Worst SHTF handgun?

[Ironhippie]

Rohm RG26...I win! If the SHTF tomorrow I take the little RG26 to use as a rock. It would be more effective that way. Well maybe not it would probably fall apart in the air on its way to the target.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

I'd take a Hi-Point Pistol over a Keltec anyday.

 

[88E30M50]

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.

I see your point on the common caliber. I was thinking that if you ever did need ammo, you would have a better chance of bartering for 9mm than .357 Sig. On the other hand though, 9mm will cost you more than .357 Sig. It's all a moot point though if you simply buy a case now and store it in a secure place.

 

[maxmayhem]

i have had 3 keltecs and they all sucked in different ways....no go for me

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.

 

[lucky4034]

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.

First... I'd like to commend you for bringing up some very good points. However, I see a direct conflict with your thinking between the point you made in #3 and your argument for choosing a non-common caliber.

In #3 you make the point that a $1000 1911 + 1k rounds > $2000 1911 + 50 rounds. The basis is that when creating a budget for prepping... you should count ammo and training as being supremely important and should consider it into your budget.

You then follow this up with how in an end of the world scenario having a common caliber is a bad thing (sort of).

However... when we look at the current cost and availability of common calibers... generally they are cheaper and easier to come by, and therefore mean you will be able to train more NOW and hone your survival skills if you buy a common caliber.

9mm ball ammo is about $.30 a round... how much is .357 sig or even .40S&W?

Same applies to 5.56 compared to just about any other rifle cartridge besides 7.62x54r? And NO ONE wants to do prolonged training with that ****!

 

[Amishman44]

Anything that has 'Taurus' in the name! I made the mistake of buying a 3rd one back in 2006...it was just as bad as the first two...parts falling off of them...factory repairs that had the same problem it was originally sent in for...a model 850 with a cylinder that would lock-up after firing just 1 round...etc! Had a friend, who owned several, with similar issues! They are nothing I would ever bet my life on!

On the flip side of the original question...I would bet my life on a Ruger Revolver and a Glock pistol...they're dang tough...accurate...and reliable! (I will add...my wife recently purchased a Springfield XDm 9mm Compact! While I have not yet shot it...I'm looking forward to trying it out! It feels good in the hand...and structurally, appears solid!)

 

[bingley]

Don't worry about "common calibers," guys! Just stock up. You don't even need a few thousand rounds. A few hundred, or several hundred, if you're optimistic, would do. You won't survive that many firefights to use all of them. If you're in gun battle that often, and you're not a part of some larger group or organization (like the army), you're likely to be dead before you know it.

I'd worry more about having enough ammo for long-term subsistence hunting. But then if you live in a densely populated area, the forests around you will be clear of critters before you know it. So I'd worry about having enough critters to hunt.

If you want to maintain your skills and train other people, it's a different matter. But, hey, even now I have trouble getting enough ammo for that. How could it be better when SHTF?

 

[10ring]

Anything not reliable enough to go bang when you put your booger hook on the bang switch.

 

[E'villeGunner]

I don't consider ANY handgun as a viable SHTF weapon. In a SHTF scenario you are going to need more than what a handgun can bring to the table.

 

[IndyDave1776]

First... I'd like to commend you for bringing up some very good points. However, I see a direct conflict with your thinking between the point you made in #3 and your argument for choosing a non-common caliber.

In #3 you make the point that a $1000 1911 + 1k rounds > $2000 1911 + 50 rounds. The basis is that when creating a budget for prepping... you should count ammo and training as being supremely important and should consider it into your budget.

You then follow this up with how in an end of the world scenario having a common caliber is a bad thing (sort of).

However... when we look at the current cost and availability of common calibers... generally they are cheaper and easier to come by, and therefore mean you will be able to train more NOW and hone your survival skills if you buy a common caliber.

9mm ball ammo is about $.30 a round... how much is .357 sig or even .40S&W?

Same applies to 5.56 compared to just about any other rifle cartridge besides 7.62x54r? And NO ONE wants to do prolonged training with that ****!

No disagreement. Enough time has passed since I wrote that last post that the 'common' ammunition is becoming more available than it was then. I was writing in the context of the moment in which I was advocating that one buy what can be bought even if not a bargain rather than trying to buy what simply didn't exist. My point is that the off the beaten path gun/caliber that you can buy is better than the 'common' one you can't. Thankfully, this problem appears to be abating!

I don't consider ANY handgun as a viable SHTF weapon. In a SHTF scenario you are going to need more than what a handgun can bring to the table.

I would say that a handgun should be part of the equation, but not the entire equation. Then again, while I would not feel prepared without at least one proper rifle and one proper shotgun for the purpose, a handgun (only) certainly beats a fist.

 

[E'villeGunner]

I would say that a handgun should be part of the equation, but not the entire equation. Then again, while I would not feel prepared without at least one proper rifle and one proper shotgun for the purpose, a handgun (only) certainly beats a fist.

You'd get no argument from me on that, as far as it beating a fist. lol And I'm not saying I wouldn't have one on me when that time comes. Just wouldn't worry about what caliber it would be, whether it be my 9, .40, or .45, I would be more worried about getting to my long guns, AR, Saiga(AK) or Mauser, (will flat out knock anything walking, down)

 

[grand champ]

I don't go with the Ruger selection in this case. I thing they are reliable and hard to beat.

I own a ruger p97dc 45.shoots smooth ad butter,I owned it since 2000,never one failure of any kind. Big,bulky...ya,sexy,reliable
Ya....ruger good to go,semi or revolver

 

[grand champ]

Maybe just a little. But mainly I, the original poster, was thinking that we can figure out the best guns for SHTF if we know what qualities to avoid.

I disagree whole heartedly. I believe a glock will break before a quality 1911 will.

Who's ur man?...I want some...must be good s!@t ur smoking

 

[Colinb913]

Anything made by Bersa, Taurus, Ruger semi autos, keltec, etc

I disagree with Bersa, Keltec, Ruger, and Taurus. Hmm.. Ok.

My vote goes to Jiminez and any other pot metal gun. Also, I wouldn't want something in a hard to find caliber. I'd stick to 9mm, .45, .38 spl, .380. Things like that. I wouldn't want a .44mag, a .38 super, or a .45LC.

In a SHTF situation, ammo wont be readily available, so I would want to have the best chance of happening upon ammo I can use.

 

[Bottlefed]

Glock just to hear the glockaholics say how if Jesus comes back he is carring a glock.

 

[CQB]

Worst gun? easy, Any gun being pointed at me.

 

[dhw9am]

Opinion

All I can say, is my Bersa's and Ruger's, have been 100% reliable.

 

[11-B]

So I think a more challenging question is: what's the worst SHTF handgun? (Antiques are not allowed!)

The one you dont have any ammo for

 

[FERLACH]

My vote would go on derringers.

 

[hrearden]

Chrome Desert Eagle....

I can think of a handgun I hate more. I cant grip and fire a 2x6.