The question has come up in the past (generated 78 responses in 25 days, and that was before the most recent ammo shortage) about how much ammo a person should have on hand. As things have first gotten worse, and then better (well, at least better than they were a year ago), the subject has somewhat faded from view. But now, it is looking like things are not going to get better than they are right now, and could be a whole lot worse.
The question has met with quite a range of answers before. Everything from "if you're not drowning or on fire, you can't have too much ammo" to a slightly more normal "thinking 1,000 rounds per gun or per cal owned then buy a box shoot a box" to a recent moron saying "So you're advocating that everyone reading this article should continue to hoard and buy everything in sight, furthering the shortage that is a direct result of the behavior you advocate for? Thanks for adding fuel to the fire."
Well somewhere between the two extremes, there must be some reasonable measure that can be used. Over the past several months, I have been advising people to acquire a 3 years supply, at whatever rate they normally expect to use it for practice, hunting or whatever. I suggested this simply as a precaution to take against the next shortage, but, eventually I think that needs to be looked at with a wider perspective.
Prior to the the Sandy Hook shooting, the subsequent politically motivated attack on gun owners and the widespread response that lead to an almost yearlong gun and ammo shortage, there were two other shortage periods. One when Barrack Hussein got into office and one when the DHS decided to buy 450 Million rounds (eventually seemed to grow to over 1000 Million rounds) of ammo, to surreptitiously stockpile.
Over the course of these past few years, most of us have found workarounds to enable us to train a little more economically. This began with rifles and handguns that use 22LR ammo instead of more expensive 45, 556, or 7.62 ammo. So now (this is one of many reasons) we have a shortage of 22LR, also. We also incorporated more dry fire and more AirSoft training, which improves skills that would be difficult to practice with live ammo.
Also, we need to consider the change of social climate, and the threat that our civilization is on the brink of collapse, where we might need to defend our families and neighborhoods from roving bands of thugs, and the government might decide to curtail our ability to acquire ammo (or a war in Ukraine might make it harder to obtain). (I'll leave other possible changes in the social and political climate unsaid, but understood.)
Certain factors could make a difference. If someone is planning to attend a training class, most require you to bring 400 rounds (FrontSight requires 800). The new standard FBI course of fire is 60 rounds, so if you did that quarterly for three years, that would be 720 rounds, if you did that monthly it would be 2160 rounds. Since these things vary from person to person, I word my recommendation as "three years supply."
And that brings me back to the need to take another look at the subject.
The question has met with quite a range of answers before. Everything from "if you're not drowning or on fire, you can't have too much ammo" to a slightly more normal "thinking 1,000 rounds per gun or per cal owned then buy a box shoot a box" to a recent moron saying "So you're advocating that everyone reading this article should continue to hoard and buy everything in sight, furthering the shortage that is a direct result of the behavior you advocate for? Thanks for adding fuel to the fire."
Well somewhere between the two extremes, there must be some reasonable measure that can be used. Over the past several months, I have been advising people to acquire a 3 years supply, at whatever rate they normally expect to use it for practice, hunting or whatever. I suggested this simply as a precaution to take against the next shortage, but, eventually I think that needs to be looked at with a wider perspective.
Prior to the the Sandy Hook shooting, the subsequent politically motivated attack on gun owners and the widespread response that lead to an almost yearlong gun and ammo shortage, there were two other shortage periods. One when Barrack Hussein got into office and one when the DHS decided to buy 450 Million rounds (eventually seemed to grow to over 1000 Million rounds) of ammo, to surreptitiously stockpile.
Over the course of these past few years, most of us have found workarounds to enable us to train a little more economically. This began with rifles and handguns that use 22LR ammo instead of more expensive 45, 556, or 7.62 ammo. So now (this is one of many reasons) we have a shortage of 22LR, also. We also incorporated more dry fire and more AirSoft training, which improves skills that would be difficult to practice with live ammo.
Also, we need to consider the change of social climate, and the threat that our civilization is on the brink of collapse, where we might need to defend our families and neighborhoods from roving bands of thugs, and the government might decide to curtail our ability to acquire ammo (or a war in Ukraine might make it harder to obtain). (I'll leave other possible changes in the social and political climate unsaid, but understood.)
Certain factors could make a difference. If someone is planning to attend a training class, most require you to bring 400 rounds (FrontSight requires 800). The new standard FBI course of fire is 60 rounds, so if you did that quarterly for three years, that would be 720 rounds, if you did that monthly it would be 2160 rounds. Since these things vary from person to person, I word my recommendation as "three years supply."
And that brings me back to the need to take another look at the subject.
