-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Worst SHTF handgun?
- Thread starter bingley
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Any 1911. I waited to post this because of the **** storm it will stir up.
If anything breaks on a 1911 it's a hunk of metal until stuff can be fitted. "Other" firearms have mostly drop in parts, and are more beneficial if the SHTF.
If anything breaks on a 1911 it's a hunk of metal until stuff can be fitted. "Other" firearms have mostly drop in parts, and are more beneficial if the SHTF.
Kel_Tec...really????? So why are these guns fetching thousand plus of$$. I EDC a pf9 not one hiccup in over 3 years. Trust my life on it.
LOL!!! kil tec sucks your the only one that carries it lol jk jk they are better than a high point i cant believe no one said high point lol
Based on my experience I would pick any taurus striker fired autos. I had one sear break off and one not fire anything except tula and that was only a few malfunctions a mag. Also had another one brought new with a partically cracked striker. They look good but I just wouldnt trust one.
Not sure why Ruger is there
Have had lots of experience with Ruger and never had an issue with any of them. Reasonably priced and very reliable.
I only shoot reloads and have found the autos will digest about any reasonable load I put through them.
Not one FTF ever. That's a pretty good record on my book.
Would like to see the reason why Ruger was included on he list.
Have had lots of experience with Ruger and never had an issue with any of them. Reasonably priced and very reliable.
I only shoot reloads and have found the autos will digest about any reasonable load I put through them.
Not one FTF ever. That's a pretty good record on my book.
Would like to see the reason why Ruger was included on he list.
This is why you need 2 guns. Maybe one of each in the same caliber.
Because people are sheep buy poorly produced garbage as long as it looks cool.
SHTF Gun = one you can put THOUSANDS of rounds through without issue. KelTec is not this.
As posted before, here is the KelTec armorer's tool:
ROFL! ^^^THIS^^^
devious169
Sharpshooter
An unloaded one
10mm Snack Pack
Plinker
Muzzleloader
What is everyone expecting in terms of handgun use for a SHTF situation? The use of the handgun will most likely change little when the SHTF from today. What does SHTF mean to a handgun? It means that for a period of maybe 5 to 10 years, the chances of it's getting used in a single gun fight will probably rise from one in a million to one in 5. If you think it through, the vast majority of handguns will get less use in a SHTF situation than they do today with regular range trips. Ammo will be in short supply, so they will not get shot much. They will get carried around much more, exposing them to all sorts of environmental crap. They will get banged around a bunch. They will most likely not get cleaned as often, and when they do, it will probably be with an improvised cleaner such as motor oil. When they are shot, it will sometimes be with ammo that is old and corroded from months of carry.
It sounds like many here think of a SHTF situation as being a daily gun fight that will wear guns down. Not probably going to happen.
What do you want in a SHTF situation?
- A durable firearm
- A firearm that can be disassembled and put back together with no tools required.
- A common caliber
- A firearm that can be abused and still work
- A relatively rust resistant firearm
Now, take a look at what you have and see if it will continue to function after being carried daily, cleaned rarely and banged around constantly. Can you completely disassemble it to clean it or remove debris that might have worked it's way in? Glocks, 1911s and Hi Powers seem to fit that bill. Lots of other guns work well, but contain tiny springs or require slave pins for assembly.
It sounds like many here think of a SHTF situation as being a daily gun fight that will wear guns down. Not probably going to happen.
What do you want in a SHTF situation?
- A durable firearm
- A firearm that can be disassembled and put back together with no tools required.
- A common caliber
- A firearm that can be abused and still work
- A relatively rust resistant firearm
Now, take a look at what you have and see if it will continue to function after being carried daily, cleaned rarely and banged around constantly. Can you completely disassemble it to clean it or remove debris that might have worked it's way in? Glocks, 1911s and Hi Powers seem to fit that bill. Lots of other guns work well, but contain tiny springs or require slave pins for assembly.
well said.
remember, hopefully you have a rifle and don't need the handgun as much. getting pinged from 200 yards with only a 1911 in my hands is not something I want to deal with.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I would not bother specifying a particular gun but rather a few characteristics:
1. Poor quality of manufacture. This would eliminate many of the choices already mentioned which suffer from frequent malfunctions and/or structural failure.
2. Poor suitability for the purpose at hand. A .25 auto pocket pistol, a mini-revolver, or derringer are inherently ill suited for combat anywhere but in a phone booth, and are far from ideal choices for a fight inside a phone booth. Similarly, I would rule out over-powered handguns unless required to do double-duty for hunting or defense against four-legged predators by virtue of the additional difficulty in achieving accurate follow-up shots or being able to accurately engage multiple targets. Excess weight or dimensions for an acceptable mode of carry would also be a disqualifying factor in my book.
3. Excess cost. This is going to sound strange from someone who generally is not drawn to inexpensive guns, but if the cost represents an excess drain on resources such that adequate amounts of ammunition or non-weapon preps are a consequence of the purpose, then your prepping program is out of balance (not that I am convinced that there is such a thing as complete balance possible in anyone's program unless you are extremely wealthy and have for all practical purposes too much of everything). For example, a quality <$1000 1911 with a couple thousand rounds of ammunition is more effective than a ~$2000 1911 with a box of 50 or 100 rounds for the purpose of maintaining your long-term safety. I would make the same argument that a $500 gun with plenty of ammo is better than a $1000 gun with a small handful of ammo. At the end of the day, a gun without ammunition is an expensive club--a detail that is easily enough forgotten in the event of having one's attention distributed widely over a number of things in the prep program.
There are some common opinions that I do not support. Common ammunition is one of them. Right now, you would be better off prepping with a pistol chambered in .30 Luger than 9mm, or .45, or .357, or .38, or most anything commonly used in the US since ammunition is available for off the beaten path weapons that is not available for the more popular calibers. If you have a gun in an uncommon caliber with a sufficient supply of ammunition, you will be well-defended. In the event you manage to find ammunition after a SHTF event, odds are that there will be at least one gun to go with it. The same goes for rifles although that is extraneous to the discussion at hand. A person could do far worse than a .30 Luger and a classic semi-auto battle rifle in a less common caliber like 7mm Mauser, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R or .30/06 with an adequate supply of ammunition. I feel that there is an unhealthy mindset that in order to be properly prepared, you must have a handgun in 9mm, .40, .45, or maybe .357, and a rifle in your choice of 5.56, 5.56, or 5.56. Lets face it, if you are forced to use a firearm under SHTF conditions, one of two outcomes will necessarily happen: First, you die. Second, you succeed at making your attacker die who presumably is armed and did not expend every single round of ammunition in his possession. It will take you quite a while to go through a case of ammunition, especially using a handgun. Consequently, I fail to see the necessity of using a 'common caliber' especially when dealing with a general ammunition shortage.
1. Poor quality of manufacture. This would eliminate many of the choices already mentioned which suffer from frequent malfunctions and/or structural failure.
2. Poor suitability for the purpose at hand. A .25 auto pocket pistol, a mini-revolver, or derringer are inherently ill suited for combat anywhere but in a phone booth, and are far from ideal choices for a fight inside a phone booth. Similarly, I would rule out over-powered handguns unless required to do double-duty for hunting or defense against four-legged predators by virtue of the additional difficulty in achieving accurate follow-up shots or being able to accurately engage multiple targets. Excess weight or dimensions for an acceptable mode of carry would also be a disqualifying factor in my book.
3. Excess cost. This is going to sound strange from someone who generally is not drawn to inexpensive guns, but if the cost represents an excess drain on resources such that adequate amounts of ammunition or non-weapon preps are a consequence of the purpose, then your prepping program is out of balance (not that I am convinced that there is such a thing as complete balance possible in anyone's program unless you are extremely wealthy and have for all practical purposes too much of everything). For example, a quality <$1000 1911 with a couple thousand rounds of ammunition is more effective than a ~$2000 1911 with a box of 50 or 100 rounds for the purpose of maintaining your long-term safety. I would make the same argument that a $500 gun with plenty of ammo is better than a $1000 gun with a small handful of ammo. At the end of the day, a gun without ammunition is an expensive club--a detail that is easily enough forgotten in the event of having one's attention distributed widely over a number of things in the prep program.
There are some common opinions that I do not support. Common ammunition is one of them. Right now, you would be better off prepping with a pistol chambered in .30 Luger than 9mm, or .45, or .357, or .38, or most anything commonly used in the US since ammunition is available for off the beaten path weapons that is not available for the more popular calibers. If you have a gun in an uncommon caliber with a sufficient supply of ammunition, you will be well-defended. In the event you manage to find ammunition after a SHTF event, odds are that there will be at least one gun to go with it. The same goes for rifles although that is extraneous to the discussion at hand. A person could do far worse than a .30 Luger and a classic semi-auto battle rifle in a less common caliber like 7mm Mauser, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R or .30/06 with an adequate supply of ammunition. I feel that there is an unhealthy mindset that in order to be properly prepared, you must have a handgun in 9mm, .40, .45, or maybe .357, and a rifle in your choice of 5.56, 5.56, or 5.56. Lets face it, if you are forced to use a firearm under SHTF conditions, one of two outcomes will necessarily happen: First, you die. Second, you succeed at making your attacker die who presumably is armed and did not expend every single round of ammunition in his possession. It will take you quite a while to go through a case of ammunition, especially using a handgun. Consequently, I fail to see the necessity of using a 'common caliber' especially when dealing with a general ammunition shortage.
common caliber? what common caliber? just listen to ol' Joe!
for hunting applications anyway.
