Why not the .243?

[mannyrock]

Dear Guys,
 
   Assuming that someone is not going with a .223 or .308 as a bad day rifle, then I am very surprised that there is so little mention of the .243 Winchester as an alternative.  It's performance is smoking compared to the .223, kills large and small game with ease out to 300 yards, is very flat shooting, has very mild recoil, and is a very very common round.  (In most of the annual listings by ammo companies, it is generally ranked in the top 4 most common cartridges based on ammo sold.)  It is often ranked ahead of the .30-06.   In West Tennessee and Central Virginia where I have hunted for 40 years, it is at least a common as the .30-06.  Big box stores and small gunshops always have lots of this ammo on the shelves.
 
    So, what's the deal?
 
Mannyrock

[Savage_99]

I like the 243 myself. 

I don't know what a "bad day rifle" is and i don't want to think about it.

The first new M70 I got was a 243 in 1957.  I used it for both target shooting at 200 yds and for long range chucks.  I still have the rifle but its now barreled with an 220 Swift barrel that a buddy had new.

I am going hunting today and it seems like a nice warm day.  Its 62F already at 11AM.   

Today I think I will take a long walk (for me) and carry a 243.  This one is a Kimber Montana with a 4.5-14 Conquest. 

Yes the 243 can be considered an all around gun.  However for deer and up a hunter should shoot all the gun that he can shoot well.  Never the less the 243 hits hard.

The other rifle will be a .17HMR for shots near others.  I should make a sight note for a reduced load for the 243.  Even then the .17 makes less noise.

Your right that its almost an all around gun. 

[mannyrock]

 
   Sorry, by saying a bad-day rifle, I just mean't a catastrophe/survival rifle.
 
Mannyrock

[mcwoodduck]

Having readst of if not all of the Bad day prep guns on this site.
I look at most of them and see a theme,
What wouod you do if......
Well every where in the country has a different poop hitting the fan senerio.
Some are going ot be hunker down, some are going ot be bug out.
Water and fire are the normal bug out, civil unrest -ect are hunker down.
EIther way you are going to grab what you have.
I think the main 223 or 308 Argument is the military style rifles made in those calibers.  If an M1A or H&K 91 were chambered in 243 I think you would see it added to the list.
What ever the emergency you are going to grab what you have at the time.
If it is a deer rifle handed down or a Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range you are going to grab it and all the ammo you have.  If you are staying in place you and have used up all of your ammo for the rifle in your hand you are going to the gun locker and grabbing the next one that has ammo and using it till it runs dry.   

[Swampman]

Military style rifles aren't suitable.  The .243 isn't a cast bullet cartridge.

[keith44]

realisticly there is no bad choice for a food gathering cartridge.  The .243, .257 Roberts, 7-30 Waters, and many many more of similar versatility and power could easily serve as a survival rifle.  For some reason fantasies of combat scenereos seem to over shadow reality in these discussions.  Truth be told 99% of these wanna be warriors would not survive their first encounter with an armed and trained opponent, those who insist on combat type rifles will likely either be killed off by actual troops, or will simply murder anyone who happens by just because they are not as ready for anything as they think they are.  Use what you have to gather food and to protect what you hold dear.

[Bugflipper]

For me it is the price of ammo. 3x more than 5.56.  2x more than 308. I can buy a lot more of either. In the long run that means more trigger time and more on hand. The 243 is available in an ar10, hk 91 and fal style rifles. I imagine a lot of folks think they can have the more powerful 308 for the same price. And shoot it cheaper in the long run.

[Swampman]

realisticly there is no bad choice for a food gathering cartridge.  The .243, .257 Roberts, 7-30 Waters, and many many more of similar versatility and power could easily serve as a survival rifle.  For some reason fantasies of combat scenereos seem to over shadow reality in these discussions.  Truth be told 99% of these wanna be warriors would not survive their first encounter with an armed and trained opponent, those who insist on combat type rifles will likely either be killed off by actual troops, or will simply murder anyone who happens by just because they are not as ready for anything as they think they are.  Use what you have to gather food and to protect what you hold dear.

Thanks for the excellent post.

[Lloyd Smale]

well as usual i will argue some of these points. first the big disadvantage to the 243 is ammo cost and component cost. It would be expensive to load up a 1000 rounds and a guy could probably load 3 times that much 223 for the same money and if you buy ball bullets probably twice as much 308. Keep in mind that ammo will be a good barter tool even if you dont need that much so having extra sure doesnt hurt. As to the 243 not working with cast thats just bunk. Ive fooled with cast in the 243 and various other 6mms and 257 cal rounds and have loaded ammo that will shoot near moa at a 100 yards that still has as much power as something like a 3220 and boys that will kill something. Problem is it wont work in an ar style rifle well. Im talking bolt gun for this. In an ar style rifle the 243 has no advantage over a 308. Problem again will be rifles. the typical battle gun that chambers either round is HEAVY. Advantage definately goes to the 223 sized guns.
Now as to military style rifles not being suitible id sure like to know why? there just as accurate as most bolt guns, mine are a 100 percent reliable, there easy to maintain and will give you much more firepower, eaiser and faster reloading. I kind of agree that if your facing an organized force or a military organization your probably up ### creak without a paddle. Ill also say your ALLWAYS better off to run and hide but i personaly think that most of us realisticly are armed to prevent people from getting our food and other supplys. I think most of what youd face would be a man or two or three that are hungry and wanting your food. If I had to face two or three armed men id sure hope they had bolt guns and i had a ar15!! So again id like to know what there not suited to. If a bolt gun was better for self defense or offense id guess that our military and police officers would still be using them. As to a gun for just going out and gettting food about anything will do from a .22lr to a 300wby. But bottom line is an ar15 or ar10 will work as well as anything for that too.
If i had to go to just two guns for survial it one would be an ar15 and one would be a 12 guage pump. If i could have a third it would probably be a 22lr handgun. A forth would be a semi auto centerfire pistol. Your choise of model and caliber as about any of them would work.
If you want to call me a wanabe warrior have at it boys. Id rather be teased a bit now then get caught with my pants down if some actually did happen. this world is a real mess right now and theres strange things happening with the weather and with our own goverment. theres enough warning signs that even a blind man can see them. If you want ignore them thats your right. If you want to laugh at others who think differently thats your right too but in the end we will see who gets the last laugh. I may not be able to fend off a platoon of soldiers or 10 police officers but ill sure make there life miserable before they have dinner with my food.

[SHOOTALL]

Be it survival long term or survival of an attack in a parking lot or home its not the weapon a survivalist will use what they can get their hands on its their mind set that makes them survive. Any rifle used for hunting will need ammo . How will you resupply ? Here comes mind set , you can take it off those you defended yourself from  . Yea you may need their weapon also  . So what you start out with matters little. Thoughts on the 243 ( or any round) how much ammo is on hand ? you control that. How much ammo is aval ? others control that and it will be unsure at best. What actions can it be had in ? Will the ammo you find on others be useable in you weapon ? I think the 223 works because of ammo aval. In another part of the world it may be 7.62X39 or such. Match the hatch sort of speak.
Is the 243 up to the task , sure it is .
If a SHTF time ever came in an area where I am I would hope to have a rifle that I was familar with one I had hunted with and was comfortable with or at least one similar . As long as ammo was aval. I would make it work. A shot gun , make it work . A handgun , use it to aquire a better tool  . Mind set , survive !

[Shu]

 Shootall really has the bottom line. Mind set.
 
243 is a great cartridge. For the zombie apocalypse something in 7.62 X39 or 223 might be better. As an all around cartridge for hunting and without any end of the world scenarios the 243 would be a great hunting cartridge.

[Swampman]

The world is full of Rambos.......

[reliquary]

The award for the most commonsensical (if there is such a word) post in a long time: Lloyd Smale.  Waytago!

[mannyrock]

 
   I've never been in a combat situation, so these are just my uninformed thoughts.  I will happily stand corrected by any combat veteran.
 
    Assuming you are in a defensive position only, with cover, I would tend to think that a bolt action rifle with a 4x scope is going to be every bit as effective, if not more, than an AR or AK.  History is full of examples of snipers, in both Europe and the Pacific Islands, pinning down entire platoons and even companies of American troops and significantly depleting their numbers for days on end.
 
  The ability to hit a target at short, medium and long distances with a single shot is a huge advantage, not a disadvantage.  Spraying 20 round magazines of .223 down field, which is exactly what everyone would end up doing in a high stress situation, will not result in more hits, will use up ammo at an unacceptable rate, and will show all 20 guys in a platoon your exact location. 
 
   I wonder how many thousand rounds of .223 were fired by our troops using ARs in the jungles of Vietnam for every enemy soldier actually killed by it?  Compare this to the question of how many rounds of .303 British ammo in an Enfield, or .30-06 ammo in a Springfield, were fired for every enemy in WWII that were killed by it.
 
   From what I have read, it was not uncommon in Vietnam, for VC with old Moison Nagant full length rifles, to effective engage our platoons of our troops in the jungles and patties who were armed with the AR.
 
  Different terrain?  The Afghans, using 50 year old Enfields, had no trouble effectively engaging crack Russian troops armed with AKs in the open mountain country. 
 
   I hope I haven't offended any Vets, and would welcome their input.
 
   I notice that most folks who toute the AR, and 20 round mags, also routinely talk about "holding off" folks, and "re-supply."   In a SHTF scenario, holding off would not be good enough, and their would not be any re-supply.  I believe that what is needed is a sufficient number of one shot hits, until the point is reached that the attackers decide you are more trouble that your supplies are worth.  A 20 to 25% casualty rate is generally enough to stop any group of aggressors in combat. After that, their "structure" seems to break down.
 
Mannyrock
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   

[Swampman]

The name of this forum is Survival & Self Sustainability ....If it were the Tactical or the draw unwanted attention to yourself forum then a black rifle would be perfect.  A hunting rifle is more suitable for Survival & Self Sustainability ...the less complicated it is the more likely it will keep running.  The AR won't run for a day without cleaning and oiling.

[BBF]

.................
...................................  Truth be told 99% of these wanna be warriors would not survive their first encounter with an armed and trained opponent, those who insist on combat type rifles will likely either be killed off by actual troops..................................

That just about says it all and if push comes to shove will be the result.

[SHOOTALL]

   I've never been in a combat situation, so these are just my uninformed thoughts.  I will happily stand corrected by any combat veteran. Me either , so I like you offer thoughts with all due respect. Please note up front citizens don't have to obey rules of engauagement but may find themselves in trouble with civil law later.
 
    Assuming you are in a defensive position only, with cover, I would tend to think that a bolt action rifle with a 4x scope is going to be every bit as effective, if not more, than an AR or AK.  History is full of examples of snipers, in both Europe and the Pacific Islands, pinning down entire platoons and even companies of American troops and significantly depleting their numbers for days on end. I read alot , most cases like this the bad guys only had one or two escape routes and a sniper was able to cover them. If yopur position has only one or two routes to it your point may be valid if on the other hand there are many you may not be able to defend it with a belt fed machine gun. I suggest numbers of shooters on your side would be your security . I would also not engauge in a battle if I could avoid it .
 
  The ability to hit a target at short, medium and long distances with a single shot is a huge advantage, not a disadvantage.  Spraying 20 round magazines of .223 down field, which is exactly what everyone would end up doing in a high stress situation, will not result in more hits, will use up ammo at an unacceptable rate, and will show all 20 guys in a platoon your exact location. 
That sounds true to a point but at some point suppresing fire may be the need .
   I wonder how many thousand rounds of .223 were fired by our troops using ARs in the jungles of Vietnam for every enemy soldier actually killed by it?  Compare this to the question of how many rounds of .303 British ammo in an Enfield, or .30-06 ammo in a Springfield, were fired for every enemy in WWII that were killed by it. Both cases were in the thousands ( that suppresion fire thing  ) In our presantwar I heard a billio rounds a year when things were at a peake .
   From what I have read, it was not uncommon in Vietnam, for VC with old Moison Nagant full length rifles, to effective engage our platoons of our troops in the jungles and patties who were armed with the AR.
 
  Different terrain?  The Afghans, using 50 year old Enfields, had no trouble effectively engaging crack Russian troops armed with AKs in the open mountain country.  Read up on russian doctrine , they are not allowed to change orders , I read where their choppers were shot at from the same hill tops but never changed their routes , the perfect target .
 
   I hope I haven't offended any Vets, and would welcome their input. I hope that also but I feel what they accomplished vs what could take place will be very different for us.
 
   I notice that most folks who toute the AR, and 20 round mags, also routinely talk about "holding off" folks, and "re-supply."   In a SHTF scenario, holding off would not be good enough, and their would not be any re-supply.  I believe that what is needed is a sufficient number of one shot hits, until the point is reached that the attackers decide you are more trouble that your supplies are worth.  A 20 to 25% casualty rate is generally enough to stop any group of aggressors in combat. After that, their "structure" seems to break down.
Good points for sure, If my home was invaded in a EOTWAWKI first I would seek safety. Second I would see what I was up aginst. Then decide how to pick them off if it was doable or just leave and stay alive. I have no desire to get killed . No ego to fuel.
Mannyrock
 
 
Hope I have not offended you in any way , just posted what I thought when I read your post  BTW it is a good post.
 
If I found myself in the position you suggest It would be nice to have a M1-A . But the M1-A requires a lot more care than a bolt gun. Also one man with any gun would have trouble fighting a larger force if they were not just a bunch of idoits. My supplies would not be at the house but well hidden. I would hope to meet the bad guys before they got to the house making sure fewer got there with each encounter.

   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 

[Dixie Dude]

I'm no Rambo, but military calibers, whether a black rifle or a bolt action in my opinion are better.  Ammo is usually everywhere.  If TSHTF, bartering might become the rule of the day.  Friendly police or national guard might trade some ammo for something.  What are they going to have?  .223, .308, 9mm, 40sw, and maybe .45's.  A good .22LR would work as a cheaper game getter, or snares and traps.  The 30-06 was a military caliber.  Now if you reload, you can always neck down a .308 for a .243, or neck it up for a .338 Fed or a .358.  One can also neck down to a 7mm08.  If you need something in a hurry and didn't have time to reload or reneck, having a military caliber is, IMHO a better choice. 
 
Hopefully things will not get that bad, however, my wife believes with hyperinflation, if there is no riots or they are controlled, we may have to go to a bartering system, because the money will be worthless.  Having barter items, even ammo, is/may be best.  Toilet paper could be a premium, as well as food.  Gold or silver might not even work because you can't eat or use it.  It also gives you things for long term use for yourself.   

[Couger]

I'm no Rambo, but military calibers, whether a black rifle or a bolt action in my opinion are better.  Ammo is usually everywhere.  If TSHTF, bartering might become the rule of the day.  Friendly police or national guard might trade some ammo for something.  What are they going to have?  .223, .308, 9mm, 40sw, and maybe .45's.  A good .22LR would work as a cheaper game getter, or snares and traps.  The 30-06 was a military caliber.  Now if you reload, you can always neck down a .308 for a .243, or neck it up for a .338 Fed or a .358.  One can also neck down to a 7mm08.  If you need something in a hurry and didn't have time to reload or reneck, having a military caliber is, IMHO a better choice ..... 

'Dude, good logical thinking. +1! 
 
(but don't expect to get much support by the nimrods who are sure 'thinking' or planning will never be needed because its either not sexy enough to fit with their short-sighted thoughts, or if they can't do something, then no one else can either!).
 
Btw 'Dude, the least expensive flavors of American ammo ALWAYS start out as military in origin, or law enforcement. 
 
In a TEOTWAWKI-scenario hopefully there would indeed be freindly cops or guardsmen who'll be willing to trade and barter, but regardless of what will actually happen ......
 
Or where supplies might manifest themselves ......
 
The cops already use many of the same calibers as the military! 
 
I have never been entralled by or wanted to be a cop, but as the cops become more and more militarized (in tactics as well as equipment and philosophies), it makes sense in many ways there'd be all kinds of commonalities through all levels of "authorities" or fedcoat departments and agencies.  (this could include clothing, uniforms, and all kinds of equipment, vehicles, and even aircraft on occassion! - not just weapons).

[SHOOTALL]

bet in times like listed most will not be the bad guys or the good guys but like the villagers we see in every conflict. the bad guys take their food the good guys take their guns and both leave them with nothing useful.

[Shu]

Back to the OP a 243 is an excellent rifle. Brass is easily made from the 7.62X51 cartridge.
The little old 243 is great for American plains game I am thinking mostly the less than 500 pound group. I do know of guys taking elk with it with no problem.
You can shoot cast bullets from it also. Having a military or former military cartridge is almost a gauruntee of ammuntion. Never overlook the 22 lr as a great cartridge.
 
As for the end of the world scenarios, are you prepared for a simple cut getting infected and killing you? Or possibly small pox.
I have fired 1 or 2 rounds in anger. If I wasn't required to be in the thick fray I would surely sneak away and hide. I would prefer to pick my fight than have one thrust upon me. Mind set is really the winner in these situations. If you are prepared to do what it takes to survive you can and will. The real disadvantage of the semi auto rifle is you need to police the brass to keep from being discovered in the end of the world scenarios.
Has anyone thought if the US does come to civil decay, the military may not go along with the politician and bring alot of supplies with them. Of course depending on anyone other than yourself can mean you go hungry or worse.
 
Also transportation and medical services may be greatly diminshed. A small rifle for collecting game. Medical supplies will be invaluable. A motorcycle for fast cheap transportation. Just more food for thought.
 
Just some thoughts, sustainable living forum to me is surviving by the land. If you need to turn the discussion to end of the world scenarios or such I guess that is just part of it.

[Empty Quiver]

I'm no Rambo, but military calibers, whether a black rifle or a bolt action in my opinion are better.  Ammo is usually everywhere.  If TSHTF, bartering might become the rule of the day.  Friendly police or national guard might trade some ammo for something.  What are they going to have?  .223, .308, 9mm, 40sw, and maybe .45's.  A good .22LR would work as a cheaper game getter, or snares and traps.  The 30-06 was a military caliber.  Now if you reload, you can always neck down a .308 for a .243, or neck it up for a .338 Fed or a .358.  One can also neck down to a 7mm08.  If you need something in a hurry and didn't have time to reload or reneck, having a military caliber is, IMHO a better choice. 
 
Hopefully things will not get that bad, however, my wife believes with hyperinflation, if there is no riots or they are controlled, we may have to go to a bartering system, because the money will be worthless.  Having barter items, even ammo, is/may be best.  Toilet paper could be a premium, as well as food.  Gold or silver might not even work because you can't eat or use it.  It also gives you things for long term use for yourself.

Ammo will be nowhere. You could hardly find ammo after the last election, for Pete's sake. I don't care what you shoot you had better have enough of it to wear out the gun, at that point you are in good shape. Having said that, choose what you want to shoot and carry on.


Military calibres do have distinct advantages though. First is the relatively cheap ammo, not to be overlooked while procuring enough of it to wear out a gun. Secondly I would say the availability and use of detachable magazines on military styled rifles.


I do not understand the fascination with lead projectiles. What advantages are there to stockpiling lead over jacketed bullets? Why not stockpile ordinance steel and handcraft your own barrels? How long do you honestly think a WCS is gonna last?


When the hoards show up you'll not have time to cast bullets paper patch them drop powder and seat them. You will likely be over run at some point if the hoards decide you have something worth having. No matter what you have chosen to arm yourself with.


If the hoards do not show up I'm betting that 150 rounds of .300 Win Mag will be about a lifetime supply add in a thousand .223, 500 of 45-70 and 1000 rounds of .22 rimfire and I do believe there will be meat on the table well into the future. All this assumes there will be a tasty mammal available for the consuming. That amount of ammo will easily see you through any riot... whatever the outcome.


Trade goods? Go with the old standards tobacco and liquor, coffee, cooking oil as well as sugar ought to command a premium as well.

[Swampman]

You don't have to stockpile lead.  It's everywhere.  Clearly you've never reloaded ammo.

[Empty Quiver]

You don't have to stockpile lead.  It's everywhere.  Clearly you've never reloaded ammo.

Clearly I don't see any reason to collect lead for casting . Well I suppose once the gas is gone I can knock it out of batteries, I can steal wheel weights, I can go digging in the berms at the rifle range , according to the DNR I could dredge the duck ponds too.


SHTF and I'm figuring to be pretty busy, scrounging a living out of the dirt. Don't have any farm horses, no oxen either and matter of fact I don't even have any horse drawn implements. I'll likely be farming like the indians with a sharp stick and plenty of sweat. That won't leave the leisure time to cast bullets on weekends. I have no Liver Eating Johnson ambitions either. So for me and mine it will involve breaking out a box of jacketed bullets and reloading them into any brass I happen to accumulate.


I can and have reloaded for everything on the place, with the exception of the auto pistols. If you're going to relive 1890  I'm happy for you. It ain't in my long term survival plans. If it comes to pouring lead I imagine I'll figure it out, I will have learned a lot by that time or wish I had.

[Swampman]

We'll split your gear.  You won't be needing it.

[Empty Quiver]

We'll split your gear.  You won't be needing it.

Implying you'll be able to stand off the hordes? Do you plan on spending a lot of ammo shooting at game? Range time in the future?


Criminy Swampy, if you load all the guns I see you post you won't be needing to reload weapons for years, let alone brass.


 It may be Pollyanna thinking but I just don't see the wholesale gun fighting Armageddon in the future.  A riot here and there, and very likely there not here. I look at it as a benefit of living in the frozen fly over country, tends to keep the rif raf out. If that is the case I'll be set for ammo far past my dirt nap. 


 A few well armed attackers with a book of matches and a quart of gasoline will pretty much defeat my defenses if they desire. Unless you are posting from a decommissioned missile silo it isn't likely you will fare much better.

[mcwoodduck]

OK.
Clearly you need to look at History to see what would happen.
Look at the events that were poop on the fan moments.
Floods, Earth quakes, fires, and even wars.
In New Orleans where no one was prepared for a huge flood that stayed everything that was stockpiled was washed away.
In Fires what ever was in your bug out pretty much made it. 
In earthquakes you had looters
In riots - clearly you had preditors searching for stuff, either wanted or needed stuff.
Anything you have is what you are going to use to protect your self or your assets.
Look at the indian wars of the 1800's to see what raiding warfare would be like and what shock violence will either over come a defender or and attacker.  Banding together with like minded people to help defend against packs of preditors and be able to use shock and fire power to repel and attack.
Some one else stated that you are not going to stand up aginst well trained troops.  Again history says different.  The American colonists VS the English Army in 1776 and again in 1812.  The Afgans against the Soviets.
If you have an invaison of the US by someone you would have people come together like the colonists,  You would have a common enemy.  If your thiniking is that the US troops Claim martial law and take over again people will band together to take on oppression. 

[LabRat2k3]

Sir, how dare you suggest such an unmanly round for such a manly duty as survival! Do you not know that in TEOTWAWKI we will be over ran with flesh eating zombies, invading armies, and herds of Arctodus. Why on earth would you want an accurate round that can be used on everything from groundhogs to deer sized game, has good range, and is mild recoiling enough to be used by even the slightes built members of your family in the event you are sick, injured, or dead? No, no you need a hard hitting round and lots of them. A Browning M2 is the only real survival gun.

[Lloyd Smale]

in what world did you come up with that opinion. Its obvious youve never owned one or shot one. Ive got a cheap dmps sportical thats my beater ar and just last summer it digested over 1500 rounds in one week without any cleaning or oiling and never missed a beat. Next time you get a chance do the same with one of your super reliable bolt guns. Ive got ars with round counts well past 50k and im talking over the counter guns not high dollar ones. In all the 10s of thousands of rounds ive put through ars ive had exactly on breakage. One tired old olympic that was made back when olys quality control was questionable broke an extractor one day. I dont know how many rounds had gone through that gun but it was well worn when i got it. I chuckle at guys that claim there unreliable or finiky. I know when i see posts like that that there info came from the internet and not from actually experience shooting guns. Stick to what you know. You may not have been in this hobby long swampy but I do know you shoot alot now. Youd be much better off posting real world knowlege youve accumulated then posting nothing but opinions.

The name of this forum is Survival & Self Sustainability ....If it were the Tactical or the draw unwanted attention to yourself forum then a black rifle would be perfect.  A hunting rifle is more suitable for Survival & Self Sustainability ...the less complicated it is the more likely it will keep running.  The AR won't run for a day without cleaning and oiling.

[Lloyd Smale]

Mannyrock the one big flaw in this is that in my experience most people are like you and have not been under the stress of combat or even in a rough situation. Most even under the pressure of a competitive shoot will shoot about half as good as they do plinking on the range. One shot one kill may work great for a trained sniper but our military wizely realized that composure is a rare trait in a firefight. Just because of your statement about how many rounds it took the avearage TRAINED soldier to make a kill should show you that a civilian sure isnt going to be capable. Another big advantage in protecting your home with something with a bit more firepower is shock and awe. even the navy seals go into a firefight with the attitude that massive firepower intiminates there enemys. One or two shots may not discourage a gang of hodlems trying to come on to your property but two guys with ars dumping 30 round clips will give them alot of motive to go and find someone with easier pickings.
 
 
Now you can call me rambo if you like. I really dont give a rats @@@ what anyone thinks of me personaly. Bottom line is that because i would rather be well armed with an ar and some ammo surely doesnt make me anymore of a rambo then someone else who chooses to defend themselves with a 22lr. We are all talking survival here so theres not a one of us that doesnt think the possibilty that unforseen circumstances couldnt arrive that change the way we have to live. I choose to be prepared for any eventualaity. Not just to be armed enough to shoot a couple rabbits in the yard. But to be as prepared as I can possibly be and afford to be so that i can not only pot those rabbits but also do everything I can to insure my kids and grandkids have the  best chance they can to survive. If thats crazy then put me at the top of your crazy list. Bottom line is like i said we are all believers to some extent or wouldnt be here. If me in my pig headed way can convince one guy to maybe reconsider what he feels he needs then its a good day. Swampy im about sure that with your attitude if something did happen id see a tombstone somewhere painted grean with "he loved remingtons" on it. By the way just in case your interested reminton does sell ars now,  even you could buy one and brag that its hands down the most reliable and accurate ar made and that the sun rose and set on it 

   I've never been in a combat situation, so these are just my uninformed thoughts.  I will happily stand corrected by any combat veteran.
 
    Assuming you are in a defensive position only, with cover, I would tend to think that a bolt action rifle with a 4x scope is going to be every bit as effective, if not more, than an AR or AK.  History is full of examples of snipers, in both Europe and the Pacific Islands, pinning down entire platoons and even companies of American troops and significantly depleting their numbers for days on end.
 
  The ability to hit a target at short, medium and long distances with a single shot is a huge advantage, not a disadvantage.  Spraying 20 round magazines of .223 down field, which is exactly what everyone would end up doing in a high stress situation, will not result in more hits, will use up ammo at an unacceptable rate, and will show all 20 guys in a platoon your exact location. 
 
   I wonder how many thousand rounds of .223 were fired by our troops using ARs in the jungles of Vietnam for every enemy soldier actually killed by it?  Compare this to the question of how many rounds of .303 British ammo in an Enfield, or .30-06 ammo in a Springfield, were fired for every enemy in WWII that were killed by it.
 
   From what I have read, it was not uncommon in Vietnam, for VC with old Moison Nagant full length rifles, to effective engage our platoons of our troops in the jungles and patties who were armed with the AR.
 
  Different terrain?  The Afghans, using 50 year old Enfields, had no trouble effectively engaging crack Russian troops armed with AKs in the open mountain country. 
 
   I hope I haven't offended any Vets, and would welcome their input.
 
   I notice that most folks who toute the AR, and 20 round mags, also routinely talk about "holding off" folks, and "re-supply."   In a SHTF scenario, holding off would not be good enough, and their would not be any re-supply.  I believe that what is needed is a sufficient number of one shot hits, until the point is reached that the attackers decide you are more trouble that your supplies are worth.  A 20 to 25% casualty rate is generally enough to stop any group of aggressors in combat. After that, their "structure" seems to break down.
 
Mannyrock