It's become almost an axiom that when choosing firearms you should always try to acquire the more common calibers on the theory that these will be the easiest to find ammo for during and after a major disaster. I myself have repeated this on more than one occasion. But I find myself questioning it now, at least a little.

Imagine this scenario: a small asteroid (>100 meters) is projected to strike the earth within 48 hours. You are near to, but not in the projected blast zone. However, the authorities expect hundreds of thousands of evacuees to shortly pour into your area. You decide that you better have another hundred rounds for your favorite hunting rifle. You scurry down to the local Walmart and get in line at the Sporting goods counter, only to find that the first 20 people ahead of you have bought out all of the 30.06 ammo. You are out of luck. But the guy behind you gets the 3 boxes of .280 Remington he needs because nobody else in line has a rifle in that caliber.

Some will argue that this is a good reason to stockpile. I'm not going to dispute that here. But it's just as easy to stockpile uncommon calibers as the common ones.

Others may argue that the reason to acquire the more common calibers is that it will be easier to find them after TSHTF. I can't argue with that either, but it seems to me that if you are worried about having to rely on others to supply you with ammo you might be better off increasing your own stash beforehand.

I guess maybe what I am trying to say is that the warning to stay away from uncommon calibers might be a little overblown. Comments anyone?

Reload your own.

An excellent suggestion. Cast your own as well if you can! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Interesting point. One could do a cost-analysis comparing the cost of a rifle in a less common caliber versus spending the same amount of money on ammo for a common-caliber firearm. My choice was to stock up on ammo but only because I shoot military surplus (7.62 x39 & 54) which are relatively cheap. More expensive rounds might swing the math to adding a different rifle.

Hmmm, maybe you could use such a math-analysis to win over a reluctant spouse. "See, I actually save money if I buy XXX rifle!" <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-Blast

Interesting post. After thinking about your post I would argue that having a common ammo rifle & a more uncommon one would cover both your bases. Assuming you could afford it. If you really can only justify one then I think the more common one is the way to go. But you have brought up an excellent counter strategy that may pay off in the rush on ammo scenario.

That never worked for me. I prefer: "Actually honey, this one is for you!" (Come to think of it, that one doesn't work either..... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

That's an interesting and different take. But what I was mildly decrying was the tendency of some to discount the rarer calibers as good survival choices in favor of the common ones. I guess my advice would now go something like: "If you are looking for your first scoped hunting rifle, buy a 30.06. But if you already have Grampa's old .257 Roberts then you don't necessarily need another."

Let me just say this about reloading. Yes it is much cheaper if you reload......just don't use it for self defense if you have the option of using commercially manufactured ammo. Just imagine getting to court and the defense attorney presenting you as the "psycopathic survivalist" who just could use 'ordinary' ammo but had to go out and manufacture his own 'super deadly ammo'.

LE has in its numerous databases all the ballistic info they need to confirm your story about how far you were when you fired and where you fired from. Just like highway patrol can determine your speed from the skid marks...so can the forensic team determine if you were telling the truth. Use handloaded ammo and all bets will be off......Practice with it. By all means. Load a bunch to the same load as your commercial load.....you'll get the same feel. Just leave the reloads for the range.....

I think that you need to plan on having or reloading any ammo you will need.
That is one reason why .22LR is such a good choice for some firearm needs. You could literally store hundreds of thousand rounds if you needed. Yes it will not fill all roles but it is a good way to conserve the other more expensive and perhaps rare calibers for more specific applications. You could hunt with the .22 and save your .357, 9MM, .30-06, .270 etc. for other stuff like defense and larger game.
I would not expect to have a chance to buy ammo during a crisis even at the very onset. It is like thinking you will be able to buy gas but there will be lines and not enough to go around. Does anyone remember the last 2-3 months before the end of 1999? I worked at a large REI and we were super busy and kept running out of EVERYTHING.
Whatever it may be; if you don't have it "before" you will not be able to get it "during" or "after" and you probably would be more safe if you didn't.
Stockpile anyway.

Only another hundred rounds??? By no means am I a survivalist, or do I shoot more then once or twice a month but I like to keep a few thousand rounds on hand for just such an emergency. The wife thinks I am nuts for this, but damn near everything I do just gives her one more reason to think I have took one more step over the line.

I will agree with Blast on the mill surplus 7.62x39, it is a good round and still can be found a good prices at gun shows and your big outdoor stores ( Cabela’s) and local gun shops