TexasCHLforum.com

Remington 870 with a ruger 10/22 taped to it.

anygunanywhere wrote:Why are some picking this poster apart?

Answer his questions.

Thank you.

anygunanywhere wrote:Why are some picking this poster apart?

Answer his questions.

I had a bit of time trying to figure out what he wanted but eventually understood. Everyone does not have the ability to put down in writing what they are thinking. At least allow some leeway and let them eventually prove themselves out.

Goodness!

Anygunanywhere

Again, perhaps I'm just paranoid..... Logged in 14 minutes, 1 post, veiled/ambiguous, not altered by moderator, 3 days ago, no response to inquiries from other members, hasn't been back.

Andrew wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Why are some picking this poster apart?

Answer his questions.

I had a bit of time trying to figure out what he wanted but eventually understood. Everyone does not have the ability to put down in writing what they are thinking. At least allow some leeway and let them eventually prove themselves out.

Goodness!

Anygunanywhere

Again, perhaps I'm just paranoid..... Logged in 14 minutes, 1 post, veiled/ambiguous, not altered by moderator, 3 days ago, no response to inquiries from other members, hasn't been back.

And if your first post had been picked apart would you have wanted to come back?

Everyone deserves respect.

Anygunanywhere

Sorry I haven't been on in a while. (Started a new job with overtime) I went with a Maverick 88 since parts and ammo are widely available and it makes a good hunting weapon. A rifle is next on my wish list. Either a Mosin Nagant or Remington 700. Thoughts on those two? That's a ways off so the Mav 88 will do for now. BTW, I did use an acronym that got changed to "a problem arises."

Congrats on the new job! Let us know your thoughts on the Maverick 88 when you have a proper chance to break it in. There have been a few good threads recently on cost effective shotties and I'll be in the market soon to get one.

5 meter gun...Taurus PT-111
10 meter gun...Taurus PT-99
15 meter gun....Stevens 350 12GA
100 meter gun...Colt AR-15
500 meter gun...Remington 700 .308

or something like that.

vincentjus wrote:Sorry I haven't been on in a while. (Started a new job with overtime) I went with a Maverick 88 since parts and ammo are widely available and it makes a good hunting weapon. A rifle is next on my wish list. Either a Mosin Nagant or Remington 700. Thoughts on those two? That's a ways off so the Mav 88 will do for now. BTW, I did use an acronym that got changed to "a problem arises."

vincentjus,

A) We have pretty strict rules about language here. We call it the "10 year old daughter rule." ......as in, if you wouldn't let someone speak to your ten year old daughter that way, then don't post it here.

B) To answer your question (in red above), there is simply no comparison between a Mosin Nagant and a Remington 700. The Mosin is a good, functional, milsurp bolt rifle. The Remington 700 is a much later design, and far more accurate. The bolt will cycle more smoothly. The rifle will weigh less. The Mosin is like an antique steam powered farm tractor to the R700's Porsche.

The Mosin will set you back $150 or so and is available in one caliber: 7.62x54 Russian. The R700 will set you back upwards of $600 for an entry level model and is available in a broad array of calibers.

SF18C wrote:5 meter gun...Taurus PT-111
10 meter gun...Taurus PT-99
15 meter gun....Stevens 350 12GA
100 meter gun...Colt AR-15
500 meter gun...Remington 700 .308

or something like that.

5m - Laure OBR
10m - Larue OBR
15m - Larue OBR
100m - Larue OBR
500m - Larue OBR
1000m - Larue OBR


FYP.

JK of course, but being an 18 series QP, I'm surprised not to hear lots of HK recommendations for you. Most of the guys on PS seem to be pretty pleased with them.

Looking at the shortages of ammo right now, and it's not quite TEOTWAWKN, gotta think long and hard about ammo choice when picking such a gun. .22lr suddenly gets attractive since it's cheap to stockpile and easy to transport, and widely available (usually), although perhaps not ideal for defending against 2 legged predators, or hunting game that would make more than a single pie.

If you are talking more than 50 yards or so, chances are you are the predator (hunting for food). Close in/defensive you'd need to have something you can swing/draw quickly with sufficient stopping power.

I'd guess I'd want at least a 9mm handgun, plus something like an AR or larger to hunt with, both with sufficient ammo to keep them running through whatever happens.

gigag04 wrote:

SF18C wrote:5 meter gun...Taurus PT-111
10 meter gun...Taurus PT-99
15 meter gun....Stevens 350 12GA
100 meter gun...Colt AR-15
500 meter gun...Remington 700 .308

or something like that.

5m - Laure OBR
10m - Larue OBR
15m - Larue OBR
100m - Larue OBR
500m - Larue OBR
1000m - Larue OBR


FYP.

JK of course, but being an 18 series QP, I'm surprised not to hear lots of HK recommendations for you. Most of the guys on PS seem to be pretty pleased with them.

I do love me some HK but alas I was only a lowly paid Solider and had to pay for my own guns.

Right now,

HK USPc 40SW with a Glock 17 backing it up.

The shotty is a modded 870 clone.



And the newest addition, jumped on an AK74 from Classic Arms the day it went in stock. I dressed it up a bit.



That'll cover a couple hundred yards of engagement.

vincentjus wrote:What is a recommended a problem arises rifle? I'm looking for something cheap with readily available ammo. I'm leaning towards a Mosin Nagant. Same question for shotguns. I like Mossberg, but I'm undecided which model to get.

Buy whatever you want. For me, I would buy the Mosin and a 12 gauge Mossberg 500 or an 870. buy two cases of ammo for the Mosin one to shoot and one for JIC. Put in several hundred 12 gauge shells 00 buck and slugs. Some bird shot for small game and practice would be prudent.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

vincentjus wrote:Sorry I haven't been on in a while. (Started a new job with overtime) I went with a Maverick 88 since parts and ammo are widely available and it makes a good hunting weapon. A rifle is next on my wish list. Either a Mosin Nagant or Remington 700. Thoughts on those two? That's a ways off so the Mav 88 will do for now. BTW, I did use an acronym that got changed to "a problem arises."

vincentjus,

.....To answer your question (in red above), there is simply no comparison between a Mosin Nagant and a Remington 700. The Mosin is a good, functional, milsurp bolt rifle. The Remington 700 is a much later design, and far more accurate. The bolt will cycle more smoothly. The rifle will weigh less. The Mosin is like an antique steam powered farm tractor to the R700's Porsche.

The Mosin will set you back $150 or so and is available in one caliber: 7.62x54 Russian. The R700 will set you back upwards of $600 for an entry level model and is available in a broad array of calibers.

I am adding that I have recently acquired my first Mosin Nagant ($175), and I have been the owner of a fat-barreled R700 in .308 for a few years now, so I'm in the position now to make an actual comparison.....although I haven't been to the range with both together yet. BTW, I also own a Ruger Gunsite Scout in .308, and while there is no doubt that the R700 is the better rifle for long range shooting, the RGS is the more versatile of the three rifles and still has a nice fit and finish to it. I like it a lot. One of the things that makes a comparison between the three rifles valid is that the 7.62x54R cartridge the Mosin fires is ballistically similar to the .308/7.62 NATO fired by the other two rifles.

All three rifles are probably equally reliable. All three have a 90º bolt lift, but the Remy and the Ruger have a shorter throw. The Ruger and the Mosin both have iron sights from the factory. The Ruger's system uses a ghost ring rear sight, adjustable for elevation and windage, with a protected blade front sight. The Mosin has a ladder type rear sight with graduations from 100m to 2000m, and a front post protected by a hood, which is drift adjustable for windage. The Ruger also comes with a picatinny rail mounted forward of the action to mount intermediate to long eye-relief scopes. The Ruger has a cage type flash hider. The Remington has a 4 round internal magazine with a detachable floor plate. The Mosin has a 10 round internal magazine which can accept stripper clips and has a detachable floor plate. The Ruger comes with a steel detachable box magazine manufactured by Accuracy International, and the Ruger online store sells 10, 5, and 3 round polymer box magazines that are kinda-sorta PMAG-like. Fit and finish on the Remington and Ruger are very much superior to the Mosin (and my Mosin is an excellent example of the breed in extraordinarily good condition), but the Mosin has had an arsenal rebuild and has all the bluing, good furniture, and a tight clean bore.

Up to this point, here are the standings:

First place: Remington
Second place (close): Ruger
Third place: Mosin Nagant (not even close)

Now, here's the two kickers:

Investment in the Remington, including scope/rings: approximately $1,500.00.
Investment in the Ruger, including scope/rings: approximately $1,400.00.
Investment in the Mosin Nagant: $175.00

Ammo for the Remington and the Ruger: almost impossible to find right now, but figure on average in normal times about $1.50/round.

Ammo for the Mosin Nagant: 440 rounds for $79.95.

See where I'm headed with this?

gigag04 wrote: 5m - Laure OBR
10m - Larue OBR
15m - Larue OBR
100m - Larue OBR
500m - Larue OBR
1000m - Larue OBR

'Course, you'll be waiting for about a year trying to acquire one.

Had an extended conversation with a friend just last week about what to buy. He owns one firearm, a .22 LR rifle, and doesn't do any hunting or sport shooting. His concern was for a reasonably stocked, general-purpose collection. The not hunting/not sport shooting put a definite slant on it, and we had to agree that the current, inflationary market prices and pressures wouldn't affect the decisions.

The first thing I advised him to do was get his CHL and choose an EDC handgun of no less than 9mm. I wholly agree with Clint Smith that a handgun's purpose should be be to fight your way back to the rifle you left behind, but as a civilian in a densely-populated, urban environment, you have only one realistic option for readily-available personal protection: a handgun.

Most handguns are underpowered compared to their long-barreled brethren, but they can be carried pretty much wherever you go. And, assuming you don't choose something too small, it can serve as a modest home-defense weapon.

The number two purchase on my list would be a carbine. There is a very sane prepper position that would have you acquire a carbine that uses the same type of ammunition and magazines as your handgun. I agree; but that would be farther down on the wish list simply because pistol-caliber carbines don't offer much more firepower than their service-handgun counterparts.

No, I'd want either an AR-15 in 5.56 (probably my first choice just because of familiarity) or an AK-47. The AR actually makes for an excellent home-defense firearm. The standard rounds have a lower probability of penetrating interior walls than those fired from a 9mm handgun (check The Box O' Truth for past tests); a 16" carbine barrel is relatively maneuverable--though not as maneuverable as a handgun--in clearing the inside of a structure; you have a reasonable magazine capacity; and with decent optics you have very fast CQB target acquisition and sight picture. You can put the round where you want it to go.

Your carbine can also be effective out to at least 200 meters against two-legged predators and medium-sized game. The AR-15 and the AK-47 are the most commonly owned rifles in the world...by a longshot. That means parts, upgrades, and even instructional videos are prevalent. Two months ago, I also would have said that ammunition was easily available. There's still a lot of it being manufactured...we just can't find it.

I have an EDC handgun and a carbine. Now I want a shotgun.

Movies have done the non-gunner a big disservice with shotguns. First and foremost is the representation that the shotgun is a scattergun: that you just point and shoot, that the shot will spread miraculously from the barrel and blanket the target that’s 20 feet away.

Out of a typical 12-guage defensive shotgun's 18.5" cylinder barrel, the baseline formula for the spread of 00 buckshot is two centimeters for every meter in distance traveled. That's about 0.8" for every 3.3 feet. At 20 feet, that's less than a 5" spread. Definitely handy, but comes nowhere near not having to aim. Reduced-recoil loads spread less and produce patterns that are more dense.

Generally speaking, the smaller the shot size, the faster it spreads...but also the less effective it is as a threat-stopper. Under most circumstances, 00-buck is defensively effective out to 35, maybe 40 yards; #4 buck out to 20 yards, maybe a little farther.

And if over-penetration is a concern, shot spread probably is, too. If you go for smaller shot and larger spread it's going to be both less likely to penetrate deep enough to stop the threat, and it's going to become a less-than-good idea if you need to take a reasonably accurate shot anywhere near a family member or other innocent.

I've known some guys who think that opting for a rifled shotgun barrel will improve the accuracy situation. It will if you're shooting appropriate slugs, but accuracy--and certainly effectiveness--is suspect if shooting multiple pellets. The problem is that, as the pellets are compressed and fired down the bore, they catch the grooves and landings of the rifling and start to spin. But converse to the way you want a single object spinning--a rifle bullet or a shotgun slug--what happens is that, upon exiting the barrel, the pellets start to expand in a fairly even, circular pattern.

Not what you want with a cluster of pellets. The advantage of a shot shell is the inches-wide area at the point-of-aim where you get a random but contained pattern of hits. With a rifled bore, what you end up with is a circular pattern of hits...with none of the hits at the point-of-aim: they're all around the POA in a nice circle. Not desirable.

Okay. I have an EDC handgun, a carbine, and a defensive shotgun. Choice four may be surprising: I’d go for another handgun.

The handgun market—and engineering—over the past decade has, for the most part, trended toward the millions of new concealed handgun license holders. The market demand has been for smaller and lighter.

Smaller and lighter is the antithesis of more stable and accurate. You may have opted for a Kahr PM9 or similar for your EDC. And it will serve you well where you need to be mobile and comfortable.

Is a short-barreled, low capacity 9mm handgun what you want for home defense? No, it isn’t. And if you decide to get more gun-handling practice in IDPA or USPSA, you will quickly learn that a small gun does not serve you well.

Purchase four is a full-size handgun of at least 9mm. Personally, I’m a .45 ACP guy. My most-times EDC is a Kimber Ultra UDP II. But I sometimes carry its big brother, another government-sized .45, or a .40 S&W Springfield XDm.

I choose to carry the Kimber Ultra because it’s the best trade-off I’ve found between effectiveness and concealability. But it is a trade-off. If I could have only one home-defense handgun, it would not be a reduced sized anything.

You have your carbine and your shotgun, but when something kicks in your backdoor at zero dark thirty, you need something readily at hand and easily maneuvered. That’s probably a handgun: a full-sized, big-bore handgun.

You have an EDC handgun, a carbine, a defensive shotgun, and a tactical handgun.

Now you need something that can reach out and touch something beyond 200 or 300 meters.

I love the .308 round (7.62x51mm NATO) because it’s effective, (was) relatively inexpensive, and (was) easy to find.

A Remington 700 is about as solid a choice as you can make.