Poll- Would you use a surplus rifle for SHTF?

[Salty Possum]

Had a discussion with the neighbor the other day, thought it was rather interesting. Would you use a military surplus rifle (Enfield, Mauser, Mosin, Garand, SKS, etc) in a SHTF scenario?

I personally would say yes. If I had a Mauser (let's say a Yugo) for example, and had a bandolier, lots of ammo with stripper clips, an assault pack for supplies to go with it, and it hit the fan, I'd grab it all and be ready to defend my family and country.

Now don't get me wrong, the modern made firearms (AK's, AR-15's, etc.) are for the most part the best you can get. It's the latest tech, with accessories galore, blah blah you know all the pros of that already, but here is my stance....

Surplus bolt and semi auto rifles are:
A. Battle proven.
B. Durable.
C. Accurate.
D. Most have a caliber readily available.
E. A person familiar and well trained in their surplus rifle is just as deadly as a man with a $1,300 AR-15.

Is this a silly debate? Maybe, but I think it is interesting. Maybe it's cause I like history and am old fashioned (can I even say that? I'm only 23 ). Anyway I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, remember be nice

 

[churchmouse]

Love the old school wooden combat rifles. Had a nice collection until 1st wife relieved me of them. Have no desire to rebuild.
On the question...No as I do not have any of these pieces on hand. My tactical SHTF choices are light, hi-capacity, reliable and available (in the safe) ready to go.
The pieces you speak of are heavy, low capacity and rare. That said, if that is all I could get my hands on I would use one in a heart beat but not my first choice.

 

[rockhopper46038]

If that's what you have, that's what you use.

If you are asking whether surplus battle rifles are "better" or "worse" than current issue-type rifles in a SHTF scenario, the answer is "probably not, but it depends".

The biggest disadvantage to most surplus battle rifles is weight, spare part availability, ammo availability and adaptability to varied tasks. A WWII combat load-out of rifle plus ammo weighed much more than the equivalent rifle with the same number of rounds today. That weight savings allows carrying more ammo today, plus all the communication and specialized equipment that a modern soldier is blessed/burdened with. Weight is always important, but more so if you are moving fast in a hostile environment - maybe not quite so much if you are hunting for food or forced by circumstance into defending a fixed position. So I voted "yes", but in general I would say a modern battle rifle is the superior choice, if you are able to pick.

 

[longbow]

Surplus rifles will do the job. They are big and heavy but are better than nothing.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Most surplus (bolt action) battle rifles are optimized for a long-distance battlefield or sniping from a distance. Current battle rifle calibers are optimized for shorter distance/CQB engagements, but, as battle distances increase once more (Afghanistan) the shortcomings of the intermediate rounds become more noticeable. Of course, we're going to use what is available, but we'll probably end up using whatever is most POPULAR and available. That will almost overwhemingly be rifles chambered for .308, 5.56, 7.62 x 39 and various popular hunting calibers.

 

[bluewraith]

If all you have is a Mosin for your long range wet work, then that is what you will use. Depending on the encounter, you may be able to upgrade afterwords.

 

[The Meach]

I would use the modern tools until they broke and wore out and then i would go back to the old tech. Long after my AR bites the dust my mosin will keep on shooting.

Depending on how long a situation like that would last we would all be back to pointy sticks eventually anyway.

 

[jve153]

i voted yes. i do not yet own a surp rifle, but will as soon as funds become avail. i will be purchasing a garand. it would not be my go-to as i have an ar-15 that fills that role, but if thats what i have on hand at that time, it is what i will use.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Absolutely.

I have a Mosin, and right now have about 260 rounds of ammo for it. It's the most powerful rifle I have, and the only one even remotely suited for taking game. Just try to keep your engagements beyond 300 yards. Parts are ready available, (or, it's a Mosin, so just get a whole new damn rifle) ammo is pretty cheap, compared to other calibers of its size. If I had any other choice I would choose something else, but for what I have right now in the closet it would do fine.

 

[Colt556]

I'd use whatever I had.

 

[bcannon]

Definately - those rifles defended alot of people in the past and I'm guessing they will still work - at least until I could trade up

 

[littletommy]

I would be quite confident in the surplus rifles I have, wouldn't be the first thing I'd grab, but would not have a problem using them.

 

[red_zr24x4]

Heck yeah I'd grab one of the M1's in a heart beat! Not really surplus but I'd have no problem grabbing the M1A either. I'd let the wife have the AR and I'd take the M1A.
The Naget not so much, it hasn't left the safe in 5 yrs I see no reason for it to now either.

 

[gunman41mag]

Out of the rifles you mention, I would pick the Garand & SKS

 

[BigMoose]

Mine is somewhere in the middle. Springfield M14 (M1A) with USGI parts swapped onto it except for the Barrel, bolt and stock

 

[Iroquois]

Yes ..an SMS is good past 300yrds...10 times pdq. I bought a mowing for nostalgia and a pile of ammo
Cause it was cheap...my last resort gun...

 

[Iroquois]

That's S K S and MOSIN. (Flipping spell check)

 

[strahd71]

yes! not my first choice but i wouldnt hesitate and depending on the situation they may be preferred

jake

 

[miguel]

Surprised nobody has posted this yet: Mosin Nagant Humor  AK vs. AR vs. Mosin Nagant

 

[wpframe01]

My first choice is my AR, but my SKS would be a more than acceptable alternative.