A rifle for survival purposes, where things like detachable magazines and the like come into play, is already a SHTF situation in all honesty. The scout rifle may be usable for property-type defense but is going to be pretty useless at short ranges against competent or even incompetent aggressors with superior firepower. We (or at least me) don't walk around with rifles all day or have them available at all times in all places. Long-range shots (or even ones beyond simple point-shooting range) aren't particularly common. Thus, the scout and its ilk fill a particular "bad day" niche at best.
Originally Posted by Euclidean
In terms of magnitude of problem, I agree with you - but in terms of probability, I generally don't. The folks who live around you are the big threat - society doesn't care generally as a whole one way or another about any one of us. Neither does law enforcement.
However I realize that open fighting is not the greatest possible threat to my personal safety. I don't want the LEO types here to take this the wrong way, but the greatest threat to my own personal safety is my own government and the society I live in.
What you're assuming is that these things *must* be used. Again, it's like a car that does 120 mph - you may not need to do 120 today, or ever - but it's in your bag of tricks if you have to.
See I don't have a badge or a uniform and I don't deserve one. However, the very idea of using military techniques like cover fire in my own defense is simply going to get me in trouble.
At a recent event testing equipment for some upcoming shoots, I was clocked at 3.14 seconds shooting 14 rounds of .357 Sig in a B27 at about 7m including picking it up from the table. I don't *need* to shoot that fast. There are many occasions where I don't want to...but I can do it.
I can do a snap shot and blow away a can at 15m before the pistol is raised all the way more often than not, too. I hope to whatever is holy that I can use my sights and direct the bullet, but imminent threats don't grant me such luxuries. In my most recent gun-related entertainment, I got to point the weapon a dozen times at ranges that were well within the Tueller distances. Sight picture wasn't possible - nor something I was even worried about. I train to point shoot, I practice with sights too.
Again, it's about options. A bolt gun leaves me fewer options than the alternative.
I don't worry much about getting sued - I've had nothing before and built up from far less than the minimum bankrupcty-allowable reserve.
For one thing I'm going to get sued and I have no legal protection from it.
If you carry a gun, and have to use it, you're probably going to get charged with something. I've been there more than once and I haven't enjoyed it any more with each passing iteration - but it's better than the alternative.
For another I'm probably going to get charged with something.
I won't do something I know will harm an innocent bystander unless they're already going to die by my inaction or have reasonable probability of the same.
For a third, I personally would rather die like a filthy dog than do something that would hurt an innocent bystander.
Now I understand that in a lot of bad situations, there's a chance you may hurt someone that doesn't deserve it and if you don't do anything at all it's just going to be worse.
FBI now says to shoot until the threat stops. If that means one round, I'll use one. If it means everything I have, I'll use everything I have. Again, the car model.
But unless I ever catch myself in a war (which realistically is not going to happen anytime remotely soon), I'm just being negligent by ascribing to the military model of "Let's shoot the crap out of it."
The truth is that any firearm has the risk of penetration, deflection, freak accident, etc. when fired in defense.
A concept like "lanes of fire" is not something I relish trying in a crowded suburb full of innocent people no matter how much danger I'm in.
If I can't get it done without hurting anyone else, well I'm just SOL because I'm too much of a wuss to risk an innocent person if I don't have to.
I follow the survival methodology. I don't assume one shot or even five will necessarily stop the target. It hasn't in my experiences and freak events happen - so I'd rather be prepared for an additional freak on a day that things are already freaky.
Thus I subscribe to the Cooper model. I'm far more likely to be one man alone under severe legal and self imposed ethical restrictions on tactics than anything else. The precision methodology is better than having no methodology at all under such restrictions.
Read his letters and G&A columns - it's full of various dogma about you don't need a second shot, etc. The truth is that you *may* not, but you *may* too.
Cooper himself even says in the Art of the Rifle that riflecraft as he defines it has no place in a standing military or in a war. He never says that his techniques are universal anywhere I can see.
Cooper's world is idealistic and romantic in a lot of ways - you may need that weapon for self-defense, every shot is an aimed shot, etc., but it'll somehow be on your terms. I know if I'm faced with shooting three targets quickly, I don't want to work that bolt, baby.
There's really no place for a medium-range precision rifle in 'normal' defensive scenarios, especially if you're worried about overpenetration and neighbors. .308, even out of a bolt gun, goes through a lot of suburbia.
Thus unless the situation truly does descend into complete chaos, like in say a war, the Cooper methodology is more sound and responsible.
If I'm forced to shoot, it's a complete disintegration. A war is merely a series of battles, and once I'm in a battle, I fight accordingly.
Now if it was a complete disintegration, your thinking is indeed better.
Escape isn't always possible without providing some level of cover - if I can keep the heads down of attackers with superior numbers or position and use that to cross the alley to a car or a better position or to duck around the corner and that's the only way to keep them from continuing to shoot at my position, better believe I'll do it.
I find it interesting you believe that firing unaimed shots in the interest of trying to escape is a viable tactic. If I can escape, why fire the shots at all? I'll take my rifle and go home. Or am I not understanding correctly?
They're around in reasonable quantity if you know where to look. The shop here still has a 308 with wood furniture NIB.
And I'm depressed there's no more Saigas. Saigas are cool.