Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Survival & Sustenance Living Forum (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f51/)
-   -   .308 Single-shot? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f51/308-single-shot-49031/)

Lindenwood 09-30-2011 02:17 AM

.308 Single-shot?
 
I am quite proficient with my handguns and those are my primary defensive options. I want to make it clear that I didn't buy either of these rifles as "combat" or "SHTF" guns, and they are primarily for recreation. I am obviously not expecting to be running around fighting bandits or zombies, or I'd have myself an AR isntead :P . I am just looking for your opinions on the old "if I had to grab just one as I head out the door at TEOTWAWKI" question, since this is what I've got on hand (and I don't intend to change that any time soon).

So, here are the options:

1) The Marlin 795. Just a basic semi-auto, 10rd mag-fed .22lr rifle. I only have one magazine for it.

2) A .308 Single Shot. It is an H&R Bull-barrel model with the barrel shortened to 16.25", so it's OAL is about 27".

Both include slings, optics, and bipods, and both are capable of 2" groups at 100 yards, and head-shots at 200 yards (after I figure out hold-over with the .22, heh).

BIG SIDE NOTE: I handload all my ammo, and can load anything from a 150gr @ 2500fps (not loaded to the max for the sake of noise with the short barrel), down to a 110gr@1000fps. So, this .308 setup is perfectly capable of everything from rabits to elk to 2-legged threats.

It would be a very rare and unique situation in which I'd reach for either rifle over my defensive handgun(s) for any immediate threats to my life. However, the option is always there. If, say, I'm defending a fixed location, I'm thinking I'd rather have the ability to fire one devastating round at a target outside the window before transitioning back to my pistol or ducking back to reload, than the ability to pop off a few .22s at a time that have a much lower chance of quickly stopping the threat. Not to mention, if the threat is halfway behind cover (shooting out of a window, for example), that window frame isn't going to stop a .308 like it would a .22.

Of course, there are the obvious practical advantages to the .22 rifle. The rapid-fire option means (most importantly to me) that I could give the weapon to even modestly-trained shooters, and they'd have 10 chances to at least make a hit or even just keep an attacker's head down a little longer. That is, they could guard a back door or help put fire on a single threat, and their skill in manipulation . Next, the small ammo means it is almost a 10:1 ratio of .22 vs .308, as far as carrying-capacity. And that, coupled with the ammo availability, is a plus; if I had to bug out and only brought 10 or 20 of those lower-recoil .308 cartridges, that's pretty much all I'd ever get.

However, how big are the .22's advantages over the power of a .308? I'm leaning toward the .308 as my "go to" rifle, especially given that even in "normal" hunting or outdoors situations, with my handloads, it is capable of taking a far wider variety of game and at far longer distances than a .22. And then, from an antipersonell perspective, I think it nicely complements a high-capacity handgun, at least better than a .22 rifle does. Not to mention, the single-shot is pretty much guaranteed to go bang when I drop the hammer, whereas the .22 is not nearly that reliable.

What do you guys think?

hiwall 09-30-2011 04:48 AM

As long as you asked for an opinion here is my 2 cents.
I think all handguns are for emergency use only. The primary weapon for defense or offense should always be a rifle. Why do you think all military are given rifles? Professional hunters use rifles. A rifle in a medium power center-fire caliber. Repeater, with a preference of a reliable semi-automatic action. I carry a handgun only because it is hard to conceal a rifle. I think you should consider the purchase of a rifle. A 22 rifle is great for hunting but that is about it. Your single-shot rifle would be fine for hunting but not for defense/offense.

Lindenwood 09-30-2011 01:39 PM

I know all about the notion of "fighting your way to a rifle," and I understand the vast superiority of rifles over handguns in both power and especially controllability. But, rifles are for offensive roles. I.E. you pick up a rifle when you are going to potential trouble or going to hunt something. You grab for your handgun when trouble comes to you by surprise. For me, 98% of the time I'd only have access to my handguns anyways because, as you say, rifles are hard to conceal and usually stay hidden away. Thus, because I don't have any offensive needs, I don't particularly focus on rifles when I could spend that money on additional training and practice with my handguns. If I had unlimited funds, yeah I'd have picked up an M1A over a single-shot, but I don't so I didn't ;) .

I'm not asking whether or not I think there are better rifles for zombies than what I have. I said that in the first paragraph ;) . I'm just asking which everyone would prefer to have of the two.

trip286 09-30-2011 02:35 PM

At the given moment, I would likely pick (since we are limited to those 2 choices) whichever one I had more ammo for on hand. Given broader choices I wouldn't pick either one, but an M1A like you mentioned, but money is an issue for me. That's it. And yes a rifle is offensive or defensive weapon, not offensive only. They simply have more power, more accuracy, and for some people they are easier to aim and gain a good sight picture. I would rather carry an M4 or AR15 everywhere, but it's inconvenient.

But, with the 2 above choices, whichever you have more ammo for. It wouldn't be fun to have to lug around all your reloading equipment either.

Caoimhin 09-30-2011 03:40 PM

Well if one of your hand guns is a nice 22lr pistol like a Buck Mark then I would have no problem with the 308. My 308 is a 3 shot bolt action and I'm keeping it with me.

Lindenwood 09-30-2011 03:51 PM

Ive actually been thinking about selling my p22 and getting a buckmark, heh.

Interesting, though. So youd pick the 22 over the 308 because of the amount of ammo I could carry? Because I dont imagine id carry more than maybe 40 rounds if I ever had to bug out, just because 40 rounds is a lot of ammo for a single-shot that isnt a prinary weapon.

trip286 09-30-2011 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindenwood (Post 590030)
Ive actually been thinking about selling my p22 and getting a buckmark, heh.

Interesting, though. So youd pick the 22 over the 308 because of the amount of ammo I could carry? Because I dont imagine id carry more than maybe 40 rounds if I ever had to bug out, just because 40 rounds is a lot of ammo for a single-shot that isnt a prinary weapon.

but when your talking about .22, why carry 40 when you can throw a 550 round brick in your pack? Hunting small game and a .22 rifle will outshine a pistol. If your bugged out, and on the move, in the wilds, some squirrel stew is mighty fine eating. And it is possible to take a larger animal like a deer, with perfect/lucky shot placement. aim for the eyeball.

Seven 10-01-2011 01:38 AM

Here's what I did with an H&R for a "survival rifle" for hikes and camping.


Lindenwood 10-01-2011 02:06 PM

Oh nice!! Those are some neat ideas.


Now I want a buckmark though, heh.

erikthebald 10-01-2011 02:56 PM

Between the two
 
I'd grab that semi auto .22

No, a .22lr doesn't have a lot of stopping power. But, consider the psychological aspect. Any fire coming from the front is going to stop all but the most determined of attackers.

Under fire = take cover.

In a defensive situation, I'd much rather have a handful of little .22s headed down range towards any menacing Tangos than a single.308.

That'll be $0.02.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.