PDA

View Full Version : Best gun for a raiding party of Crow?



ryanusmc
07-28-2009, 12:59 PM
Let's try something different.

The year is around 1800 and you are a mountain man settn' traps in the Rockies. You are alone but have a horse. Your kit is all traditional 19th century gear except your firearms.

What would you use and why? Remember, you can only get ammo and supplies for it once a year at the rondi.

My first thought would be to use a Ruger no 1. Rugged iron sights, powerfull enough for anything in 45/70, and weather resistant in stainless. Throw a necg peep on it and be off. Anything would be faster than the muzzleloaders of the day, so even a single shot would be a surprise to your attackers, I've never owned one but hear they are about as bomb proof as anything.

I think a handgun is in order too. I realize handguns weren't really in vogue back then but I feel more comfortable with one. Besides, a 45/70 would be a bit much for small game. I think the Sig 226 I'm waiting on would fit in perfect for the role of small game getter and injun fighter. Unfortunatly, not having fired it I can't say for certain.

disillusionedpatriot
07-28-2009, 01:14 PM
So one of the main limitations in this scenario is your ammo, which can only be re-supplied annually. I'm thinking then that two things would dominate: the advantage of rapid firing and maximizing the number of rounds you could carry. My choice would be a Ruger 10/22 with drum magazines. I can't think of any other round you could carry more of, the range is adequate, the lethality is sufficient, the rate of fire is excellent, the reliability is excellent. Other than that perhaps something FA using similarly small cartridges.

Jim N
07-28-2009, 01:17 PM
I would go with the 10-22 magnum.

CCH
07-28-2009, 01:24 PM
I'm operating under the assumption that you can only get ammo supplies accurate for 1800. If so, you'd need to pack a good supply of primers to reload the .45-70 which could get problematic. If anything ever happened to them, you'd be toting a fancy club.

I'm no blackpowder guy but one of those blackpowder revolving rifles might be handy strapped to your horse with a more suitable hunting rifle as your main game getter, perhaps one of those Italian made doubles if you want extra firepower? Big question for me, who doesn't know when the shift from flint to percussion cap happened, is which ignition to go with. Flint is good regardless because you can generally find more without meeting up to re-supply. If percussion caps are relatively available, the three gun combo of a real rifle, revolving rifle and Ruger Old Army would suit me as well as anything.

It's hard for me to paint a scenario using more modern firearms in an anachronistic manner unless you can also magically have an endless supply of ammo to with them. If that's the case, I'll take an FAL and a Glock G20. My horse will get tired though. :D

ryanusmc
07-28-2009, 01:47 PM
I figured any fighting done would be a quick battle instead of extended campaigns. In that line of thought 1-200 rounds should work. 3-4 a month for hunting plus a few for a quick fight.

While mileage may very I don't think I would pick a 22 for elk or man. Although a 223 might work. Ammo is lighter and got enough umph.

CCH, percussion caps didn't really start to appear untill the 1840s. Farther east you get the sooner you would have seen them.

Wanderlustr
07-28-2009, 01:50 PM
50 caliber Hawkin - "couldn't go no better" ;)

(not time to reload - makes a wicked club)
http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/JeremiahJohnson.jpg

evanhill
07-28-2009, 01:51 PM
Your kit is all traditional 19th century gear except your firearms.

FAL. hands down.

Pair that with an accurate .22 pistol for food procurement, and I'm good to go.

Steelworker
07-29-2009, 01:44 PM
Dang Evan, we must have been Siamese twins separated at birth! The FAL would have been my choice too. It would drop any game we'd encounter and would cause more than a bit of surprise to any raiding party -- assuming we were good enough to detect them first. I might still lean to a centerfire pistol though, like a 1911, Glock or M&P, as they are all accurate enough for taking small and even medium game, but would be great for last resort situations.

scothill
07-29-2009, 03:11 PM
Hmmmm...........the long gun is easy. FAL, with a suppressor. Side arm is a bit harder. I guess I would probably lean towards a G17 with .22 conversion kit, as they don't make a conversion kit for the M&P yet. Oh and suppressors for both the conversion and regular rifle. I would also want to spend sometime with the modern bow designs to see if any of the compounds where good to go for me.

CCH
07-29-2009, 03:20 PM
Four votes for the FAL. A bow would be a great idea. I'd take my Hoyt metal handle TD recurve. Simple, durable and compact. Just need a couple of extra strings. Might be the best small game getter when it comes down to it. Silent with re-useable ammo. Will double for hunting big game when you want to go unnoticed. So now that Scot brought up a bow, I'm sticking with the FAL and G20 but adding the bow. I think that covers all bases pretty well. Moot, because I'd likely get pseudo scalped (not much to grab onto) in my sleep.

Kevin B
07-29-2009, 03:31 PM
I realize kimbers are finicky, but last I was told you can't get a .45/.22 conversion from Glock. You'd have the small game getter on the one hand. On the other you'd have a far more man leathal and always on your person set up. One simply ends up putting down something as heavy as an FAL. Around camp, taking a leek, just getting some water from the creek or a stick of wood. For those situations when you've been ambushed or snuck up on when you weren't prepared with the FAL I'd think you'd want the .45 over the .22. Of course you also have to sleep. I'd think most would prefer to have .45 at the ready assuming they are going to face a rush from crow in the night rather than try to bring the FAL to bear in similar short time.

Anyhow I seem to remember some scenes where there wasn't time ;) 50 rds .45 for just defense should be plenty. The rest in .308 and .22.

EDIT I stand corrected Scott posted as I was posting and glock is doing it. I'd go that way.

snakey2
07-29-2009, 04:09 PM
I would probably opt for something in 223 semi auto. Has enough oomph to collect larger animals (with some care taken), ammo is sufficiently light and anything in semi auto would send the largest raiding party running for the hills.

Timberline
07-29-2009, 04:19 PM
Remington 870 Tactical 12 gauge:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/shotguns/model_870/model_870_TAC_Desert_Recon.asp

The "Tactical Extended Rem Choke" is cool.

Steelworker
07-29-2009, 04:39 PM
"Moot, because I'd likely get pseudo scalped (not much to grab onto) in my sleep."

Not to worry CCH, they'd just mutilate ya. You're own mom wouldn't recognize you when they were done. (But we'd keep your gear if it hadn't been taken.)

Carrying the FAL around camp, especially if it was a DSA, wouldn't be any worse than carrying an old Hawken. Besides, we'd have horses to tote our stuff and the FAL would be carried in a scabbard or across the saddle as we rode, so the weight would be much less of a problem. The Viking Tactics or Vickers two-point slings, especially the padded models, would go a long way toward making them less to haul around in camp.

In my past I never noticed the FAL weighing much when I needed it, only when lugging it along a trail. The availability of horses eliminates this issue. In tests we ran I could shoot a full size FAL as fast or faster than a CAR-15. Since the 5.56 isn't worth much around brush and since most camps would be along rivers where brush would be pretty thick and provide cover/concealment for hostiles to hide, I'll stick with the heavy old beast. The mags would be loaded with 18 rounds of Hornady 155 gr. AMAX, though I'd keep a few boxes of Accutip or similar loads for elk, etc. The AMAX load is about as close as we can currently get in actual "instant" incapacitation with any hit in the chest cavity.

Gee, why limit this to fighting hostiles in the early 19th century American west? A dozen of us similarly armed could have completely changed the outcome of the Alamo! We could even have taken over a few South or Central American countries back then. One thing is certain: St. Clair's defeat would have had a far different ending.

CCH
07-29-2009, 05:28 PM
Dead is dead, which is what I'd likely be. Better armed or not, I'm quite confident that my ability to out Indian the Indians of that time period would be pretty limited.

Timberline, I'm going to pass on shotguns. Cool, limited range. Rather carry more .308 and 10mm ammo than shotgun.

Bears, Indians, Mexico, South American and Central American countries... it's only a matter of time until someone puts up a Zombie thread!

Steelworker
07-29-2009, 07:26 PM
Bears, Indians, Mexico, South American and Central American countries... it's only a matter of time until someone puts up a Zombie thread

LOL!

ryanusmc
07-29-2009, 08:06 PM
I always say if I'm prepared for zombies then I'd be prepared for everything else.

satchel
07-30-2009, 11:06 PM
i think id go for the shotgun probably a single shot 12 maybe a double

Pointshoot
07-31-2009, 08:07 PM
Damned - - - I thought I was being unique before reading all this but I would also pick a FAL. With that baby I'd be the # 1 Chief of the Tribe with first pick of all the most beautiful Indian maidens ! ;) My sidearm would be some hi-cap 45ACP or maybe a Glock 20 10mm. And since we're just day-dreaming - how about a long range shooting stick to take care of any pesky old guys with .45-70s ala Quigley. Make mine something in 338 Lapua with good glass & throw in some night vision capabilities ! - -

ryanusmc
08-01-2009, 03:43 AM
I thought Quigley used a .45-110. But a long range rig would be a good idea.

FlatbowMB
08-01-2009, 08:22 AM
. And since we're just day-dreaming - how about a long range shooting stick to take care of any pesky old guys with .45-70s ala Quigley. Make mine something in 338 Lapua with good glass & throw in some night vision capabilities ! - -

Or a MacMillan Tac 50 :D

scothill
08-01-2009, 04:18 PM
I think it was a .45-110. However, that is a good point. I figured that 500yds was adequate for long range in the situations that we are talking about. Further then that I am going to try to hide and if I can't they can't reach me with their tech anyway. Also animals shouldn't be as wary especially if you are further off. So at what point does longe range become more of a benefit?

Pointshoot
08-01-2009, 06:12 PM
Yeah, you guys are right about Quigley's 45-110 (not 45-70) I went with a 338 Lapua for the long range rig because this would be accurate for long range anti-bad guys use. More portable than a 50BMG and wouldn't need the anti-material capabilities of the 50 back in the 1800s. I went with a .338 because, though I don't have any long range black powder shooting experience & maybe its all just legends & the movies, I've heard of skilled BP shooters make some very long shots. The Lapua (w/ modern optics) gives me capabilities just about impossible to beat with 1800s technology no matter how skilled the rifleman. - - Of course, gear wouldn't completely trump everything else. A savvy party of braves who knew the land could set up booby traps & all sorts of unpleasantries to take away your long range & firepower advantages. You gotta sleep. You gotta eat & drink. - - The best course would be to take out their chief, make yourself chief, and then make yourself valuable by taking out their enemies and putting some meat on the table for the tribe. Mix in some of the medicine man/religious aspect couldn't hurt either.