# Military Surplus Bolt action rifles for SHTF?



## Notsoyoung

I have always thought that if you are on a limited budget but want to buy a reliable center fire rifle for survival purposes a good place to look is bolt action military surplus rifles. Periodically it seems that a certain model will flood the market, sell for a fairly cheap price, then later the prices will jump. I bought my M1903-A3 in 30-06 a while back for $75.00, and now prices of $900-$1,000 are fairly common. At the time I was a Sgt E-5 in the Army with a wife and kid and money was tight. My reasoning was that it had a reputation for reliability and accuracy, had a powerful round (30-06), and with stripper clips you could put a fair amount of lead down range. As a bonus it came with a bayonet that looks as long a sword! Maybe not real practical, but it is cool looking..... Over time I have seen various military bolt action rifles primarily from WW1/2 that for a period of time are sold fairly cheaply. Now there is a local gun store with a butt load of Swiss K-11's that aren't very expensive and of course there are Mosin Nagants just about everywhere. I bought a Mosin Nagant and am considering buying another before the price for them starts going through the roof. 

I suppose that allot depends on what your opinion of just what kind of you are primarily going to have to deal with. Some seem to think that if will be a daily firefight in full combat mode while others seem to think that they will hardly ever see another person. I guess that it would depend on what your plans are and where you live. For me I think that there may be occasional violent interactions with other people, mostly small groups, but mostly it will be hunting for game. If you have a limited budget I think that the military bolt action rifles is a good answer.


----------



## Meangreen

I think you're spot on in your assessment.


----------



## MrsInor

If Inor doesn't read this post - I could get him one or two for his birthday.


----------



## Meangreen

MrsInor said:


> If Inor doesn't read this post - I could get him one or two for his birthday.


Get a Garand instead!


----------



## Notsoyoung

Meangreen said:


> Get a Garand instead!


Noticed that I used words/phrases like "limited budget" and "inexpensive", which is why I didn't mention a Garand, another battle rifle that years ago you could buy fairly cheaply, but are fairly costly now. An excellent weapon, but not cheap.


----------



## pheniox17

other bonus they are "historical" items, and when gun control comes into the picture (arguably) ww2 rifles will always be legal (don't quote me on the stg44) and be easier to keep "registered" compared to a AR15 

it happened here, and it's still easier to get "grand dads" old service rife registered than anything else (yes the license paperwork will frustrate the f out of you) but time lines and "reason for owning" is clear, simple and police are more willing to help, compared to a bogan (red neck) walking in and saying I want to own a gun

to the end of my essay, every gun owner should seriously think about owning a piece of history...


----------



## Fuzzee

There perfectly fine as long as you don't get in an up close fight. Sadly most fights end up close and this is a world full of semi and fully automatic weapons. While a person may not get into something all that often and there may be those who live way the hell out of any town that may never see anyone, that doesn't mean everyone else won't or it's even close to what's most common for everyone else. It's smart to evaluate your own situation, where you live in proximity to other people, and just how many aren't that far anyway from you if you plan on staying put. When shit does hit the fan, there will be lots of people desperate. There's already a huge amount of population with little to no morals and will exploit opportunities in the worst way. Now, if you want to deal with them with a bolt action rifle, go right ahead.


----------



## Meangreen

Notsoyoung said:


> Noticed that I used words/phrases like "limited budget" and "inexpensive", which is why I didn't mention a Garand, another battle rifle that years ago you could buy fairly cheaply, but are fairly costly now. An excellent weapon, but not cheap.


Yes, but are around the same price as M1903-A3 is now, if you go with the reproduction. I just know that the Inor's want a Garand so I'm stoking the fire. Yes Mosins are cheap right now and I have noticed their steady clime in price. Same with the SKS rifle.

Other Cool Firearms


----------



## Fuzzee

I think I'd rather have an 870 and a bunch of different shell types than an old 1903 any day if I was on that tight of a budget. And/or a 10/22 with a couple thousand rounds. Toss in a good quality 9mm pistol and you'll be able to handle quite a bit.


----------



## Meangreen

I agree that multiple weapons is always great but I think the point of the thread as Notsoyoung pointed out to me is "limited budget" and "inexpensive". Yes a shotgun is affordable but is limited to 100 yards and a good bolt gun can put it out to 600 or 700 yards.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Yes, there are allot of semi and to a lesser extent, fully automatic weapons out there. Those people will be spraying out allot of bullets down range, and in many cases I mean just that, spraying. If one guy fires off 30 rounds and misses the guy he is shooting at but the guy he is shooting at fires once and hits the first guy, who wins? How many times have you seen videos of violence in the Middle-East and you see people firing automatic weapons from the hip or extend their arms straight over their heads to fire over a wall without even being able to see what they are shooting at? The point is that if you do buy a bolt action rifle you need to take the time to practice your marksmanship, and if the situation arises have the presence of mind to actually aim at what you are shooting at instead of spraying and praying. As far as that goes, do the same even if you own a semi-automatic weapon. I think that it is a mistake to disregard a bolt action rifle or those who use them because they aren't high capacity semi or fully automatic weapons. The bullet the counts is the one that hits it's target.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

I have military surplus rifles because my hobby is the study of military history.
In 2007 I paid $600 for my Remington model 1903A3. I have other rifles, but if this was the only one I had I would not feel undergunned. My tactics would just have to be adjusted accordingly.
1903A3's were made by two companies - Remington and Smith Corona. In WWII they were produced primarily because the US Rifle, Cal 30, M-1 (aka Garand) could not be turned out fast enough to equip all soldiers and Marines. They were issued to rear area troops (remember we had men stationed in the US and all around the world, some of them thousands of miles from active combat), truck drivers, etc.
Before a rifle grenade launcher could be developed for the Garand each rifle squad usually had one man with a 1903A3 for this purpose.

Notsoyoung - Your bayonet is most likely the 16" with wood grips, I think the model designation was M-1905 if I remember right. Do not let that get away, originals are worth well over $100 each to collectors. Reproductions go for $89 and above.


----------



## Fuzzee

Meangreen said:


> I agree that multiple weapons is always great but I think the point of the thread as Notsoyoung pointed out to me is "limited budget" and "inexpensive". Yes a shotgun is affordable but is limited to 100 yards and a good bolt gun can put it out to 600 or 700 yards.


True enough. But the practicality of 600 to 700 yards shots is pretty low. Extremely low for most I'd say. At that point a person can't even be a 100% sure who's out there on average without previous scouting or knowledge. An than who really needs to expend ammo at that range when the threat because of the distance is so low and they could simply evade it. Long range shooting when shtf for most people is going to be very uncommon I think. How many even have the open area with that range? Most people live in relative urban area's and ammo will be one of the most important things to conserve. In reality, though there are some very good shooters out there, most people aren't good enough to make that shot with precision from the first either.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Fuzzee said:


> I think I'd rather have an 870 and a bunch of different shell types than an old 1903 any day if I was on that tight of a budget. And/or a 10/22 with a couple thousand rounds. Toss in a good quality 9mm pistol and you'll be able to handle quite a bit.
> 
> View attachment 3726


And I would simply take my 03-A3 a couple of hundred yards down range from you, then later come pick them up from your dead body.


----------



## Fuzzee

Notsoyoung said:


> Yes, there are allot of semi and to a lesser extent, fully automatic weapons out there. Those people will be spraying out allot of bullets down range, and in many cases I mean just that, spraying. If one guy fires off 30 rounds and misses the guy he is shooting at but the guy he is shooting at fires once and hits the first guy, who wins? How many times have you seen videos of violence in the Middle-East and you see people firing automatic weapons from the hip or extend their arms straight over their heads to fire over a wall without even being able to see what they are shooting at? The point is that if you do buy a bolt action rifle you need to take the time to practice your marksmanship, and if the situation arises have the presence of mind to actually aim at what you are shooting at instead of spraying and praying. As far as that goes, do the same even if you own a semi-automatic weapon. I think that it is a mistake to disregard a bolt action rifle or those who use them because they aren't high capacity semi or fully automatic weapons. The bullet the counts is the one that hits it's target.


If you buy any firearm you need to practice and hone your marksmanship. Someone who doesn't will be just as bad with a bolt action. With a semi or full they simply have more bullets at their disposal to try again and fast. Anyone who sprays and prays will get what they deserve for their stupidity, but it doesn't change the advantage one has with a semi or fully automatic weapon in a fight regardless. Why don't we all bring a bunch of Model T's to Daytona for a race against the modern stock cars and see who wins also while we're at?


----------



## Meangreen

Fuzzee said:


> True enough. But the practicality of 600 to 700 yards shots is pretty low. Extremely low for most I'd say. At that point a person can't even be a 100% sure who's out there on average without previous scouting or knowledge. An than who really needs to expend ammo at that range when the threat because of the distance is so low and they could simply evade it. Long range shooting when shtf for most people is going to be very uncommon I think. How many even have the open area with that range? Most people live in relative urban area's and ammo will be one of the most important things to conserve. In reality, though there are some very good shooters out there, most people aren't good enough to make that shot with precision from the first either.


True but many people do live in rural areas and strangers will be obvious. Yes ability, means, and intent is tougher to judge at greater distances but still could be articulated as to why the shot was made. I do believe in a true WTSHTF situation a long range weapon will have it's place for self protection and hunting. I would imagine game will become scarce and will be real jumpy with so many new hunters attempting to take game.


----------



## jimb1972

Those k-31's are good rifles, but I would not recommend one for a SHTF situation unless you are a reloader and have enough brass and supplies to support it. I bought a Garand from the CMP about 10 years ago for under $500 I think it was about $430 for the service grade at the time, I do not know if they have any of the more affordable ones left but if anyone is interested I would definitely check them out. You can still find surplus 8x57 to feed a surplus Mauser reasonably priced as well, I bought 3 Czech mausers years ago for $59 a piece one is now a .308, another is a .270, and the third is still 8mm.


----------



## Fuzzee

Notsoyoung said:


> And I would simply take my 03-A3 a couple of hundred yards down range from you, then later come pick them up from your dead body.


I doubt it since you're living in a sniper fantasy instead of reality. In most cases you're not even going to see a person and be a 100% their a threat till their up close and personal. At that point, it will come down to skill, weaponry and tactics. Pack a bolt action if you want. I'm sure you'll find out how good of a choice it was eventually. I'll be packing my M1A, but if I was that limited on budget, I'd take an 870 over a 1903 any day.


----------



## Meangreen

rice paddy daddy said:


> I have military surplus rifles because my hobby is the study of military history.
> In 2007 I paid $600 for my Remington model 1903A3. I have other rifles, but if this was the only one I had I would not feel undergunned. My tactics would just have to be adjusted accordingly.
> 1903A3's were made by two companies - Remington and Smith Corona. In WWII they were produced primarily because the US Rifle, Cal 30, M-1 (aka Garand) could not be turned out fast enough to equip all soldiers and Marines. They were issued to rear area troops (remember we had men stationed in the US and all around the world, some of them thousands of miles from active combat), truck drivers, etc.
> Before a rifle grenade launcher could be developed for the Garand each rifle squad usually had one man with a 1903A3 for this purpose.
> Notsoyoung - Your bayonet is most likely the 16" with wood grips, I think the model designation was M-1905 if I remember right. Do not let that get away, originals are worth well over $100 each to collectors. Reproductions go for $89 and above.


Many troops in battle were still issued the 1903, I was surprised to learn that even in D-day most troops were still carrying the 1903 when they hit the beaches of Normandy.


----------



## Notsoyoung

And the original point was "limited budget" and "inexpensive". When you start talking about a 870, and/or a 10-22, and a 9mm you are talking something in the neighborhood of $800 - $1,000. Same with semi/full auto high capacity magazine rifles. That's like someone saying that all they can afford is a used Ford Fiesta and you come back and argue that a new Cadillac is a better buy. Also, you focus entirely on combat situations. IMO if you are in full fledged firefights daily you won't be around for many days to fight them. If you are in a situation where there are very limited resources, few spare parts, and are primarily concerned with finding food but the possibility of having to discourage a couple of guys from screwing with you, the 03-A3 is a much better choice then an AR, AK, or what ever.


----------



## Meangreen

jimb1972 said:


> Those k-31's are good rifles, but I would not recommend one for a SHTF situation unless you are a reloader and have enough brass and supplies to support it. I bought a Garand from the CMP about 10 years ago for under $500 I think it was about $430 for the service grade at the time, I do not know if they have any of the more affordable ones left but if anyone is interested I would definitely check them out. You can still find surplus 8x57 to feed a surplus Mauser reasonably priced as well, I bought 3 Czech mausers years ago for $59 a piece one is now a .308, another is a .270, and the third is still 8mm.


I don't like the K-31's because I'm left handed. The availability of ammo is a good point with the K-31's and I would much rather have a Mauser because of simplicity of the action and availability of ammo.


----------



## pheniox17

this is turning into a fight, a semi or full auto vs a bolt action, in skilled hands they are all effective, a 800 yard rifle will still work at 100 yards or even 50, or less again, look up ww2 battles (and the history of a 5.56mm NATO round) most fights were within 100 yards......

a low cost reliable, proven set up, where resupply is rear, I would choose a bolt action myself, anyone thought about the reliability in harsh conditions of the "black rifles"??? yea early days, a semi or full is always preferable, but later on when parts show wear, magazines malfunction, and the general reliability of the rifle goes to s#%t... wile old mate is sitting with his "group" with the old bolts, with accurate sustained fire... who do you think is better off??


----------



## Notsoyoung

Meangreen said:


> Many troops in battle were still issued the 1903, I was surprised to learn that even in D-day most troops were still carrying the 1903 when they hit the beaches of Normandy.


When the Marines landed at Guadalcanal they were armed with M1903-A3's.


----------



## Meangreen

Notsoyoung said:


> And the original point was "limited budget" and "inexpensive". When you start talking about a 870, and/or a 10-22, and a 9mm you are talking something in the neighborhood of $800 - $1,000. Same with semi/full auto high capacity magazine rifles. That's like someone saying that all they can afford is a used Ford Fiesta and you come back and argue that a new Cadillac is a better buy. Also, you focus entirely on combat situations. IMO if you are in full fledged firefights daily you won't be around for many days to fight them. If you are in a situation where there are very limited resources, few spare parts, and are primarily concerned with finding food but the possibility of having to discourage a couple of guys from screwing with you, the 03-A3 is a much better choice then an AR, AK, or what ever.


870 and 10/22 is more around the $300 mark and a 9mm pistols can be had for around $250. If your on the move and not bugging in, having to clear houses and businesses looking for food, a bolt gun would not be good. I would want a shotgun and transition to pistol in some cases. If I'm bugging in and only venture out to go into the forest to harvest game, I would want a bolt gun.


----------



## Fuzzee

Meangreen said:


> True but many people do live in rural areas and strangers will be obvious. Yes ability, means, and intent is tougher to judge at greater distances but still could be articulated as to why the shot was made. I do believe in a true WTSHTF situation a long range weapon will have it's place for self protection and hunting. I would imagine game will become scarce and will be real jumpy with so many new hunters attempting to take game.


I agree, people have different situations of where they live and what they'll deal with. I agree a long range weapon most certainly has it's place and game will be less and jumpier. There will be those situations for some, that they'll be able to judge and know the threat at that distance, but how many will that be? Is it the better choice for the average person on a limited budget to buy that bolt action compared to something else when their budget is limited and they can only get so much. Depending on their situation, the bolt may be right for them. But most people don't have that area and the reality is most gun fights happen up close. You know that. So what's best for the person at that point?


----------



## Notsoyoung

Fuzzee said:


> I doubt it since you're living in a sniper fantasy instead of reality. In most cases you're not even going to see a person and be a 100% their a threat till their up close and personal. At that point, it will come down to skill, weaponry and tactics. Pack a bolt action if you want. I'm sure you'll find out how good of a choice it was eventually. I'll be packing my M1A, but if I was that limited on budget, I'd take an 870 over a 1903 any day.


You think so? I really don't consider 200 yds a "sniper fantasy". I call it an easy shot. As for "in most cases not seen a person until up close and personal", where in the heck do you live, a jungle? I spent more then a few years in Recon so I know from personal experience just how to locate other people, check them out, see how they are armed, and if I decided you were a threat I would back off to where your ability to respond was not a factor, and take you out. I own an 870 in addition to a few other shotguns, and though I like it and them, they would not be my first choice for a single weapon if I was limited to one.


----------



## Moonshinedave

Honestly, I would have preferred to had stayed with an American built weapon, but for the price, the Mosin Nagant was the best deal. Every weapon a person owns IMO, should have it's purpose, for what it is, the 91/30 is worth owning.


----------



## Fuzzee

Notsoyoung said:


> And the original point was "limited budget" and "inexpensive". When you start talking about a 870, and/or a 10-22, and a 9mm you are talking something in the neighborhood of $800 - $1,000. Same with semi/full auto high capacity magazine rifles. That's like someone saying that all they can afford is a used Ford Fiesta and you come back and argue that a new Cadillac is a better buy. Also, you focus entirely on combat situations. IMO if you are in full fledged firefights daily you won't be around for many days to fight them. If you are in a situation where there are very limited resources, few spare parts, and are primarily concerned with finding food but the possibility of having to discourage a couple of guys from screwing with you, the 03-A3 is a much better choice then an AR, AK, or what ever.


No, in the first it was about between the two an 870 or the bolt. But no one's likely to stop there, so I expanded in a direction they could and may go adding to what they have if their smart. We all work on budget and buy what we can as we can, expanding as we go. If I focus on a combat sense of mentality it's because I believe wholeheartedly it will be that at some point for most of us if shtf hard enough. Not a hurricane, not a temporary loss of power for a week, but long term shtf. Pretty much anything else and you won't be resorting to firefights or shooting down desperate people.


----------



## jimb1972

I own a couple AR's and an AK if I were limited to only one rifle it would not be any of them, but another one of those model T's or maybe the model A M1 Garand.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Notsoyoung said:


> When the Marines landed at Guadalcanal they were armed with M1903-A3's.


Actually they were armed with M1903's, not 03A3.

And, to tell the truth, if I had to choose one military bolt action from my collection to serve as a general purpose all around rifle it would be the Mauser K98k. 
Speaking of which, did you know that the US government had to pay royalties to Mauser for patent infringement for the Springfield M-1903? Those payments were ended when we entered WWI.:mrgreen:


----------



## Notsoyoung

Moonshinedave said:


> Honestly, I would have preferred to had stayed with an American built weapon, but for the price, the Mosin Nagant was the best deal. Every weapon a person owns IMO, should have it's purpose, for what it is, the 91/30 is worth owning.


That is one of the points I was trying to make. Years ago one of the best deals going was the 03-A3. Now they are expensive. Today the best deal going IMO is the Mosin Nagant and the cost for them has started to go up and IMO will continue to do so. Although I also prefer American built weapons, the Mosin Nagant is one tough rifle that you almost have to take the bolt apart to fully appreciate, utilizes a powerful round, and I think that TODAY it is the best deal going. I have one and am considering buying another one just because they are so cheap.


----------



## Fuzzee

Notsoyoung said:


> You think so? I really don't consider 200 yds a "sniper fantasy". I call it an easy shot. As for "in most cases not seen a person until up close and personal", where in the heck do you live, a jungle? I spent more then a few years in Recon so I know from personal experience just how to locate other people, check them out, see how they are armed, and if I decided you were a threat I would back off to where your ability to respond was not a factor, and take you out. I own an 870 in addition to a few other shotguns, and though I like it and them, they would not be my first choice for a single weapon if I was limited to one.


I'm going walk away from this fascinating discussion of the reality and practicality of long range shooting in shtf and a bolt action being a better choice for people on average with a limited budget than something else. I'm getting neck strain from shaking my head and my nutritious chili cheese fries are done that I'm going to enjoy on my day off while watching the rest of the new Riddick while I can. Cheers.


----------



## Titan6

Great Post thanks for the input!!


----------



## Notsoyoung

rice paddy daddy said:


> Actually they were armed with M1903's, not 03A3.


I thought so too, but according to this The Weapons of Guadalcanal they were armed with the 03-A3, but since I think it was the 03, and YOU think it was the 03, I am forced to believe that WE are right and the site is WRONG. As further proof of our shared brilliance, I don't think that the 03-A3 was even started to be produced until 1942 which would hardly give it enough time to be issued to the Marines before landing.


----------



## Meangreen

The fact of the matter is we don't really know the logistics of what we might face and we prepare to cover as many situations as we can. I think that there is no perfect weapon for every situation and we can only carry so much. I believe the best firearm is the one you have and the one you are proficient with. Many great men before us have done amazing things with much less. As I posted in another thread that was removed because I hurt someone's feelers. The old guy I have coffee with at the donut shop, he jumped into Germany during Operation Market Garden with a sten. A sten is a glorified exhaust pipe and as he said, "it was all I had and I bloody well made it work!"


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Notsoyoung said:


> I thought so too, but according to this The Weapons of Guadalcanal they were armed with the 03-A3, but since I think it was the 03, and YOU think it was the 03, I am forced to believe that WE are right and the site is WRONG. As further proof of our shared brilliance, I don't think that the 03-A3 was even started to be produced until 1942 which would hardly give it enough time to be issued to the Marines before landing.


As a certified gun nut and a military history buff and an old soldier, whenever I look at photo's of WWII combat the first thing I look at is the weaponry.
Also, check this out - M1903 Springfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on a related note, for all the internet bashing of the M-1 Carbine by armchair warriors there were sure a lot of soldiers that carried them in WWII.


----------



## Meangreen

And on a related note, for all the internet bashing of the M-1 Carbine by armchair warriors there were sure a lot of soldiers that carried them in WWII.[/QUOTE]

As well as Korea and into Vietnam. It seems to me to be a great medium range weapon.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Meangreen said:


> And on a related note, for all the internet bashing of the M-1 Carbine by armchair warriors there were sure a lot of soldiers that carried them in WWII.


As well as Korea and into Vietnam. It seems to me to be a great medium range weapon.[/QUOTE]

Look at what they sell for now! I can remember when I was in high school you could buy one for less then $50.00. I should have bought one then, but the choice was the gun or take a girl out on a date or two. NOW I think I made the wrong choice, back then I thought it was a no-brainer. South Korea had a whole butt load of them along with Garands and were going to return them to us, but the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) decided that they should not be returned to the United States for sale to civilians because they are too dangerous. Thanks Hillary and thanks to you too mr. obama.


----------



## jimb1972

Notsoyoung said:


> As well as Korea and into Vietnam. It seems to me to be a great medium range weapon.


Look at what they sell for now! I can remember when I was in high school you could buy one for less then $50.00. I should have bought one then, but the choice was the gun or take a girl out on a date or two. NOW I think I made the wrong choice, back then I thought it was a no-brainer. South Korea had a whole butt load of them along with Garands and were going to return them to us, but the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) decided that they should not be returned to the United States for sale to civilians because they are too dangerous. Thanks Hillary and thanks to you too mr. obama.[/QUOTE]
I remember cheap guns too, but if you adjust for inflation the prices have not really gone up that much. There are more people who want them and the same or fewer to be had. I really need to figure out the reply with quote function.


----------



## csi-tech

Milsurp weapons, excluding Mosins at the moment, are too expensive. I can get a heavy barreled, scoped Remington for $600.00 that will out shoot any of them in any caliber I want. I would love to have some classics but I'm too practical to spend 1000.00 on an old, albeit awesome M1 Garand. I have a Mauser action 30.06, an AK and an AR that cover all of the bases nicely. I bought my Type 53 and a case of 7.62x54R because it was unbelievably cheap. I also have a Mossberg 500 and gobs of slugs and .00 buck.


----------



## wesley762

Something is always better than nothing. would they be my go to rifle, Only if I had no other options.


----------



## retired guard

I picked up my 1903 (Smith Corona) at K-Mart/Walmart (don't remember for sure which) for $55.00. It was the first firearm I ever bought.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

csi-tech said:


> Milsurp weapons, excluding Mosins at the moment, are too expensive. I can get a heavy barreled, scoped Remington for $600.00 that will out shoot any of them in any caliber I want. I would love to have some classics but I'm too practical to spend 1000.00 on an old, albeit awesome M1 Garand. I have a Mauser action 30.06, an AK and an AR that cover all of the bases nicely. I bought my Type 53 and a case of 7.62x54R because it was unbelievably cheap. I also have a Mossberg 500 and gobs of slugs and .00 buck.


I just like the old weaponry. While I do have more "practical" firearms (AK & Remington 870 & M1A, and Colt Government Model 1911A1, etc) I also have things like a 1940 Harrington & Richardson Model 120 Game Gun 16 gauge bolt action shotgun.:mrgreen:
And for a casual stroll in the woods a 1930's era Springfield Model 94 single shot 12 ga.
And my Mossberg bolt action .410 makes me smile. Do I really "need" a nickle plated 1921 Colt Police Positive Special revolver in 32-20? Probably not. But I have one.
I have firearms in 21 different calibers and gauges. 
My local gunshop has a Winchester 37 single shot 16 ga. I think that will be my next.


----------



## retired guard

If I only had the guns I needed there would a lot more room in the safe!


----------



## jimb1972

Those Ruger American rifles are pretty hard to beat for price. I think the days of cheap milsurps are nearly over thanks to importation regulations, I don't see the government ever selling M-16's through the civilian marksmanship program and the Garands are nearly gone, the carbines are gone.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

jimb1972 said:


> Those Ruger American rifles are pretty hard to beat for price. I think the days of cheap milsurps are nearly over thanks to importation regulations, I don't see the government ever selling M-16's through the civilian marksmanship program and the Garands are nearly gone, the carbines are gone.


M-16's will never be available to the public because they are selective fire. That is why M-14's were not available to the public as well. Under the Clinton administration many thousands of M-14's were cut into pieces with torches. When the current wars in the middle east pointed out the need for something more effective under those conditions than the M-16 there were not nearly enough M-14's left. I have heard Springfield Armory M1A's were pressed into service but I do not know if that is true.


----------



## jimb1972

rice paddy daddy said:


> M-16's will never be available to the public because they are selective fire. That is why M-14's were not available to the public as well. Under the Clinton administration many thousands of M-14's were cut into pieces with torches. When the current wars in the middle east pointed out the need for something more effective under those conditions than the M-16 there were not nearly enough M-14's left. I have heard Springfield Armory M1A's were pressed into service but I do not know if that is true.


5 minutes and $30 worth of parts makes an M16 semi auto only politics is more the reason than the operating system of the rifle.


----------



## dannydefense

I know I'm extremely late to the party, but I keep reading one theme over and over in this thread (and countless others to be fair) and it makes me wonder if a lot of people aren't choosing the wrong weapons regardless of the price. The theme I'm referring to is the one where all these weapons are primarily for shooting other human beings. I wonder if that's where a lot of misconceptions about preppers/survivalists come from in mainstream media? We're obviously a bunch of gun toting ******** who just want the opportunity to shoot each other.

If I could only carry one weapon, the first thought that crosses my mind is what can I feed my family with? If weight wasn't an option, I almost always seem to go to a shotgun thanks to the variety of shells/chokes I can carry to accomplish different tasks... including shooting others who threaten me.  But I'd be hard pressed to drop my rifle because I don't want to miss out on food that doesn't get any closer than 300 yards.

Anywho, slightly off topic I guess. I just always seem to see the reasoning having something to do with killing people, and it seems like the bigger picture might be missed in that frame of mind.


----------



## Meangreen

dannydefense said:


> I know I'm extremely late to the party, but I keep reading one theme over and over in this thread (and countless others to be fair) and it makes me wonder if a lot of people aren't choosing the wrong weapons regardless of the price. The theme I'm referring to is the one where all these weapons are primarily for shooting other human beings. I wonder if that's where a lot of misconceptions about preppers/survivalists come from in mainstream media? We're obviously a bunch of gun toting ******** who just want the opportunity to shoot each other.
> 
> If I could only carry one weapon, the first thought that crosses my mind is what can I feed my family with? If weight wasn't an option, I almost always seem to go to a shotgun thanks to the variety of shells/chokes I can carry to accomplish different tasks... including shooting others who threaten me.  But I'd be hard pressed to drop my rifle because I don't want to miss out on food that doesn't get any closer than 300 yards.
> 
> Anywho, slightly off topic I guess. I just always seem to see the reasoning having something to do with killing people, and it seems like the bigger picture might be missed in that frame of mind.


The problem is that most people are alive because it's illegal to kill them. I would think after a WTSHTF and rule of law is gone that most of the population will be a threat to anyone that has a fighting chance of surviving because they prepared. Just look around at the general population and you gotta admit that Darwinism has failed to remove these "targets" from the herd.


----------



## nurseholly

Meangreen said:


> The problem is that most people are alive because it's illegal to kill them. I would think after a WTSHTF and rule of law is gone that most of the population will be a threat to anyone that has a fighting chance of surviving because they prepared. Just look around at the general population and you gotta admit that Darwinism has failed to remove these "targets" from the herd.


I believe we call them liberal zombies...


----------



## jimb1972

Meangreen said:


> The problem is that most people are alive because it's illegal to kill them. I would think after a WTSHTF and rule of law is gone that most of the population will be a threat to anyone that has a fighting chance of surviving because they prepared. Just look around at the general population and you gotta admit that Darwinism has failed to remove these "targets" from the herd.


Most disasters only result in a suspension of the laws of society, they return full force in a short time and I don't want to be the guy responsible on trial for pouring a little chlorine in the gene pool.


----------



## Meangreen

jimb1972 said:


> Most disasters only result in a suspension of the laws of society, they return full force in a short time and I don't want to be the guy responsible on trial for pouring a little chlorine in the gene pool.


Opportunity, means, and intent and the ability to articulate this in a report. In a disaster situation people become predators and your right to defend yourself doesn't go out the window because someone else is hungry.


----------



## dannydefense

Meangreen said:


> The problem is that most people are alive because it's illegal to kill them. I would think after a WTSHTF and rule of law is gone that most of the population will be a threat to anyone that has a fighting chance of surviving because they prepared. Just look around at the general population and you gotta admit that Darwinism has failed to remove these "targets" from the herd.


I'm not saying it won't be necessary. Just warning against using that as your primary objective during selection.

Given a world changing hit the fan event, vigilante justice will no longer be against the law. There is no doubt in my mind there will be as much senseless killing as there is necessary.


----------



## Ronin65

I bought a Yugoslav Mauser in 8mm when they were pretty cheap. When I got the money, I rebarreled it for plentiful .308. Then put a scout mount and scope on it, and it has turned out to be a great scout rifle. This is not my main rifle, that goes to my AR, but it does have it's uses. Surplus rifles do have their place, but do not rely on just that. Add at least a good pump shotgun for close in work.


----------



## Notsoyoung

NOW I would not rely solely on a MilSurp rifle, BUT, if just starting out and not having much money, I think it is a pretty good way to go. Right now the Mosin Nagant is the cheap buy, although the prices of them are slowly climbing. If you have the money to go out and buy a butt load of firearms all at the same time, great. But if you are like me when I was younger, I had to slowly build up slowly, although I did have my shotgun from when I was a kid.


----------



## jimb1972

Ronin65 said:


> I bought a Yugoslav Mauser in 8mm when they were pretty cheap. When I got the money, I rebarreled it for plentiful .308. Then put a scout mount and scope on it, and it has turned out to be a great scout rifle. This is not my main rifle, that goes to my AR, but it does have it's uses. Surplus rifles do have their place, but do not rely on just that. Add at least a good pump shotgun for close in work.


I have three 1922 Czech BRNO Mausers, one is rebarreled to .308 with a heavy contour and a 6-24x scope. It's as good as anything being turned out by Remington or the other bolt gun manufacturers. I also have a .270 barrel waiting to be installed on one of the other actions.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Enfield! 10 rd magazine, the fastest cycling action out there, and a 10 rd magazine that holds one devastating round. The surplus ammo is all but gone, but regular ammo is still readily available and is comparable to .308.

I have a Mosin and an SKS, but feel the need for a Mauser rechambered in .308 for some reason. I'd love a Springfield or Garand, but just can't justify that kind of cash for the platform. I do kind of feel like picking np a Type 53 Mosin Carbine wouldn't hurt, but I have a deal in the works for a complete Enfield less the stock and magazine that may end up a shortened barrel Jungle Carbine clone/ Scout Rifle.

I loves me some British .303.


----------



## Notsoyoung

My main hunting rifle is a sporterized M1903-A3 in 30-06, with a bobbed barrel that it and the bolt has been smoothed and blued, a custom trigger job, and a Leopold scope. I do have an Enfield in .308 cal.


----------



## Seneca

If a surplus rifle (surplus because they've been replaced by a better design) is the only rifles within ones budget then that's what one gets and that's that. They are for the most part fairly good rifles, quality and reliability is usually pretty good so that's not the issue.

Yes there are better (modern design) rifles available if one is willing to spend more money. I would not or ever suggest to a person who could afford a better rifle, (better as in a modern design) that they should buy the less expensive rifle simply to save themselves couple of bucks.


----------



## Seneca

dannydefense said:


> I'm not saying it won't be necessary. Just warning against using that as your primary objective during selection.
> 
> Given a world changing hit the fan event, vigilante justice will no longer be against the law. There is no doubt in my mind there will be as much senseless killing as there is necessary.


Danny,
Vigilante justice will still be against the law...It will just take the law a bit longer to catch up to the vigilante.

There will be enough people doing stupid stuff that one should at every opportunity excuse themselves from such nonsense.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

Notsoyoung said:


> My main hunting rifle is a sporterized M1903-A3 in 30-06, with a bobbed barrel that it and the bolt has been smoothed and blued, a custom trigger job, and a Leopold scope. I do have an Enfield in .308 cal.


I traded a Spanish Mauser in .308 and $100 for my Enfield. I would like to have an Enfield that was built as a .308, but not so much as a conversion. There are some good conversions out there, but it's hit or miss.

There is an annual militaria/gun show here to benefit the Audy Murphy Museum. Mrs. Rigged hates that event, lol.


----------



## Smitty901

Most 1903 and Grands were purchased because of what they meant, more than as rifles.
They are both good rifles in their own way. We had a president that tossed a whole bunch up to a million or more in the furnace to keep them off the market.
That was when the price went crazy on them.
Neither are my go to weapons but if needed they would do the job well.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Rigged for Quiet said:


> I traded a Spanish Mauser in .308 and $100 for my Enfield. I would like to have an Enfield that was built as a .308, but not so much as a conversion. There are some good conversions out there, but it's hit or miss.
> 
> There is an annual militaria/gun show here to benefit the Audy Murphy Museum. Mrs. Rigged hates that event, lol.


I have an Enfield Ishapore 2A1 that was originally built to fire the 7.62 NATO round. It functions very nicely but shoots high, something that many Enfields do. One thing that almost Milsurp weapons have in common is that they were built to take allot of rough handling and are generally very reliable. In addition, with the use of stripper clips they can put out a higher rate of fire then most sporting rifles.


----------



## Smitty901

Enfield 303's are nice shooters but prices on those have gone up also.


----------



## Rigged for Quiet

Smitty901 said:


> Enfield 303's are nice shooters but prices on those have gone up also.


Unless you happen to know an elderly gentleman who has been collecting and selling them for over 50 years and has a shed full

But, you are correct. If trying to buy on the open market the prices are escalating. I would love to have an Aussie Enfield from WWII with all that lovely brass. I've had the pleasure of shooting just about every configuration of Enfield ever built from the .22LR trainer to one chambered in .410.

This reminds me that I need to drop by spend some time with my old friend. He's a treasure to pass a few hours with.


----------



## Smitty901

Rigged for Quiet said:


> Unless you happen to know an elderly gentleman who has been collecting and selling them for over 50 years and has a shed full
> 
> But, you are correct. If trying to buy on the open market the prices are escalating. I would love to have an Aussie Enfield from WWII with all that lovely brass. I've had the pleasure of shooting just about every configuration of Enfield ever built from the .22LR trainer to one chambered in .410.
> 
> This reminds me that I need to drop by spend some time with my old friend. He's a treasure to pass a few hours with.


 Just like the SKS at one time you could buy all the 303 Enfield's you wants for 67-70 dollars. The one I have I paid 67 dollars for it.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Two Words: Mosin Nagant...or its variants. Now if only they made on in 300 Blackout. Just Kidding.


----------



## HuntingHawk

Would not be my first choice. But as a firearm for your reserve forces like women it is a good choice. The firearms are rugged & easy to teach someone how to use it.

As for myself, I believe come SHTF firefights will be short & intense. Attackers will quickly over run a position or the defenders will put up enough resistance attackers will retreat.


----------



## Fuzzee

Meangreen said:


> The problem is that most people are alive because it's illegal to kill them. I would think after a WTSHTF and rule of law is gone that most of the population will be a threat to anyone that has a fighting chance of surviving because they prepared. Just look around at the general population and you gotta admit that Darwinism has failed to remove these "targets" from the herd.


Yep. Flying lead will help remove them and with the rule of law not there the gloves will come off and lots of people who well deserved it for years by who they chose to be will find those same action then will hinder different reactions. I know I've run into more than my share of people solely in need of a bullet or a good ass kicking at the minimum over the years. When shtf that hard, there are sure to be quite a few people running around our society now who will take a dirt nap or finally get the shit kicked out of them hard and learn some respect for others.

.


----------



## Moonshinedave

Regarding the original post, this is my humble suggestions:
1) buy a Mosin Nagant (cabelas has them on sale for $129.99 as of this posting)
*NOTE:* the following is assuming you have basic tools already
2) major cleaning job (several how to's can be found on YouTube) = $0
3) if you have a sticky bolt watch this:



 =$0
4) quick trigger job (great improvement) 



 =$0
5) Float the barrel (if needed) and do a basic glass bedding job (see next post for videos)
Will you have a $1500 nail driver? probably not, but for about 150 dollars you will have a very good shooting rifle.


----------



## Moonshinedave




----------



## Notsoyoung

As for the return of law and order, it would depend on just how hard hit by an event a society is. There is the relatively short lived and localized emergency such as a tornado or hurricane, or a nation or world wide disaster such as the fall of the Roman Empire or the bubonic plague or black death in the middle ages. The "Dark Ages" lasted approximately 800 - 1,000 years. In a long term disaster, one that may last for not years but decades, initially the only law is first going to be the law of the strongest which IMO will quickly evolve into vigilante law, as like minded individuals organize for mutual protection and to control criminal elements who are trying to take advantage of the emergency. Although vigilante law is almost always portrayed as something very bad, i.e., lynch mobs, a look at the old West, specifically California during the gold rush shows that usually it was in response to out of control violence and lawlessness with the absence of law or a ineffective or weak law enforcement presence. The typical vigilante organization disappeared once a strong law enforcement presence was established. 

IMO we are already seeing the very beginning of vigilante organizations with the establishment of Neighborhood Watches. People getting together to protect their Neighborhoods from criminal elements. Right now most of them only observe what is going on and report possible criminal activities to the local law enforcement agency. Suppose there wasn't a law enforcement agency to report to? How long would it take for a Neighborhood Watch to go from observing and reporting, to apprehending and punishing? Personally if there was a long term disaster and a long term absence of law enforcement, I believe that I would be one of those joining a vigilante group.


----------



## Moonshinedave

One last thought: Perhaps it isn't the race car but rather the tires? Watch this when you've got the time, check out the results of the red box Sellier Bellot 174 grain (expect to pay about $1.50 per round for this babies);


----------



## Eranimus

If you are looking for a cheep bolt action rifle that is solid as a rock and will put down a grizzly bear in 1 shot. The mosin negant is the rifle for you. It has a 5 round box magazine that holds the 7.62 X 54r. (I've shot trees that were 12 inches in diameter and the round went through them.) Most mosins can be bought at a local gun store for $100 to $200. The sights go up to 1000 yards but in reality you can get maybe 300 on a point target. These were originaly designed and built by the russians back in 1891. They have been used in both world wars, korea, vietnam and countless other wars around the world. They are still in use in africa and south american militaries. The rifle is based on a model that is 122 years old and still works. Super easy to maintain and so simple its imposible to break. Make sure to do some research online to make sure that you get one that is in good condition.


----------



## HuntingHawk

Limited experience I think is the key here. But selection of firearms you should always take into consideration rangesa problem could be encountered. There is also an issue of trouble getting a sight picture when its dark or even raining. Probably the best the best choice overall would be a shotgun for the inexperienced.


----------



## Notsoyoung

I personally believe that there is an important place for shotguns and long range center fire rifles in my personal arsenal in addition to .22 rifles, a both rim and center fire pistols, and magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. Different firearms and combinations of them for different terrain, "missions", and circumstances.


----------



## Infidel

Eranimus said:


> If you are looking for a cheep bolt action rifle that is solid as a rock and will put down a grizzly bear in 1 shot. The mosin negant is the rifle for you. It has a 5 round box magazine that holds the 7.62 X 54r. (I've shot trees that were 12 inches in diameter and the round went through them.) Most mosins can be bought at a local gun store for $100 to $200. The sights go up to 1000 yards but in reality you can get maybe 300 on a point target. These were originaly designed and built by the russians back in 1891. They have been used in both world wars, korea, vietnam and countless other wars around the world. They are still in use in africa and south american militaries. The rifle is based on a model that is 122 years old and still works. Super easy to maintain and so simple its imposible to break. Make sure to do some research online to make sure that you get one that is in good condition.


I wouldn't want to test that 1 shot grizzly theory and the statement is a bit misleading. With proper shot placement you are absolutely correct the Mosin is capable of putting down a grizzly bear this does not mean however proper shot placement (especially under stress) requires practice. I also wouldn't want to face a charging grizzly with a 7.62x54R, now .444 Marlin, .450 Marlin, .45-70 or a 12ga shotgun with slugs would make me feel a whole lot more comfortable in big bear country. Maybe I'm nitpicking but those are my thoughts.

-Infidel


----------



## specknowsbest

I'd have to say, if you're looking for a good, bolt-action rifle that's durable, reliable, accurate and under $200 then a Mosin is definitely the way to go. Of course, I would never have a Mosin as my "Primary" rifle for SHTF, it'd be specifically a hunting and long range engagement rifle. If I had to say that any rifle would serve as my primary, it'd currently be my SKS, which will be swapped out in favor of an AK-47 here shortly. It's definitely wise though to keep a basic, wide range of firearms available though, because you never know what scenario you'll find yourself into. So, I'd say, keep a good bolt-action for hunting/long range engagements, a semi-automatic rifle for sustained firefights/security, a shotgun for hunting/close quarters home defense, and of course, a sidearm at all times for a backup when carrying or using any of the aforementioned.


----------



## Gunner's Mate

The best rifle is the one the that you can carry the furthest, shoot the most accurately, has reliability and has a replaceable source of ammo. 
I would Look at US / NATO calibers and LEO calibers


----------

