a prepper's considerations when selecting an additional pistol

Interesting how these threads twist and turn. I certainly concur with the comments about selecting a gun that fits you, is instinctive to aim, etc. However I'm still stuck on the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the original post.
"Based purely on prepper considerations, what pistol would you purcharse to arm a group of people?"

I think this significantly affects the whole equation in selecting a firearm. I too am curious as to other perspectives on this and it hasn't been addressed much, the discussion has tended towards an individual personal weapon as opposed to a common team "issue" weapon.

So, consider this modest suggested modification to the original question and explore what wisdom surfaces:

"Based purely on prepper considerations, what pistol would you purchase to arm a group of 15 people comprised of 6 200 pound strong males, 5 140 pound wives/mothers and 4 kids ages 12-16."

See where this wanders to.
AT

 

No, your original post was a good one, and laid out some interesting points to consider, and a logical methodology to pursue, in choosing a handgun, for a prepper, from a statistical perspective. It is just a difficult chore for all of these strongly individualistic personalities to get their heads around a theoretical proposition such as that.

It's an idea worth discussing.

 

@Airtime based purely on cost.
bricks.
no not brick bricks
HiPoint Bricks. less than 150 each.
9mm, 40 and 45
fugly
lifetime warranty
YMWV

 

I agree with tulianr...

The problem as posed by Cato is a thought experiment....with set parameters. The object is to explore the logical process by which one might go about choosing a standard firearm for a prepping group , using some rational basis for coming to a decision, rather than making choices on the basis of emotional appeal such as brand loyalty, because it's the latest fad gun in the market, or because it simply looks badass. Change the parameters...and you alter the rationale for making certain choices. The important thing is the process of developing a rational basis for decision making, more so than particular weapon choices that one "believes" are best.

In critiqueing TEWT tactical solutions, I have at times failed student solutions for introducing factors to a problem that were not germane to the given tactical problem narrative. This signal failure by some tactics students is called "fighting the problem". A poor solution would not be saved by the deus ex machina introduction by the student of artillery, or armour assets not given in the problem narrative. (this problem often occured when students muddled up their understanding of resource allocation or tried to fudge their way through by confabulating the differences between "under command", "at priority call", "In support","direct support" and "general support").

Cato gave a number of sample criteria in his matrix...there is nothing within the spirit of the thought experiment to stop one from adding additional criteria to the mix...provided that one is adding additional criteria to the matrix which would offer rational considerations for making the buy. However, you would have to make a sound rational argument for including a column headed "badass looks". ​

​

for example...I have altered the matrix by including a fifth column. I could happily exclude market share from the matrix as I don't think it particularly relevant to my circumstances. After market accessories would be a nice to have desireable...but the ability to do field repairs is important, given that at some time in the future, taking a malfunctioning gun to a gunsmith is not probably going to be a practical option.​

gun.............reliability.....spare parts.....market share....after market acc....ease of serviceing and field repair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glock 17........___________.....___________.....____________....________________....____________________
Glock 21........___________.....___________.....____________....________________....____________________
Glock 22........___________.....___________.....____________....________________....____________________
Beretta92/M9...._________...._________...._________....____________....________________
1911............___________.....___________.....____________....________________...._____________________
Sig P226........___________.....___________.....____________....________________...._____________________


Ease of modification could reasonably argued not so much from the point of view of a standardised calibre and gun model, but with the capability of modifying handle or grips (or some other attributes considered essential) to take into account the age or gender of the firer. I don't think Cato excluded criteria other than the four that he suggested in his matrix, other than that the additional criteria have some rational basis for inclusion.

The nub of the problem is the matter of weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses of each option; by deciding what criteria will be given greater relative weight and which will be given lesser weight. The strongest contender may actually be counter intuitive to choices made from habit, or on the basis of advertising hype or emotional appeal, or whatever cognitive bias overides that part of one's brain that tries to make rational decisions.

AS far as I am concerned the thought experiment would be just that... a thought experiment. I don't know enough about pistols to pontificate on the relative merits of particular pistols. From my perspective its going to be a wheel gun, the most commonly issued wheelgun for security guards...and probably the most popular centrefire gun for service pistol shooting here is .38 special / .357 magnum. My criteria would be:

Essential: 1. Accuracy and 2.. Reliability (under field conditions), 3. Parts availabilty, 4. Ease of user servicing and field repair.

Desireable: 1. Ability, using the same frame to change barrels and cylinders so as to be able to fire alternative calibres.
2. Ease of modification - e.g. grips, sights etc
3. Intimidation value (such as the gats used by the "Gat Men" in "Looper")





Edit: Going through the process of creating, and using a comparative assessment matrix will tend to provide focus and discipline in data gathering and analysis; and hopefully facilitate reasoned choices being made when shopping.

As far as I'm concerned...I'd be ecstatically happy to just have a brace of muzzle loading, flintlock black powder pistols in just about any calibre.

 

Excellent addition with the "field serviceability" column. That would cause the 1911 to be at a severe disadvantage to some of the other weapons.

The other concept I would like to point out is that the shooter is more important than the weapon being shot. You may hate Glocks or M9s, but in a SHTF scenario, you're going to be happy to have either one and with proper training, you will be effective with either. It is a tool, nothing more. It is not a fashion accessory.

Personally, I have a Colt Python that is the perfect pistol for me--the grips, the sights, the weight . . . bliss. But, I don't know if I would want to be limited to 6rnds in some prolonged confrontation (e.g., 10 MZBs) or the size of the weapon (hard to conceal). Those are both columns that you could include in your spreadsheet (i.e., rate of fire, concealability) if they are important to you.

 

To add to post #45: not only the rate of fire, but the magazine/cylinder capacity.

I've seen some guys at matches change out a revolver with speedloaders pretty quickly. However, you're screwed if you don't have one with you. So, having a weapon with 19 rounds may be very important to you.

See more here:
Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND “HIGH CAPACITY” MAGAZINES, PART II

WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND “HIGH CAPACITY” MAGAZINES, PART II

Thursday, January 31st, 2013
Within roughly the same timeframe as the Newtown Atrocity, a criminal armed with a crowbar broke into the home of a young mother who was there alone with her nine-year-old twins. When she and the kids had retreated as far as they could and the intruder still kept coming, she opened fire with a .38 caliber revolver.

When her gun went empty, five of the six shots had struck the intruder. Whether it’s drunkenness, drugs, or desperation, some violent criminals can be harder than others. In this case, the intruder was still up and running. The smart and courageous young mom bluffed him at the point of her now-empty six-shooter, telling him in essence that she would finish him off if he kept attacking.

The bluff worked. He fled, running out of steam later, though he is still alive to face criminal charges.

Anyone who is not blind from rabid anti-gun sentiment can see that this would not have ended well for the mom OR her young twins if the suspect had been just a little tougher and more resolved…or if he’d had an accomplice.

American Rifleman, the monthly magazine of the National Rifle Association, carries a regular column titled The Armed Citizen. It documents cases of good people using guns to protect themselves and other innocents from bad people. This continuing feature has run for decades, so old that one of my grandfather’s self-defense incidents is in its archives.
The Armed Citizen section in the current issue of the Rifleman, warrants our interest. Bear in mind that a real life self-defense shooting is not a “Dirty Harry” cinematic fantasy in which every shot fired will both strike, and instantly blow away, a bad guy. Real life is more like a zombie movie: if the first bullet doesn’t short-circuit the central nervous system, you have to keep shooting until the skeletal support structure no longer holds him (and his weapon) up where he can hurt you and yours, or until his cardiovascular system has run out of oxygenated blood for his brain. The latter mechanism’s effect can often be better measured in minutes than in moments.

Traditionally limited to a single page, the Armed Citizens column in the February 2013 issue contains seven incidents “torn from the headlines” as the dramatists like to say, all documented by the local news media where the incidents took place.

In EACH of those incidents, only ONE of the intended victims was armed and capable of fighting back.

A mere two of those seven documented incidents were “one on one” confrontations. In each the Good Guys were actually Good Gals: A 35-year-old woman in New Mexico and Jill Stucker, 64, of Florida had to deal with only a single attacker apiece.

Three of the people saved by their guns were up against two-to-one odds: An unidentified farmer in West Virginia, store owner Roger Webster of Maryland, and an 83-year-old lady with a “walker” in Tennessee.

And two of the seven documented cases – A 35-year-old woman in the New Orleans area and a Pennsylvania man – were each up against a gang of at least FOUR home invaders.

In a world where the Good People With Guns often have to deliver several hits to neutralize even one Bad Person With Deadly Weapons, and in which there is often more than one attacker, anyone applying logical thinking can only end up shouting one three-word mantra:

DO THE MATH!!

 

Tom Thumb says he knows exactly what you guys are talking about when a pistol doesn't fit your hand well

 

It must give him a hernia just lifting it (If it's not a photoshop montage) and cocking the pistol is sure to strain a tendon or three....

 

It is the recoil that will be a real problem....

 

Well, in proportion, if the man were full sized, then the bullet would have to be 30-40mm at least!

 

"Based purely on prepper considerations, what pistol would you purchase to arm a group of 15 people comprised of 6 200 pound strong males, 5 140 pound wives/mothers and 4 kids ages 12-16."

357 MAG. revolver... load mild (38 specials) to wild, dirt simple to operate & maintain, easy to reload and cast bullets for.



Whynot

 

I'm sure it's been said all over the internet and then some but the Glock 19 is the most reliable, easy to shoot and maintain firearm on the planet and is as common as dirt. If I were stocking up for SHTF, et al, that's what I'd choose.

 

I find the notion of the Glock 23 in .40 S&W and then a conversion barrel for the 9 mm ammo an interesting concept. Much like Whynot's suggestion about using a .357 and shooting .38s, gives the ability to use two ammos and the ability to use the cheaper for training. And for people with less strong hands they can stay with the 9 mm if the .40 cal is a bit heavy for them. The revolover is still very simple... hmmm...

AT

 

I would never limit myself to one or even just five guns to live with for the rest of my life however...

Caliber considerations: right now is the perfect time to find out what calibers are going to be most available post shtf. Go to your LGS or box store and see what's on the shelves. This is going to be region specific, given culture and game, but whatever is on the shelf is not as desirable as what most people in your area want. Therefore, it will not be consumed as quickly post shtf, and will be more plentiful. (when's the last time you heard of people hoarding 35 Whelen?)

Game hunting: during the great depression, the whitetail deer was nearly extinct in the eastern US. You may be lucky enough to get one if you are lucky. Then they will be gone. They cannot reproduce fast enough to recover from the pressure. Small game will be the only viable solution, and even then, only for so long.

Reliability: all firearms require maintenance. All firearms break eventually. I HIGHLY doubt that you will be able to easily acquire parts from other people, as they will be highly protective of them whether they have ammo for them or not. That being said, for reliability with the least amount of wearing parts (springs), a revolver is hard to beat.

The only real answer is to have plenty of options.

If I were to be limited to just two pistols? It would be my Redhawk in 45 Colt, and a Single 6 in 22 LR.

The Redhawk will take care of any critters equal to or bigger than me, and the 22 will put dinner on the table, as well as a very effective deterrent to 2 legged critters (I can also carry a couple hundred 22 rounds in my pocket).

 

I carry just a Glock 26. It is easy to carry and uses any of the 9mm Glock mags. The big reason is I shoot it well. I had a tactical XD .45 and it was fine handgun but heavy with an extra clip.

My rifle is lightweight at about 8lbs with a red dot and 30 round magazine. I would rather have that and my 26 than 2 handguns.

 

Keep in mind everyone, this isn't your ONLY pistol. It is your "prepper" pistol--you may have many others, but this one fills a specific role and that's to be the one still standing when you make out on the other side.

 

I guess my premise is different than most. I'm a bug inner. I live in the perfect place, with the supplies, acreage, etc. My use for firearms are for hunting and defense, not offense or travel. Unless I'm dead or overrun, I have access to ALL of my firearms. I do not have a "prepper" firearm, I have my daily use firearms in the setting of where I would survive. That being said, the 45 colt and the 22 are my most commonly carried guns day to day.

 

I have a good friend who chose the G-19 when "stocking" multiple handguns for a family group of which the makeup had yet to be determined...but could reasonably be expected to range in age from 60s down to early teens...I agreed completely with the choice.

Criteria used making the choice were quite close to the original matrix in this thread..though I cannot remember if price was in the matrix. As I remember 10 G-19s were had for just under $4500.

There was also the factor that this individual had some PCCs in 9mm that use Glock mags.

 

Only issue is you may have a FTF or FTE issue on this combination, the 40 slide is heavier and barrel is heavier as well thus needing a little more umpf from a 9mm 155 grain round. So in this shoot +p rounds for subguns which can still be hand at good rates. FYI