- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I see ever so often a thread started which turns on the notion of limiting or thinning down the number of different calibers of gun a given person has in his safe. I can understand it under some circumstances. First and foremost, I can appreciate the value of standardization within a gun-issuing organization, especially a large one. Second, I can understand that if prepping for SHTF is on your agenda, then having 20 guns of different calibers with 50 to 100 rounds each would be a bad plan when you could have half as many guns in 5 calibers and thousands of rounds of ammunition, or have multiples in same caliber to allow common supply or a backup in case of loss or failure so you could actually use that pile of ammunition.
What puzzles me is that at times the discussion reminds me of my grandma. In advanced age, her ways of thinking are different than in years past. One regard in which that comes up is that she doesn't understand buying enough groceries to shop only once a week and she gets distressed at making a crumb more than you are going to use at the moment. I have to remind her on an almost daily basis that leftovers, the refrigerator, and the microwave simplify life greatly. In much the same way, it seems that I see arguments for caliber standardization at a personal level as more a matter of general principle rather than for a reason I can discern. Most of my guns are for either enjoyment or niche purposes which can be performed by a common gun but done more nicely by just exactly the right gun for the right job. Besides, it isn't like I plan on going Mad Max with the CZ452 .17HMR I bought for pest control or staving off evil hordes with a .30-40 Krag. Seriously, as I consider the immutable firearm-related needs I have either in general practice or for preventive purposes, I could cover every conceivable NEED with a 12 gauge shotgun, one defensive handgun, a .22lr rifle, and one centerfire rifle in, say, .223, .243, or .260 Remington, or maybe a Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55. If I didn't mind shotgunning small vermin, the .22 could be removed from the list. That said, the majority of my guns are here either for doing a superior job with a niche of quite simply because I like them.
I can understand the financial pressures which can limit the amount of inventory a person keeps, and I can understand that those who are married have other pressures with the extreme cases being like my grandmother (not the one mentioned above) who virulently resented every penny grandpa spend on himself, even though he spend more on her, with an especially strong hatred of his guns. I can also understand that one's anticipated future needs may be better served with at least some redundancy rather than maximum diversity as previously addressed. I can also understand advice to new gun owners asking advice for what to buy with the relatively standard, predictable and sensible guidance on what should be the first one to five guns a new person buys to cover his needs generally tailored to his living environment and activities. Where I am at a loss is the notion as I understand it to have been presented of simply limiting the calibers in the collection for the sake of doing so.
Then again, I could have thoroughly misunderstood some other people's posts. In any event, it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others on where the proper balance is found.
What puzzles me is that at times the discussion reminds me of my grandma. In advanced age, her ways of thinking are different than in years past. One regard in which that comes up is that she doesn't understand buying enough groceries to shop only once a week and she gets distressed at making a crumb more than you are going to use at the moment. I have to remind her on an almost daily basis that leftovers, the refrigerator, and the microwave simplify life greatly. In much the same way, it seems that I see arguments for caliber standardization at a personal level as more a matter of general principle rather than for a reason I can discern. Most of my guns are for either enjoyment or niche purposes which can be performed by a common gun but done more nicely by just exactly the right gun for the right job. Besides, it isn't like I plan on going Mad Max with the CZ452 .17HMR I bought for pest control or staving off evil hordes with a .30-40 Krag. Seriously, as I consider the immutable firearm-related needs I have either in general practice or for preventive purposes, I could cover every conceivable NEED with a 12 gauge shotgun, one defensive handgun, a .22lr rifle, and one centerfire rifle in, say, .223, .243, or .260 Remington, or maybe a Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55. If I didn't mind shotgunning small vermin, the .22 could be removed from the list. That said, the majority of my guns are here either for doing a superior job with a niche of quite simply because I like them.
I can understand the financial pressures which can limit the amount of inventory a person keeps, and I can understand that those who are married have other pressures with the extreme cases being like my grandmother (not the one mentioned above) who virulently resented every penny grandpa spend on himself, even though he spend more on her, with an especially strong hatred of his guns. I can also understand that one's anticipated future needs may be better served with at least some redundancy rather than maximum diversity as previously addressed. I can also understand advice to new gun owners asking advice for what to buy with the relatively standard, predictable and sensible guidance on what should be the first one to five guns a new person buys to cover his needs generally tailored to his living environment and activities. Where I am at a loss is the notion as I understand it to have been presented of simply limiting the calibers in the collection for the sake of doing so.
Then again, I could have thoroughly misunderstood some other people's posts. In any event, it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others on where the proper balance is found.
