Four ... no, Five ... SHTF Guns You Should Own

Generally when you see a list of "the top 4 (or 5) SHTF guns to own" it turns out to not be about specific firearms but categories of firearms. "You should own a modern sporting rifle, a handgun, a shotgun, and a .22 rifle (or a long range rifle)" seems to be a common list. In "My Four Reliable & Practical SHTF Guns You Need to Own," author Thomas Conroy hits these categories but actually gives specific firearms:

1. The Glock 19 pistol;
2. The PSA PA-15 Classic AR-15 5.56 M4 Carbine;
3. The Ruger 10/22 Takedown; 
4. The Remington Model 700 in .308; and (despite the title only referencing four firearms),
5. The Mossberg 500 Persuader shotgun.

He also provides alternatives in a few of the categories. 

    You might not agree with his choices or have different recommendations for different situations (I know I do), but at least he gives specific recommendations instead of the vague "have a rifle, a shotgun, a pistol, ...." For a newby, this is far more useful than the vague categories because it at least gives a place to start or example of features that someone might want in a weapon. 

Opportunism and Criminals

Greg Ellifritz at Active Response Training has a few new posts up that you should check out. His most recent is on the subject of "Knife Attacks: Dealing with the Charging Attacker." His recommendation, based on practicing the scenario, is to run at a 45 degree angle off to the unarmed side of the attacker until you are a few steps past him (or her), and then swing around to try and get behind the attacker. This should give you enough time, he states, to get your firearm into play.

    Although I didn't have time to do my normal quick review, Greg posted his normal Weekly Knowledge Dump last Friday that you should definitely check out. One of his links is to a news article about a moviegoer who was brutally beaten after asking a couple to move out of his reserved seating. Greg comments: "My late friend Dr. William Aprill had an important quote describing most criminals.  He said 'They are not like you.'" 

    This segues into an article Greg posted last week entitled “I Saw an Opportunity and I Took It.”  In it, he recounts an incident when he was still working as a police officer, responding to a report of a stolen bike. With the description of the suspect from several witnesses, he was quickly able to run down the criminal. While booking the suspect, he asked the guy why he stole the bike. The explanation he received from the crook, who was homeless, was that the crook had the opportunity to stay with a friend that night rather than going to the homeless shelter, but his friend's home was a four hour walk and he didn't want to spend four hours walking in the rain. So he saw the unlocked bike and took it. As Greg explains:

    He wasn’t mentally ill. He knew right from wrong. But he had absolutely no remorse about taking a bike from some girl who probably needs it as just badly as he did. The thought of what the victim would experience didn’t even register in his mind. He “saw an opportunity” and took it. He took a college girl’s only means of transportation, because he didn’t want to be inconvenienced by a long walk.

    This is what most folks don’t understand about serious criminals. The fact that the victim of the crime would be affected in a negative manner is not even an afterthought. Your feelings and concerns mean absolutely NOTHING to this criminal. He doesn’t care if you live or die, let alone how “inconvenienced” you will be if he takes all of your stuff or beats you within an inch of your life. If you literally had ZERO concern about the well being of your neighbors and fellow humans, what kind of atrocities would you be capable of committing? That’s something that few people consider.

    Unfortunately, the majority of the hard core criminals I encountered felt the same way. You are literally nothing more than an obstacle they must overcome to achieve their goal. Most of the serious criminals out there think you and I are merely pawns on the chessboard of life. They will destroy everything you know and love if it means that they will benefit in the wake of the destruction. You are completely expendable in their eyes.

    Unfortunately, its not just hardened criminals that are like that. Although the exact percentage seems to vary depending on the study, roughly 4% of the population are sociopaths (although I've seen figures as high as 15%) and about 1% of the population are psychopaths (although it is much higher among business executives). "Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons," reported Forbes in 2019. Right now, many sociopaths and psychopaths play by the rules, but that could change in a SHTF situation. 

An Excerpt From: "An Endless Cycle of Crises? Housing in Post-Earthquake San Francisco, 1906-1915" by Marie Bolton

     Immediately after the earthquake and fire, the question of what to do with a large population of homeless and jobless people was answered by the US Army, which organized San Franciscans into
refugee camps ruled under martial law. The army seized what food and essentials were left in the city for distribution to refugees, along with tents and other army supplies. At General Frederick Funston's
suggestion, Mayor Eugene Schmitz provided for civil oversight of the army in a proclamation which read in part : « The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Officers have been authorized by me to KILL any and all found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime ». The proclamation also ordered a dusk to dawn curfew.

     Schmitz appointed the San Francisco Relief Committee to work with the American Red Cross, private social agencies, notably the Associated Charities of San Francisco (ACSF), and the army in
planning relief operations. Initially, the San Francisco health and the army worked together to ensure sanitary facilities for the refugees, with the army providing most of the labor and General Adolphus Greely (taking over from Funston) used this leverage to force Schmitz and the Relief Committee to accept the army plan to house refugees in military camps in order to a strict health code. Already by May 13, 1906, 21 of the over 100 camps in which more than 50,000 people lived were run as
posts under direct army control. 

(Footnotes omitted) (Source)

Rome Did Not Fall In A Day

I sometimes worry that I post too much of what seems to be political related content on this humble blog. But then I think of the fall of Rome. Rome did not collapse overnight due to a major natural disaster. Although many survivalists/preppers plan for some sudden event that will be the end of the world as we know it, such events are generally not what dooms a civilization. Rome, for instance, declined over a period of several centuries during which time: it's government devalued debased its currency; government payrolls (including payments to the military) became bloated and unsustainable; it's middle-class (which, at that time, were the small and medium sized farm holdings) was obliterated as the wealthy figured out ways to drive them off their land and consolidate their holdings into large estates largely operated by slave labor; as a consequence of the foregoing, agricultural productivity within Italy declined, and there was constant trade deficits from having to import goods--including grain from Egypt; the number of people on the bread dole in Rome steadily increased; population growth stagnated for various reasons, resulting to the importation of labor from other regions; border controls weakened so that areas of the Empire were overrun by illegal aliens and refugees. Yes, there were plagues and other disasters that struck the Empire from time to time, but most of the collapse was due to what we might today term "political events," including the Empire's own form of globalization. The later barbarian invasions were only after the Western Empire ("Rome") had become a hollowed out shell.

We are in a collapse today. We just don't see it because it is taking place over a period of decades. Western civilization has been in collapse since at least 1914 (some countries were ahead of the game, while others took a bit more time). The United States has been in decline since the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970's, as evidenced by the stagnation of real wages, decline of manufacturing and resource production (e.g., mining, timber), and cessation of expansion (i.e., the end of a serious manned space program).

Update: Corrected a couple of typos and came up with a better title.

NY Post: "6 ways to survive in a post-apocalyptic NYC"

Article here. I like the idea of raiding the golf courses for the deep cycle batteries in golf carts.

"SHTF: A Process or an Event"

The question of "what are you peppering for?" often comes up either as a question from outsiders as to why preppers do what they do, or within the prepper community since a substantial number of preppers seem to have a specific calamity on which they focus their preps. However, as I noted recently, realistically we attempt to set our goals for preparing more generally.

Phil Hovatter, at the Approaching Day Prepper, asks another relevant question: whether we are preparing for a process or event, by which the author means something occurring over a period of years or even decades, or a sudden calamity. He has some good thoughts on the matter, so check it out.

Equipment for Urban Exploration

... and some of which may come in handy when scrounging after TEOTWAWKI. From Urban Explorers:

Rope	Depending on the type of outing, this is sometimes a necessity. Many people always carry at least one short (20-30ft) climbing rope/handline. If you have confidence in your upper body strength, you can fashion a simple climbing rope in a few minutes; the kind you remember from your old phys ed. days. Just tie a big half knot every foot or so. Alternatively, tie short loops at slightly shorter intervals, and use them as holds. A longer length of weight-bearing rope for use as a safety line is sometimes useful.
Duct Tape	I recommend a small roll in your sack, but don't worry about it for a simple trip. It's become kind of a joke, but people in the know don't laugh -- duct tape can do everything. It'll even work for shoe patches in a pinch.
Respirator	One which is rated for asbestos is what you're looking for. You can find them at Home Depot or similar hardware outlets for about $40. It's kind of cumbersome, but if you're going to spend a lot of time in steam tunnels you should have one. Unless, you're sure that there is no asbestos, which is unlikely in steam tunnels -- don't count on word of mouth or what you think asbestos "looks like" for this question. Find official documents.
Radios	Small handheld radios can be useful, especially in high-traffic areas requiring lookouts. Lapel mics and earpieces are good, as they are hands-free and inconspicuous. Remember that no radios travel very far through earth.
Hammer/small crowbar	A lot of those pesky manhole covers can be popped with just a hammer. Those which can't will usually succumb to a small crowbar (aka prybar). A hammer is slightly more versatile, and doesn't raise as much suspicion as a crowbar. The crowbar can be useful at disused sites for crusty old hatches and doors. Be careful -- getting caught with a crowbar, especially if you also have things like rope or walkie-talkies on you (or god forbid, lockpicks) can get you a quick trip to city lodgings. "Burglarious instruments."
Water	A water bottle is always a good idea, especially in steam tunnels. Tuck it into your ever-ready pack. A person can quickly get dehydrated when you're walking and crouching and crawling through 120 degree unventilated spaces. While you won't likely get into any real danger because of it, your endurance and enjoyment will suffer.
Maps/Blueprints/Etc.	Many tunnel explorers prefer not to have maps beforehand, as it heightens the sense of adventure. Others like to have an idea of where to go to see things that are out of the ordinary. In drains, don't ever head downstream in an unknown drain. Maps are often inaccurate (yes, even if they come straight from the sewer department) and nothing will ruin your day like getting swept over a waterfall.
Camera/Film	Or, a digital camera or video camera. Again, this is widely variable; some adventurers rarely leave the house without one, some just don't care that much. Keep your settings in mind and consider a beater.
Lighting rig	If you're doing lots of photo or video work, or just want a really good look at where you're going, consider a car battery-based light rig. Labor-intensive to truck around, but sometimes useful.
Head Light	When you are in the dark and you need both hands to get around, having a head light will be quite "handy." Get something like the Energizer Trail Finder 7 LED Head Light which is easy to pack to have ready when you need it.
Pen and Paper	Take notes and make maps. It makes the trip much more interesting, and it will help your recollection when you set up that fancy website about your exploits!
Plastic baggies	This is a must if you're draining, probably ignorable otherwise. A way to keep cameras, spare batteries, and anything else dry.

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...?

Rural vs. Suburban/Urban Retreat

FerFal weighs in again on this issue:

Fiction survival literature would have you believe that a house in a rural setting is the best option. Stay as far from rioting cities as you can, avoid criminals by living far away. This is repeated over and over until people take it for a fact, but ironically the truth is that living in such conditions is possible only in very safe, functioning societies. The further away and more isolated you are, the more vulnerable you are. With higher gas prices commuting back and forth or driving into town puts a dent into your finances. As the system and infrastructure starts failing, roads, reliable power and proper medical care becomes unreliable the further away you are.

After a decade of studying different crisis and disaster scenarios in different countries all over the world I believe that the idea of retreating to rural areas as a way of rationally preparing for hard times has no foundation on empirical facts but is instead rooted on American survival fantasy concepts. In what seems to be a vicious circle, people keep regurgitating what others have said and take it for a fact rather than checking how things actually turn out when serious social crisis have occurred. You only have to study South Africa’s recent history, most third world countries or the post communism western union nations to understand that what is taken as a fact in the American survival culture isn’t quite so. Keeping it short, if you live well today in an isolated homestead without 24hs security, its precisely because society has not collapsed. You wont be able to do so afterwards.

Because of this, a house in a walled gated community is highly desirable and it will be even more so after a serious crisis or collapse. In most Latin American countries, gated communities such as those are the only way in which you can live with a degree of peace of mind while you sleep. Your two properties are basically giving you those two options.  

As crime gets worse in USA, demand for such properties will go up. With a gated community you have options such as all neighbors paying more so as to have added security.

Second Mayan Inscription Confirms December 2012 End Date

For those readers who are interested, it appears that archaeologists have located a second inscription confirming December 21, 2012, as the end of the Mayan calender cycle. From the Daily Mail:

Archaeologists have found carvings in a stone staircase at the La Corona dig site in Guatemala which confirm the ‘end date’ of the Maya calendar, December 21, 2012.

It is only the second known inscription which confirms this 'end date'.

* * *

The 1,300-year-old inscription is described as one of the most significant hieroglyphic finds in decades.

Most of the inscription, carved into a stone abandoned by looters, deals with political history - but there is a reference to 'the end' in a passage about a king's return.

‘This was a time of great political turmoil in the Maya region and this king felt compelled to allude to a larger cycle of time that happens to end in 2012,’ says David Stuart of the University of Texas at Austin, who led a dig at the site.

Photos and more at the link.

Is It Possible To Successfully Defend A Retreat Against Superior Forces?

Self-defense should be a concern of everyone. Even without a national or worldwide TEOTWAWKI, you could have your very own personal SHTF moment should you be mugged or the victim of a burglary. However, in this post, I am interested in protecting your home (or your retreat, if you will) from a group of raiders.

There are a few articles about this subject on the internet. (See here and here, for general discussion of the topic; here is an article on protecting against vehicles).

However, I question whether it is realistic to assume that you can do more than hold off a small number of attackers. I'm big on examples, so let me use a few:

First I came across this brief account recently in a book about World War I. (I believe this example to be relevant because the weapons that most troops were armed with at the beginning of the war were no different than a prepper or a reaver would use in a TEOTWAWKI situation).

The German Army was only twenty-five miles from Paris on September 3. That day, at the village of Baron, the 49-year-old composer Albéric Magnard barricaded himself in his house and opened fire on the German soldiers who had called for him to come out, killing one of them. His house was set on fire with straw and grenades: he perished inside it. The village was then looted.

Gilbert, Martin. The First World War: a Complete History, p. 68 (Henry Holt and Co., NY: 1994).

The most recent (June 2012) issue of Guns magazine ("Mexican Standoff" in the Rights Watch column) directed me to another example from 2010 that was reported at the Borderland Beat website. I'll quote from Borderland Beat:

The story began in the morning of Saturday November 13, when a group of armed gunmen went to deliver an ultimatum to Don Alejo Garza Tamez: He had 24 hours to turn over his property or suffer the consequences.

Using the diplomacy he had acquired over nearly eight decades of life, Don Alejo flatly announced that not only would he not be surrendering his property, but that he'd be waiting for them.

When the men had left, Don Alejo gathered his workers and ordered them to take Sunday off, he wanted to be alone.

He dedicated the rest of Saturday to taking stock of his weapons and ammunition and creating a military fortress style defense strategy for his home.

That strategy was to take his limited firearms--apparently hunting rifles--and preposition them with ammunition at the different windows in his house so he could quickly move from position to position.

Marines who investigated the scene could only imagine how it was that morning: armed men, their impunity secured, confident they'd soon be owners of yet another property. Nobody, or almost no one, could hold out against a group of heavily armed gunmen. Only Don Alejo.

The trucks entered the ranch and took up positions surrounding the house. The gunmen got out of their trucks, fired shots in the air, and announced they came to take possession of the ranch. They were expecting the terrified occupants to run out, begging for mercy with their hands in the air.

But things didn't go as expected. Don Alejo welcomed them with bullets; the entire army of gunmen returned fire. Don Alejo seemed to multiply, he seemed to be everywhere. The minutes would have seemed endless to those who had seen him as easy prey. Various gunmen were killed on sight. The others, in rage and frustration, intensified the attack by swapping out their assault rifles for grenades.

When everything finally fell silent, the air was left heavy with gunpowder. The holes left in the walls and the windows attested to the violence of the attack. When they went in search of what they had assumed was a large contingent, they were surprised to find only one man, Don Alejo.

The surviving gunmen did not take over the ranch. Thinking the military would arrive at any moment, they decided to run. They left behind what they thought were six corpses, but two of their gunmen had survived.

Don Alejo was inside his house, dead from his wounds. It was unclear to me from the story whether he was killed by gunfire, the grenades, or both.

Police raids also tell a story. For instance, FerFal notes here:

About 5 young able bodied males in the house and a 21 year old women that literally slept with her .45 strapped on a shoulder holster.

They had a nice weapon battery including ARs, scoped 30-06 rifles, shotguns, more than enough ammo, about 20 handguns spread around the house.
The compound/farm in Austin had the perimeter covered with cameras hidden in the trees, all connected to a big screen TV in the living room.
SWAT nailed them without firing a shot, and even though there were more, I counted only 4 operators entering after ramming down the door…
They were all watching a movie in the family room.

So people, FORGET about you super retreat, at least forget about it being a better defendable alternative. It isn’t.
Unless you have at the very least half a dozen people available for round the clock security you’re a sitting duck, and one lonely duck at that. It doesn’t take SWAT, a bunch of guys with an ounce of brains will get to you, specially if they don’t care about shooting the people inside.
Also, you need a real secured perimeter. Cameras with no one checking them are just a waste of time, at least it represents no real layer of protection.
24/7 guards plus good building design for layered security. If anyone thinks they have a secured or defendable retreat without those they are kidding themselves.

So what works? Again, real world examples help, as discussed in this post:

Rhodesian Farmers Defensive Arrangements

(from the Small Wars Council forum)

I knew many Rhodesian farmers and have visited many farmsteads over the years. At every farm, defensive arrangements were made up to suit their particular situation and infrastructure. The following would be a general overview:

1. Most farmers fitted hand-grenade grills to the outside of all windows. Doors leading outside were likewise security grilled.

2. Many farmers built thick walls about a meter in front of bedroom windows to stop bullets, but particularly to deal with RPG 7`s. Beds were never placed against the outside walls of a farmhouse.

3. It was usual to have a designated safe room within the farmhouse that could be defended until support arrived. Sometimes this was a central corridor that allowed the farmer to move into other rooms to attack those outside through the windows. In the loft or ceiling over the safe room, some farmers laid sand bags to deal with possible mortar attack.

4. Every farmhouse in a given area was linked by a radio system called “Agric Alert”. This allowed radio contact with other farmers who formed their own defence units, usually under the umbrella of PATU (Police Anti-Terrorist Unit), which would react to a call from one of their neighbours for assistance. Another means of alarm raising was the use of a signal rocket – The Agric-Alert system was not done away with after the war, such was the lack of trust in Mugabe`s promises. It performed admirably as well when dealing with criminal activity such as stock theft. The alert system arranged for all farmers to check in with each other at a given time in the morning and evening as a means of monitoring their status.

5. Around all farmhouse gardens were erected security fences with barbed wire (or razor wire) and which often had simple alarm systems built into them. Some I believe were electrified, if not before the end of the war, certainly afterwards. Within the fence boundary, every farmer usually had a couple of large dogs. The dogs were fed their largest meal in the morning instead of the evening, in order to help keep them awake at night. Other farmers had geese or ducks, which made excellent guard “dogs.” Gardens were kept deliberately trim so as to keep clear fields of view and fire etc. The farm houses also had outside flood lighting erected in such a way as to blind those outside the fence, but not to interfere with the vision of those within the farmhouse.

6. All farmers and their wives were armed with an assortment of weapons, and most farmers were trained military men. They had at least one assault rifle, usually an FAL 7.62, assorted shot guns, .303 hunting rifles and so forth. It was also not unusual for wives to carry Uzi`s around with them, or other equivalents such as the Rhodesian Cobra. All members of the family were trained on the various weaponry available to them, including the kids. In one famous incident a child successfully fought off the attacking terrorists after both of his parents were wounded. The main defensive weapons were at all times within immediate reach of the adult farmhouse occupants, and were placed next to the bed at night.

7. Some farmers used mine protected vehicles, as a favourite of terrorists was to landmine the driveway outside the fence. A great deal of time was spent looking at the dirt roads for freshly dug earth points and so forth when driving around the farm.

8. Some farm gardens and particular points external to the fence were wired with home-made claymore like devices strategically placed in areas where attackers were likely to take cover. In a few instances farmers deliberately erected “cover positions” for the terrorists to use outside the fence, which were then blown up upon attack. A particular favourite was a section of plastic piping filled with nails, nuts, bolts, screws and so forth. I witnessed tests with these and the tubes cleared large areas of their intended aiming point of all bush cover and leaves from trees etc for about 30 meters into the bush. By placing a number of figure 8`s in front of these tests, it was apparent from the strike patterns that not one of them would have walked again had they been terrorists.

9. Some farmers also hired soldiers on leave to guard their premises at night. Usually these were men looking for extra “beer” money. They were called Bright Lights, and often ended up in fire fights with the terrorists, where they came as a nasty surprise to the terrs when the latter were expecting a nice soft hit and run. Like all farmers in an area, Bright Lights would participate in the support of other farmers when the situation required.

10. Good relationships with farm labour, particularly the house staff, very often warned of problems before they occurred. All of us who grew up in the country have fond memories of those employees who took care of us as kids, and who often placed themselves at great risk for doing so.

Although this article discusses tips for crime in general, there are some valid points for defending a retreat.

The Doomsday Shelter

The Daily Mail reports on yet another developer planning on transforming an old missile silo complex into shelters to survive the apocalypse (whatever form it may take). 

Built to withstand an atomic blast, even the most paranoid can find comfort inside concrete walls that are nine feet thick and stretch 174 feet (53 meters) underground.

Instead of simply setting up shop in the old living quarters provided for missile operators, Hall is building condos right up the missile shaft.

Seven of the 14 underground floors will be condo space selling for $2 million a floor or $1 million a half floor. Three and a half units have been sold, two contracts are pending and only two more full units are available, Hall said.

For now, metal stairs stretch down to connect each floor but an elevator will later replace them. The units are within a steel and concrete core inside the original thick concrete, which makes them better able to withstand earthquakes.

Hall is also installing an indoor farm to grow enough fish and vegetables to feed 70 people for as long as they need to stay inside and also stockpiling enough dry goods to feed them for five years.

The top floor and an outside building above it will be for elaborate security.

Other floors will be for a pool, a movie theater and a library, and when in lockdown mode there will be floors for a medical center and a school.

Complex life support systems provide energy supplies from sources of conventional power, as well as windmill power and generators.

Giant underground water tanks will hold water pre-filtered through carbon and sand. And, of course, an elaborate security system and staff will keep marauding hordes out.

The condo elevator will only operate if a person's fingerprint matches its system, Hall said. Cameras will monitor a barbed-wire topped fence and give plenty of warning of possible intruders. Responses can range from a warning to lethal force.

The article includes graphics showing the proposed layout and design of the different levels. Cost is $1 million for a "half-floor" condo, and $2 million for a full floor.

Cool as the concept is, I see these as a suckers bet. First, how do these people propose to get to an old ICBM bunker in the middle of Kansas in the middle of an emergency so dire that they need to hole up in such a structure? Second, I suspect that the first person (or family) in will also be the last one in. And, in this case, that will probably be the staff members.

The ironic part is, in the event of a full-scale nuclear attack (unlikely as that is), the silo these are built in would probably still be targeted ... just in case.

Real Life Account of Survival in Bosnia

Some of you have probably seen this before, but Tactical Intelligence Net has a post that is a compilation of forum posts by a man named Selco and his experience in a real SHTF situation during the Bosnian civil war of 1992. A lot of good information.

America in Collapse

A piece from Clayton Cramer's blog (h/t Instapundit) citing a news report about a spike in sales of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) at a chain of survival stores in Missouri. The news story is here. Mr. Cramer comments:

The fact is, American society is in fast collapse, and the politicians either do not get it, or are afraid to sound like alarmists by pointing it out.  You could almost get the impression that Washington does not care whether the society collapses or not.

A commentator suggests that it is people just being prudent because of recent natural disasters. However, this is not what the anecdotal evidence in the article stated.

Also, I have also noted a growing undercurrent showing that more and more people are, even subconsciously, preparing for major social upheaval--primarily the mainstreaming of survivalism and shows on survival (including the spreading "zombie apocalypse" meme), the rise in toys and games based around combat (far greater than when playing with toy guns was acceptable), and the acceptance of military style rifles (particularly the AR platform) among hunters, gun owners, and the public.