Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'armor'.
Found 2 results
J.D.CR29 posted a topic in FirearmsI’d like to discuss what I think are under mentioned topics that can be force multipliers versus the tendency of gun owners to collect many weapons. Of course, having several weapons allows you to arm trusted allies. For me, I chose to go with a Ruger Mini14 as my primary defensive weapon, and a Remington 870 (12 Gauge 7+1) as my home defense and handout gun. My philosophy is that when one of my friends shows up, that is only a semi competent shot (due to my instruction) but who is unarmed, he can make use of my 870 and my stockpile of 00Buck. Having a well armed partner is a HUGE force multiplier and a massive increase in survivability in any confrontation. However, does it really make sense to simply buy another gun every paycheck? Other force multipliers seem less common; such as body armor, night vision, and small unit training. I’ve noticed a profound level of misinformation, misunderstanding, and an odd perception of armor. Firstly it’s not illegal to own unless you’re a felon. Secondly, there is a popular perception that only criminals wear it (something reinforced by many manufacturers’ L.E. only policy and bank robbers.) To put it bluntly, if I’m buying a semiautomatic rifle, I’m preparing for a potential firefight. If I’m preparing for a firefight, I’m going to prepare to get shot, you should too. On the topic of night vision, I see far too little discussion. Anybody who would plan to overwhelm a BOL or other “stronghold” would want to deny you the use of your strengths, and exploit your weaknesses. Therefore, nobody in their right mind would expose themselves to your rifle fire. Does it not make sense that a hostile group would recruit large numbers, and attempt to close on your position under cover of darkness where their superior numbers and initiative would overwhelm you in close combat? Simply having a night optic could allow you (or your night sentry) to see this coming, and regain the initiative with early warning to set up defense or spoiling fires/attack. Lastly, I see very little true “fight” training. Practicing marksmanship is of course essential, as proficiency at basics is critical to building other skills. However, shooting paper from a static position is no more comprehensive, than punching a bag in preparation for a boxing match is. Now I’m not equating conventional infantry attrition warfare to SHTF defense. Close combat allows common close range weapons at the enemy’s disposal to be used and is very high attrition due to low skill requirements to hit targets. The objective of SHTF defense is survival not warfigthing. However, we can learn something from the military. Modern Infantry tactics are based on fire and maneuver. Fire without maneuver, can leave static positions vulnerable to being suppressed and maneuvered on, destroyed by superior fire, or being unable to affect the decisive points of confrontation. Additionally maneuver without fire, is disastrous, as there is nothing keeping the opposing force from engaging elements in the open. Despite the “militia” connotation, learning to run and gun through the use of a few battle drills will drastically increase your group’s defensive posture. Even running away, when done in a tactically unsound fashion is nothing more than exposing your back to fire. So in conclusion, I urge you to consider concepts that are a-typical to average civilian gun owner thinking, and that will hopefully help you multiply your defensive power.
I have never used body armor, and the cheapest quality ones are around $700 but usually higher. Taking this into consideration, would you use body armor when SHTF? Do you have any? And would you recommend it? I mean its basically a shield against the bullet that can kill you, and all though your encumbered slightly, its still protection. Is it worth it?