M1 Carbines were a common sight in the pacific theater of WWII. These were chambered in the .30 carbine cartridge, which is modernly smeared as an anemic cartridge, and even against some of the fiercest combatants we've ever faced, users had nothing but praise for these rifles. I have read that people would literally ditch M1 Garands (as great of a rifle as this was) in .30-60 if they could get their hands on an M1 Carbine because of how light and handy they were.
The AR-10 has already been mentioned, this is an AR chambered in 7.62 NATO/.308. If I seriously only wanted one rifle for both a breakdown of society and hunting, and could have nothing else, I suppose I would go with that. I don't need to make that choice. I have 3 sporterized M1917 rifles chambered in .30-06, a Yugoslavian M48a in 8mm Mauser, and a Finnish M39 in 7.62x54r. I think I'm set on hunting rifles.
There are those that would say that anything with more energy than .308 is even overkill for the average deer and can needlessly destroy good meat. Many in the U.S. find the sweet spot to be around .30-30. What are you hunting with .300 Win Mag? Elk? We don't have many things that big in the continental U.S.
Semi autos being inherently less reliable would have been true 70 or 80 years ago. Today, that depends on the scenario. There are tests out there, like from InrangeTV, that show that the AR-15 platform can literally be covered in mud and continue to function perfectly regardless so long as the bolt isn't locked back and you dump it inside of the action. On a bolt-action rifle, most of the action is exposed. If you're in very adverse conditions, that can lock a bolt gun down entirely if debris gets into the action. This goes for other situations as well, like ice. Greenland apparently still favors the aforementioned M1917 in extremely cold climates where you may have ice build-up on the action, as it was the best rifle they could find ... since we gave them to them in the 1940s, for continued operation in such an environment. They still use them partly for that reason. The AK, for an example of a semi auto, was also designed with this strength in mind (This is a known weakness of the AR platform, due to tight tolerances).
Modern AR-15s and AKs (and maybe other alternatives) have also been tested to function perfectly for 10s of thousands of rounds straight, without any cleaning whatsoever. Modern lubricious finishes, like Nitride, etc, also help with this.
All that being said, a semi auto, even the best design, is more likely than a bolt gun to suffer a malfunction due to poorly-manufactured ammunition. For whatever that's worth, and however likely it may be if you buy something reputable from a factory.
Another consideration is that any cheap off-the-rack AR-10 is usually going to have a free-float handguard, meaning you've got an entirely free-floated barrel (a premium option in most bolt guns), and there's no traditional stock that the receiver may need to be bedded into to additionally improve accuracy ... as the AR platform was designed, and is implemented, based on extremely tight tolerances allowed by modern machining. You can assemble a sub MOA rifle yourself with a fraction of the cash, time, or knowledge that would be required to get a similarly precise bolt rifle. It will have lower recoil in any given caliber to boot, as a benefit of its gas system.
I think that if anybody is taking multiple shots at game, they probably haven't prepared well enough to begin with, or are taking inherently unethical shots, so I consider that a moot point.
I often wonder, if I ever finally get my hunting license, if I should just use an iron-sighted bolt gun or lever gun. The giant endless woods that is Wisconsin is too dense and hilly for even a 4x scope to be of much use in most situations.
Reading this thread makes me wonder if we should start mud testing keyboards....
Except I think a cheap ass rubberdome will survive better than our beloved mechanical wonders.
Also, for you gun owners out there, do you prefer tactile or clicky triggers? (I'm guessing a linear trigger would be REALLY bad idea)
Another InrangeTV fan. I just watched a few of their videos today.
Yeah, rubberdomes would probably do better ... other than the membrane getting wet, in which case, goodluck. Luckily, I can't think of any real scenario in which we would need to worry about muddy keyboards. lol
I can't think of any triggers that I would consider tactile as oppose to clicky, can you? The trigger moves a sear, the sear releases a hammer or striker, the striker or hammer slam into a primer. I can't say I have ever heard of a gun that doesn't make any noise when you do that. Even the Welrod, which was designed for silent operation, makes nose when the trigger is pulled, doesn't it?
A Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 (though some of the more recent ones are said to have some quality control issues) should do fine too. You would probably want to avoid any of those shorty birdshead grip shotguns as aiming and firing them isn't exactly ideal.
Show Image
This shows pretty well why a pistol grip only is a bad idea:
This is the exact video I had in mind when I said that.
