There are very few topics that can spur a debate like “are guns and/or ammo good items to stock for barter in a social/economic collapse”?
Generally, there are two sides of the argument.
You would be crazy to trade somebody a weapon or ammunition that he/she might then turn around and kill you with.
Or…
Guns and ammo would be both a very high value in a collapse, and would be far more guaranteed to retain wealth than any other form of durable property.
So… which of these points do I ascribe to? Read on.
When most people think about “transitional wealth”, i.e. something that is valuable now and will in all likelihood valuable in the future, their thoughts first go to precious metals. Our own Paranoid Prepper did this excellent article on Prepping & Gold (CLICKY), and I personally agree with his takeaway on it.
SO… let’s consider guns and ammo. Will they be very likely to be worth as much in the future (if not more) than they are today, if properly cared for and stored?
Yes. I also have evidence to support my thoughts on this as well.
My “shooter” mosin
Since I am a gun nut, a lot of my “durable tangible wealth” is in ammunition, magazines and guns.
I also bought some Hex head Mosins in very good surplus condition for $79 each a few years ago. Current sale price? $300 and up. Russian Mosin sniper rifles, all actual snipers and not converted? I paid $295. Today? $900 if you can find one that’s actually an original.
If trouble hits, I have a hard time believing that my guns will do anything but go up in value of whatever is being traded.
The problem is, of course, if things start to break down, do I really want to barter off items that can be used to kill me?
Let’s look at this.
First, this is a very, very low probability event. We are much more likely to have limited unrest & rioting, not an “every person for themselves” “Mad Max” situation.
What’s much more likely to happen is that we have a severe recession and/or an actual depression like the 1930’s, without total societal collapse.
This helps me define my answer much more easily.
If it comes down to it and I need to start selling/trading assets off to get by in a recession/depression without rioting in the streets? You bet I will barter my inventory, that’s what it’s for.
If there are huge jumps in relative value, i.e. guns/ammo become higher dollar items relative to food/other necessities? Absolutely.
If the worst case happens, and it goes all Mad Max? I would only barter with people who I personally know and trust. I know a lot of people, but I don’t trust many in that situation. Strangers? Absolutely not unless it was in a “controlled situation” i.e. a barter fair in the middle of my town.
I think the worry over trading guns and ammo tends to be overwrought. Common sense is needed, of course. Don’t trade a gun to a heavily tattooed gang member when you live on the fringe of that gang’s territory. Don’t trade a gun to an unstable neighbor who is prone to fits of rage, etc. etc.
But, trading many miles from your home, in a controlled setting (e.g. not alone on a foggy abandoned wharf) with people you judge to be normal, then yeah. Guns and ammo will increase in value in bad times. Ammo has the handy quality of being fractional and portable — like pocket change.
I also tend to agree that an economic breakdown (collapse) does not automatically mean a social collapse (into Mad Max). People / Society tends to be more durable than it’s given credit for.
My two cents.
Your “two cents” are words of gold, mic.
Couldn’t have said it better.
just a terrible idea overall – but ”never” cannot be in a prepper’s vocab when it comes to SHTF versability …
just for one example – an old old acquaintance is one of your vendors of SHTF barter goods – let’s say eggs – you’re the armed & dangerous face of the egg distribution – but your buddy needs to be paid and could use an armory – best for him and you to barter guns & ammo ….
“Reasonable” is a poor choice of terms.
Under the right conditions,
Of course it is reasonable.
Under the wrong conditions,
anything would be “unreasonable”.
It seems rather silly to attempt to
ponder this question in a serious way.
Thank you for your comment but I disagree, the word means exactly what I intend to say.
Looking at the definition of the word reasonable –
1) having sound judgment; fair and sensible. “no reasonable person could have objected” -synonyms: sensible, rational, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable;
2) based on good sense. “it seems a reasonable enough request”
3) able to think, understand, or form judgments by a logical process.
Most people can tell the difference between reasonable and unreasonable without having to parse the word 14 different ways.
We all make judgments without knowing future conditions, because we are not clairvoyant.
For example, in 1633 it would have been “reasonable” to spend as much of your disposable income buying tulip bulbs if you lived in the Netherlands. Had they known about the market crash of 1637 it would have seemed pure idiocy.
Knowing what we know today, is buying firearms and ammo as a way of doing transitional wealth a reasonable thing to do with our limited resources? That’s the question I ask, and it’s the question I answer (without actually knowing what the future will bring) as best I can.
I am confident that, although it is unlikely to occur, should we ever find ourselves in a Mad Max World, that ammunition will be the new “coin of the realm.” It is easily recognized and it, unlike gold or silver which may also be valuable, has an intrinsic value that gold and silver do not. One cannot eat gold and silver. (nor is a starving man likely to trade for it). But with ammunition, not only is it easily counted just like coins in transactions, it can be used to forage for dinner, or to kill a two-legged predator who has evil intentions.
Just what would a man trade to provide security for himself and his family?
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”–Rudyard Kipling
Good article, and I agree with the qualifiers that you’ve used for determining whether to barter ammo and/or firearms with someone. For myself, I am more inclined to barter with ammo rather than guns for the simple reason that ammo is the consumable. Without it, a gun is basically a heavy, awkward club.
Going with your last paragraph’s question: Yes. Unlike tulip bulbs, arms and ammo have a valuable use to you even if the S does not hit a fan. That’s probably a good test for any ‘stockpile for barter” commodity. Is it of use to you if there were no disaster? The “limited resources” part of your equation means keeping a level head about the level of your other preps. Some ‘extra’ of everything is far better than mega-super-extra of one thing, but barely enough of something else.
And I envy your bargain Nagants. I missed that boat by thinking about it too long.
Well, the Nagants are great to have, but on the other hand they’ve taken up one entire gun safe (I use steel non-fireproof safes for them) for 10 years, taking up floorspace in a humidity-controlled room for 10 years or so now… so… there are other “costs” involved.
Under NO circumstances will I barter firearms or ammo. Even to friends or neighbors. Even these people Will turn on you when they get desperate.
Salty, I beg to differ. SHTF, your neighbor, your local youth director, or even your friends will be desperate. Desperate people think differently than they did before. They go to extremes that they would never have dreamed of before. They go into survival mode. They are trying to stay alive and will do whatever they have to , to stay alive. Human nature. Sad but true… you won`t be able to trust anyone. Just sayin.
From a biological perspective … Humans brains are wired to cooperate in communities. Why? Because it proved more successful in the long run than people turning on one another whenever times got hard. This biological hard-wiring doesn’t work for the large, artificial groups (like nations) that people like to assemble, but it still works for groups that know each other well and interact often.
This doesn’t hold for every person (people do vary, and that’s natural too), but it’ll hold true for most. That’s why I respectfully disagree with the thought that it’ll turn ‘dog eat dog’ in a big way during hard times. Most of us will continue to support those we consider really ‘our people’, just as most have in all the other crises humans have found themselves in. (Consider for example the Donner party, or lots of shipwreck events. Even starving to death, the evidence is that most continued to mostly support the group even as they got desperate enough to cannibalize the dead. Petty theft of resources isn’t rare in such situations but overt violence to take what you need from your own people is.) The group will have to protect itself from the outliers who don’t see it that way; but that too has lots of historical precedent.
Everybody has their biases, and I admit one of my areas of bias is that I tend to project things from my personal life into my world view… without taking into account that my personal situation is different than most of the people who read 3BY.
Most 3BY readers are in a much, much more dangerous situation than I am because they choose to live where the available food resources are far less than the population.
I don’t. I choose to live in an area where if the SHTF finding food to eat will not be the major issue, things like keeping sanitation in line, clean water, etc., lack of medications for those dependent as well as community defense will be a much bigger issue if there is a huge SHTF situation.
I give the answer that’s appropriate for MY situation, but of course that’s different than wherever it is that each of you reading this lives.
Salty,
Point taken. I respect your position and opinion.
It is hard to form a solution without knowing the extent of any given situation.
I believe it is better to err on the side of caution.
I am very rural, but I still think that IF things get really bad, it will bring out the worst in people. No matter your situation, or location, there will be those that did not prepare around.
Again… with all due respect.