THE GUN LIFE: Practical Caliber Choices

By: Jay Loeffers

Hi everyone! Let’s not look at guns today, but the ammunition that goes into them. Let’s face it… without ammo, a gun is a paperweight or a wall hanger. So, if you want to get your arsenal started, what calibers should you buy the most of? Is it as easy to buy and plentiful? Is this round used by hunters, military or law enforcement? Let’s look at the most widespread use of calibers and the reasons to stick with these in a limited budget or first time gun buyer arsenal situation.


This common round is a century old and sooo much fun. Invented by Smith and Wesson as the number one cartridge, it has been the staple of plinkers, target shooters, trainers, preppers and family outings for the longest time and is the most manufactured ammunition in history. There is no budget guilt when you shoot all day with .22 ammo. An average “brick” which is between 400 to 500 rounds in a bulk box costs around $15 to $18, depending on brand. With all of the many types of bullets out there (hollow points, fragmentation, shotshell, tracers), just pick your poison. For the first time prepper, the .22 offers value and versatility with gun actions offered from simple single-action to bolt-action, all the way up to training with tactical semi-auto AR-15, AK-47 or MP-5 style rifles. There are plenty of ways to have fun such as small game hunting or close range defense.


Here is an oldey, but a goodie and another nod to versatility. This old man of the western frontier made its bones with outlaw and lawman alike and why not? At close range, its devastating and easy to learn to use. This round can come in many different flavors (bird shot, 00 Buck, slugs, novelty loads: dragon’s breath, bolo, net, beanbag and even a taser load – ouch). You have many ways to defend and feed your family and with the plethora of shotguns out on the market from the old school coach gun, to the self drooling AK-47 auto shotgun (please check your laws on ownership), this will keep you well protected.

THE .308WIN/7.62X51MM

Great for those long range shots or extra penetration when needed. This has been a standard round for both big game hunters and military snipers for years and has played a role in heavy machine guns as well. It’s sold everywhere.

THE 7.62X39

This cold war era round is made in every back water commie country you could list and some you can’t. Its sold in bulk and the prices are good, but you have to watch for ammo with corrosive primers and some with gummed up action coatings on the casings. It’s a good defense round up to 5 yards. After that, it goes all over the place and it has great penetration up against cinder blocks and steel plates.

THE .223REM/5.56X45MM

As it stands right now, this is the number one selling rifle round in America and I will tell you why. Almost all gun manufacturers make and sell the AR-15 platform rifle and with gun sales beyond imagination, the ammo supply side has to keep up. This little high speed, low drag round has been around since 1962 and is good for medium sized game, varmints, close range defense and because of its size, you can carry more rounds. I have a Ruger mini-14 and with the many types of .223 ammo out there and at great prices (Russian made steel cased at between $6 to $7 per 20 round box), the Ruger will eat it.


Please always do your homework concerning the ammo you buy and don’t buy into the latest fad calibers (45gap, 357sig, 400corbon, 41ae, too rare and too expensive). Now, if you want to hand load… a warning, this will not save you much money and is time consuming, so ask yourself a question. Do I have the time to learn to hand load and can I afford to do it?


Here is another old dog in the arms race and is the most manufactured caliber worldwide. This round during its early years in America, had a well deserved bad reputation for underwhelming performance and a wimpy knock down. Today, with the new bullets that are out there and training based on shot placement, it is not a bad round for the first time gun owner. Know what’s really funny? I can get 9mm for $9 to $10 a box on the Internet, but the little .380acp costs more. A hint for the prepper… buy lots of 9mm and I mean lots of it. You will have a barter item during hard times and the same goes with the .22lr – buy a ton of it.


Have this caliber on hand because 60% of law enforcement have this round (Glocks mostly). This middle child of ammo has been around for over 20 years with a good track record and with hollow points even better. But to be honest, just stock up on FMJs – they are more bang for the buck and with that size of a bullet, you don’t really need hollow points. Not at nearly $1 a round.


I love the .45. I have been shooting it for a long time, but it is very expensive and not every family guy can afford it. But if you can go for it, the .45 has a long and great history. Again, just buy the FMJ. Its the cheaper way to go and besides… hollow points cost too much for the average working class Joe.


These rounds are together because a double action revolver can chamber both. This bodes well for these rounds and their versatility and cost. Yes, the revolver is heavy; some say out it’s dated as well. But used ones are well priced and women find revolvers easy to use and to train with.

Want more information on ammo? [email protected]


U.N. to debut plan for world socialism in June–time for US to exit?

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

Is this the introduction of “Agenda 21?”
Photo credit: Google Images

The United Nations is holding its’ “Conference on Sustainable Development” in Rio de Janero, Brazil, over three separate sessions in June, to which organizers, led by UN Conference Secretary-General of Rio+20, Sha Zukang [who ‘really doesn’t like Americans’], expect 193 attendees from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders, according to the Sarah de Sainte Croix March 20, 2012 article in The Rio Times.

The stated themes of this colossal conference, which is structured around a 204-page report titled, “Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective,” are “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication,” … [by and through] … “the institutional framework for sustainable development,” according to George Russell’s excellent and quoted-filled FOXNews article today.

More specifically, the debates will cover a … ‘breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected–from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement.

According to Russell, the Obama Administration officials have supported this “agenda,” which is designed to ‘make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, “a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

According to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” include:

–‘More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure … climate adaptation … other green economy” measures.’

–‘New carbon taxes for industrialized countries [amounting to] about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of [US] GDP by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.’

–‘Further unspecified price hikes … derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use [industries], all of which would be radically reorganized–[to] “contribute to a more level playing field between established, ‘brown’ technologies and newer, greener ones.”‘

— ‘Major global social spending programs, including a “social protection floor” and “social safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.”’

–‘Even more social benefits for those displaced by [this] green economy revolution—such as those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits.”‘

–‘A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted … “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services, vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups, must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided.”‘

“Transforming the global economy will require action locally (e.g., through land use planning), at the national level (e.g., through energy-use regulations) and at the international level (e.g., through technology diffusion),” the document says.

It involves “profound changes in economic systems, in resource efficiency, in the composition of global demand, in production and consumption patterns and a major transformation in public policy-making.” It will also require “a serious rethinking of lifestyles in developed countries.”

This ‘UN guidebook for global social engineering,’ was prepared by the Geneva-based United Nations Environmental Management Group (UNEMG), a consortium of 36 U.N. agencies, development banks and environmental bureaucracies–all of which rely on the contributions, from tax collecting nations for their very existence–not a single entity engaged in the production of goods or services, producing a profit and owning singular wealth.

This UN doctrine seems to directly channel Marx and Engel’s scribe of 1848, “The Communist Manifesto,” wherein its’ organizational and operational structure appears to largely be a paraphrasical equivalent to the 10 short-term demands Marx prescribed in section II., “Proletarians and Communists.”

However, instead of the UN overthrowing the capitalist system, it simply wants to tie it to a leash and be subject to the UN … [a] ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ to redistribute wealth around the world to “magically elevate the poverty class to the middle class.

The United States, arguably the most fertile and favorable ground for such a massive experiment, has already spent $15 [T]rillion in taxpayer treasure over the past 47 years attempting to circumvent market forces and eliminate poverty–with no affect.

Additionally, study after study has revealed the UN to have grown into an impossibly dysfunctional gargantuan, having negligent management skills, metrics and accountability, and a source of financially wasteful pandering–second only to the U.S. General Services Administration.

Actually, as this directly smacks of the long-discussed “UN Agenda 21,” America must treat this audacity of the United Nations as a wake up call, and say “[last] check please”–then hit the UN exit doors without delay.