What would be a good rifle for a person who would probably have no backup should shtf...

I would suggest against a lever action, most Levergun cartridges are worse or comparable to what you can get for a bolt action, but you are restricted to non-spitzer projectiles which can hamper your performance at long range.

Tikka T3x Hunter in .308 Winchester

>suggesting a lever-action for SHTF in this day and age

Dude. No. If anything, get a bolt.

I Love You
-Lil B

Simo Hayha didn't use a scope on his rifle and got half his kills with an smg.

I think a 9mm carbine would be a good choice because 9mm is probably going to be the most common ammo by far. 5.56 would probably be one of the next most common ammo types.

ak or sks + stripper clips

What's wrong with a lever?

I would figure that the simple action of a lever isn't conducive for anything other than engagement of an enemy that can also see you whereas bolt-actions can be operated even while prone.

>you won't be able to kill anything past 400 yards
You won't be able to kill anything past 400 yards with an AK either. Heck! You'll even have trouble hitting anything at this distance with 7.62x39mm, while 5.56x45mm has no problem reaching this range.

Depends heavily also on conditions. If you live in an urban setting you would likely automatically be part of a group of survivors, and could partially rely on them for division of labor shit. If you're in the country, you'll want a backup weapon that's easy to service and produce ammunition for without mechanized economy... I'm talking earlier tech, like black powder or crossbow. It's relatively simple to make everything that goes into either of those in almost any environment, with exception to the rifled barrels of a late black powder gun, meaning ammo becomes a renewable resource and the weapon doesn't have an expiration date. Avoiding and working around scarcity, imo, should be goal #1 in any shtf scenario.

>t. Man who will catch a lobbed in 7.62x39 with his done

>Heck!

Goal #1 after basic survival and defense, I should say. Probably an AR for that, and a crossbow or something for hunting, using when no cartridges are handy, etc.

An AR except in .308 so you can engage from farther away and avoid direct firefights.

Depends on what SHTF scenario, and what you would plan to do during it. If this is a natural disaster or nuclear war scenario where society breaks down, you want an AR15 chambered in 5.56 because ammo will be everywhere. You also would benefit from .22lr rifle with a suppressor (regular or improvised) for hunting small game without drawing attention to yourself. Ammo for .22lr is practically unlimited in the U.S. at this point, and depending on your state, you could poke around in people's houses and find thousands of rounds easily.

I suppose an AR would actually be the best option here in the US because while you don't have a backup you'll be damn near tripping over ARs or at least broken ones you can scavenge for parts. It is also possible to replace most parts on it in the field with basic tools.

Of course if you were located in Eastern Europe the answer would change to an AK for the same reason.

I will argue that it doesn't matter all that much, so long as it's a self-loading rifle you're comfortable with and able to shoot well and have a handful of mags/ammo for. It's nice if that happens to use the parts and more importantly ammo that's lying around, but it matters little if it's an AR or some other gucchi 5.56 rifle that uses AR magazines.
By the time it needs any significant service you'll probably be dead or will be able to scavenge a replacement. Being light is more important because you should only fight to break contact or move to a safer location. Taking or holding ground can be important if you're a soldier with support and a heavier/more effective weapon will help you do that, but as an individual doing any of those things drops your odds of survival substantially. Dirt isn't important, your immediate health is. Don't risk what is important for something that isn't. Therefore IMO it's better to stick with a weapon geared for mobility.
Well, unless you use a box fed levergun like a Savage 99 or Browning BLR.

You really are behind the 8-ball not having at least a semi-auto though. Not that a bolt or lever-gun would be useless, but anyone with a semi-auto will have a significant advantage over you.

Lever action comes with plenty of disadvantages, and I can't think of a single advantage. Not being able to shoot prone without taking your sights off of target after every shot is a deal breaker for me in a SHTF scenario.

Lever guns are fun, but there is a reason that the period of time where they saw widespread use was extremely short compared to other types of actions.

Or have a drop-in conversion bolt/magazine for .22LR. Lighter than carrying a standalone .22 rifle around.

As much as I personally don't like the AR design, it is very well geared for survival. It's light, the ammo is light, you can lay down either accurate or suppressing fire, you can take medium game, it's a proven military design, it's easy to service in the field and you can even mod it to shoot .22LR if you want to.

It's quite convenient that it's the most common and cheapest self-loading rifle available right now.

But of course if you happen to own a WASR you aren't too badly off either.

In a SHTF scenario, you probably wouldn't need to double tap if you hit someone with 5.56. Even if they didn't die, they probably would not be in the mood to hunt you down as they were bleeding out. They'd run off to try to patch themselves up instead.

>OP pic is a ghetto crawler
Thread hidden.

Great post. I also think it would be worth getting a suppressor and some subsonic ammo for your gun, and a .22lr conversion kit, as this guy mentions. I honestly don't think you'll really have to worry about other people that much in most SHTF situations, unless you are in a city, or just in the outskirts. If you live rurally, you'll just want to be able to hunt without drawing attention and set up a discreet camp.

You start with a shotgun then ask yourself do I need anything else! The answer will be more ammo

Attached: 1503484710759.jpg (900x395, 101K)

...why? I won't deny that a shotgun might be useful, but in a SHTF scenario, I'd go for a handgun and a rifle before a shotgun.

youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs

I'd say it's better for a povertyfag to get a shotgun and handgun than a rifle for most scenarios since walking around with a rifle immediately paints you as a massive threat to anybody else with a gun.

Well, it's a viable option.

If you're staying on the move you probably shouldn't engage anyone at long range in any case, although being able to do so beyond the reach of a foster slug would be good. It can be used for taking big game with slugs, medium game with buck and small game with birdshot. It's very useful for defense against non-human threats (like bears).
That said the weight of ammo limits either mobility or amount of ammo carried and the rate of fire isn't as sustainable, so it's tougher to throw down suppressive fire to get out of a tight spot.

If you're considered a threat with a rifle you'll be considered a threat with a shotgun too. Only way around it is to go full grayman mode and saw down the shotgun to keep it out of sight, but then again you could do the same with an AK or AR SBR. In fact I bought an SU-16 for the same reason, need to transport it past a tight spot? Fold it up and put it in a backpack, although in my case this is mostly for ease of transport to the range.

AR15
AK47
A bolt action in .308

A scope or solid red dot (along with plenty of the batteries that your sight uses) is recommended, but not really needed.

All are good choices. But what's gonna be far more important than the rifle, is how much ammo you have hoarded for it.

You can make an argument for spent brass being reloadable, but without gun shops and interwebs... I think you'll have a lot of trouble scoring the powder and bullets (far more trouble than just finding additonal boxes of ammo). And I really don't think you'll be casting new bullets in a forge any time soon.

Understand that 1000 rounds, is only babby's first stockpile. If you really want a proper SHTF stockpile you should have 5000 minimum.

>so it's tougher to throw down suppressive fire to get out of a tight spot.
Unless you have one of these!
youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8

Attached: 1507861102778.jpg (960x960, 89K)

If you intend to bug in, that amount of ammo becomes trade fodder or a supply source for a greater group of people to help you hold that ground, which is only worthwhile if there's scant enough opposition that staying there is safer than moving to a safer location.

If you need to move, which you should be prepared to do, those 5000+ rounds become more of a liability. It's more than you can realistically carry on your back, although you could take it with you in your car. Ammo is pretty heavy, so the more you take if you're stuck moving on foot the less of other stuff which could be more important you can take.

So if you want to buy 10k rounds and have them sit at home, sure. It's a good way to buck fluctuating ammo prices and get range time. If you seriously expect to stay at home long enough to fire all 10k in combat I can almost guarantee you'll be overrun, or the situation will be resolved before you could expend that much ammo. Therefore prioritizing THAT much on guns/ammo is beyond the curve of diminishing returns and your time/money is better spent on other things.

Well, or a Saiga-12.

Then again dump a 20-round drum and assuming you're running light enough to be mobile and well-rounded (you're carrying stuff other than just ammo) that's like 1/3-1/5 of your entire ammo supply.

I think a shotgun can be a great innawoods/homesteading gun and viable for being on the move, but still out-shined in that role by a light self-loading rifle.

A shotgun can take a hell of a lot more abuse then a self-loading rifle, better in the long run!

Attached: 1505353383283.jpg (1199x1600, 1.21M)

Well, you're gonna make a home somewhere, even if it's just a shack in the woods. Naturally, you won't be carrying thousands of rounds on your back. No human being is gonna be just living out of a backpack permanently, you'd eventually find somewhere to settle.

And like you mentioned, an added huge bonus is ammo would become a hugely valuable barter item in the event of society's collapse. Probably the equivalent of the dollar in such a society. And also, like you said, you could be supplying the ammo to your group which basically gives you a huge amount of leverage with those people, the guy with the ammo and guns would be the leader of the small tribe. Guns are valuable sure, but ammo would be worth it's weight in gold, because enough ammo in a post apocalyptic society could be used to obtain virtually any other resource.

If society collapses, you get a semi truck and you first raid all gun stores, all retail places, and all ammo warehouses. Take all guns and ammo back to your fortified homestead and you'll be the fucking king of the wastelands.

>If society collapses
If it doesnt and we are all riding flying saucers, then what? MAGA!

Attached: 1501299714465.png (1440x1908, 1.51M)

Oh, come on man, part of the fun of owning guns is the conjecture on how you'll fare in the post apocalyptic world. Just like the fun in playing the lottery is in the fantasy of what you'll do if you hit the jackpot.

Is it likely? Fuck no. But who really cares. But it's certainly true that the dudes with food stockpiles, guns, and a mountain of ammo will fare the best any breakdown of society. They're the only people in a position to rebuild.

That strikes me as a bit of a fantasy.

Driving a semi truck down a highway or raiding warehouses/stores are things that put you of higher risk of getting brain-panned. You have to juggle the advantages vs. the risks involved. Since this is presumably a real-life deal we're talking about and you don't get second chances high risk/reward strikes me as a poor approach. Instead, if survival is the #1 priority everything should be geared towards low risk behavior with enough reward to get you through.

Of course having a lot of ammo and other supplies is great if you're in a static location, where you have people to help and it's convenient to bug in (good defensive area/not very contested/can shelter in place indefinitely or at least long enough), which should generally be plan A. I just think it's good to maintain a degree of flexibility, like having a BOB and plan of action to get out if the environment gets too unhealthy (which let's be honest, most of us live in cities or sprawl surrounding them). At that point all that heavy shit goes from a means to help you survive to a ball and chain slowing you down when mobility is needed most.

It also of course depends on what kind of SHTF we're talking. The economic collapse in Argentina and the complete 4-way clusterfuck when Yugoslavia collapsed are completely different models that call for different approaches. Then there's the more mundane but MUCH more likely scenario like a natural disaster, where you have to shelter in place and maybe deal with a few looters or evac to a sports stadium where you're not *supposed* to have a gun but a small pistol would be really handy.

Rebuild yeah, but not repopulate

Unless they grab their favorite battle rifle and shoot the first person they see, which happens to be a utility worker restoring power after a storm, and then get gunned down by the police/nat. guard.