Why is there never much talk about the subject of firearm minimalism, beyond discussing from the context of owning less guns? Is it the lack of readily available resources documenting what's actually needed for the situations you might encounter to adequately work off of? It seems to me that there would be a lot of benefits from going such a route, such as:
>using smaller/lighter guns
>having less recoil to deal with
>using less expensive ammo/getting more range time for your dollar
>being able to use components more efficiently during extended ammo shortages if you reload
>having lighter/more compact ammo for when shooting while traveling/hiking discussion gets brought up here
Overall it seems like a much comfier way of enjoying guns vs the popular trend of min-maxing off what if scenarios.
There's been plenty of it over the years. Open your eyes.
Such as?
Every single greentexted bullet point in your OP has been used to argue for the proliferation of AR-15 over full-power rifles.
>firearm minimalism
otherwise known as being poor
every thread crying about people buying armor/helmets/optics/lights/basically anything that isn't just a single gun purchased for under 1k.
This is correct, these topics have been beaten to death. The deceased horse is tired. Please let it rest. Use the archives.
>Such as?
Such as not being turbonew to guns. Use the internet. Search bro, search.
I've been on PrepHole for years now, and the only time I've seen "firearm minimalism" mentioned is in the context of having less guns like I said in the OP.
Get those cataracts checked then I don't know what to tell you.
We have
>x is all you need
threads every single day. You're either lying, actually retarded, or trolling, I don't know which one is worse.
>citing threads that are primarily shitposting as an example
Probably because they're parodies of the minimalist crunch/poorfag cope threads that spring up every time there's a happening.
>Probably because they're parodies
So you cede my point that there isn't actual discussion here.
Because the discussion was settled half a decade if not more prior so all that is left is to jest.
How many times do you expect us to meaningfully repeat "just buy an AR and a glock?"
>minimalism is using a rifle that wasn't even common to own 20 years ago when most people owned what would currently be considered to be "less"
???
Yes, because today is not 20 years ago, and today that rifle is the cheapest, most common rifle that fires the cheapest, most common rifle cartridge. Hope this clears that up for you.
Arguing minimalism is like trying to revive the AK/AR debate, we already have the answers. Your inability to accept it is not proof of its nonexistence. If there's a way to cover your criteria that excludes the 10/22 I'd like to know what that rifle is. Explain how 22LR doesn't satisfy your desire for a lightweight, low recoil, compact, and cheap round
You are completely missing my point. The list in the OP is for a given task. Not me asking for what the round that best satisfies those points absent all other factors.
>the cheapest, most common rifle cartridge
Only if you ignore the options you can reload for less even at current component prices.
5.56
>having a reloading setup
>minimalist
Pssssssshhhhhhhhhh Takes up too much space in the tent you store on your three wheeled gear hauler as you move from park bench to park bench.
I'm not going to get into your reloading costs because I don't know what your set up is, how much it cost, what calibers you're set up for, or how much components cost to ship to you. If those are things you wanted us to take into consideration that's info you should've given in the OP. If we aren't talking about you personally and we're talking about a hypothetical blank slate, then just buying a gun and ammo is way more minimalist than a gun, and ammo, and ammo components, and a reloading press, and a scale, and some funnels. God forbid you want to get into casting on top of that.
I'm sorry anon, but if you want more than just taking small game as minimalist as possible then it's good old 5.56/.223 coming out of the most common rifle In America for you.
isn't that pretty much the entire point of the .22lr
>.22
>.22
>.22
>Just about any straight walled case with popular components like a .357 using small pistol primers or just horde .22 like boomers did way after sandy hook especially during the trump slump
>.22
>firearm minimalism
sounds like some gay shit to me
That’s a man btw.
Why not own a variety of guns?
Big and small
Useless and minmaxed
High and low recoil
I have designed my collection for maximum variety.
Every single non retarded country is implementing firearm minimalizm.
It's called banning guns.
You should try it in the US, it's much more comfy having literally a hundredth of your firearm deaths per Capita and not having to go out every day and sleep every night as armed twitchy trigger happy paranoid spastic.
more comfy maybe, but way less fun.
that might work for tiny island countries and majority white countries with strong borders
but it will never work in the USA. we're literally plugged in to mexico and have a border longer than yours does all the way around. guns will always be here, therefore good guys should also have guns.
If it's so comfy, why the fuck do you still stay inside all day and not do shit other than post here?
I do, just I'm bored because I'm in Europe, got fired am suing them and literally will get paid for posting on PrepHole and farting around cause their case is shit and we have human rights.
In any case you people need a serious reality check to look out past American borders and realize how better many societies are.
Ah yes binland or pakistan. Marvels of the earth.
i'd rather be in danger every day than under an authoritarian goverment that charges 50% taxes and tells me what to do
euro countries have amazing crimestats because they have amazing whitepeoplestats. simple as.
Have you tried free education, healthcare, social services and workers rights to ensure even socially marginalized groups get the chance to be humans instead of morons? Then contribute as productive members so they pay more in taxes than they have ever costed?
Nah you didn't. Typical American "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas, let's stomp on the morons some more and then complain that the morons stay morons".
US spends more on social services than your entire country spends on everything
The US also has significantly more inhabitants than any other western country. How much does it pay per inhabitant or as share of GDP?
I did the math:
>US population: 334 million
>UK population: 68 million
>UK NHS spending 2022: 213 billion USD (180bn GBP)
>US medicare and medicaid federal budget 2022: 755 billion USD and 982 billion USD respectively
>US expenditures per capita: 5200 USD
>UK expenditures per capita: 3100 USD
>the tankie realises USA is more economically socialist than even bongistan
>selective memory means he will never be able to recall this post again
He wont reply, so heres a (you) anon
lol you're the same chatgpt fag
as over in the uncomfortable truths thread
Go back to r*ddit gay bong
man I never would have expected that bait to work
The hilarious part is that the unironic answer to your requirements is an AR15, but you likely hate that idea because of sovl and think the right answer is a bolt action or lever action rifle in some meme caliber.
>using a modern option is more minimalist than using an option from the 1800s
Do you even understand what minimalism is?
minimalism = ar15. that is what it means. primitive shit old guns were overcomplicated dumb shit the original fuddguns. ar15 is the pinnacle. you don't need more.
A blackpowder firearm requires more equipment and more specialized equipment to use than an AR-15, and is still not as effective as the AR at anything except theoretically making your own propellant and eliminating your reliance on primers. That's not a minimalist solution, it's a hyper-specific gearfag solution.
>an AR-15 is more minimalist than a muzzle loader
How much drugs did you partake in to reach this conclusion?
Well you see, if you read the posts you respond to sometimes they will explain themselves.
I read them, hence my questioning the ridiculous logic. In what world is taking a deer with a flintlock not more minimalist than using some current year AR build for the same task, all other factors being the same?
I need a baggie of shit any time I take my Hawken out. Not to mention cleaning.
You are correct in that the Muzzleloader is minimalist in that it is a GUN in its most basic form, a tube that shoots lead. Truly the simplest firearm
The AR-15, as the other anons are saying, gives you a platform that can perform well in a multitude of tasks.Yes other rifles could perform just as well, but the AR-15 is one of the most common sporting rifles in the U.S. Its cheap, its everywhere as are accessories and ammo. In just about any situation you could face an AR is WAY better then any muzzleloader could be and even a cheap AR is better than being nogunz. As per OPs question, it seems to fit the criteria of lightweight,low recoil, and less expensive ammo
On no other hobby board here is "minimalism" remotely commonly discussed in that bizarro context that would have an AR being more minimalist than a muzzle loader. You have seriously fried your brain with whatever you're on.
Lmao what? An AR is absolute peak minimalism compared to BP, the only thing better would be a single shot 5.56 break action. You can put everything you need to maintain and use an AR in its cheap walmart soft case. If you even unload your BP without shooting it you're going to have to deep clean it.
a trade rifle from 1775 had maybe 7-9 parts total and could be assembled with 2-4 screws
Great, and you can shoot an AR 5 times a year, never wipe it down and never need to disassemble it for the rest of your life.
>minimalism
that's not minimalism you colossal gay, that is convenience, which defined b the use of extremely complex systems to render a cheap, repeatable outcome
fucking Cup Noodle is minimalist by your definition you idiot
>take AR-15 shooting
>bring gun, magazine, cartridges
>insert bullets into mag, mag into gun, pull trigger
>take 'minimalist musket' shooting
>bring gun, container of powder, box of bullets, ram rod, cleaning kit for fowling, and possibly a replaceable flashpowder or other ignition source
>have to ram each round home after trying to carefully measure out powder charge
The funny part is that even if the muzzleloader was as easy and low effort to use as an AR-15, it's low velocity and low accuracy mean that you would need another gun to do the things it can't which is the direct opposite of minimalism since you now need two guns to the AR-15's one.
Then he's a retarded moron and doesn't know what the word minimalism means and can be ignored like the drooling monkey he is.
>Then he's a retarded moron and doesn't know what the word minimalism means and can be ignored like the drooling monkey he is.
>t. a retarded moron who clearly doesn't know what the word minimalism means if they think an AR is more minimalist than a muzzle loader by any common standard that minimalism is discussed
>it's minimalist to have 40 different sets of screwdrivers because they are just wood and metal instead of buying a single driver with interchangeable tips
I said you were right. A muzzleloader is more minimalistic then an AR-15, you're just being retarded
In the world where taking a deer with an AR requires you to buy:
>an AR (most common rifle in America)
>some ammunition (most common rifle caliber in America)
And taking one with a flintlock requires
>a flintlock (so uncommon that legally they aren't even firearms)
>ramrod
>flint
>black powder
>black powder horn
>patches
>ammunition (sold only by specialty retailers)
>black powder measuring device (optional, have fun eyeballing your charges though)
Both also require cleaning supplies for long term use, but the flintlock also requires said cleaning on much shorter intervals. In no way besides mechanical simplicity is it the more minimal choice. It doesn't even have a simpler manual of arms, or take up less space.
Go tell PrepHole that owning a pre-war Packard is more minimalist than buying a Civic, they'll laugh at you before calling you a dumb /n/igger.
What? a muzzle loader in the current year is the opposite of minimalism. It performs somewhere from mediocre to absolute shit depending on if youre talking about hunting or self defense let alone community defense while requiring its own unique skill set and supplies which are antiquated and minimally available. This is the equivalent of saying that riding a horse is more minimalist than owning a cheap, efficient, reliable, and easy to work on car because "horses are more mimimalist than cars because thats what people used to do" while ignoring that a horse requires acerage to feed on, health care, can carry a fraction of the weight, and cant even be fucking used on most public roadways. It is simply not minimalist in the current year, it is the opposite of minimalist as you are entirely focused on preconception and aesthetics as opposed to actual utility vs impact and effort to attain it. Minimalism is taking up the least amount of space to do things decently, ergo an AR15 is more minimalist.
It seems to me that you have some weird idea about minimalism where minimalism=antiquated, you think that the more antiquated something is the more minimalist it must be while ignoring the point of minimalism.
To use another example an extrvagant modern kitchen is not minimalist, it may be very effective but it include much more than is needed while taking up more space and effort to use properly. A period 1850s kitchen is not minimalist, it is in fact antiquated, it takes up much more space, effort, and specialized skill to use properly to attain the same results. What is minimalist would be a kitchenette with a handful of tools and appliances that allow you to decently do most things. Minimalism is doing what you NEED to do with the MINIMAL amount of space, effort, in in particular specialized knowledge/practice.
>post about minimalism
>opens up with bitching about performance vs the latest and greatest
I stopped reading there.
Your reading comprehension is on par with that of a grade schooler or the average women.
>poster I replied to is an incel
And I'm happy I decided not to waste my time reading.
This guys just word lawyering the correct definition of minimalist but lacks ability to see what op is really asking (I think?). Also a fucking stick is more minimalist then a muzzleloader or AR, doesn't mean thats what this thread is asking for. From my understanding OP is looking for guns that fit certain criteria in that they have ease of use, light or small, with little to no recoil, that have available ammo but at the same time he does not want to hear any specific situations or needs for each suggestion. So choosing guns based on the criteria only, not the specific situation you're getting the gun for
>"I don't want to buy a bunch of tents, I want to be minimalist"
>"what are some good tents?"
>"no I will not tell you where I am camping, what temperature, time of year or otherwise"
>"tell me what kind of tent I should get"
Its a stupid question, with a very debatable answer
Never Say Never and don't move the goalposts gay
>From my understanding OP is looking for guns
I'm pretty sure they're looking for intelligent discussion of the topic rather than purchase recommendations.
>Never Say Never
You will never be an action hero.
idk what to tell you OP, maybe don't use a gay art descriptions like minimalism to describe your firearms purchases.
One half of the thought process of buying a firearm is what was listed. Ammo availability,recoil,weight etc.That will always be a possible factor
The other half IS the what ifs. What if I need to hunt small game?What if I need to hunt large game?What if this is the only gun I can reach during a home invasion?What if the gun breaks, can I fix it or get parts? Thats probably why you don't see threads to your retarded criteria. Nobody buys guns JUST because of the reasons listed If you're making a firearm purchase based on whether its minimalist or not you need to fuck off and lurk moar. Maybe go sharpen a stick for the ultimate utilitarian "minimalist" weapon if you're so concerned about how other minimalists look at you
>What if this is the only gun I can reach during a home invasion?
Imagine being so paranoid that this a serious consideration with every fucking gun you purchase. Just fucking carry a gun with you around your home at that point.
What the fuck do you even want to hear? Buy whatever goddamn gun you want if you think it's cool, just don't come here and demand we tell you what a great idea it was.
>that response
Are you even able to function in society?
>From my understanding OP is looking for guns that fit certain criteria in that they have ease of use, light or small, with little to no recoil, that have available ammo
hmmmm, what could possibly best fit these requirements in the current year? clearly a period 1800s muzzle loader. Yes, thats the obvious choice.
If you wanted to just here affirmations then maybe you should have started a different thread. Muzzleloaders are cool, they just arent the answer to the question of minimalist firearms choices in the current year.
>A blackpowder firearm requires more equipment and more specialized equipment to use than an AR-15
damn sure hope that guy doesn't lose or need to replace his
>flint/caps
>swabs
>powder
>balls
>moulds
>lube
>ramrod
in the thick of battle, especially if his opponent uses a modern rifle where all he needs to do is load a magazine with anywhere from 10 to 100 rounds and hes ready to go
>in the thick of battle, especially if his opponent uses a modern rifle where all he needs to do is load a magazine with anywhere from 10 to 100 rounds and hes ready to go
No one here will ever be in an actual battle where they need to supply their own gun.
Wrong. Just someone else who's sick of fantasy scenarios that no one can provide a documented case of ever even happening being a central point of discussion here.
>A blackpowder firearm requires more equipment and more specialized equipment to use than an AR-15
Yeah bro, fully equipped gunsmith workshop with CNC machines and Bob the Boomer from MidwayUSA
why is op always an annoying obtuse gay?
>firearm minimalism
This is just cope. I'm a firearm minimalist because im poor.
>using smaller/lighter guns
>having less recoil
pick one. personally I love small guns. compact and thick, usually, just like my women. Personally I wish the trend of 19x/43x guns went the opposite way, longer barrels with shorter grips, easier to conceal while maintaining better ballistics. less capacity, sure, but I've built a 19 on a 26 frame sorta and want to do the same for a "48-sc" or something.
p365 XL with the frame swapped out for a standard one is highly appealing IMO, if i was just getting in to CC and knew what i know now itd probably be a first choice for me. Not exactly thicc though, something like a G26L would be kinda neat.
I might if I didn't have gripes with Sig. I'm sure the gun is fine, but it's the principle. I don't even like glocks, but they're too ubiquitous and easy to fuck with. I only own one legit glock, and like 3 p80s and a 3d printed piece, picrel is my "19/26"
I thought that was a EDC thread?
Anon what you're describing in of itself is a form of min maxing
Ideal setup for me personally (tho I be but a moron)
>.22 for varmint/small game
>5.56 or 7.62x39 for "general purpose"
>.308,30-06,8mm,.303 for big game
>45-70 for skinwalkers
Also the comfier way is buying guns you like, regardless of what others say. Research,listen to the advice of others who own it sure, but if you want a specific gun, just get it.Lifes to short to worry what other people think of your decisions, especially if they are on a Peruvian flute carving image board
Because modern firearms (JM Browning and etc) came into view right alongside the first deconstructive trends in art and society-- Impressionism, Art Deco, Bauhaus etc--
>emdash bitches
which all partook in minimalist aesthetics and design philosophy to some degree, at the same time that industrial mass market goods were really hitting the world and changing tastes and accessibility in radical ways.
Highly figured and complex, or ornate and naturalistic, were out the door and clean machine-made lines were coming in, and would stay there thanks to sheer quantity and low prices.
Thus, we get things like the m1 garand, which aside from being a suitable battle rifle for wwii, was also a breathtakingly beautiful, immortal piece of industrial design, just like the broom handle Mauser 2 generations before it
>picrel
Of course, now we're degenerating and swinging back the other way, which is why AR clones are *both* ugly and over complicated and festooned with useless decorations and LARPshit these days because we skipped right over a neo-Classical revival and went straight for George-Lucas-smoking-weed-grunge-aesthetic
You forgot something.
Because most of PrepHole doesn't even own guns, let alone have a level of knowledge of using guns necessary to have a discussion of how much gun is actually needed a for a given task for remotely informed minimalism discussion to take place. Hence the replies to this thread insisting that there's a one size fits all option that you should buy for minimalism as if the specific task you're doing is irrelevant.
>Hence the replies to this thread insisting that there's a one size fits all option that you should buy for minimalism as if the specific task you're doing is irrelevant.
You mean insisting that there's a one size fits all solution instead of min-maxing for specific what if scenarios, which the OP specifically says is not the kind of discussion OP is advocating for?
A one size fits all solution without taking into account what you you're actually using whatever you're buying for isn't minimalism you fucking retard.
I agree with you, but OP is asking for both minimalist firearm ownership and for people not to discuss kit for specific scenarios, so I really can't help you.
That was a little rude anon, there's really no reason to use language like that.
>for people not to discuss kit for specific scenarios
You really are retarded aren't you?
Sorry anon, we're only here to discuss vague situations you might encounter, no min-maxing off what if scenarios allowed. OP was very clear that that's not a comfy way of enjoying guns.
>retard doesn't know what "what if scenario" means
Fuck off retard.
I'd love to talk about WHAT you might use a gun for IF the opportunity arises, but that's just not within the scope of this thread! Sorry buddy!
Literally not what anyone here is referring to when they say "what if scenario" you fucking retard.
Oh, I get it now. You're OP, aren't you? You wanted people to avoid considering factors that might push them towards gear you associate with "LARP," right? And you're a little upset that the AR-15 is still so heavily recommended? It's just that the AR is the most common rifle in America, it can drop the majority of American game ethically at common distances, it's incredibly reliable, and it's even fairly light. I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted it to. Better luck next time!
And the answer to that is an AR-15, compact Glock or clone thereof, and maybe a shotgun + 10/22 if you want. There is literally nothing in this world that you need a gun for that you can't do with this combination outside of very, very niche things.
>What should I buy If I wanted as little firearms as possible?
>Don't discuss specific scenarios or needs
This criteria doesn't really click together. You either purchase a firearm for a specific task or because you like it and want to own it. I think OP is a gay and needs to lurk moar or at least narrow down his buzzword word salad definition of "Firearm Minimalism"
Who let /arg/ out of their hole?
I remember some Taliban interview video where one of them explains the AK-74s were often seen as superfluous weapons and true killing machines and really only a single shot rifle was needed. I guess afghanis have fudds too.
>AK-74s were often seen as superfluous weapons and true killing machines and really only a single shot rifle was needed
Its because of the tactics traditionally emplyed by Afghans whis is sniping opponents from the perches at long ranges. In XIXth century and earlier they used rifled muzzleloaders, during Soviet Invasion, surplus bolt action rifles and nowadays they favor GPMGs, always using full power rifle ammunition. They never had numbers, training and firepower to engage well armed enemy at close quarters. So they gonna shoot and scoot or at most shoot until they can safely finish off the wounded and demoralised foe, which rarely happened during their insurgency unless they attacked some isolated undermanned and underequipped ANA outpost.
>the tactics traditionally emplyed by Afghans whis is sniping opponents from the perches at long ranges. In XIXth century and earlier they used rifled muzzleloaders
Wait, really? I know how they favored long range ambushes vs the US and snipers with Lee Enfields vs the Soviets, but have they actually been doing the same thing since the 1800s?
Yup. Pic related were rifled, had functional sights and stock optimised to be used from sitting or prone postition taken behind the cover.
Only after the enemy was sufficiently weakened they would engage in had to hand combat with sabers and long ass knives. Often their women and children would help slaughtering the wounded. Afghan rulers had no standing army and the tribesmen would not follow the leader putting them at unnecessary risk by ordering all out charges or standing in the open and exposing themselves to enemy fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul
Neat.
>thread is mainly ARfags screeching because muh AR has to be the best gun for everything
God this board is shit.
For it'd be an AR with a .22LR kit (or if everything really was scarce an airsoft replica.)
Train shooting, manual of arms and everything with cheap AF .22LR, and then swap out the bolt and off you go. For families I'd just buy one AR and have it be the designated .22LR gun to train your kids on.
>all the posters saying just get an AR
Exactly what universal use case do you feel makes an AR the end all be all of this discussion? Considering:
>there are zero documented self defense cases where a handgun in the hands of anyone who actually practices wouldn't be enough gun, and handguns have the massive advantage over a rifle of being easier to keep within your immediate reach at all times
>depending on the ranges someone is interested in a actually using their rifle out to, revolver cartridges, black powder rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder, and .30 rifle cartridges with reduced loads can be completely viable options and significantly cut costs and powder usage when reloading vs .223
This thread is gay and retarded. OP is probably David Hogg.
Black powder is cool but dated as fuck. Minimalism? Get a quality standard AR, a Glock 17, 19, 20, or 40, a G3 clone, a Ruger 10/22 and a pile of mags, ammo, and parts. This thread stinks like commie bait.
What do you do when you run out of Ammo?
>An AR is indisputably well-suited for... self-defense, though other options have advantages in specific situations.
No, it isn't. It entirely fails to cover the broad range of situations that can happen outside your home, which are much more common and where only a handgun is a viable solution, and there is zero evidence of cases where you can bring an AR where a handgun wouldn't be enough gun. You have things entirely backwards here, and handguns fit the description you just gave far better than an AR. Insisting on shoehorning a hunting rifle into a defensive role, where it is entirely non viable in a vast amount of situations, as if owning a separate rifle and a pistol is somehow too many guns, just gets you the worst of both world.
What the fuck do you mean? Pig hunting is a perfect example why you don't want just a 9mm pistol. Not the only reason as well.
>Pig hunting is a perfect example why you don't want just a 9mm pistol.
Read my post again fucktard. In particular:
>Insisting on shoehorning a hunting rifle into a defensive role, where it is entirely non viable in a vast amount of situations, as if owning a separate rifle and a pistol is somehow too many guns, just gets you the worst of both world.
There is zero reason to insist that minimalism means you can't cover your bases with a separate long gun and a handgun. And even if you did want to do so for extreme minimalism, going for a handgun in a larger service caliber like 10mm or .357 magnum set up with a detachable stock would still be a more logical solution than insisting on a gun for defensive purposes that isn't even viable to have on hand in the vast majority of self defense cases.
A pistol with a stock is an SBR. If you like that, so much for minimalism considering a 6 month wait, $200 tax, and every time you leave the state with it you need to notify the govt beforehand. How the fuck is having a pistol and rifle worse than that?
>retard completely misreads my post advocating for using a separate rifle and pistol, because I presented a better option if they really didn't want to just go with one gun as well
yeah
Your better option is highly regulated. If you like your idea so much, help repeal NFA.
I'm sorry, you've lost me. You are both criticizing an AR for not having pistol-like qualities and saying that having both shouldn't be treated as "too many guns." If you can get both get both, it's entirely reasonable for an AR to be good at general purpose rifle things and a pistol to be good at the stuff a pistol is better for. I don't see a conflict here.
>it's entirely reasonable for an AR to be good at general purpose rifle things
Because absent trying to make your rifle do pistol things, I'm not seeing a reason to go with an AR for the purpose of this discussion.
>if they really didn't want to
*did want to
And a normal rifle is completely non viable for the vast majority of self defense cases. Taking things that far is going to result in serious compromises. Hence why I advocated for using a separate rifle and pistol.
Didn't read. Get the list posted above.
>I'm not seeing a reason to go with an AR for the purpose of this discussion.
Because all the other reasons still apply. It's still light, cheap, common, reliable, easy to use, generally competent, and requires a minimum of supplemental equipment. You can even keep the versatility of .30 cal reloading with the AR platform if that's something that's really important to you, but whether it is or not the AR remains a compelling choice. Hype and military enthusiasm only take you so far. It's the most common rifle in the states by a wide margin for a reason. What specific rifle would you suggest as an alternative?
>What specific rifle would you suggest as an alternative?
See:
, if you reload, absent a reason for semi auto to be a requirement (which I don't see if you aren't trying to make your rifle do things you can do better with a pistol), and depending on the ranges you personally might actually shoot at, there are better caliber choices than .223 if you're concerned with cost but still want more than 9mm PCC performance.
I specifically pointed out that if thirty cal reloading to you is important you can still get that in an AR platform, and the only operation that's strictly necessary is swapping out a barrel. You get your versatile thirty cal loads and all the benefits an AR has.
>You get your versatile thirty cal loads
No you don't, because needing to work around a semi auto action that can damage your brass if you reload lighter than normal ammo limits versatility. Absent a reason for semi auto to be a requirement, there is no reason to make that sacrifice.
>needing to work around a semi auto action that can damage your brass if you reload lighter than normal ammo
Like you said, semi is only a necessity if you make it one. Get an adjustable gas block you can run all the way closed or just unhook yours from your gas tube and voila, straight pull bolt action for your special reduced-power squirrel loads without having to worry about your brass. If that's too invasive for you, they make charging handles that accomplish the same thing with a drop-in modification.
>just add more shit to your gun to make it function like a manual action, except with the charging handle in an awkward location because the gun was never intended to be used in such a way, rather than just buying a manual action gun in the first place
For what purpose?
To fulfill your desire for more variable loadings while maintaining the other benefits that come with adopting an AR, listed repeatedly by various posters ITT. Also, it's not "more shit" in the sense of additional points of failure- they're either 1:1 replacements or involve aligning existing parts differently without permanent modification.
>maintaining the other benefits that come with adopting an AR
What other benefits? The benefits posters have listed in this thread are all based around the idea that a rifle needing to be auto loading for defensive use as a given rather than just using a handgun, and start falling flat once you stop having the gun being auto loading as a requirement and start comparing to manual action options rather than just auto loading rifles.
>they're either 1:1 replacements or involve aligning existing parts differently without permanent modification
Or you could just get a manual action gun rather than modifying AR into something it was never meant to be. You also didn't address that you now end up with a manual action gun with a charging handle in an unnecessarily awkward place that only makes sense on an auto loader where it's only used for initial loading and in the event of malfunction.
>What other benefits?
See
. It's still reliable and common and cheap and... you can read the rest.
>You also didn't address that you now end up with a manual action gun with a charging handle in an unnecessarily awkward place
And I'm not going to. If semi-auto isn't necessarily a requirement, then having a comfy bolt isn't either.
>light
A Ruger Ranch rifle in .300 BLK, which does everything the AR you mentioned wold without needing to be moron rigged into something it was never meant to be, weighs less than 6 lbs.
>cheap
Your moron rigged manual action .300 BLK AR will set you back more than the $500 you can get previously mentioned Ranch rifle for.
>common
Obviously not if you need to moron rig the gun into what you want it to be rather than just buying it off the shelf.
>reliable
So is the previously mentioned Ranch rifle.
>easy to use, generally competent
The Ranch rifle beats it because it was actually intended to function that way, rather than being moron rigged to function in a way it was never intended to.
>and requires a minimum of supplemental equipment.
So is previously mentioned Ranch rifle.
>If semi-auto isn't necessarily a requirement, then having a comfy bolt isn't either.
So does "easy to use, generally competent" matter or not?
A .30-30 Contender does everything your Ram Ranch Rifle does, weighs less then 4lbs, and takes up less space in your vandwelling rig.
>no stock
Other than that, I don't see an issue if it does the job. Still makes more sense than moron rigging an AR into something it was never meant to be due to AR autism.
>weighs less than 6 lbs
Same weight as a carbine-length AR without resorting to expensive parts or skeletonization. Draw.
>Your moron rigged manual action .300 BLK AR will set you back more than the $500 you can get previously mentioned Ranch rifle for.
And in exchange you get vastly improved parts commonality and the ability to shoot in semi or manual action. I'd mention mags too, but thank God Ruger had the good sense to ensure compatibility with the most common magazine pattern in America.
>Obviously not if you need to moron rig the gun into what you want it to be rather than just buying it off the shelf
Cope, worst case scenario all but one part is 100% interchangeable with those of the most common rifle in America.
>So is the previously mentioned Ranch rifle
Also a draw, then.
>...rather than being moron rigged to function in a way it was never intended to
Works without impacting reliability or accuracy, this is a meaningless statement.
>So does "easy to use, generally competent" matter or not?
If you want quick follow up shots, run it in semi-auto. If you're plinking at squirrels or other small game with vastly reduced loads, the mild inconvenience of a longer cycle time makes no difference.
>Same weight as a carbine-length AR without resorting to expensive parts or skeletonization. Draw.
You're looking at about 1/2 lb more with a 16" barrel.
>muh parts commonality
It's a bolt action, there's very little that can go wrong, and if being in some scenario where not being able to order replacement parts for a gun is a concern for you, then you already fucked up by not already having replacement parts on hand.
>If you're plinking at squirrels or other small game with vastly reduced loads
>he thinks limited stuff like taking small game is the only reason to use reduced loads that could run into issues with an autoloader
This is on top of bottlenecked rounds in autoloaders having much shorter case life, meaning higher reloading costs, and requiring additional care when reloading.
>You're looking at about 1/2 lb more with a 16" barrel.
I'll concede a half pound.
>then you already fucked up by not already having replacement parts on hand.
If you're going to quibble over a half pound it's ridiculous to act like parts availability is a non-factor.
>he thinks limited stuff like taking small game is the only reason to use reduced loads that could run into issues with an autoloader
Yes. Or while conserving powder, I suppose, in which case the ability to shoot a mad minute isn't important either. Tell me more about how semi-automatic fire is unnecessary but suddenly rapid follow up shots are a requirement.
>This is on top of bottlenecked rounds in autoloaders having much shorter case life
Three hundred blackout cases can be reloaded 6+ times without issue, any increases in reloading costs are marginal and distributed over a lengthy time frame.
Black powder is far from indestructible. There are tiny fuckin springs in that too and good luck even going to a fudd shop and finding a lock that matches your shit.
what does this blithering retard OP think minimalism means??
complete fucking retardo
a carry handle AR is the most minimalist gun you can ask for
The stock, carry handle, and gas block all play double or triple duty, the operation of the firearm is extremely simple and intuitive, it serves well in virtually all situations any of us are likely to encounter
Agreed. Fuck OP.
My idea of minimalism:
AR-15 w/ irons, red dot, scope, thermal.
Glock 17, 19, 20, or 40 maybe with dot.
Bolt Action .30cal rifle with high power scope.
12 gauge shotgun
.22lr pistol
.22lr rifle scoped
.308 battle rifle with red dot, scope, and thermal
BB gun
Pile of mags, ammo, and parts.
This is as minimalistic as I'll go.
Fuck your minimalistic trope, no gunz.
>what's actually needed for the situations you might encounter to adequately work off of? It seems to me that there would be a lot of benefits from going such a route, such as:
smaller/lighter guns
less recoil to deal with
less expensive ammo/getting more range time for your dollar
able to use components more efficiently during extended ammo shortages if you reload
lighter/more compact ammo for when shooting while traveling/hiking discussion gets brought up here
>Overall it seems like a much comfier way of enjoying guns vs the popular trend of min-maxing off what if scenarios.
Min/maxing different properties based off of different what if-scenarios is still min/maxing off of what if-scenarios.
What what if scenarios did OP propose? Everyone else I've seen talk about what if scenarios here is specifically talking about things that have never happened before or that are ridiculously unlikely to ever happen to you personally (such as being the subject of an organized gang hit where the gang members have no plans of retreating).
>firearms minimalism
If we're talking the bare minimum to get a somewhat accurate/useful firearm then you're talking about milsurp that's been well maintained.
It's nothing special.
In real life, if you are up against a conventional armed force, a civilian in military style kit is easy to identify and neutralize.
Hog hunters use serious weapons equipment, full auto, suppressors, NVG, mag carriers, and a bunch of similar kit that you could reasonably explain as hog hunting equipment, which makes it the perfect excuse.
People post pics online with their face and everything for attention to look "badass" but that's terrible opsec.
If you are a serious guerilla fighter, engaged in an actual armed struggle with the state, looking like a civilian is a good thing.
Being light, compact, nimble, undetectable, and deadly. While fully kitted conventional troops are carrying around a bunch of shit, bulky, less mobile, and stick out like a sore thumb. And let's be honest, may be less physically fit and capable than a highly trained and combat seasoned guerilla soldier from the armed forces.
It only makes sense to post pics with your kit and face if you are openly documenting your militia for political reasons and are absolutely ready for the ATF/feds should they come for your weapons or your militia
Retarded thread. Fuck you OP.
The fuck is this thread even about? Using smaller and lighter components and ammo for what reason? You will NEVER use your firearms for anything. Statistically nobody in this thread will use their gun against another person. You would carry around a ugly neutered gun for that one in a million chance? I'm carrying a .357 six shooter. If I can't neutralize the threat with that I deserve to die. Simple as that
How the fuck do you know? Do you wield a crystal ball along with your brown bess?
Would love to see a musket absolutely fog up a lead-free range. Do minimalists piss in straw-filled barrels in their apartments?
>$500 Ruger Ranch Rifle
>Ugly synthetic stock
>Expensive .450 Bushmaster ammo
>No irons
>Bolt action that gets about 1moa
>I don't even know where to get parts
>Assuming you buy a new one if it breaks, or have to RMA it back to Ruger everytime to not void warranty
>Supporting gun control
Fuck all that just get a $550 PSA AR-15. If you want a bolt action rifle there are way better options.
You dunning kreuger ass baka. You literally described like decades old studies that selected the ar15. Shut the fuck up you sweet summer child.
Because tactitards are worse than fudds ever were. See the posters in this thread who have spent hours of their lives proselytizing about how you need to have an AR-15 and no other gun will do, and the level of mental gymnastics they're resorting to.