firearm minimalism

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.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's been plenty of it over the years. Open your eyes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Such as?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Every single greentexted bullet point in your OP has been used to argue for the proliferation of AR-15 over full-power rifles.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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?
      Such as not being turbonew to guns. Use the internet. Search homie, search.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I've been on /k/ 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Get those cataracts checked then I don't know what to tell you.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          We have
          >x is all you need
          threads every single day. You're either lying, actually moronic, or trolling, I don't know which one is worse.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >citing threads that are primarily shitposting as an example

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Probably because they're parodies of the minimalist crunch/poorgay cope threads that spring up every time there's a happening.

              Every single greentexted bullet point in your OP has been used to argue for the proliferation of AR-15 over full-power rifles.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Probably because they're parodies
                So you cede my point that there isn't actual discussion here.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because the discussion was settled half a decade if not more prior so all that is left is to jest.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How many times do you expect us to meaningfully repeat "just buy an AR and a glock?"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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"
                ???

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                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.

                >the cheapest, most common rifle cartridge
                Only if you ignore the options you can reload for less even at current component prices.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    isn't that pretty much the entire point of the .22lr

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >.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

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >firearm minimalism
    sounds like some gay shit to me

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s a man btw.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Every single non moronic 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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      more comfy maybe, but way less fun.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If it's so comfy, why the frick do you still stay inside all day and not do shit other than post here?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ah yes binland or pakistan. Marvels of the earth.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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 Black folk? 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 Black folk some more and then complain that the Black folk stay Black folk".

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              US spends more on social services than your entire country spends on everything

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The US also has significantly more inhabitants than any other western country. How much does it pay per inhabitant or as share of GDP?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      lol you're the same ChatGPT gay
      as over in the uncomfortable truths thread

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Go back to r*ddit homosexual bong

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      man I never would have expected that bait to work

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >using a modern option is more minimalist than using an option from the 1800s
      Do you even understand what minimalism is?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 geargay solution.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/
          Begone, Thot.
          [...]
          Removing unnecessary and excess things and retaining that which is only necessary or does the most things decently instead, would be my take. Pretty much "spartan". Owning a single AR-15 for all rifle needs is pretty minimalist as it cuts down on excess while retaining functionality. Buying some gun from the 1800s thats actually objectively shit at half of the things youd need a rifle for while being ok at the others isnt minimalism, its compromise for aesthetics and emotional reasons. Owning such a firearm isnt "minimalist", its favoring form over function and rather superfluous.

          >an AR-15 is more minimalist than a muzzle loader
          How much drugs did you partake in to reach this conclusion?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well you see, if you read the posts you respond to sometimes they will explain themselves.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I need a baggie of shit any time I take my Hawken out. Not to mention cleaning.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/dAS6mdc.jpg

                [...]
                >an AR-15 is more minimalist than a muzzle loader
                How much drugs did you partake in to reach this conclusion?

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                a trade rifle from 1775 had maybe 7-9 parts total and could be assembled with 2-4 screws

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >minimalism

                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.

                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.

                >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.

                that's not minimalism you colossal homosexual, that is convenience, which defined b the use of extremely complex systems to render a cheap, repeatable outcome
                fricking Cup Noodle is minimalist by your definition you idiot

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

                >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?

                Then he's a moronic Black person and doesn't know what the word minimalism means and can be ignored like the drooling monkey he is.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Then he's a moronic Black person and doesn't know what the word minimalism means and can be ignored like the drooling monkey he is.
                >t. a moronic Black person 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I said you were right. A muzzleloader is more minimalistic then an AR-15, you're just being moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                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.

                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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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 fricking 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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >post about minimalism
              >opens up with b***hing about performance vs the latest and greatest
              I stopped reading there.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Your reading comprehension is on par with that of a grade schooler or the average women.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >poster I replied to is an incel
                And I'm happy I decided not to waste my time reading.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Then he's a moronic Black person and doesn't know what the word minimalism means and can be ignored like the drooling monkey he is.
              >t. a moronic Black person 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

              This guys just word lawyering the correct definition of minimalist but lacks ability to see what op is really asking (I think?). Also a fricking 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

              >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.

              Never Say Never and don't move the goalposts homosexual

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                idk what to tell you OP, maybe don't use a homosexual 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 moronic 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 frick 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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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 fricking gun you purchase. Just fricking carry a gun with you around your home at that point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What the frick 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >that response
                Are you even able to function in society?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >A blackpowder firearm requires more equipment and more specialized equipment to use than an AR-15

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

              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!

              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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    why is op always an annoying obtuse homosexual?

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >firearm minimalism
    This is just cope. I'm a firearm minimalist because im poor.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 frick with. I only own one legit glock, and like 3 p80s and a 3d printed piece, picrel is my "19/26"

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I thought that was a EDC thread?

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Anon what you're describing in of itself is a form of min maxing

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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 b***hes
    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

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You forgot something.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because most of /k/ 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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 fricking moron.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >for people not to discuss kit for specific scenarios
            You really are moronic aren't you?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >moron doesn't know what "what if scenario" means
                Frick off moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Literally not what anyone here is referring to when they say "what if scenario" you fricking moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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 homosexual and needs to lurk moar or at least narrow down his buzzword word salad definition of "Firearm Minimalism"

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who let /arg/ out of their hole?

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Neat.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >thread is mainly ARgays screeching because muh AR has to be the best gun for everything
    God this board is shit.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is gay and moronic. OP is probably David Hogg.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Black powder is cool but dated as frick. 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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What do you do when you run out of Ammo?

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    #
    I said "well-suited for," not "the best at, " or "required to effectively conduct." An AR is indisputably well-suited for competition and self-defense, though other options have advantages in specific situations.
    But we aren't talking about specific situations. We're talking about a gun that is generally useful for a variety of things. Most people would not be comfortable using a handgun in common defensive calibers to hunt with at common hunting ranges, and the inverse is also true for defending yourself with specially-optimized pistol hunting calibers. You can defend yourself with an AR, you can hunt with an AR, you can accurately shoot at long-ish distances with an AR, and you can do all that both easily and cheaply. Without specifying certain use cases (must be a viable CCW, no interest in shooting beyond 50yds, must be able to operate with a constrained ammo supply, whatever), its just a lowest common denominator that ticks a bunch of boxes.

    [...]
    Damage to the barrel would be a good example. I think you might've misread my post, I'm not arguing that ARs are hard to repair.

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What the frick do you mean? Pig hunting is a perfect example why you don't want just a 9mm pistol. Not the only reason as well.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Pig hunting is a perfect example why you don't want just a 9mm pistol.
        Read my post again fricktard. 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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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 frick is having a pistol and rifle worse than that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >moron 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

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Your better option is highly regulated. If you like your idea so much, help repeal NFA.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        >moron 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

        >if they really didn't want to
        *did want to

        Your better option is highly regulated. If you like your idea so much, help repeal NFA.

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Didn't read. Get the list posted above.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What specific rifle would you suggest as an alternative?
            See:

            >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

            , 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.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >What other benefits?
                See

                >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?

                . 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >light
                A Ruger Ranch rifle in .300 BLK, which does everything the AR you mentioned wold without needing to be Black person rigged into something it was never meant to be, weighs less than 6 lbs.

                >cheap
                Your Black person 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 Black person 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 Black person 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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A .30-30 Contender does everything your Ram Ranch Rifle does, weighs less then 4lbs, and takes up less space in your vandwelling rig.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >no stock
                Other than that, I don't see an issue if it does the job. Still makes more sense than Black person rigging an AR into something it was never meant to be due to AR autism.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >weighs less than 6 lbs
                Same weight as a carbine-length AR without resorting to expensive parts or skeletonization. Draw.
                >Your Black person 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 Black person 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 Black person 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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 fricked 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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You're looking at about 1/2 lb more with a 16" barrel.
                I'll concede a half pound.

                >then you already fricked 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.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Black powder is far from indestructible. There are tiny frickin springs in that too and good luck even going to a fudd shop and finding a lock that matches your shit.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what does this blithering moron OP think minimalism means??
    complete fricking morono
    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed. Frick OP.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Frick your minimalistic trope, no gunz.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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).

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    moronic thread. Frick you OP.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The frick 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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How the frick do you know? Do you wield a crystal ball along with your brown bess?

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Would love to see a musket absolutely fog up a lead-free range. Do minimalists piss in straw-filled barrels in their apartments?

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >$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

    Frick all that just get a $550 PSA AR-15. If you want a bolt action rifle there are way better options.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You dunning kreuger ass baka. You literally described like decades old studies that selected the ar15. Shut the frick up you sweet summer child.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *