Shotgun or AR, Which Would You Choose?

[H. neanderthalensis]

If you could have only one to choose from during the zombie apocalypse, which would you take and why?

I'm talking about survival for the long haul. You may have to hunt for food, fight off bad guys, or become a bad guy, etc. Carrying two long guns with ammo wouldn't be practical anyway.

So what are you going to carry?

[Silent Kube]

While I like the shotgun, carrying enough ammo to feed it poses some serious problems. I don't have an AR but if I did I think I'd go with that.

[Quick Shot xMLx]

Right now the shotgun as I don't own an AR or any rifle. Ask me in a month or two and my answer would be a VZ-58. A semi-auto rifle>shotgun. 30 rounds>8 shells it's as simple as that. Plus it's way faster to change magazines than shove shells down the tube.

[Dave_M]

Moved to ZCT

[Dooms]

While I like shotguns, I'd have to go with an AR. Biggest reason for me, is the weight of ammunition. 12ga Shotgun ammo is just excessively heavy and bulky.

[jamoni]

You may have to ...become a bad guy

Um, what?

[AKFTW]

Rifle over Shotgun if I had to choose, no doubt.

[sqeeler]

I think if I could only have 1 it would be my Wilson Combat Vang Comped 870. This thing is good out to 100yds.

[H. neanderthalensis]

You may have to ...become a bad guy

Um, what?

Well, I'm considering all aspects of apocalyptic survival. It doesn't seem rational or logical that all people would be morally righteous during every situation they may encounter under extreme circumstances.

Here's an example. A group of heavily armed men meet in the woods during the zombie outbreak and manage to last a good while in isolation. Naturally those with type "A" personalities would take charge and naturally there would be a lot of mochismo and competition between these male survivors creating dissention and bitter rivalries. Winter is approaching and water and food become short in supply and women are absent. They talk and discuss (argue) about what to do. They know there must be other survivors around with possible supplies. They're armed. They know another group may not share it's own dwindling supplies with them. Some of the men protest about becoming thieves, some don't. The group splits or it stays together, but one thing is clear; they must find food. An unstable consesus is reached and violence against others becomes justified to insure the survival of the group. Add sexual frustration into the mix and you have a volatile cocktail brewing.

Now imagine that you are a member of this group and you're starving. You may are may not be in a leadership role. You are not an unethical person, but peer pressure, fear, and desperation are taking its toll on you. You don't want to become a target or become stigmatized. Going against the grain with the other men in your group who have a plan to take action to change their bitter circumstances may not be wise. You've been with the group for some time and each member has become dependent on this group dynamic.

What would you do? Does this scenario seem plausible?

[Einher]

Billy here doesn't see the point in choosing, and neither do I.

This thread is just going to turn into another rehash of every other 'rifle vs. shotgun' thread.



Because it's ultimately ridiculous to choose, and this is easily the hundredth time this topic has been posted.
I will have my cake and eat it too.

[dukman]

I will go with 12 gauge 'cause that is what I have. If I had the money for one, I would say Saiga .410 instead...

[austin93906]

Mosin Nagant(s)

[AwPhuch]

AR

A. More boolits
B. Pinpoint accuracy
C. Much more range
D. Damage at shotgun range is INCREDIBLE even for a teeny .223
E. More boolits

[MikeM]

Really? I know that there are a lot of people out there on the internet still preaching the gospel of the shotgun, but all the old hack has been debunked over and over.
The carbines (take your pick of which one) won.

-Mike

[Unassigned]

Obviously the AR.

But I agree with Einherjrar on this one. Billy never had to choose. Master Key system FTW.

[jamoni]

You may have to ...become a bad guy

Um, what?

Well, I'm considering all aspects of apocalyptic survival. It doesn't seem rational or logical that all people would be morally righteous during every situation they may encounter under extreme circumstances.

Here's an example. A group of heavily armed men meet in the woods during the zombie outbreak and manage to last a good while in isolation. Naturally those with type "A" personalities would take charge and naturally there would be a lot of mochismo and competition between these male survivors creating dissention and bitter rivalries. Winter is approaching and water and food become short in supply and women are absent. They talk and discuss (argue) about what to do. They know there must be other survivors around with possible supplies. They're armed. They know another group may not share it's own dwindling supplies with them. Some of the men protest about becoming thieves, some don't. The group splits or it stays together, but one thing is clear; they must find food. An unstable consesus is reached and violence against others becomes justified to insure the survival of the group. Add sexual frustration into the mix and you have a volatile cocktail brewing.

Now imagine that you are a member of this group and you're starving. You may are may not be in a leadership role. You are not an unethical person, but peer pressure, fear, and desperation are taking its toll on you. You don't want to become a target or become stigmatized. Going against the grain with the other men in your group who have a plan to take action to change their bitter circumstances may not be wise. You've been with the group for some time and each member has become dependent on this group dynamic.

What would you do? Does this scenario seem plausible?

Pretty much what I thought you meant, but I wanted to make sure.
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=19895
Please take a look at the forum rules, specifically the one about no discussion of illegal activities as a viable option. Thanks!
EDIT: Also, AR15.

[J.C.]

Obviously a shotgun since you do not have to aim.

[HMPlatinum]

Only one? For the long haul? AR for MILSPEC ammo. Not .223

Mag capacity
Ammo weight
Range

[AwPhuch]

Obviously a shotgun since you do not have to aim.

HAHAHAHAHAH...good luck with that one!

[Paladin1]

Not only do you not have to aim a shotgun because it throws a cone of death, but really, all you really need to do is rack the slide. Because that ther noise is scary as shit and stops bad guys from doing their bad things.

[Silent Kube]

Not only do you not have to aim a shotgun because it throws a cone of death, but really, all you really need to do is rack the slide. Because that ther noise is scary as shit and stops bad guys from doing their bad things.

Also, similar to the elusive brown note, it causes everyone within three blocks to involuntarily evacuate their bowels.

[sworbeyegib]

My mossberg can hold 8 rounds in the tube, 1 in the chamber, 6 on the sidesaddle, and 8 on the buttcuff holder. Thats 23 shells, still less than a single magazine.

So, AR.

[TDW586]

My mossberg can hold 8 rounds in the tube, 1 in the chamber, 6 on the sidesaddle, and 8 on the buttcuff holder. Thats 23 shells, still less than a single magazine.

So, AR.

Exactly why I hated my issued 870 as a primary weapon. My entire response loadout (on the gun, buttcuff, and on my vest) consisted of less ammunition than I'd have in a single loaded AR, with downloaded 28 round magazines, and no spare magazines. This does not make me happy. TDW likes mucho ammo.

My AR is sitting in the corner across from me at the moment. In any conceivable situation involving the potential for hostile fire, of all the weapons I own, a good AR is the one I want in my hand if possible.

[KentsOkay]

Its obvious. Saiga 12.