If you were limited to one Pistol, 1 Rifle and 1 Shotgun what would they be?

[jayrod]

Mossberg 500, Smith and Wesson 4" .357 any model will do really, and.....probably a 10/22 for the little stuff

[tank]

Well let me see, if I lived in the north country or in a dangerout game area I would have a .44 mag revolver, I can shoot the lesser load of .44 special out of it. I would have a 30-30 I like the lever actions, Marlin, Winchesters, the 30-30 is easy to find just about anywhere in the north country. I would have a mossberg 12 ga. with a 24 inch barrel with exchangable chokes of improved cylinder, for slugs and buck shot. and tight in bird shooting, with a full choke for large birds, ducks, geese. I would rather have others like the ar or ak, glock, and a slug barrel in the shot gun.

But these are the three I would choose.

[SemperFi]

Im beginning to like the 30-30 alot better , the .45-70 is nice to have to but using it on a daily basis would take alot of effort , I dont think the 30-30 would do that to you!

[Sourdough]

S&W Model 48 (.22 Magnum) 6" barrel

CZ Model 512 (.22 Magnum)

CZ Model "Bobwhite" in 20 ga.

The CZ-512 is a take-down auto loading .22 Mag. It would be taken down and in the backpack. The M-48 in a flap holster. And the Bobwhite in hand.

[old fart]

with money troubles hitting me hard this year i'm down to three guns already. i have kept a h&r pardner pump 12 gauge with 18.5 barrel, a crickett 22, and a nef 22 revolver. instead of trying to get more guns in the future, i'm going to build up my ammo supply.

[balendor]

when looking at firearms I first look at use ( intended purpose) caliber/ ammo ( what will get the job done and easy to scrounge if the SHTF) Availability of parts ( both on the market and if the SHTF) thinking about these in advance may save headaches in the future IMHO. Each must decide for themselves what fits there needs best.

[Cast-Iron]

22 revolver
Remington 870
Norinco 7.62 X 39 or Winchester 30-30

[Celticwarrior]

3 guns, no budget restrictions? Ok:

Match grade Gold Eagle II Kimber 1911 .45
Mossberg 930 SPX 12 gauge Semi-auto
Fulton Armory M25 Peerless Sniper Rifle (Civilian milspec m-14/m-21)

[wtrfwlr]

If it's what I own and would take it would be
Shotgun= Benelli Super Black Eagle
Rifle= Winchester Model 70 30-06
I don't own a handgun

If I could just walk into a gun store and pick three it would be
Shotgun= Benelli Super Black Eagle
Rifle= Winchester Model 70 30-06
Pistol= 357 Revolver S+W or Ruger

[wholsomback]

Personally the 45 1911
22lr semi auto
12 guage

But when TSHTF you take what you can get and make due.

[kyratshooter]

You may get your chance to make your pick sooner than you expected fellas!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...l-legislation/

They are reading the proposed new law on the steps of NY City Hall tomorrow!

[Celticwarrior]

"...out of fear of retribution by the powerful National Rifle Association"??? What does that mean? As a lobby group, they don't wield any more power than other groups like the Tobacco industry or Big Pharma or the Beef Industry! But what they are really afraid of is the backlash from millions of GUN OWNERS.

I can see a time here where they will go back to the Brady Bill time, and get rid of large cap magazines, "hoarding' of ammunition, and getting rid of any 'assault' weapon guns, or guns that make liberals scared because they look 'military'. It won't be long. Figure that after the elections, we'll be inundated with bills both at state and federal levels to rectify all those perceived loopholes that 'allowed' a tragedy like Aurora to happen.

[Rick]

Dear Mayor Bloomberg...

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[Ted]

Dear Mayor Bloomberg...

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

Roflmao!!!!!!

[Celticwarrior]

The way I see it, all of the government types that want to get rid of guns are only afraid of them being used ON government types at some point, when the People get to that point where they have nothing left to lose and the whole French Revolution thing starts looking pretty darn good. What they DON'T understand is that in every revolution, the guys in power ALWAYS have the tactical advantage over the querrillas in the field hiding behind trees with their muskets, but that doesn't mean those folks should be underestimated. Look at the French Resistance in WW2. They made, stole and improvised firearms, ammo, and explosives and managed to do a LOT of damage to the Nazis, paving the way for the Allied invasion. The American Revolution had us going up against the biggest empire in the WORLD and we came out on top. The French Revolution had peasants with pitchforks going up against the Armies of France and the personal bodyguards of the aristocracy. Taking away every gun and round of ammo in America today wouldn't save the rich and powerful if the S hits the F, and the people decide they have had enough. Shortsightedness and paranoia are no substitute for a firm grasp of history.

[hunter63]

As this question comes up real regular, and generally turns into a "which gun is best" with lots different opinions....I will still offer my.

For starters, I would have to look at this question several ways.
First,...... I have no firearms, want to start a home armory........where to start? "If I had only had.....one (.22/.22 mag revolver, 870 12 ga, long range cal bolt gun, pick your favorite cal.)
Second..... I have/had/or if I had a home armory, and need to bug out, what would I grab......22/.22 mag, 870 12 ga., AR w/larger cal upper (AR late entry)

I would lean more toward hunting and foraging than tactical, I don't feel comfortable considering taking on a superior force alone....not good odds IMHP, unless it was absolutely necessary.

This decision has to do with money available, and personnel preference on possible uses.

PS. I was debating on .22 vs .357 revolver.......leaned toward the .22.....but #4 ( we always seem to have a limit?, or as DW says, how many do you need?) would be a .357 or some sort.

This thread tell me that some one has taken the advice/time to use "search".....cool.....anyway....

You know, I don't think my thinking has changed since last Oct, standing the test of time, so to speak......so I thinking I made the correct decision.

So anyone changed their mind....or sticking with the first go round.

[kyratshooter]

The way I see it, all of the government types that want to get rid of guns are only afraid of them being used ON government types at some point, when the People get to that point where they have nothing left to lose and the whole French Revolution thing starts looking pretty darn good. What they DON'T understand is that in every revolution, the guys in power ALWAYS have the tactical advantage over the querrillas in the field hiding behind trees with their muskets, but that doesn't mean those folks should be underestimated. Look at the French Resistance in WW2. They made, stole and improvised firearms, ammo, and explosives and managed to do a LOT of damage to the Nazis, paving the way for the Allied invasion. The American Revolution had us going up against the biggest empire in the WORLD and we came out on top. The French Revolution had peasants with pitchforks going up against the Armies of France and the personal bodyguards of the aristocracy. Taking away every gun and round of ammo in America today wouldn't save the rich and powerful if the S hits the F, and the people decide they have had enough. Shortsightedness and paranoia are no substitute for a firm grasp of history.

Celtic Warrior all this is very romantic and patriotic but not very historically accurate. The French resistance, and all the other reasistance movements of WW2 were useful mostly to tie up troops in "police actions". The most usefull being Tito's movement in Yugoslavia which tied up several divisions in hunting down these resistance fighters, killing thousands and burning whole villages in retribution. Tito was careful to move fighters away from their home territories so they would not be as concerned over retribution agains their families by the Nazis.

The revolutions that worked were the ones with outside assistance and an unlimited supply of cannonfodder.

You have not mentioned the peasant rebellions of the late middle ages, where thousands were executed, and things were worse at the end.

Or the revolutions against the Roman Empire where the rule was kill every man and sell every woman and child into slavery and move Romans into the empty land.

Our own revolution was a success not due to Washington and his "genius", but due to French arms, French infantry and the French Navy. At that final surrender Cornwallis refused to appear due to the American presence and his aide offered his sword to Lafayette as the victor, not Washington, who had even been left out of most of the surrender negotiations. The British had intended to surrender control of their colony to the French, not grant independence to the Americans. The Paris Tready resulted in indepencence due to lack of British support for an unpopular war, and its heavy tax burden, that had gone on for 8 years, not American military success.

Even at that last stage of the war the colonies were still split 30/30/30: for/against/indifferent to the revolution. Thousands of "Americans" pulled up stakes and moved to Canada at that was's end.

Then we attempted to offer Washington the position of "President for Life", confirming that the masses were not after "democracy".

That French Revolution came after ours and was effective due to social and financial collape due to climate shifts, resulting in an army which could not be paid and turned against the established order. Committies of Public Safety, guillotines on the street corners, Napolian as dictitator, yes that turned out well!

Same with the Russian Revolution, the military turned against the regime. Years of civil war and famine, millions dead, a dictator in power that made the Czar look like a whimp.

There is a real big difference between a "firm grasp of history" and believing the myth of history. A firm grasp of history would include the failures, and the retribution and whole nations vacated and sewn with salt for their impertinance.

Strangely, I can not see our present text punching, thumb crunching, vidio gaming generation (and that is the adults) enduring much revolutionary hardship. At least not until most of their toys are taken away. Then they will fall for the first promise made to give them back.

[Beans]

If I was limited to only 3, one of each my choice would be

1 Pistol. Glock either in 9mm or .40 (no sub compacts)model 19/23 34/35
2.Rifle. AK 47
3.Shotgun either a Mossberg 500 series or a Rem 870 in 12 guage.

All 3 of the gun selected have proven themselves to be able to function under adverse conditions without any or with just mininal maintainence.

They are much like my KA-Bar. there are other guns out there that will do some things better but IMHO these will do everything good enough.

[Celticwarrior]

Strangely, I can not see our present text punching, thumb crunching, vidio gaming generation (and that is the adults) enduring much revolutionary hardship. At least not until most of their toys are taken away. Then they will fall for the first promise made to give them back.

It will certainly separate the wheat from the chaff, that's for sure.

[hunter63]

Now THAT will be the "Zombies".....standing on the corners, with a dark screen, and a blank WTF look on their face......practically look for the App to fix it......