I've never bought into the whole "fewer rounds make you a better shot" mentality. I know some old school LEOs will say a revolver is a better weapon due to blowback, aim recovery and the fact that you have fewer shots to place which should make you a better shot.

I'm of the opinion that practice makes you a good shot and that any deficit perceived in a semi-auto can be trained out of the use of said weapon. I'm a pretty good shot with anything you put in my hands and have been since I was a kid. I couldn't care less if it's a revolver or a semi or a shotgun. What I DO know is that if I've practiced with a weapon, I can lay down a shot on about anything, even if it's moving. Now, given that I've obviously practiced with my weapon and I can hit what I want when I want, why would I limit myself to a small number of rounds?

Sure, there are those who might scatter/spray, but that's just crap training and they lean on volume as a crutch. While I tend to agree that in a survival situation that ammo might be scarce, it doesn't mean that I'd want a one shot weapon. Ever. Seriously, what's the point? If anyone can make a reasonable argument, I'd love to hear it. Especially in a survival situation... If you are already carrying the weight of a weapon, why not carry some rounds to make it worth it's weight? Should I carry my camp stove with 10cc of fuel?

And I can think of a lot of animals, 0, 2 and 4 legged varieties, which make me think an accurate firearm would be a good thing to have. The more ammo the merrier.

With this site all about being equipped, I just can't see how a single shot anything could be as beneficial as a multi-shot equivalent. A shot can go wide with a single shot firearm just as easily as a multi, but I know I can get off another round in a semi-auto a hell of a lot faster than reloading a single. Plus a magazine is a more convenient place to locate your small quota of ammo than in a special pouch or loose in a pocket.