Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bol'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


    • FAQ's
    • Introductions!
    • Announcements
    • Article Ideas
    • The Authors Section
    • Contests
  • Survival Discussion
    • General Survival
    • Survival and Current Events
    • Wilderness Survival
    • Urban Survival
    • Country and Off Grid Survival
    • Food and Water Preps
    • Survival and Location
  • Survival Skills
    • Metal Work
    • Medicine and Health
    • Bushcraft
    • Farming, Gardening and Homesteading
    • Hunting and Fishing
  • Survival Equipment
    • Man-Packable Survival Kit
    • Survival Cache
    • Survival Vehicle
    • Communications and Electronics
    • Gear Reviews and Preps
  • Armory
    • Firearms
    • Alternative Weapons
    • Unarmed Defense
    • Knives, Axes, and other Blades
  • General
    • General Discussion
    • Freedom and Liberty
    • Zombie Talk
    • Multimedia
    • Homeschooling, Unschooling and Education
    • Marketplace

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL











Found 3 results

  1. brickintubesock

    BOL Camouflage

    Hi everybody. I've all but decided on building a BOL that basically amounts to a structure which is covered except for a ground level roof and a set of steps, and I'm looking to camo those areas, but the shipping containers I'm making the structure out of can't support too much weight on top, so I can't just lay cement and go from there. Prettymuch like in Post 39 on here: I would lay some tarps and matching foliage, but if a disaster happens that takes out plant life (like in The Road), my little plot would be very noticeable. I'm looking for something of absolutely no value to hide my air filters, periscopes, etc. in. If concrete wasn't out of the question, I would make it look like an unfinished house foundation, and disguise my filters and such to look like pipes set into the concrete. I also don't want anything too inviting, otherwise you never know when other people might set up camp on what they think is just an empty field, leaving me to either be trapped until they leave, or cause a conflict. As far as terrain goes, the area has soil of dirt and sandy dirt, and is where the mountains meet the plains. Thank you for any help, as I'm a little stumped.
  2. I’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.
  3. I live in the Willamette Valley, so nestled between the coast range on the west and the Cascades to the east, and not only does the Willamette River pass through my community, so does the McKenzie and literally dozens of rivers and creeks. In some ways, this could be ideal when choosing a BOL, since access to fresh/running water should be a consideration. But as recent flooding has shown, proximity to a river isn't always great. I'm especially concerned with the possibility of a dam failure. The McKenzie River has at least a couple of substantial dams and has been "tinkered with" by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years, so that it's hard to determine where the river would actually flow should they be destroyed by an act of terrorism, a natural disaster (like earthquakes/volcanoes, which are a certainly consideration in the Cascades), or even gradual disrepair if there is no government or utility company maintaining them. I would hate for my arrival at my BOL to somehow wind up looking like the end of O Brother Where Art Thou... or to have to add scuba gear to my BOB so that I have a hope of retrieving previously secured supplies. My question is: Are there any groups, government organizations, even insurance or actuarial associations that assess threats to dams, bridges, or other infrastructure? And do they offer any kind of worst case scenario predictions? I haven't found any as yet, but trying to find a good BOL that is close to but not threatened by water is turning out to be a somewhat daunting task. Thanks for any pointers!