A change in reasoning

Another of the motel threads I created while without internet. In this thread I attempt to explain the evolution of my gun owner mentality.




Recently I visited two Baton Rouge-area gunshops. Finding a wide array of "cool-guy" firearms, not to mention more practical arms, made me review my history of firearms ownership and mentality.

When I first started buying guns, I was primarily interested in military semiautomatic rifles. My first rifle was a MAK-90, and I even borrowed $100 from my boss for "Thanksgiving"; aka an SKS. As soon as I could afford it I purchased an AR-15. Unfortunately, this was during the Assault Weapon Ban of '94-'04, so the carbine I bought was an anomaly to say the least. 16" heavy barrel with no flashhider or compensator, full-length A2 stock, and all the other goodies that our beloved politicians thought were safe for such a weapon. I later purchased a FAL after talking with Todd Jarrett, who had just purchased the other one the store had in stock. Still later I bought a HK91, forgoing the chance to buy a M76 Valmet or a Daewoo rifle from the same guy. Hindsight is always 20/20, and I now wish I had bought one of the rarer rifles instead of the heap of junk the Century Arms HK ended up being. Well, it wasn't all bad, but did have some quirks. At the time, however, all I cared about was ease of acquiring replacement parts and rapid-fire battle rifles.

Flash forward a few years. I traded the FAL for three Mausers. Gave the guy my Finnish M39 as well, and even traded a Jennings .22 for a pair of boots. The MAK-90 was traded for an SKS and Kel-Tec and subsequently stolen. The HK91 was given to my roommate as payment for the computer he bought when we got back from Iraq. Later I sold the upper for the AR to him as well. This left me with the semiautomatic rifles I currently own. Let's see. A Yugoslavian M59/66, a few .22s, and...I guess that's it.

So, wordy introduction aside, let's get to the gist of this thread. My old mentality was preparing for the worst (aka SHTF). I knew alot about guns, a little about shooting, and considered a day at the range time to blow through hundreds of rounds of ammo. After seven years in the Army, however, I have matured into a more practical gun owner. Don't get me wrong, I still love semis, and plan to replace the AR upper, Kalashnikov and FAL eventually. That said, I realize that for anything leading up to and including SHTF scenarios, my current arsenal is more than sufficient. Kinda like my choice of the plain-Jane Winchester over the souped up Mossberg for home defense, I realize that I can do nearly everything with a good bolt-action that I can do with a semiauto battle rifle. I mean, let's face it, that fancy dressed up AR-15 is only as good as its shooter. Those thirty rounds don't last long and if none find their target you just wasted 'em. Semiautos are more prone to malfunctions, less forgiving of abuse, and make it far too easy to waste ammo. I've maneuvered under fire with belt-fed machineguns and select fire assault rifles and know their value on the battlefield. However, short of Chinese Hordes running rampant through the American countryside, a good battle rifle like a Mosin, Enfield, or Mauser is every bit as practical for home/ranch/property/self defense. Far more important than rifle selection is knowledge of the terrain and tactical prowess. That AK can spit out a bunch of lead, but a well-selected position and one aimed shot can ease the pressure on the AK trigger real quick.

As for other weapons, I still place some of the same values I always have on them. I still love a good tactical shotgun, but select more practical scatterguns when I want one. I still carry pistols on a daily basis and tend to stick to semiautomatics over revolvers, though another Taurus is on the list. A good shotgun is the best choice for home defense, in my opinion, and a handgun can be carried places no rifle or shotgun can. Given the more mobile nature of my carry selections, more is better. A reload or two is essential, and I leave the house prepared for the worst. If going away for a few days, more than one weapon is in the vehicle, either a shotgun or rifle depending on where I am going. A knife is my constant companion, in or out of uniform, and quality is important, though I still do not see much need to spend hundreds on one folder. So, I haven't changed too much.

One area of firearms I am currently into is the practical survival rifle. I have a Handi-Rifle in .45-70 that is light enough to carry for days, powerful enough to take down anything in North America, and rugged enough to last with minimal maintenance. I just bought a Marlin Papoose takedown rifle, and have had an AR-7 for over a year. Both rifles are semiautomatic .22s built expressly for compactness and ease of carry. Whether stowed in the truck, kept in the tent while camping or packed for hiking, these two rifles seem to be excellent choices to supplement my pistols when a centerfire rifle cannot be carried. I have some carbines that, while heavier and larger than the aforementioned rifles, are capable of filling the role as well. My Gibbs No.7 is well balanced, has a fast Enfield action and has a rather large (for bolt-actions) capacity of ten rounds of .308. A Mosin-Nagant M44 is heavy but extremely rugged and reliable and offers the power of 7.62 Russian. The Winchester '94 is another well-balanced rifle that has been proven for over a century.

In a way I have not changed at all. I still believe in being prepared and having the best possible weapons for the task at hand. However, I have come to realize that having a seven pound M4 with ten pounds of lights, optics and aiming devices on it and a Beta-C mag is not as important as knowing how to use it to your advantage. A Mauser is still as good a rifle as it was from 1898 (and before) to 1945, and one good shot is better than 100 bad ones. Admittedly, children and financial obligations have affected my gun selection as well. Raising four kids is not inexpensive, and making a house payment and two car payments gives me less leniency to spend a thousand dollars on a single gun. Besides, as a student of history and firearms, those new-fangled wonder weapons just aren't as interesting as a $100 weapon that saw two World Wars and countless other conflicts. Maybe one day I can get back some of the "cool" rifles I once had. Even then, though, they will be relegated to gun safe duty except to show off to friends and family and occasionally make some noise or trash a target.

So, what is your take on my philosophy? Besides the fun and show-off factors, are semiautomatic rifles really superior to older designs for practical use? Can a fifty-year-old warhorse still fight as well as its newer brethren? Let's discuss.

A good read.

I think your philosophy is sound. I believe we all change course a few degrees as we age and gain knowledge about ourselves and our passions. Refining our collection seems to be a natural progression.

There was I time when my collection was all about power, I had lots of big bore handguns and hard hitting centerfire rifles. I used to love raising a ruckus on the firing line shooting the most powerful most insane stuff. As I have gotten older I find myself gearing my collection back towards the smaller and easier to shoot stuff especially the .22 long rifle. I no longer enjoy the magnum recoil or the head splitting concussion from the big bore stuff. I like the idea of spending a full day at the range shooting $10 worth of ammo, I like going home without my hands and shoulder aching from abuse. I have pretty much stopped shooting the 12 gauge and I'm ready to drop down to a 20 or 28 gauge.

I've always been pretty much the opposite. I've never really had an interest in "Tacti-cool" guns, or even really military rifles. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I like blued steel and dark walnut, I don't like stainless, synthetic stocks, or laminated stocks. I've always looked at the craftsmanship in a gun as much as purpose. I'd take a finely crafted single shot .22 over a fancy black plastic gun, sure the rate of fire is slow and it wont penetrate class III body armor but theres just something to be said for a fine hand carved stock and good blue steel. And thats not to say that black are junk, thats certainly not the case at all, there are some absolute tac drivers out there built on black guns, its just personal preference. I have two semi-auto rifles, a Garand and a 10/22, and I'll admit I tacti-cooled my 10/22 up with an after market stock, a red dot scope, and a high cap magazine. I can see the fun in seeing how fast you can get the clip to ping out of the Garand or shooting 25 .22 rounds from the hip, because I've done it, but, much like our current president, its all flash without any substance, I much rather lay down with a sling and my Garand and shoot a 600 yard target for score. I don't believe you can buy your way into being a good shooter. I shoot 4-position small-bore, and I do it with my Winchester M52 with the factory stock, which is a really just a beefy sporter stock, no thumb-hole, no adjustable cheek piece, or anything fancy like that and I do it with a $65 light cloth shooting jacket. I shot a 290 out of 300 last week, which wasn't the highest score there, but it was right in there with the guys that have the $250 dollar leather jackets and fancy rifles, not that theres anything wrong with that, If I had the extra money I 'd probably buy those things too but all the gadgets in the world don't mean a thing if you cant hit what your aiming at. So I guess the moral of the story is no matter what your taste is in guns, If you like those ugly stainless laminated rifles, or a semi-auto with nine flashlights, three lasers, and a can opener then by all means buy them, just be sure you know how to use them and use them well.

Well put. Know your equipment and know how to use it. I've seen many people spend hundreds or even thousands in tactical gear, all the while doing the same job I do with the stuff I was issued. As for guns, I find spending $100-$300 to be a more cost efficient alternative to spending $1000 or more on one rifle. Not just the initial expense but I also save in ammo and maintenance over the long run, and there's something about surplus rifles that goes much deeper than mere cost or even shootability. Same with no frills inexpensive commercial arms, though I usually spend much less time researching those. I've often spent hours online trying to find the significance of a marking on a Mauser or Mosin.

Ive got the BRD so I doubt Ill be getting away from AR-15s any time soon.

I can appreciate an old revolver though. I am more of a collector than a hunter, so cool guns are what I go after. WWII guns are some of my favorite. I just found out Im getting $1400 for my tax return so Ill probably be able to fix my car and get an M1 Garand.