Does it really matter what ammo the police and military use?

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks OS. Good ideas.

Well according to David's alarming announcement about a long extended software update downtime, possibly lasting longer than 24 hours, commencing very soon-- TGO is about to go from dark to black for awhile!

Our own little EMP thingie. See you during the recovery as we rise with sticks and stones in our hands.

Or maybe more apt for you and I, jawbones of asses. :)

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Our own little EMP thingie. See you during the recovery as we rise with sticks and stones in our hands.

Or maybe more apt for you and I, jawbones of asses.

- OS

Ya got that right! See ya on the other side!

[TMF]

Maybe fellas here who have worked overseas in failed states, could make educated guesses based on that experience-- About what a crashed USA failed state might look like? I haven't sufficient experience or imagination to hazard a guess.

Using Iraq as an example, the only arms and ammunition that was readily available on the market were soviet bloc weapons (AK variants and PKCs mostly, and Beretta 51s or BHPs). In early 2004 AKs were going for less than $50 USD. Even as late as 2010 the average price for an AK was less than $200. You can imagine that the only ammo you could get was 7.62 x 39 and 54R (or 9mm for pistols). I remember paying a guy over 50 bucks for 100 rds of .22 lr back in '05, and that was after quite a bit of haggling.

Of course, Iraq didn't have the access to the firearms market that we do. So many of the weapons that were on the open market after the invasion were those that had been looted or taken by deserters of Saddam's army. I would imagine in the US it would be much different because so many people already have a vast array of weaponry of varying calibers and stockpiles. Sustainment would be the only issue. So what you have is what you have. If you have a .357, chances are you aren't going to find that for very cheap after a collapse. The reason why 5.56 would be the way to go isn't because you're going to be slaying so many folks and taking their stuff, but because it will be one of the most available on the open market when stockpiles are either looted, or corrupt government officials are selling it off to wholesalers.

Yes, certainly, the collapse of the USSR and further economic ruin within Mother Russia herself, late 80s-90's

I was thinking the same thing when the question was posed. Of course the difference being our standard of living is so much higher, which may actually be our undoing if/when that standard drops suddenly and dramatically.

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

- OS

That is a great quote I'm gonna have to remember.

[Clod Stomper]

Have any "fairly well developed" modern nations crashed fully enough to give much clue what the situation might look like? A country like USA, armed to the teeth with most citizens accustomed to plentiful cheap goods-- Maybe a USA crash would look very different compared to a third world nation that had been riddled with poverty even before a crash made it worse?

This is not perfectly analogous, but Argentina was a developed country. Firearms were more controlled, but still available. And the economy collapsed because their politicians were doing the same things that ours are doing now.

It's a blog, so you'll have to go to the last page for the first entry. I believe that I found the very first page of blog entries. The archive is listed on the left side if you scroll down a bit. You can also find a link for "Post Economic Collapse Stories".

http://ferfal.blogsp...&max-results=50

Will

[Oh Shoot]

....

(re: collapse of USSR)

I was thinking the same thing when the question was posed. Of course the difference being our standard of living is so much higher, which may actually be our undoing if/when that standard drops suddenly and dramatically. ....

That's one of Orlov's major points. That and the fact that Russia actually had an infrastructure for mass housing and transportation. And to some extent, food distribution, although the country is much more on a "regional eating" basis than here, where little comes from nearby in the major stores.

But yeah, the biggest difference of all is in standard of living here, which includes individual transportation, individual homes, and Just In Time services for most all consumption; and regardless of what FEMA and National Guard may claim, an absolute impossibility of effective aid on a national scale.

The average Russian saw more borscht and less meat, but the heat stayed on and vodka was almost free.

The average American would be crazed in days, and a good chance of being dead in a month.

- OS

[Guest Baron]

I do not think it matters at all.

There is no plausible senerio where you are going to encounter battlefield pickups. Playing devils advocate and saying it did happen, chances are it wouldn't help anyway.

Honestly, $40 of .22LR would be more than enough to deture a group of looters and even that remote possibility is the worst I can think of.

Stockpile cheap ammo, load your own or combine two.

[Guest HvyMtl]

I think like this: The idea is to go with what would be most available after the fall. My 2 cents: Pick calibers which are most used in your area. Not because of "battlefield pickups," because of trade value. Example: You are in the country, and have a lot of hunters around, hunting rounds will be far more prevalent in that area, than 5.56 Nato. Pick something you are comfortable with: If you cannot handle the recoil of a .357, go .45 or 9mm. Pick the most available at the store. Pick something you can afford. I would have a mix of FMJ mostly, with some JHP. FMJ can be used for self defense, and in many situations, can be the ammo of choice. Plus, it is less expensive. This said, there are exceptions. True, no LE or local Military use 7.62x54r, yet, it is inexpensive to get a reliable rifle that shoots it, and get a good deal on ammo.

[Makiaveli]

I tend to agree with the ones saying stockpile what you know etc.

@Baron If you did pick up ammo after a fight that didn't match any of your guns, couldn't you likely just pick up the gun the bad guy was using? Even if you didn't trust it to be reliable/safe etc, trading it off is always an option.

Also, why wouldn't you think it would be plausible? At some point the only looters left will be the ones who are armed. The odds of them being able to police the area while retreating (if you lose the fight, this debate is moot) and so you would likely be able to scavenge afterwards.

[TMF]

I think it's far less plausible to expect to survive enough engagements to make battlefield recovery of compatible ammo something to even plan for. It would make more sense in this scenario that any ammo you have access to is through barter, unless there are really that many people here that think they are just that badass that they'll be mixing it up in the streets on a regular basis and actually surviving.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think it's far less plausible to expect to survive enough engagements to make battlefield recovery of compatible ammo something to even plan for. It would make more sense in this scenario that any ammo you have access to is through barter, unless there are really that many people here that think they are just that badass that they'll be mixing it up in the streets on a regular basis and actually surviving.

That is about what I suspected, which is encouraging because you apparently have better practical experience to judge the survivability of multiple nasty street encounters.

Of course if things did get that super-crazy, there would inevitably be a few equivalents of Billy the Kid or Wyatt Earp who would sail thru numerous nasty encounters unscathed? It would be arrogant of a feller to think he would be one of the survivors, but most likely there really would be a few?

[tnhawk]

During the last election some calibers of ammunition, as well as reloading supplies, became difficult or impossible to obtain. Should a large scale emergency happen, the only supplies you can depend upon, are the supplies you possess. Food and water will likely become the most important needs.

[TMF]

Of course if things did get that super-crazy, there would inevitably be a few equivalents of Billy the Kid or Wyatt Earp who would sail thru numerous nasty encounters unscathed? It would be arrogant of a feller to think he would be one of the survivors, but most likely there really would be a few?

I think in that scenario people would understand real quick the meaning of mutually beneficial. I'm thinking less shoot outs in the streets and more of neighbors banding together to defend against lawlessness... using Egypt as the most recent example this is what was going on outside of Tahrir Square. Besides, I think having such a well armed society will contribute to people having better manners.

[hipower]

Nope, I select my ammunition on its ability to stop the threat and my carry application.

I don’t base it on who is carrying what, or what it costs to shoot. I have had to fire my weapon to save my life; if it had failed I would be dead. I think about that when I select a handgun or its ammunition.

Very well spoken, sir.

[Makiaveli]

I think in that scenario people would understand real quick the meaning of mutually beneficial. I'm thinking less shoot outs in the streets and more of neighbors banding together to defend against lawlessness... using Egypt as the most recent example this is what was going on outside of Tahrir Square. Besides, I think having such a well armed society will contribute to people having better manners.

Some would, some wouldn't. Which would lead to your well-armed society once the dust settles.

However, I take exception to your portraying those of us who consider the possibility of surviving a fight as thinking we are badasses. As I believe I mentioned, if you die, then it doesn't matter. If you don't, then planning ahead does.

If you expect to die in the early stages, then your planning is done already. I will no more go looking for a fight after a collapse than I do now. I have no illusions about surviving a "fair fight". That said, if I am alive and someone else is dead, then I will scavenge what they have whether it's food or weapons. Doesn't really matter who killed them does it?

[TMF]

Movie versus reality... Do you think that in these government collapse scenarios there are just scores of dead bodies ripe for the weapons picking? There have been plenty of collapses around the world in the past two decades that would prove otherwise. Look at Syria for example. There's plenty of battlefield recovery going on, but they're having to work for it and the casualty rate of the rebels ain't that good.

[Makiaveli]

Movie versus reality... Do you think that in these government collapse scenarios there are just scores of dead bodies ripe for the weapons picking? There have been plenty of collapses around the world in the past two decades that would prove otherwise. Look at Syria for example. There's plenty of battlefield recovery going on, but they're having to work for it and the casualty rate of the rebels ain't that good.

Ok I think we are talking apples and oranges. I am talking about a situation where I am attacked and by shear dumb luck I manage to kill the other guy, then I am for damn sure am looting his weapon, ammo and anything else he has. I am not talking about wandering around looking for the scene where the local good ol' boy's tangled with the National Guard.

[TMF]

Rog, I'm responding in the spirit of the original question posted. The caliber of ammo one chooses will give them no advantage in a government collapse with the exception of the available ammo for that caliber will probably be cheaper to acquire. Unless someone is planning to mount an insurgency, the only ammo you'll need is enough to scare off looters and shoot food.

[JReedEsq]

I think it all depends on your definition of SHTF. I'm not much of a tinfoil hat guy so my thoughts of this scenario rovolve around short-term looting or civil unrest caused by a natural distaster etc... or just an ammo run caused by political paranoia. The biggest advantage I see to military calibers is cost and availibility. For example right now several online venders have Federal HST .40 JHP in 50 round boxes for $20 a box. Walmart has had this same deal in the past. Suppossedly it's overruns from Federal Agency contracts. I don't know the source for sure but it's good ammo at a great price and you just don't find these kind of deals on something like .357 Magnum which is a great caliber but no longer a top LE choice.

[Makiaveli]

Rog, I'm responding in the spirit of the original question posted. The caliber of ammo one chooses will give them no advantage in a government collapse with the exception of the available ammo for that caliber will probably be cheaper to acquire. Unless someone is planning to mount an insurgency, the only ammo you'll need is enough to scare off looters and shoot food.

It all depends on how much of a "crash" there is. If it's just JReed's riots, then yea you won't need tons of ammo.

But in the event of a large scale, global event, I would want to have as much ammo (and everything else) as possible, and as many different weapons as possible. One thing on my wish list is a adapter for a 12ga. that allows you to fire .38/.357 out of it. Doubt its a good idea just for kicks, but in a SHTF scenario might be useful to have laying around in case I acquire some .38 ammo.

Note I am not a tinfoil hat guy. I think zombies are about as likely as any other event. But after seeing the fun and games when Nashville flooded, thought it would be a good idea to prepare for something a bit bigger.

[JAB]

...you just don't find these kind of deals on something like .357 Magnum which is a great caliber but no longer a top LE choice.

I believe that 158 grain JSP would make a pretty good, all around .357 round for a SHTF situation. No, it isn't a premium SD type ammo but I imagine it would put most anything from a two-legged attacker to a white-tailed deer, wild hog or similar game 'down'. PMC makes a version of this round which I have tried and like just fine. I checked a couple of places online and the price I found for them was $19.95 for a box of 50. My LGS sells them at a buck or two more, per box.

As I mentioned, .38/.357 are among the calibers I have decided to really try and stock up on. That is partly because I believe that 'family' of cartridges to be useful in a wide range of situations. Honestly, though, it is mostly because I enjoy shooting my guns chambered in .38 or .357 the most of any in my small collection. As a long-term, SHTF situation of a type that would require me to fire a high number of rounds isn't all that likely, I figure if I am going to have a lot of ammo lying around it might as well be what I enjoy shooting the most. I don't plan to buy a whole lot of loaded ammo, though. Instead, I am about to get started reloading and that will be the source for the majority of my 'stockpile' for .38/.357.