• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you had the choice of only one weapon...

A disaster hits your area and you have 100 rounds. What weapon to bring?

  • AR-15 Semi-Auto 5.56 or AR-10 in .308

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • AK-47 or in 7.62 to .308

    Votes: 7 17.5%

  • 3030 to .308 lever action rifle

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • 3030 to .308 bolt action rifle

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Any revolver from .38 to 454 Casull

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Any Auto Pistol from 9mm to .50 cal

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Knife or Other: Please Explane.

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • None

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Das Sozialist said:
Being armed would bring more attention to yourself, wouldn't it? If someone sees that you're armed, they're going to think you have something to defend/hide.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does bring attention to you, which is why you had better be sure you're proficient with a weapon, rather than just a dumbass playing Rambo.
 
TurtleDude said:
I suspect that running one of those mothers by yourself would be rather taxing

Of course if you were being attacked by the Zulu Nation circa 1874 I suspect that sucker would be pure hell
Click to expand...



ZUUUUUULUUUUU
 
lizzie said:
Yes, it does bring attention to you, which is why you had better be sure you're proficient with a weapon, rather than just a dumbass playing Rambo.
Click to expand...

If you didn't draw attention to yourself by having a gun, or at least a long-gun, you wouldn't need to worry as much about your proficiency.
 
Blackdog said:
I doubt that. We are not running around with binoculars or scopes. So the effective range for line of site is about all you got. Open site at 100 yards, you are a tiny target. But at that range my hooded Marlin open site can do 5 round groupings you can put a quarter on. So going to have to disagree.



In urban or jungle environments, the 7.62 not only bucks brush etc better, it hits harder.



So have I including the Veper and an AKM. Admittedly I never owned one in 545.



.308 is the finest combat round ever made. If it hits you anyplace you are out period. the next time that little 545 takes down a 500lb Elk, let me know. There is a reason they are illegal for dear hunting.



Again we are talking survival emergency situations. You are not going to have coated optics or anything even close. You have 100 rounds and the basic gun, that's it. Don't keep adding things in TD.
Click to expand...


I have coated optics on one of my AKs

I have a Gen 4 ASN passive night vision scope on an M4 and a TIU flip up unit on a Rock River AR 10

and you might talk to people who have actually seen people shot with the Soviet round. the afghans claimed the rounds were poisoned due to the extreme lethality of the 53 WASP bullet.

your premise was the most versatile weapon going. a lever in 30-30 isn't close

(and yeah I have a couple centerfire Lever actions as well)
 
StillBallin75 said:
Abrams are nothing more than glorified gas guzzlers when you only have one person operating the vehicle...
Click to expand...

Where did the OP say that either fuel or friends was limited?

And the Abrams gas turbine engine will run on just about any liquid with combustible properties.

Besides, even when I run out of ammo - I will be a LOT safer sitting in that then you will be sitting in your house.
 
Last edited:
Das Sozialist said:
If you didn't draw attention to yourself by having a gun, or at least a long-gun, you wouldn't need to worry as much about your proficiency.
Click to expand...

If that is your preference, then by all means, that is what you should do.
 
Das Sozialist said:
Being armed would bring more attention to yourself, wouldn't it? If someone sees that you're armed, they're going to think you have something to defend/hide.
Click to expand...

And yes, you are much better off to be meek and defenseless...just sit idly by and wait for help to come... SMDH
 
lizzie said:
If that is your preference, then by all means, that is what you should do.
Click to expand...

Of course, I'm not trying to tell you what you should do, just stating what I believe.

Chiefgator said:
And yes, you are much better off to be meek and defenseless...just sit idly by and wait for help to come... SMDH
Click to expand...

I believe I would be. I would try not to stay around long enough for people to want to kill/rob others for food.
 
Wiseone said:


ZUUUUUULUUUUU
Click to expand...


a wonderful movie with chief Gatcha Butelezei (Sp) and his people playing the role of their ancestors

what was interesting about a movie made over 40 years ago was how respectful it was of the brave Zulu Impis that charged with stabbing spears into a line of the most disciplined soldiers then known to the world. British regulars not only had the best single shot rifle available at the time, they also were the best close quarters bayonet fighters around and that long cruciform bayonet would go right through the zulu cowhide shield

the British also had a nasty little trick-the Martini-Henry rifles had a brass buttplate and the BRitish soldiers would lunge with the bayonet. the Zulu would try to block upwards with their shield and the brit would spin that rifle around and break the jaw or the face of the zulu warrior with that heavy stock and buttplate. The Brit could fire a round every 4 seconds with those rifles and when you had 60 or so in rows with bayonets fixed forward firing rounds that would go through 2-3 light zulu bodies the concentrated killing power that the zulus were forced to confront was absolutely hellish

interesting, at Rourke's drift the Memorial-erected by the Brits only made note of the Native warriors (the Zulu) though HRH Queen Victoria awarded her cross to 14 or so of her soldiers at Rourke's drift
 
DA60 said:
Where did the OP say that either fuel or friends was limited?

And the Abrams gas turbine engine will run on just about any liquid with combustible properties.

Besides, even when I run out of ammo - I will be a LOT safer sitting in that then you will be sitting in your house.
Click to expand...

If not one American has died in one during war, then I assume you wouldn't either
 
Chiefgator said:
And yes, you are much better off to be meek and defenseless...just sit idly by and wait for help to come... SMDH
Click to expand...

its to be expected when one's philosophy is outsourcing personal responsibility to a nanny state government?
 
I would take the Casull for a couple of reasons.

1. If I need to hunt meat, the Casull will take down any North American animal I'm likely to come across.

2. I'm interested in defense...not offense. The pistol is better suited for relatively close targets and I'll rely on my own abilities to remain unseen at longer ranges.
 
Das Sozialist said:
I believe I would be. I would try not to stay around long enough for people to want to kill/rob others for food.
Click to expand...

Why not organize the craziest of them and run a business out of it. You could barter ramen noodles for something good like fresh meat or land. In times of adversity there will always be opportunity
 
Mycroft said:
I would take the Casull for a couple of reasons.

1. If I need to hunt meat, the Casull will take down any North American animal I'm likely to come across.
Click to expand...

In a situation as described, though, it seems that small game would be much more suitable, due to storage and preservation concerns. (or were you referring to defense against large animals?)
 
lizzie said:
In a situation as described, though, it seems that small game would be much more suitable, due to storage and preservation concerns. (or were you referring to defense against large animals?)
Click to expand...

There is no need for hunting if you can take or barter for food. Gather people, display leadership, prosper
 
I voted for AR-10, since I have become pretty fond of mine. However, for my very limited gun collection, I buy guns with disaster in mind. A disaster can quickly make an orderly town into an anarchy situation in some cases, so I want to be able to defend myself. I also have an AK-47 because I believe they will take a lot of abuse and keep going; I have enough handguns for everyone in my house; and I own a shotgun too just in case. I have plans to buy more, but I have limited funds so other things are higher on the priority list. I am thinking my next gun will either be a .40 Glock or an AR-15; I haven't made up my mind yet.
 
lizzie said:
In a situation as described, though, it seems that small game would be much more suitable, due to storage and preservation concerns. (or were you referring to defense against large animals?)
Click to expand...

It's already been established that small game would be trapped...not shot. If I wanted an elk or a deer, the Casull would do just fine.

My comment about defense would apply to anything that would require defending against...human or animal.
 
Mycroft said:
It's already been established that small game would be trapped...not shot. If I wanted an elk or a deer, the Casull would do just fine.

My comment about defense would apply to anything that would require defending against...human or animal.
Click to expand...

I know a bit about pistols. Shot on the IPSC tour as a Master class (limited and open)

I have shot several clean (500X500) glock league events and have 5 600/60X PPC scores to my credit and more 600 58X+ scores than I can count and I can tell you, hitting game under stressful situations with a heavy revolver is not all that easy


just saying..............
 
I chose the AR-configuration because that is what I have trained with and employed, and I'm not too terribly shabby at it.

For those coming to this question with equivalent training/experience (or lack thereof) I would say the indestructibility of the AK-variant would make it a superior choice - the AK was designed to be used by under-trained soldiers and never, ever, fail.
 
If we are talking about a disaster and not a war, alien invasion, or zombie apocalypse; I would choose to carry a Glock.
It would be in the category of tool. Its lightweight, decent range and power would make it simple to carry long distances and use for hunting purposes. Also it is used by the police so ammunition would not be too difficult to find.
 
TurtleDude said:
I know a bit about pistols. Shot on the IPSC tour as a Master class (limited and open)

I have shot several clean (500X500) glock league events and have 5 600/60X PPC scores to my credit and more 600 58X+ scores than I can count and I can tell you, hitting game under stressful situations with a heavy revolver is not all that easy


just saying..............
Click to expand...

On the other hand, my ex-wife has taken two deer and one elk in the past three years with her Casull. It does have a scope, though.
 
Blackdog said:
I doubt that. We are not running around with binoculars or scopes. So the effective range for line of site is about all you got. Open site at 100 yards, you are a tiny target. But at that range my hooded Marlin open site can do 5 round groupings you can put a quarter on. So going to have to disagree.
Click to expand...

100? Most soldiers can hit 300m at least 50% with the AR iron. I think that establishes stand-off range. Few freaks will take something that can reach out farther (even presuming no scopes). If someone has a pistol, they live at my will, and my peeps who great them will explain that clearly.

Is this apocaplyse or just disaster?
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
On the other hand, my ex-wife has taken two deer and one elk in the past three years with her Casull. It does have a scope, though.
Click to expand...


yeah I have too though I prefer a bow since its a bit more sporting but I would never advocate a bow as an all round survival weapon

I don't find a handgun versatile enough for a primary survival weapon
 
ecofarm said:
100? Most soldiers can hit 300m at least 50% with the AR iron. I think that establishes stand-off range. Few freaks will take something that can reach out further (even presuming no scopes). If someone has a pistol, they live at my will, and my peeps who great them will explain that clearly.

Is this apocaplyse or just disaster?
Click to expand...

true, I shot expert on the military course using a Garand, and M14 and a M16 and that was iron sights out to 600 yards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom