Only one rifle, which one to keep?

[mundaire]

This video by Hickok in USA explores which rifle he would choose to keep if he had to give up all his other rifles.



While this is merely speculation of "what if" for those living in most free democracies of the world, in India most of us are today being forced to make similar choices BY LAW.

So, some of the observations made by him seem quite pertinent. My personal takeaways from the video:

1) chose a rifle you enjoy shooting and which is accurate (duh!)

2) choose one which fits you well (see above)

3) Ammo is available (how else would/ could you shoot it?)

4) don't get caught up in value and history when making this choice, you can after all keep only 1 (our current law limits us to only 2 firearms, so I'm assuming your other one would be a shotgun or handgun).

Do weigh in with your opinions and share what you think.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

P.S. I had half a mind to post this under RKBA, but then thought let's see how this discussion develops

[timmy]

Not a bolt action, but given the constraints, I would vote for a .22 rifle.

[nagarifle]

IOF 3006, for this part of the world, love to hate it but can over look and over come and make it workable

[captrakshitsharma]

H&H .375 magnum would be my personal choice . Gold standard cartridge for every game including the elephant with the right cartridge and experience. Flat shooting cartridge and never have the problem of too little gun. If only our government realises that legally armed citizens are a country’s best defence against threats , both internal and external. Hope they learn from Ukraine .

[eljefe]

.22 LR.
If SHTF - I’d rather have 2000 rounds I can carry and move. No one today is going to take on the bad guys- idea is to survive, forage, and last choice to take on some one

[Prabhath]

Would have to be a good .22lr for me.

[Martin Clarke]

Agree with Eljefe, I would keep the .22 LR....given the constraints, can easily carry enough ammo.
I could still hunt for food.....and the bad guys would not hear me do it!!
While in India, my .22 has cleanly taken wild boar, nilgai, chital, geese, duck etc. with solids and hollow points.
The idea is to get close enough within 25 to 30M to take an accurate shot in the head.
I found the Eley H/points, and Sellier Bellot solids amazingly effective.....still use them today.

[nagarifle]

my second one would be 105mm for the long rage stuff, since 3006 is somewhat limited

[The Doc]

I wish we had the variety and numbers that Hickok has.
I own a .22 LR bolt action rifle but I also agree with the point that Rakshit and Nagarifle are making keeping in mind the 2 firearms limit and the circumstances in general.
Lately I have been toying with the idea of replacing the rifle with a shotgun and a legally permissible pneumatic air rifle.

best,
Rp.

[eljefe]

my second one would be 105mm for the long rage stuff, since 3006 is somewhat limited

Nope.
Try a CG 84mm. Atleast you can carry it

[Vikram]

If switch barrel models are not allowed, I will go for .22LR. The advantages in a survival situation are endless.

[winnie_the_pooh]

First I would like to be in a position of being able to choose.

[Anand]

Ammo availability pips most other considerations in my opinion. So it would have to be one of the calibers .30-06 or .315 IOF or .22. I am not considering other calibers due to the relative lack of abundance. I consider self defense a serious issue and .22 in my opinion is not the greatest so that's out.
Between .315 and .30-06, I would go for the .30-06 because of the longer range flexibility. Also if one had a handgun in .32ACP / .32S&W Long/.30 Mauser, one could use an adapter to fire these in a 30-06 for small game etc.
Because of the situation in India I had often thought about these kinds of scenarios and have gone through this exercise before.
Regards,
Anand

[james]

As per Indian law.
Assuming 1 handgun is already there. I would go for reliable 12 bore pump or semi shotgun as 2nd weapon.
Rifle would be the third possible option and 22lr is only our option.
If above being scenario then any reliable hi-cap semi 22 like ruger 10/22, if budged is permitting.
That's my purely personal opinion.
James.

[timmy]

Not a bolt action, but given the constraints, I would vote for a .22 rifle.

Building on my earlier comment, I have two .22 rifles. One is an old Marlin lever 39A, and this is a very fine gun. The other is a children's model "Cricket" single shot bolt action that I originally bought for shooting with the grandkids when they were little. I have mounted a 1" tube Weaver 4x scope on it. It is quite small, about 760 mm long overall, and quite accurate. It has a plastic stock that's unaffected by weather and I shoot both high velocity and reduced noise loads, which fire a 1.3 gram projectile at 15 ft-lbs / 20 joules. The duplex reticule in the scope quite handily compensates for the low noise loads at the high velocity zero point of 50 yards.

This gun, though somewhat crude and having little esthetic appeal, is compact, stone-reliable, accurate, and quite usable. I would choose a handgun for the other pick on the two gun limit, if called upon.

But more in keeping with the exact parameters of the video, for a centerfire bolt rifle, I'd keep my Finn M39 Mosin. It is accurate, it fits me and I shoot it well, and I have plenty of supplies for it stored away. Sorry, RFI 2A, but the M39 makes the most sense, as the video author alluded to a different time when great limitations were imposed. This would seem to mitigate against reloading and call for something that could take the rigors of a rough life, remaining useful for many tasks.

If the parameters were lifted to remove the bolt action requirement, I think an SKS would be selected instead. It would fit a "Ukrainian scenario" best and still do almost everything any other long gun could do.

Speaking in this vein, consider this debunking of a popular "un-quote": https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

I have read Prange and Goldstein, and they are respected historians whose views carry a lot of weight for me on this. Yet, in a large country of varying geography (as opposed to a "small island," where things didn't work out so well), Afghanistan seems to show that a widely armed populace should deter rationally considered aggression.