If You Only Had Two Firearms...

Every once in a while, I see a discussion on gun or survival forums or blogs about what firearms would you select if you could only have one or two weapons. Sometimes, these are discussions of what to pack when traveling in the back country, and sometimes debates on what would be best in a TEOTWAWKI situation (and sometimes, both). For purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on TEOTWAWKI.

Although it may seem a pointless exercise, it is actually important for two reasons. First, for people just starting out as a prepper, this exercise can help them focus on what they need and why, and (hopefully) keep their weapon preparations reasonable. (I discussed staying away from an unreasonable multiplicity of firearms here).

Second, history tells us that wars and disasters can produce significant displacements of people. Thus, in a TEOTWAWKI situation, there is a good chance, at some time or another, that we may need to temporarily flee our homes. We may even become refugees. The two weapon limit is selected as a reasonable load that most people could carry (together with a reasonable amount of ammunition and other supplies) if they had to leave on foot.

Your weapon selection depends on what you envision will happen. Some people focus on hunting over self-defense; others focus on combat, either figuring that the primary hazard will be other people and/or because they figure that hunting will be unrealistic or unnecessary. Assuming fleeing your home or becoming a refugee, I believe there needs to be a balance. The weapons you select should be useful for both hunting and self-defense. 

One of the most versatile of weapons is the shotgun. Both 20- and 12-gauge are common, and offer rounds using light-weight shot suitable for small game and birds, through progressively heavier shot and slugs that are capable of taking down larger game. However, the ammunition is bulky; the magazine capacity is limited to generally 5 to 7 rounds in most pump action and semi-automatic shotguns; and the range is limited, even when using slugs and rifled barrels (and when using buckshot or heavy birdshot, the effective range is less than most full-sized handguns). The limitations of the shotgun make it a poor choice in my mind, unless you can have only one weapon, or there are legal reasons restricting your choice.

Which brings us back to the handgun and rifle. In our two-firearm scenario, both fulfill a purpose. Rifles offer better range and accuracy over a handgun; a handgun is more concealable (yes, there are times you may want to armed, but not obviously so) and more easily carried.  (I discuss the advantages and disadvantages to handguns, and types of handguns, here).

So far, nothing I have suggested is all that controversial. However, ammunition selection is where the heated arguments begin.

I believe that you need to be able to hunt both medium to large game (e.g., deer or hogs) and small game (e.g., rabbits and squirrels). I believe it is more likely that most of your animal protein will come from small game. There are, after all, approximately 70 million white tail deer in this country, but 300 million people. The math is pretty simple--larger game will quickly disappear. However, if the opportunity presents itself, you should be able to take a larger animal. Unless you want to be picking up tufts of fur, the only rounds suitable for hunting small game are the .22 LR and .22 Magnum. The .17 calibers are, I think, too powerful for most small rodents, much less common, and significantly more expensive. Due to the availability (you may have to scrounge for ammo), cost and weight, the .22 LR is the only reasonable choice.

There is a larger variety of ammunition suitable for medium to large game. If you were only going to be hunting medium and large game, a .30 caliber or larger high-power rifle (e.g., .300 Win Mag, .30-06, .308/7.62 NATO, 7.62x54R) would be the logical choice. However, combat would dictate using a smaller and/or lighter caliber, such as 5.56 NATO or 5.45x39. (I discuss the relative merits of .22 versus .30 caliber combat rounds here). Within ranges of 100 to 150 yards, the smaller rounds are adequate for up to medium sized game, such as deer and hogs. Handgun rounds such as .357 Mag., 10 mm, .41 Mag., .44 Mag, and so on are adequate for taking medium game (but overkill for small game), and the effective range for most people will be fairly short. Popular self-defense rounds such as 9x19 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are, in my mind, insufficient to reliably take medium game, even when using hollow-point ammunition, but still overkill for small game.

Self-defense presents different issues. As discussed in my prior post on handguns, I suspect that a handgun will be your primary self-defense tool. But I think most people would agree that, given the choice, a rifle is a better weapon for self-defense: the ammunition is more lethal, you have better range and accuracy, and, with most semi-automatics, equal or greater magazine capacity than with a handgun. Personally, as a refugee, engaging a brigand or mob at a couple hundred yards is preferable to 25 yards. Conversely, common self-defense rounds for handguns, such as 9x19 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, are, in reality, not reliable man-stoppers. From a statistical standpoint, the .22 LR is equally or more effective for self-defense than the larger handgun calibers.

Adding this together brings me to the conclusion that in a two gun scenario, your best option would be a .22 LR semi-automatic handgun of reasonable accuracy (i.e., probably using a 6-inch heavy barrel). For self-defense purposes, it would serve most people as well or better than the larger caliber handguns. Most such pistols use a 10-round magazine. Its range is sufficient for hunting small game (i.e., within 25 to 30 yards). Good choices in this would be the Browning Buckmark or a heavy or bull-barrel Ruger .22. (I haven't used a Walther P-22, but I would expect that a target model would be more than accurate enough for taking small game).

The choice of rifle is more difficult simply because there are more options. Ideally, it would be a combat rifle with sufficient accuracy and power to take at least medium sized game out to 200 to 300 yards, yet be rugged and reliable enough to use on the trail for weeks or months with little maintenance. I give the edge to the AK and SKS for ruggedness, but (mostly because of the generally poor ammunition on the market) I think they are lacking somewhat as to accuracy. While 5.45 mm is hard to find, the 7.62 x 39 has actually become a very common rifle round. The AR would generally win for accuracy, but the .223 round is a little weak for hunting; and a direct impingement system would, I believe, require more maintenance than a refugee could provide. (Of course, as a refugee, you probably wouldn't be shooting much, so perhaps this is not an issue). A gas-piston AR or a Mini-14 might be a good compromise. Any of the popular .308 battle rifles (M-1A, FAL, or HK91/CETME) would be good choices, but perhaps too heavy for many people in a refugee situation.

Frankly, if I only had 10 minutes to collect a rifle and ammunition, not knowing what I would face, I would probably pick an SKS over any of the other rifles because it is reasonably accurate, utterly reliable, and loads from stripper clips (meaning I wouldn't have to mess around with the weight and hassle of carrying a bunch of magazines). While the magazine capacity (at 10 rounds) is too low for serious combat, I think it would be sufficient for someone who would mostly be trying to avoid or get out of a fight.

All of the foregoing assumes you were on your own. Obviously, more people in your group would give you more flexibility. For instance, someone carrying a more accurate and powerful rifle suitable for sniping or taking large game (such as elk, moose, or bear) instead of a battle rifle; or someone bringing along a shotgun with a selection of ammunition. However, this also takes us out of our original premise--what if you were limited to only two firearms...?