Pistols as primary

[NamelessStain]

Yes in this scenario this is based on a long distance traveled on foot.

You also have to take into consideration your health and fitness level. For me I've been out of the army for about a year. If it's less than 25 miles I would take my rifle and pistol. Once you start getting past that distance the 12-15ish pounds of rifle and ammo add up very quickly.

I'd get as far as I could in a vehicle with every pistol and rifle and all the ammo I have. But should the vehicle break down then the rifle is staying with the vehicle.

If I'm bugging out I have a wife and a 7 year old son. Corrsk jr won't be hauling much because of his size and age. So the wife and I are going to have to make up for that. Ditching the rifle means I can haul for food and water for the little guy.

Do you have an actual location in mind (aka your BOL) or is this just a "flee the disaster" scenario?

Also what type of terrain are you thinking about? Would this be back country roads or extreme terrain like a bog/marsh?

I'm just curious because using a bicycle as a form of transportation to carry your bags and possible Corrsk jr is a possible alternative depending on terrain. Also one of those bike carts can be used like a rickshaw.

I'm just trying to get a better feel for what event in particular you are planning for that requires you to abandon a rifle.

[corrsk]

I'm going off what I have currently. And right now we don't have any bikes other than Corrsk jr and he has yet to learn how to ride without training wheels. The kid just doesn't have a desire to learn.

[woodsghost]

Ho Chi Minh trail pics.

[NamelessStain]

I was going back a bit deeper into history, woodghost...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry

[woodsghost]

I was going back a bit deeper into history, woodghost...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry

Nice! Great point!

I just always love the pics of those crazy loads the VC/NVA put on bicycles and how they managed to maneuver those bikes. Whenever I think of bikes, I always think of them.

[zero11010]

I'm not an expert on the topic (I have some friends who commonly do rides of more than 100 miles and have gone on thousand mile bike rides), but when people are riding a bicycle with weight, they typically don't carry more than they would on foot.

What I know of bicycles used by soldiers was that they were used for mobility, and weighting them down with supplies would diminish that. Take a look at each soldier's load.


What I know of bicycles used as Woodsghost suggests, the bicycle was used like a cart while walking along side it and all their possessions were piled on top of the bike. These folks carried everything and the kitchen sink (in some cases literally).
* Images of this can be seen above.

What I know of modern bicycles used in long distance riding is that most people carry much less than 50 pounds of weight on their bike. This total is approximate to where most people want their backpacks as well. For people doing this sort of thing you don't see people wearing a backpack of any size because they need to reduce weight on their arms to reduce fatigue. You end up with some weight at the rear of the bike, some weight at the front and sometimes some weight on the handlebars. Most often these people don't wear anything at all on their body.


Something you will see, but to a much lesser extent would be people on a bike towing additional supplies.



The heavier your bicycle is the harder it is to move. People spend a LOT of money to lighten their bicycles and their loads as much as possible. This leaves most people who travel long distance on a bicycle more inclined to work with carrying less stuff rather than dealing with figuring out how to comfortably carry more.

Here are some examples of some moderate bicycles designed for touring (long distance with supplies)
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/city/touring/
These start at over $1,200, and they're not all fully loaded with the racks you would need to carry everything yet.

Dug this up if anyone is interesting in researching the topic more:
http://www.adventurecycling.org/adventu ... ers-guide/

[woodsghost]

What I know of bicycles used as Woodsghost suggests, the bicycle was used like a cart while walking along side it and all their possessions were piled on top of the bike. These folks carried everything and the kitchen sink (in some cases literally).
* Images of this can be seen above.

Yeah zero, you nailed it!

When looking at the pics of the Ho Chi Minh trail, it is apparent the bicycles have wood (bamboo) attached to the handle bars and to the seat, allowing the bicycle to be used as a mule of sorts and really just a means of transporting heavy loads at walking speed. The wood on the handle allows the bicycle to be steered while the owner is offset by cargo.

If I was looking at bugging out with a wife and little one (or several), I'd be looking at ways of carrying extra gear, and having that bike do the heavy work for you seems attractive.

If I was looking for speed, I'd lighten the load.

But these are just my thoughts for now. I'm still learning about the subject.

[Mad Mike]

I've been thinking for a while as I slowly build up my ammo stock pile. What I am thinking is that a pistol would be far superior to a rifle in a big out where you had to travel on foot for a long distance.

Forgetting the pros to having a rifle I want to point out my thought process as far as going pistol only.

1 more compact

2 easy to conceal

3 generally cheaper for a quality handgun

4 ammo is cheaper depending on caliber

5 if you choose a large caliber for example a 10mm it can also serve as a decent hunting round as long as you are proficient with it.

6 on the other end of the spectrum a .22 can also be a decent hunting round for small game.

7 significantly lighter than a rifle. For example my Glock 34 with 5 loaded mags is lighter than my AR empty

If you on the move on foot I truly think a pistol is the way to go. Even 2 pistols. A 22 for hunting small game and a larger caliber for self defense would still be lighter and more compact than one rifle.

This is just my train of thought you can agree or disagree.

There are many merits to a rifle the primary benefit being long range accuracy.

Most who plan on bugging out intend to drive as far as they can. If that's the case we all know we will be fully loaded. However should the worst happen it is wise to have a plan based on the situation. How far you still have to go. The event that caused you to bug out. Potential dangers.

Everything is situational.

I see a pistol as most useful in a get home bag. I expect it would be easier to get thru un-noticed than if you had a rifle slung over your shoulder, especially in an urban setting. Out in the boonies I would probably opt for a rifle, especially if it had a folding stock, for easier concealment.

Caliber would depend on what I expected to encounter along the way, for either the pistol or rifle.

[Mad Mike]

Most of your logic is sound. Most intelligent thought on the subject concludes that a pistol is superior to a rifle in home defense and bug out scenarios because it's concealable, portable, maneuverable and can be operated one handed.

Most of the reasons that are commonly cited for choosing a rifle (range and accuracy) are immature and fanciful. There is no legal justification to be taking 100+ yard precision shots in any remotely realistic defensive scenario.

However, I'd seriously reconsider any notions of relying on hunting into your survival/bug out plan. Unless you're a skilled and seasoned hunter in a very remote and well stocked area, it's just not realistically feasible. The VAST majority of recreational or inexperienced hunters don't have the skillset required to sustain themselves by hunting, and the vast majority of the US doesn't have the wildlife stocks to support sustained hunting.

Unless it's something that you already do and rely on regularly, don't plan on relying on it when SHTF.

Forget the 10mm and the 22LR, just buy a good reliable pistol in a defensive caliber (9mm) and learn how to shoot it well.

I must take exception to this part. If someone is shooting at me from 125 yds, I'm not supposed to return fire?

[Jeriah]

I've been thinking for a while as I slowly build up my ammo stock pile. What I am thinking is that a pistol would be far superior to a rifle in a big out where you had to travel on foot for a long distance.

Forgetting the pros to having a rifle I want to point out my thought process as far as going pistol only.

1 more compact

2 easy to conceal

I wouldn't think so much along the lines of "more" and "easy," but rather as a binary: is a rifle even an option? I don't carry often (I'm a college professor and when I'm not working, I'm probably planning on having a beer, so a firearm isn't usually part of my day), but when I do, it's a pistol, because I don't want to do my grocery shopping or whatever with a slung rifle. So I carry a pistol. Because a rifle isn't an option. For a bugout on foot when things weren't looking especially violent, I'd probably do the same.

3 generally cheaper for a quality handgun

4 ammo is cheaper depending on caliber

Basically true. You can get a used Glock 19 for $400. 9mm ammo is as cheap as anything else viable. A holster, a few mags, and a mag pouch are about all you need...well, okay. Night sights and a light are good to have. But yes, a pistol setup is way cheaper than a rifle setup.

5 if you choose a large caliber for example a 10mm it can also serve as a decent hunting round as long as you are proficient with it.

6 on the other end of the spectrum a .22 can also be a decent hunting round for small game.

I don't have any real experience hunting, but it seems like a pistol that can be used to defend yourself against humans could be used to take something like a stupid deer that lets you get really close to it. I'd feel pretty good taking a shot at a deer with a pistol at 35 yards; much longer and I'd really be wishing for a rifle.

A .22 rifle or pistol, or an airgun, would be great for squirrels, birds, etc. A shotgun with the right loads would be, too, but then you've got to carry a shotgun.

7 significantly lighter than a rifle. For example my Glock 34 with 5 loaded mags is lighter than my AR empty

Yup.

If you on the move on foot I truly think a pistol is the way to go. Even 2 pistols. A 22 for hunting small game and a larger caliber for self defense would still be lighter and more compact than one rifle.

I can see it. A defensive pistol (I'd go Glock 19 but there are of course lots of other options) in your usual, quick-access position, which could also be used to take medium-sized animals if you get close enough, and a .22 in some other pretty accessible position (cross draw holster, maybe?) for opportunistically taking small game. Again, get pretty close.

This is just my train of thought you can agree or disagree.

There are many merits to a rifle the primary benefit being long range accuracy.

Most who plan on bugging out intend to drive as far as they can. If that's the case we all know we will be fully loaded. However should the worst happen it is wise to have a plan based on the situation. How far you still have to go. The event that caused you to bug out. Potential dangers.

Everything is situational.

It's good to have options. If you're expecting a gunfight, bring...well, artillery and air support, if you've got it. Failing that, a rifle and a lot of friends with rifles. But yeah, if you've got a lot of ground to cover on foot, and nobody's shooting yet, I can see the merits of the pistol setup you suggest.

I will say that the "long bugout on foot" situation is pretty unlikely. But then, so is getting into a big ol gunfight.

[eugene]

zero,

Personally I am not a fan of the AR-7, so I purchased a 10/22 TD model.

As to .22LR being the survival rifle, maybe you'll want to look into air rifles. There's a whole thread on here discussing them: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=114460&hilit=air+rifle Yes, they are a bit heavier and there are many types of "propulsion" from nitro pistons, CO2, Springs, PCP, etc. Each has its own pros/cons. But to make up for the rifle weight, ammo is insanely light Approximately 133 .22 LR is a pound, while approximately 500 14g .22 pellets = 1 pound.

And now that they have molds to make your own pellets, imo it is becoming more feasible as a long term solution for small game. Here's one as an example: http://airgunpelletmaker.weebly.com/

Ditto to this

Maybe the current Henry version of the AR-7 is more reliable, but all in all the Ruger 10/22 takedown is hard to beat and I also bought one recently. 10/22 are usually very reliable and you have a solid feeling, regular shaped (ergos) rifle in a small lightweight package when takendown. The other bonus is with the Ruger factor 25 round mags, you have a high capacity, reliable .22. God Forbid you get into a self defense gun fight with a .22lr rifle, you want the ability to shoot multiple rounds quickly. Most other .22lr break down rifles like the Marlin Papoose and the AR-7 have 8 to 10 round mags, and if they have a hi-capacity mag its usually not very reliable. Also back in the day the AR-7 were kind of cheap, but these days they are selling for over $200, or basically the same as a standard 10/22.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/prod ... R+Black+22

But going back to the pistol vs. rifle thing. I think this has been mentioned before on ZS, most realistic SHTF events when you need to bug out, the best option will probably be a pistol and a few mags. The likelihood you will be openly walking around with an AR, or hunting for food during your bugout with a .22 or a pellet gun
is really, really slim. Having a AR and a 10/22 is still a good thing to have but not super important in a bugout.

The current Henry is reliable. Its also half the size and weight of the 10-22.

I carry my AR7 an M&P22 and my M&P9c for my gear.

[Hollis]

I must take exception to this part. If someone is shooting at me from 125 yds, I'm not supposed to return fire?

Good point. IMHO when someone uses insults as retort.. Does not say much for their position.

I think it all depends. Where do you live, what else lives out there. In back woods Alaska a 22 is not going to do the job in dealing with a big bear.

I think there are too many variables to say there is one choice only in this topic. I like the OP post, well thought out. I think that is what people need to do. Think about where you are, how you will be traveling, what will your needs be, etc. Ammo does not last for ever, so if you are carrying it initially, you may not have it later.

Hunting big game? Hunting small game? What will the needs for defense. In a military type situation a military type rifle will be best. A person good at avoiding conflict or there will not be much of a conflict a lot less is needed.

The other issue is the person themselves. How will trained they are. How well can they adjust to the changes and adapt to those changes. If the SHTF, probably the biggest challenge will be to analyze the situation and make a plan of action.

If a person will be moving with a large mob, my guess would be a pistol for conceal ability. (see the Grey man Thread).

Generally, I would prefer a rifle, but the situation would dictate what my choice would actually be. I live rural and a rifle would fit in better.

Thanks for the interesting read to those who responded. Lots to think about.

[ROCK6]

This is an interesting topic only because it forces you to define your situation and mission. Most here would agree that you “don’t bring a pistol to a rifle fight”; however, if the mission is to beat-feet home and avoid any and all contact, a pistol may very well be the better choice…again, what is your situation?

I’ve come to the conclusion that if I’m in a 50 mile radius from home (I work 25 miles from home), I don’t need a full-sized rifle for the majority of “most-likely” SHTF scenarios I’ve war-gamed. I have started to use and consider adding a pseudo-SBR to my regular CCW. I’m toying with both the CZ Scorpion EVO pistol and ATI’s AR15 9mm (Glock) pistol with arm braces. I like the extra stability, longer sight radius (both have compact RDSs on them) and slightly better ballistics and more accurate firepower than my CCW. Even better is both are very compact enough for discreet carry in my bughome or work pack.

Back to the pistol. I wouldn’t feel under-gunned with a Glock 34 and handful of magazines if I only need to travel home within that 50 mile radius. There are several dirt-road routes or even through wooded areas and a pistol allows a much lighter and less cumbersome load to maneuver fast and quiet. For the majority of my location, any engagements between 50-100 meters have enough cover and concealment to break contact, so avoidance can be utilized more than tactical engagements.

A pistol would be fine for those initial hours of a major SHTF. Being armed, but having it concealed is the best solution for my planning between zero-hour and that 72-96 hour mark of a major crisis. Any handgun is for SD and meant as a means to fight your way to your rifle…this is exactly how I see a “pistol” is used for my situation of short-distance bugging home.

ROCK6

[Dabster]

A pistol that is for more than defensive purposes?

Hmmmm.... I think someone already did that...

Oh wait, yes indeed they did:



Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_Mark_23

The Heckler & Koch MK 23, MK 23 MOD 0, Mark 23, or USSOCOM MARK 23, is a semi-automatic large-frame pistol chambered in .45 ACP. designed specifically to be an offensive pistol. The USSOCOM version of the MK23 came paired with a laser aiming module (LAM), and suppressor. The USSOCOM MK23 was adopted by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for special operations units beating out the nearest competitor, Colt's OHWS. Development of the pistol began in 1991 as special operations representatives identified the need for an "Offensive Handgun Weapons System—Special Operations Peculiar", and delivery of the pistol's began in May 1996 to the special operation units.

The MK 23 is considered a match grade pistol, and is capable of making a 2-inch (51 mm) group at 25 metres (27 yd). The MK 23 is designed for exceptional durability in harsh environments, being waterproof and corrosion-resistant.[8] It uses a polygonal barrel design, which is reported to improve accuracy and durability, being much more expensive to produce.[8][10] It also features an ambidextrous safety and magazine release on both sides of the frame. The magazine release is at the rear edge of the trigger guard, which is wide enough to allow the use of gloves. A decocking lever is on the left side, which will silently lower the cocked hammer. The MK 23 is part of a larger weapon system that includes an attachable Laser Aiming Module (LAM), a suppressor, and some other features such as a special high-pressure match cartridge (.45 +P ammunition).

The firearm was tested and found to be capable of firing tens of thousands of rounds without a barrel change.[11] It remains reliable in harsh conditions, making it suitable for use by special forces. The .45 ACP round has considerable stopping power and yet is subsonic, making it suitable for use with a suppressor.

Shameless HK Fan Boy signing off!

[ironhead7544]

There are a lot of considerations for a pistol of this type. I decided on a G34.

Ammo weight is less than the other larger rounds. You can carry a lot of 9mm. The G34 takes the 33 round factory magazines. The guy who wrote about the SHTF situation in Argentina said the pistol was more important than the rifle as you can easily carry the pistol concealed every day. He also said he nearly ran out of ammo and it is best to have a rifle of the same caliber to simplify ammo requirements. He said not to expect to get any more ammo once things start. So, 9mm is easy to get and very compact to store. With the proper boxes, you can get 1300 rounds in a 50 Cal ammo box.

For a rifle, there are a number of 9mm carbines out there. Standard 9mm ammo gets about 1300 fps with 115 gr ammo from a 16 inch barrel, as chronoed by me. That is enough to open a hollow point nicely. The NATO 9mm ammo gets 1330 fps with a 124 gr.

Concerning hunting, the 147 gr +P rounds will work on deer if carefully placed at 25 yards or so on a side shot. Of course, you have to be able to get good hits. Which brings up the fact that 9mm practice ammo is about the cheapest centerfire ammo you can buy.

[Neville]

I've been thinking for a while as I slowly build up my ammo stock pile. What I am thinking is that a pistol would be far superior to a rifle in a big out where you had to travel on foot for a long distance.

Forgetting the pros to having a rifle I want to point out my thought process as far as going pistol only.

1 more compact

2 easy to conceal

3 generally cheaper for a quality handgun

4 ammo is cheaper depending on caliber

5 if you choose a large caliber for example a 10mm it can also serve as a decent hunting round as long as you are proficient with it.

6 on the other end of the spectrum a .22 can also be a decent hunting round for small game.

7 significantly lighter than a rifle. For example my Glock 34 with 5 loaded mags is lighter than my AR empty

If you on the move on foot I truly think a pistol is the way to go. Even 2 pistols. A 22 for hunting small game and a larger caliber for self defense would still be lighter and more compact than one rifle.

This is just my train of thought you can agree or disagree.

There are many merits to a rifle the primary benefit being long range accuracy.

Most who plan on bugging out intend to drive as far as they can. If that's the case we all know we will be fully loaded. However should the worst happen it is wise to have a plan based on the situation. How far you still have to go. The event that caused you to bug out. Potential dangers.

Everything is situational.

Back in the cowboy days it was common for folks to have a handgun and a long-gun chambered in the same round.

Presently in my GHB I have a CZ 75b Compact 40 and a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 that both take the CZ full-size magazines. The carbine is pretty light, and allows me to get distance shots more accurately and faster than I could with a handgun. It also provides more FPS in terms of terminal ballistics, and if I load using a slow powder I can really take advantage of the longer barrel (less of an advantage if using store-bought ammo only).

I also have a .357 revolver and a couple of .357 carbines. Same idea.

I also have an AR in 5.56, a handgun in 9mm, and .22 lr adapters for both of them. 100 rifle rounds, 100 pistol rounds, and a bulk-pack of .22 lr would go a long way.

If your strategy is "the car broke down but there is only a 10 mile one day hike to our family ranch in the hills" then a pistol is probably enough depending on the situation. If you're heading for the woods, and don't know really where you are going just "some place better" then you're going to be hoofing it quite a while and who knows what you'll run into or need. Thats where hedging your bets and expanding your options really starts to matter.

[JFire]

Im surprised im the first to mention this. Have we forgotten the shotgun? The ultimate home defense.

You can get a separate rifled cantilever barrel that can be changed out relatively easy and fast if you want a dedicated big game hunting platform or if you'd need to reach out and touch a 2 legged varmint. In close there's nothing better.

You can buy 14" barrels and if the SHTF and there's no worry about the ATF you'll have a pretty compact weapon especially with an AR like 6 position stock.

If you don't care about a rifled barrel slugs are decently accurate enough and simply devastating to 2 or 4 legged targets. A decent marksman can consistently hit a head sized target at 50 yards with a smooth bore and slugs.

Just my 2 cents. I don't own an AR or AK but my next gun purchase is a dedicated defensive shotgun.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

[jor-el]

Im surprised im the first to mention this. Have we forgotten the shotgun? The ultimate home defense.

You can get a separate rifled cantilever barrel that can be changed out relatively easy and fast if you want a dedicated big game hunting platform or if you'd need to reach out and touch a 2 legged varmint. In close there's nothing better.

You can buy 14" barrels and if the SHTF and there's no worry about the ATF you'll have a pretty compact weapon especially with an AR like 6 position stock.

If you don't care about a rifled barrel slugs are decently accurate enough and simply devastating to 2 or 4 legged targets. A decent marksman can consistently hit a head sized target at 50 yards with a smooth bore and slugs.

Just my 2 cents. I don't own an AR or AK but my next gun purchase is a dedicated defensive shotgun.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Are Saiga 12 shotguns legal where you live?

When I owned one, I believed very few things alive could get close to me with buckshot loaded 20 round drums.

[JFire]

Im surprised im the first to mention this. Have we forgotten the shotgun? The ultimate home defense.

You can get a separate rifled cantilever barrel that can be changed out relatively easy and fast if you want a dedicated big game hunting platform or if you'd need to reach out and touch a 2 legged varmint. In close there's nothing better.

You can buy 14" barrels and if the SHTF and there's no worry about the ATF you'll have a pretty compact weapon especially with an AR like 6 position stock.

If you don't care about a rifled barrel slugs are decently accurate enough and simply devastating to 2 or 4 legged targets. A decent marksman can consistently hit a head sized target at 50 yards with a smooth bore and slugs.

Just my 2 cents. I don't own an AR or AK but my next gun purchase is a dedicated defensive shotgun.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Are Saiga 12 shotguns legal where you live?

When I owned one, I believed very few things alive could get close to me with buckshot loaded 20 round drums.

Sure are. Im not familiar with them except to know what they are. Unsure if you can get a rifled barrel for them like you could a mossberg or remington pump. The cantilever barrel is such a nice touch since the optic stays on the barrel and wont lose zero when swapped out.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

[NamelessStain]

If you are thinking about throwing an aftermarket magazine in it, make sure you remain 922r compliant. Just sayin'.

Just google "922r compliant Saiga".

[zantra]

AN AR, with 10.5" barrel, and 7.5" silencer, and .22lr converison unit, is easily taken down to conceal in a pack, takes 5 seconds. Reassembly to fire takes just 10 seconds. Or I'd go with a pair of pistols, the alloy commander in 460 rowland, 70gr split noses at 2300 fps, for 750 ft lbs, and an integrally silenced Ruger 2245. if the rifle was taken down, I'd have a Micro9 Kimber in a front pants pocket holster. Out of the way of the rifle and pack, out of sight, out of the elements, but accessible. Be sure to have a pair of Sonic Earvalve plugs in your pocket, in a squeeze to open case, lanyarded to your belt. If you smell trouble, or can make it to cover, you can insert the plugs in 4 seconds, faster than anyone can speedload a revolver (from concealment) and double the effective range of your un-silenced pistol

[zantra]

the AR can be as little as 4 lbs. a 30 rd mag full of 60 gr softpoints is 1 lb. The .22lr conversion unit is just 3/4 lb. 22lr ammo is 135 rds to the lb. A proper 223 silencer can be as lw as 3/4 lb. scope and mount, 1 lb. Anyone with cover, at say 20m of range, and a silenced .22lr autorifle can take on half a dozen guys who have nothing but pistols, and kill all of you. A head, bobbing around cover at 20 yds, is an impossible mark for somebody who has nothing more than a handgun. The silencer will render subsonic .22lr ammo mild-handclap quiet, and if you hold shut the bolt, it will sound like a BB gun. this being the case, 2 of you might well be brained before you realize that you're under fire, and 2 more might well be chest-hit before you can determine where the fire is coming from and the rest hit before you can do anything about it.

[Neville]

Im surprised im the first to mention this. Have we forgotten the shotgun? The ultimate home defense.

You can get a separate rifled cantilever barrel that can be changed out relatively easy and fast if you want a dedicated big game hunting platform or if you'd need to reach out and touch a 2 legged varmint. In close there's nothing better.

You can buy 14" barrels and if the SHTF and there's no worry about the ATF you'll have a pretty compact weapon especially with an AR like 6 position stock.

If you don't care about a rifled barrel slugs are decently accurate enough and simply devastating to 2 or 4 legged targets. A decent marksman can consistently hit a head sized target at 50 yards with a smooth bore and slugs.

Just my 2 cents. I don't own an AR or AK but my next gun purchase is a dedicated defensive shotgun.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

A good 12 gauge shotgun is probably the most versatile weapons platform on the planet.

The down side is that the ammo is bulky and heavy on a per-shot basis. Everything's a trade-off, hey? My wife and I each have a shotgun loaded by the bedside for home (barricade in the bedroom) defense. It's near perfect for that role. However, if I was on a march and had to tote all my food and survival gear, a shotgun and it's ammo would quickly start to seem like an anchor or anvil that I'd be looking for an excuse to ditch in favor of something lighter.

That's one of the benefits of the long gun and pistol that take the same round (or even magazines). If you have to ditch one for whatever reason, all the ammo is still usable, you didn't waste effort carrying it 10 miles and ditching it for the last 30.

[woodsghost]

I think it has been covered before; a shotgun is not the ultimate weapon and certainly not the ultimate HD weapon. It is an acceptable choice, and in some areas it is nearly the optimal choice.

Lots of people like shotguns for hunting. I don't understand this, unless one is shooting birds in flight. The trick to using a rifle is that one needs to be more practiced or simply shoot game when it is standing still.

If one lives in an area where undergrowth prevents one from shooting or even seeing past 50 yards, then a shotgun is a pretty useful fighting tool. If one lives in areas where line of sight and shots might extend past 50 yards, then a shotgun is a far less useful tool.

Barrel swapping in a firefight is not a good idea. Swapping rounds is ok, but then you are switching between a patterning weapon to what is basically a rifle. That "rifle" is likely holding 4 to 8 shots, not fast to reload, slower to get back on target due to recoil, and you are carrying fewer rounds for it. Someone with a K98 and some stripper clips will be in a better position to fight than someone with a shotgun using slugs. Ok, a semi-auto shotgun will have the advantage until the first tube is emptied.

Yes, box magazine fed shotguns solve the issue of reload speed, but do not solve the issues of ammo weight, bulk, and effective range. A rifle will have a greater effective range than a shotgun, even a shotgun firing slugs.

Now, within the range that a shotgun effectively patterns, yes, it is a useful fighting tool. But even there things are tricky. If the target is too close the shotgun acts as a rifle anyway, and you are using a slow firing, low capacity "rifle" to fight with. Outside the effective patterning distance one can still use slugs but one is then reduced to using a slow firing, low capacity "rifle" with a rainbow trajectory. You can make it work, but other weapons do it better.

Modern fighting rifles simply beat the shotgun, except within the window of "effective patterning." This means the modern fighting rifle is actually the more versatile fighting tool. You can carry more bullets and their effective range is much longer than a shotgun, even a slug gun. You can also get those rifle bullets into the fight much faster.

Where a shotgun is often touted is in it's ability to switch ammo types. While this can be useful for switching between small, medium, and large game, it is less useful in a fight unless one has access to round types that I simply don't have access to. I can't get tear gas or grenade rounds. "Dragon Breath" rounds might have some utility in a fight. I really don't know.

Where I see the biggest utility for shotguns is in gun ban states. In general, the shotgun has proven resistant to most bans and regulations. I understand juries to be more friendly to those using shotguns for home defense too. I have found more ranges allow shotguns than allow rifles. This gives more options to practice at. It will also be easier to travel between states and complying with firearms laws with a shotgun than with most pistols or fighting rifles.

I also see the shotgun being useful to those just starting into prepping. The initial cost of the weapon and the cost of training and maintaining basic proficiency will be lower. However, the user will be subject to the general limitations of shotguns.

One nice feature of some shotguns is the ability to accept adapters for other calibers. This seems most likely to be useful in some sort of post-apocalyptic world where severe ammunition shortages exist. The kind of world where simply have a *working* gun makes you a significant threat. I'd rather put the "shotgun and adapters" money into a deeper stockpile of the rifle ammo I already use.

Ouch. I am way off the topic of "pistols as primary."

Ok, on that note, most pistols are lighter than most shotguns. Pistol ammo is pretty much always lighter than shotgun ammo, and more compact. Pistols are more concealable. The range of a pistol is about equal to that of a shotgun. However, most shotguns are used with a stock, providing more points of contact and making it easier to shoot accurately. The pattern of a shotgun makes hits easier. Training costs are lower. Yeah, I'd rather have a fighting shotgun than "only" a fighting pistol. If I was fighting someone armed with a pistol, I would be more confident if I had a shotgun with a fighting load. If facing someone with a rifle, I'd rather have a rifle too.

If bring pistol caliber carbines into the mix, I don't know what I'd do or want.