need advise

[DarrinD]

Here's my one cent: If I were you, and I assume financial constraints prevent you from doing all you want to do now. If that's true, I would assume that that situation will continue so I would keep the BM you have because you will lose money on any BM you sell. You have a good number of mags now, and there will be plenty available in the future. I really don't think any type of AWB or mag ban will be on the radar of the next president/congress.

If you feel you NEED another carbine right away for SD, SHTF purposes, and just can't fund the one you want now, how about a cheap 12ga. pump shotgun with a side saddle loaded with slugs for longer range. Or, this may sound crazy, but I know a guy who took a carbine class with a lever action .44 Magnum and did well. For SD/SHTF purposes, I personally would choose an AR and a SG, not two carbines. The SG can do some things an AR can't, and vice versa. Just ideas, but at least one working carbine is better than none.

[RogerinTPA]

I vote E. Read this thread.https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7376
Most of the quick fixes are expensive and will keep your weapon running reliably. Check out the knowledge based threads here https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7009

[moonshot]

Thanks for all the replies. I know these open-ended questions sometimes get old, but I suffer from the condition of limited funds and too much time to think about things.

If I decide to stick with the .223 round exclusively (which is where I'm leaning), I think I'll go with option B - keep my Bushy and buy a Tier-1 lower now, with upper to follow. A spare rifle makes more sense to me than a box of spare parts or a few extra rounds.

I do have a follow up question regarding the 9mm carbine, however. Considering most people will go their whole life without ever needing to "use" a firearm in defense (whether a round is fired or not), and of those who do, it is more likely to be a handgun rather than a long gun (handguns are frequently carried and long guns aren't, we spend more of our time away from home, and thus away from our long guns, than we do at home), and ranges to engaged targets are likely to be 50 yards or less, why does the pistol caliber carbine get such a thrashing over the rifle caliber carbine?

I realize no handgun caliber is remotely equal to the .223, let alone a larger rifle caliber, but rifle rounds are significantly more expensive than pistol rounds (at least .223 vs 9mm) and rifles are much louder than pistol caliber carbines (especially indoors, where we are more likely to be if using our long guns). When I shoot my hand guns, I wear either ear plugs or ear muffs. When I shoot my AR, I wear ear plugs AND ear muffs.

If one could buy two pistol caliber carbines for the same price as one rifle caliber carbine of equal quality, and if one can stock up on twice as much defensive ammo for the pistol caliber carbine as for the rifle caliber carbine, would that not make good sense?

Having a .223 or larger for TEOTWAWKI scenario may make some sense, but the more likely scenario (I hope) is the home invasion or break down of civil order following a natural or made-made disaster.

I don't see too many people advocating we take out rioters 200 yards away. Our target ranges will be much less. Would not the extra rifle or two be of greater utility than the extra power?

Perhaps a better idea would be one .223 and one 9mm carbine, rather than two of the same caliber. You would have one carbine ideally suited for short range home defense and one carbine better suited for long range defense. The drawback is neither is really a great backup to the other. The .223 could be employed at short range, but ammo stocks will likely be limited, and the 9mm is not well suited for long range defense.

I'm not advocating one option over the other, I'm really curious as to the "logic" of this position. Please critique, and if you want to call me an idiot, you won't hurt my feelings. I'm doing this to learn.

Thanks.

[Bimmer]

My musings:

A 9mm carbine doesn't make any sense. The advantage of a long gun over a pistol is its greater firepower, but chambering a long gun for 9mm negates this. 5.56mm packs several times as much energy as 9mm... Why hit somebody with a 9mm when you could hit him with a 5.56mm?

If the SHTF, then you won't be worried about long term hearing loss.

If the SHTF, then you won't care how much the ammo you expend cost. If you're worried about practicing with 5.56, then buy a .22lr conversion kit.
If you're worried about stockpiling ammunition, then don't. Unless you're planning to equip an army, I don't know why you'd need more than several hundred rounds of ammunition. If civilization collapses, then you're probably not going to expend 100 rounds a week at the shooting range anymore.
I still can't imagine a SHTF situation in which I'd expend more than 4-5 magazines full of ammuntion. Even if the world ends, I don't think I'm likely to expend any more before one side or the other is either disabled or disengaged. My sense is that most firefights are over very quickly, and that there would barely be any chance to reload at all.

On the other hand, I like the idea of having a spare rifle. I've got two identical Glocks. I like to think that if the world comes to an end, then I can hand off a rifle to somebody else. My non-gun-owning friends and neighbors and I do joke that if the SHTF, then they'll come over to my house. It'd be nice to be able to arm them appropriately.

You're right about having a better chance of really needing/using a pistol that you can carry concealed than a long gun. Practice with your pistol, too, but remember that if the S really HTF, then you really want to get to your long gun ASAP.

Again, that's just my 2¢,

Ben