View Single Post
Old June 29, 2009, 06:53 AM   #15
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
I've seen some pretty silly threads and polls here. This is just to gauge the thought process of the participants of this rifle forum.
I don't see where this poll is much better than all the other silly ones. It is covering a topic which has been discussed many times on here and you could have figured out the thought process here by researching them. There have been plenty of discussions about 5.56 vs 7.62X51 vs 7.62x39, but this is just another SHTF/EOTWAWKI thread if you ask me.

Quote:
hoytinak, silly? Are you going to want to run around with more than one rifle on your back?

Also, it doesn't matter what you own already. The question is if you had to depend upon one rifle, as in any rifle, what caliber would it be?
The poster you are referring to in this statement chose a .22 LR for his choice. So my question to you is since he chose a .22 LR to depend on why couldn't you accept it? The .22 LR is far more beneficial to a guy trying to survive than a larger center fire rifle. He can carry more ammunition to hunt small game with that is easier to deal with than one large animal on the ground.

Quote:
One consideration, especially during times of war, is that most of a country's ammunition manufacturing capability is dedicated to calibers used by the military. If the war gets really bad, military calibers may be nearly all that is made.
Another reason why this is a SHTF/EOTWAWKI thread. We are in a time of war, and IMO as a soldier any war is bad but I know you meant if it spilled onto the home front. If they war is going that badly, then you will probably be carrying what your Nation issued you anyway. Since this thread is about battle rifle ammunition your poll is real simple, if you live in a nation that is a major supporter of NATO then you will go with 5.56 or 7.62X51. If you don't then you will probably using 7.62X39 ammunition.
taylorce1 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05338 seconds with 7 queries