In this next, coming calendar year, I intend to add a new firearm to my collection.  Yes, just one...

I have several holes that ought to be filled, but yet very few that need to be filled.

Here is a list of what I might be looking at, and why.  Unless noted, I do not own any of the following, but only Bold items are holes in the collection that I feel should be filled someday.  Any feedback would be appreciated.

 - Bolt-action .308 rifle, probably the Mossberg MVP Patrol  -  It would be my first bolt-action, and only 'long range' weapon

 - Beretta 92 or Chiappa M9  -  Really don't need another 9mm, so this is most likely a passing fancy, but it would complement my Cx4

 - Ruger 10-22  -  I do not own any .22s, so an eventual need

 - .22 Revolver  -  (Same as above)

 - .30-30 Lever action rifle (carbine length)  -  Kind of unnecessary, as I have a .45-70 already, but more suitable for deer?

 - .357 Lever action rifle  -  Would be much more fun, and much less expensive to shoot, than said .45-70...

 - Breakdown AR-15  -  Fits in a nice little briefcase, perfect for behind the truck seat

 - 12" AR-15 SBR  -  Not this year.  Want to shell out, and get top shelf quality.

 - 'Investment' AR or AK  -  For the next panic...

 - Another suppressor, either .45, .223, or .308


Those are my options...  What are your thoughts?



Kaso

Aren't most AR-15's, "Breakdown"?   Just separate the upper and lower and you can get them into a pretty small case, especially with shorter barrels.

I mean one of the MG Industries 'Hydra' rifles, with a quick-detach barrel.  Gets it into a really small package.



Kaso

Any collection of guns that doesn't include a .22 LR handgun and rifle is woefully inadequate.

QFT

22LR rifle, handgun and shotgun are the bare essentials. You could basically make do with nothing else.

You should feel some sort of gun board shame for not owning these basics. It is... just... just... wrong at some great unquestionable level. 

Does cost of acquisition factor into this at all?   

Of course, the purchase will occur when 'good deal' and 'have money to spend' overlap...

Kaso

Which is not often enough.   We are getting the deck on our house redone this week and that is going to rule out any gun buying for awhile.   

I would say the 10/22, and a rifle over the pistol because out of the two, the rifle's longer barrel utilizes more of the cartridge's potential.

Leaving aside the cost of ammunition, the weight of even 500 rounds is negligible, and takes up little more space than a box of fifty .40 s&w.  There are many circumstances where this is very useful.

This is exactly what I am looking for - solid, objective reasoning for one or another of the choices.

I do know which I want to get, but it is probably the least practical of the choices...   Answers like this give me good reasons to go with something else.



Kaso

Find a nice clean Ruger MK1 or a Colt Woodsman.  JMO.  There are not too many guns on the planet more fun to shoot tin cans with.

Also.....   WHY just hold yourself to one gun unless you're in financial trouble?    Better to stock up now before any long-term monetary drains pop up.

Oh, maybe because I would like to avoid any financial trouble?  That, and I am trying to be responsible with my money, so that I can better be able to line up a few 'long-term money drains' in the next few years.



Kaso

OK - here goes.  Ruger 10/22's are nice rifles.  Not perfect but a good place to start.  Ruger's customer service is top notch.  The rifles can be had for around $200 used ( often in very good condition ) and up to around $350 new depending on the model you select. 

If you elect to go with something other than a Ruger I would recommend the Marlin model 60 either new or used.  They have been in continuous production since 1960 and have probably sold more than any other single .22 rifle in history.  They are an excellent counterpoint to the 10/22 and usually sell for less either new or used. 

A .22 revolver to go with the rifle might take the form of a Ruger SP 101 or a Single six or a Single Ten.  Not cheap but generally considered heirloom quality guns.   Figure on spending between $350 and $500 depending on whether you select new or used. 

Other options would be various J & K frame Smith & Wesson revolvers that will generally run more money than the Rugers.  Taurus makes a lot of .22 revolvers but sometimes the quality control is a hit or miss affair and their customer service can be as well.  Same goes for Charter Arms with their Pathfinder .22's .  I have an older one that is well made and has performed flawlessly but I can't vouch for the current production guns.  Occasionally a High Standard Sportsman model will find its way to the used market. They are an older style break top revolver that is built like a tank and will probably outlive us all.  I have fired them extensively and wholeheartedly recommend them if you find one in good shape.  Expect to pay somewhere in the $300 - $400 range for a nice one, depending on the model variant.   

Toss in a brick of decent ammo with any two of the above guns and you have filled a huge gap in your collection for less than most monthly mortgage payments.   A decent gun shop with those guns in inventory would likely throw in the ammo on a package deal just as a way of saying they appreciate your business.

 

I wish to correct my previous post.   I actually have zero experience with the High Standard Sportsman revolver as no such gun was ever produced AFAIK.   I DO , however, have considerable experience with the Harrington & Richardson revolver called the Sportsman.   Can't believe I got those two confused.   

Long term money drain? Like a wife?

No, sorry.  Not in the next few years anyway.  I was thinking more of real estate, and getting cash together for a down payment - and then the long-term monthly payments.



Kaso