Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you're not clearing your house with quad nods, are you even trying?

I have a mono IR with 2, 4 and 8x zoom, is that acceptable?

Just gotta tape four of them together.

 Bobthehero wrote:
If you're not clearing your house with quad nods, are you even trying?

I just let loose the Llama of War.

 catbarf wrote:
Respectfully, you're behind the times on this. Handgun-mounted and rifle-mounted lights have been common practice for the better part of two decades now, to the point where holsters are commonly made for light-bearing handguns, and legally there don't seem to be any legitimate concerns.

You should be flipping switches to enable central lighting anyways.

There's a difference between having a carry weapon with a light for added accuracy and using a gun-mounted flashlight to check your surroundings. I mean, that's cool for first-person shooters, but in the real world you're breaking two core gun safety rules.

You're only supposed to point a gun at something you intend to shoot. Sweeping the area speculatively breaks that, and also the requirement of knowing your target and what's behind it. I agree that flipping a switch is even better, and since we're talking about home defense, it's a good reason to have a pistol, since you don't have to one-hand your rifle while you do it. As I said before, it is possible to build proficiency in one-handed pistol shooting. I don't know a range that would even let you practice one-handed rifle shooting.

That being said, sure, shoulder arms (which includes shotguns) are fine for home defense and I'm fully on board with their use.

The reason I've been defending pistols is not because I think they are better, but because other folks have implied that rifles are everywhere and always superior.

I'm an all of the above/whatever works for you kind of guy, which I why I've taken exception to this line of argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I just let loose the Llama of War.

I was wondering if this was a reference to Spanish handguns.

Out of curiosity - why handguns? Ok so I know why in many situations, but this question relates to finding myself reading a bunch of social media comments relating to the recording of a survival conference. Not interested in all of it, had a fairly narrow segment I wanted to see, but it seems the commentariat we outraged at a segment I skipped through to view to see what the fuss was about. Chap was describing a bug out bag for moving to a backup location and had said how much ammo he recommended (in essence enough to get out of a situation where you were being shot at). This appeared to be laughably low to the commentators who I assume need to go on more hikes before writing knowledgably about weight.

All though when proudly saying what they would carry (roughly a wheelbarrow full it seems - and why do so few people include wheelbarrows in their survival list of stuff to have?). X hundred rifle rounds, but then all listed a handgun with between 5-12 magazines it seems.
Now I get ammo for primary weapon, but sidearms are just weight and not as effective as a rifle. So why carry them in any situation where you are on foot? I get the utility in some circumstances if you have a vehicle or are on foot for a short while, but otherwise? People seemed very wedded to them. What is the expected use in that scenario?

I think you kind of answered your own question. handguns are very useful - situationally. While a rifle may be superior for a larger range of situations, a handgun is better in extremely close confines and if surprise is needed.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Out of curiosity - why handguns? Ok so I know why in many situations, but this question relates to finding myself reading a bunch of social media comments relating to the recording of a survival conference. Not interested in all of it, had a fairly narrow segment I wanted to see, but it seems the commentariat we outraged at a segment I skipped through to view to see what the fuss was about. Chap was describing a bug out bag for moving to a backup location and had said how much ammo he recommended (in essence enough to get out of a situation where you were being shot at). This appeared to be laughably low to the commentators who I assume need to go on more hikes before writing knowledgably about weight.

All though when proudly saying what they would carry (roughly a wheelbarrow full it seems - and why do so few people include wheelbarrows in their survival list of stuff to have?). X hundred rifle rounds, but then all listed a handgun with between 5-12 magazines it seems.
Now I get ammo for primary weapon, but sidearms are just weight and not as effective as a rifle. So why carry them in any situation where you are on foot? I get the utility in some circumstances if you have a vehicle or are on foot for a short while, but otherwise? People seemed very wedded to them. What is the expected use in that scenario?

That amount of extra pistol mags seems pretty bonkers. I'm guessing the assumption is you'll never see civilization or be able to repair anything ever again, so you should just fill your pants with as many as possible?

Honestly, in that sort of scenario if you're shooting you've already messed up several steps. A pistol with two standard 15 rounds magazines is fine in my (very much non-operator) opinion. One in the gun and a spare in the very remote chance something goes wrong with the one in the gun.

 amanita wrote:
I think you kind of answered your own question. handguns are very useful - situationally. While a rifle may be superior for a larger range of situations, a handgun is better in extremely close confines and if surprise is needed.

Yes. They fulfill different roles. Trying to move a crowded interior space - a tent, mobile home, vehicle interior - is difficult even if one is using a carbine.

There's also the fact that if you are trying to work (cut firewood, cook, built a shelter), a pistol on your belt is a lot easier to manage than a rifle on a sling - and faster to bring into action.

A reasonable compromise one sees is using a pistol caliber carbine (which will boost most handgun cartridges to 100 yards of effective range) with a pistol of the same caliber and interchangeable magazines. I believe the Ruger PPC takes Glock magazines and Beretta's (since discontinued) Storm series used interchangeable magazines between pistol and carbine.

The 5.7mm cartridge was designed to use pistol and PDW, but new offerings are emerging because it has decent range and it's small size and light weight gives you more rounds for the same carrying capacity.

It's like anything else - there is no perfect "everything in one" tool for anything. It's all about tradeoffs.

One other note: ammunition consumption is vastly overestimated by these folks. Unless one is planning on launching a conventional war, self-defense is unlikely to take hundreds of rounds in a sustained firefight.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Out of curiosity - why handguns? Ok so I know why in many situations, but this question relates to finding myself reading a bunch of social media comments relating to the recording of a survival conference. Not interested in all of it, had a fairly narrow segment I wanted to see, but it seems the commentariat we outraged at a segment I skipped through to view to see what the fuss was about. Chap was describing a bug out bag for moving to a backup location and had said how much ammo he recommended (in essence enough to get out of a situation where you were being shot at). This appeared to be laughably low to the commentators who I assume need to go on more hikes before writing knowledgably about weight.

All though when proudly saying what they would carry (roughly a wheelbarrow full it seems - and why do so few people include wheelbarrows in their survival list of stuff to have?). X hundred rifle rounds, but then all listed a handgun with between 5-12 magazines it seems.
Now I get ammo for primary weapon, but sidearms are just weight and not as effective as a rifle. So why carry them in any situation where you are on foot? I get the utility in some circumstances if you have a vehicle or are on foot for a short while, but otherwise? People seemed very wedded to them. What is the expected use in that scenario?

I'm kinda one of those prepper people, to a lesser extent. My plan, should anything happen is to bug-in. Stay at home, lock the doors, shut the shudder and/or curtains and don't draw attention. Should I be forced to leave? I have more than one place to go (family, friends, etc.) and there will be ammo waiting for me there. My immediate family traveling would have a couple rifles, a couple pistols, and 150 rounds assorted.Should the world go to heck when I'm away from town, I have a compact 9mm carbine in my trunk with 6 mags and 100 extra rounds.

 amanita wrote:
I think you kind of answered your own question. handguns are very useful - situationally. While a rifle may be superior for a larger range of situations, a handgun is better in extremely close confines and if surprise is needed.

I’d also argue that in a “worlds gone completely tits up” situation that in a pinch, a handgun is going to be easier to hide somewhere. So should someone nick all your stuff, you’re less likely to be reduced to Harsh Language.

Granted I understand they’re not massively useful for hunting game (though still capable), but a sidearm or two seems an eminently sensible option.

And going off telly and films, my sole point of reference, possibly of more threat in a standoff situation, as they’re more compact, and don’t require manual cycling, so if your first shot goes wide you’re just a trigger squeeze from the next (ammo allowing).

But, hey. As said my sole point of reference is hardly solid. Always happy to end up better educated

Real experience example. While up at Bragg we lived off post on about 150 acres along a river (rented the place, landlord also had a separate house on the land.). Between my place and the road was a not-so-nice trailer park, and on the road was a little stop-N-rob gas station. It was not atypical to hear very heated fights in the trailer park or a shot or two go off at the gas station. Cops were about a 20-30 minute response.

A hurricane hit and the river started rising as a dam upstream broke (didn't 't know that was gonna happen!). Had to help land lord and his wife unass at about 1100, at about midnight their place was under about 10 feet of water. Was not sure if daughter and I were gonna have to evacuate, but had already heard power lines/trees and complete road washouts were gonna make that difficult. Had a 'go bag' prepped for getting out on foot and making it to land lord's daughters place about 5 miles away, on foot if we could not get our vehicle up to the road as I did not trust the horses to go through real gak terrain/cross water especially at night. Had 3 days food at 2 meals a day each for daughter and me. Two life straws. A very well packed IFAK. Important papers in. a waterproof bag. Some cash. a couple good lighters and good knives. Bag also had 6 mags for my rifle, 6 for my pistol, and 200 rounds boxed ammo each. Also had a few chemlights and a couple good flashlights and 3 extra sets of batteries each but hoped to avoid using lights.

As power went out we heard shots up at the gas station. Luckily water stopped rising about 75 yards from my house, all the horses were on dry land by the house.

So we hung in place, far enough away we hoped 'out of sight/out of mind' would keep folks away. If we had to leave rifle wold have gotten my through known rough areas but pistol felt like a very necessary back up. As it was we spent some dangerous time on kayaks trying to herd land lord's cattle who did not make it to high ground up towards my place (worked that from 0300 one morning to about 30 minutes after the sun went down before we successfully saved the critters. Open the next few weeks helped others recover including land lord and his wife (they are very good friends of ours).

I knew I would have to carry everything (daughter did have a small pack with underwear and socks and a couple meals and an extra life straw). and was more than happy to lug the weight of extra ammo. Frankly I was thinking if I had to shoot my way through anything I was NOT gonna worry about counting rounds or running out. I was going to lay down some hate. I carried a lot more when wearing a uniform and that was without having to worry about keeping my daughter safe.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d also argue that in a “worlds gone completely tits up” situation that in a pinch, a handgun is going to be easier to hide somewhere. So should someone nick all your stuff, you’re less likely to be reduced to Harsh Language.

Granted I understand they’re not massively useful for hunting game (though still capable), but a sidearm or two seems an eminently sensible option.

And going off telly and films, my sole point of reference, possibly of more threat in a standoff situation, as they’re more compact, and don’t require manual cycling, so if your first shot goes wide you’re just a trigger squeeze from the next (ammo allowing).

But, hey. As said my sole point of reference is hardly solid. Always happy to end up better educated

You can literally hide a handgun under your outer clothes. They can fit comfortably in a pants pocket. So even if you have a rifle, having a compact with you is common sense.

Movies and TV are weird. They often downplay firearms because they have to keep the story going. Alternatively, they love pump shotguns and revolvers because blank rounds for those can be made lighter (since they don't have to cycle the action). This is why zombie hunters use these weapons rather than Ruger 10/22s with 30 round mags. But I digress.

A percussion cap revolver is honestly a reasonable solution to this problem, and even a single-shot flintlock is better than nothing.

And today, I learned what a Life Straw is.

Seems a sensible thing to pack. Because even where they’re rated for a limited number of uses, that’s a limited number of safe uses, and I reckon using an expired one is still a good deal safer than drinking raw water of non-tap provenance.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And today, I learned what a Life Straw is.

Seems a sensible thing to pack. Because even where they’re rated for a limited number of uses, that’s a limited number of safe uses, and I reckon using an expired one is still a good deal safer than drinking raw water of non-tap provenance.

There are also "camp" filters, where you pour water into a bag and it slowly goes through filters to become safe to drink. Useful for generating drinkable water in quantity.

I've got a rain barrel for the garden, but in extremis, rainwater can be used for other purposes.

Getting back to firearms, a pistol can properly be understand as a longer-range way of throwing a devastating punch, like those cartoon extension boxing gloves.

Nowadays these weapons are derided as "belly guns" but in far more violent times than ours they were very popular for a reason. I think Americans in particular are obsessed with big calibers and also being able to hit a target 100 yards away. Europeans historically understood that reaching across the room was often enough, hence the enduring popularity of .32 ACP.

I've been meaning to pick up some Life straws. Definitely a useful thing to have. But yeah, anything like that is still useful beyond its stated amount, better than nothing.

Same with canned food. Properly canned food is edible indefinitely. It might not taste good and might not have the same nutritional value, but it'll still be food.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
You can literally hide a handgun under your outer clothes. They can fit comfortably in a pants pocket.

I was going to respond to this topic earlier but I thought my anecdote was a bit inappropriately dark so I nixed it.

But I can summarize as this: In any situation between 'life as normal' and 'last man on earth', being at least apparently unarmed identifies you as a survivor, where having a long gun either slung or at the ready identifies you as a combatant. Your interactions with any sort of power structure- be it law enforcement, National Guard on emergency response, or I dunno, the Brotherhood of Steel- will differ depending on how much of a visible threat you pose. Things have to get really bad before a guy walking down the street with an assault rifle is business as usual.

A 'survival conference' ought to be thinking less about The Last of Us or The Road and more about Hurricane Katrina or the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Otherwise it's just apocalypse fantasy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Same with canned food. Properly canned food is edible indefinitely. It might not taste good and might not have the same nutritional value, but it'll still be food.

Not exactly. A couple of years ago I did a comprehensive reorganization of preserved food to enhance visibility and first in-first out practices. I can reliably inform you that for some items, expiration dates mean something. Like canned milk. Especially canned milk. Whew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
A 'survival conference' ought to be thinking less about The Last of Us or The Road and more about Hurricane Katrina or the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Otherwise it's just apocalypse fantasy.

A millions times this! Zombie/post-apocalyptic movies are about putting butts in seats (or streaming subscriptions), not about reality.

There are actually real-world examples we can look at, and should look at. Katrina is a great example - many people stayed put and networked with their neighbors. There was a wonderful article that I long ago lost the bookmark for (but it was great) about how the people of one neighborhood in the French Quarter banded together and rode out the storm and the looting. A doctor offered up his swimming pool's chlorinated water for cleaning. A local bar had ample stocks of bottled hydrating beverages, and folks helped the owners by guarding it in shifts. There was no looting.

The great quote that has stuck with me all these years later is one of the patrons drinking a warm beer remarking "Some people became animals. We became more civilized."

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Like canned milk. Especially canned milk. Whew.

When I was in Nairobi and Tbilisi we had powdered milk. It was clumpy and tasted awful, but shelf-stable in tropical heat.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
A millions times this! Zombie/post-apocalyptic movies are about putting butts in seats (or streaming subscriptions), not about reality.

I'd go a step further and say that a lot of post-apocalypse fiction, and zombie fiction in particular, is evolved from the 'stranded in the wilderness' genre like the Gary Paulsen books I grew up with. A sort of empowerment fantasy where the crushing weight of society is long gone and a lone individual (usually male) carves out comfortable living through strength, cleverness, cool, and sheer grit. Except instead of possibly useful survival skills, it's typically more about masculine stuff like cars and guns and fisticuffs.

It makes for fun popcorn flicks and great fodder for videogames, and I'm not knocking it as entertainment. It's just neither particularly useful as instructive material, nor representative of the sorts of disasters and survival scenarios that actually happen in the real world. But it's not like it's trying to be. The guy who idly fantasizes about being the Road Warrior while dealing with his local homeowner's association probably doesn't want to hear 'ackshually, you're going to have to buddy up with your neighbors if you don't want a broken leg to be a death sentence'. It's maybe the guy vacuum-packing guns and ammo but who has no plan for acquiring clean water who could use a reminder.

It is very funny to me, though, that FEMA regularly invokes zombie media as a means of urging disaster preparedness- the idea being that if you're ready for the zombie apocalypse, you're ready for floods, hurricanes, power failures, wildfires, and so on. It's clever marketing and a positive message, so long as you, y'know, don't take it too literally.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Same with canned food. Properly canned food is edible indefinitely. It might not taste good and might not have the same nutritional value, but it'll still be food.

Not exactly. A couple of years ago I did a comprehensive reorganization of preserved food to enhance visibility and first in-first out practices. I can reliably inform you that for some items, expiration dates mean something. Like canned milk. Especially canned milk. Whew.

Milk fat does break down into highly unpalatable by-products. IIRC its still edible, but of course quite nasty.

Anything that has actually spoiled(has bacteria growing in it) was not canned properly. FWIW, modern canning does have a high failure rate and canned foods need to be checked over long periods for signs of spoilage, but the cans that pass will still be good if uncompromised.

This isn't to say that swapping for new stuff isn't a good idea. No reason to not have the freshest stuff possible, but its more of tip when and if the SHTF for real. You could still eat some canned food that is decades old if it is uncompromised, so even if you found some decade old cans they're potentially not useless.

And certain stuff will keep better long term anyway. Canned meat will taste better when its old then canned veggies and retain more of its nutritional value.

Odd, but true fact: even normal milk is both safe and nutritional long after it's "spoiled". If it is pasteurized and homogenized you can not only drink it long after its expiration date but long after it tastes gag-inducing. Literally if you don't have to strain the chunks out with your teeth it's good to go. I'd assume canned milk is much the same.

Indeed. Assuming it has not been contaminated by some filthy carton drinker pasteurized milk is sterile.

Milk Kefir is actually tasty, drank a lot of it in Estonia

 cuda1179 wrote:
Odd, but true fact: even normal milk is both safe and nutritional long after it's "spoiled". If it is pasteurized and homogenized you can not only drink it long after its expiration date but long after it tastes gag-inducing. Literally if you don't have to strain the chunks out with your teeth it's good to go. I'd assume canned milk is much the same.

The cans I emptied had achieved a semi-solid state. The 10-year-old peas looked fine, but they had the most intensive pea smell imaginable. A universe of peas. Scary.

Yes, I think a lot of the survival genre is also based on tales of mountain men, and the fantasy of fending off cattle rustlers with your trusty six-shooter and a Henry rifle.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Lever guns are fun! I'm seriously looking at the new "tactical" ones with synthetic stocks, rails and matte finishes.

All I know is that in an even vaguely apocalyptic scenario?

I’m just gonna loot whatever beer I can, and hopefully go out on a high.

Because whilst my skills and therefore survival challenges are minimal? I don’t want to live in that world.

So Hooray to good, short times, and not being a burden.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All I know is that in an even vaguely apocalyptic scenario?

I’m just gonna loot whatever beer I can, and hopefully go out on a high.

Because whilst my skills and therefore survival challenges are minimal? I don’t want to live in that world.

So Hooray to good, short times, and not being a burden.

We'll keep you chained in the shed, painting models (and sometimes eating them).

Mate.

I don’t even paint my own models.

The chances of getting me to paint anyone else’s, let alone not doing a deliberately half arsed job?

Are frankly negative.

In an apocalypse scenario I just hope I can live long enough to rub it in the faces of everyone I don't like that are starving. Yeah, I know how that sounds.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Mate.

I don’t even paint my own models.

The chances of getting me to paint anyone else’s, let alone not doing a deliberately half arsed job?

Are frankly negative.

The pile of grey rubish is an apocalypse of sorts of its own

 cuda1179 wrote:
In an apocalypse scenario I just hope I can live long enough to rub it in the faces of everyone I don't like that are starving. Yeah, I know how that sounds.

I prefer sports schadenfreude as it carries less negative consequences for me as well.

As I was telling a friend the other day, in many senses the US at least is experiencing something of a wartime economy - inflation is up yet there are chronic, random shortages of things.

Crises move in strange and uneven ways, which is why the 'key date' is often known only long after the fact. This is why the smart play is to have your firearms in good repair, plentifully supplied with ammo, and stay in practice with them. It's also why the pistol you have with you is better than the rifle you have in your car or at home.

On a side note, I've noticed that vintage arms are falling in price. For a while everything was soaring, but now the more obscure stuff is dropping due to low demand. People are clearly going for modern and extra ammo. This bodes well for my antique ambitions.