Do not… DO NOT… equate curing salts with table salt. It is poisonous if eaten raw and is only safe if cured in meats or cooked. It’s the product that makes cured meats safe, what gives bacon it’s pink color and distinctive flavor. But it IS NOT salt that is interchangeable with sodium chloride (NaCl).
All of that is true, as far as it goes. However, does a grid-tie solar system feed your own house during a power failure? What about at night? You’d need to set up batteries and inverters, which gets you right back to the cos/benefit analysis. A 500 gallon propane tank isn’t cheap either. We have natural gas so the tank would just be installed and sit there unused unless there was an earthquake. So same issue. It’s probably cheaper to buy a small diesel genset in the $2500 range, and just stockpile 100 gallons of diesel. I have a 2500 watt propane generator, but it’s in my camper. Because I live in a dense city, I can’t keep it at home, so there’s no guarantee that I can get it to my house. Sigh. I’ll probably just resign myself to gorging on my perishables for a few days and then switch to dry goods.
Our power company hasn’t done any rolling blackouts, and the only blackout to last more than an hour was about ten years ago and it was less than a day. if you figure the fridge and freezer need to be run 50% of the time combined to keep at temperature, then a small 2000-watt generator would need about a half gallon an hour for 12 hours a day. For two weeks, that’s 84 gallons of gasoline. Probably less, as food gets drawn down, only one appliance would be used, but still. Storing and rotating 75-85 gallons of gas is a big ask. Diesel is a factor of five more expensive, solar has som hurdles (and costs) and propane has volumetric storage challenges. The solution may lie in a discussion to move in advance of potential climate change effects, but even that is a big leap.
I live in urban Southern California where the only 80/20 prep is for earthquakes. I’ve got a fault line that is fairly stable but if it goes, I’m likely to have no power, water, or gas for a few weeks. So I’ve focused on water and staples for my family and core group for 4 weeks. One of the difficult things is figuring for a generator. I really have no need for one unless the small chance of an earthquake happens. Optimizing that situation is currently beyond me.
Not a product. Your section about calculating BTU requirements for a room.
“The calculation would be (10 x 20) x 45, which breaks down to 30 x 45, or 1,350 BTUs.” 10×20 is actually 200. 200×45 is 9000.
Two questions: 1) are you sure your room calculations aren’t off by a factor of 10? 2) why do the affiliate links take me to Amazon in Spanish?
A .22 is a good place to start, and unequivocally the best place to start if you want to master fundamentals and have a starting point for gun ownership. I think, however, that there’s a desire out there for peiple to get guidance for having just one gun. If you were going to have just one gun and it had to cover the most emergency scenarios you thought were likely, would you still choose a .22? Keep in mind that people have successfully armed themselves with just one gun that is not a .22 for a long time. Not everyone wants to get into guns.
Hard to say without knowing what the specifics are, because base assumptions matter. Here are my assumptions: it’s a basic kit that’s designed to take advantage of regular available ammunition, and be accessible to the maximum number of people in your group. The rules of engagement are going to be roughly what they are now. You can’t shoot anyone who isn’t an imminent threat to you. Using the 80/20 rule we are prepping for a temporary or non-complete collapse. Shooting someone at 500 yards is likely to be murder. You are trying to break action with an attacker, not definitively subdue a perpetrator or enemy combatant. Crimes of opportunity are the major threat. This is for an urban or suburban environment. Most people live there. Rural dwellers already have more guns. Since you’re asking, you aren’t a gun person. If you were, you wouldn’t need this list (or if OP was just asking so the advice would be out there, then this is a generic “you”). 1. .357 revolver with a 4″ barrel. As long as it’s from a reputable brand (including the major budget brands) any are fine. A .357 shoots .38 Special, which increases available ammo selection. 38 is soft shooting for novices, and .357 will stop anything short of a Bear (not sure why that autocorrected to capital “B,” but I like it!). Simple manual of arms (fancy way of saying the operation of the weapon) that anyone understands. Given the rules of engagemet, six rounds is enough (80/20 rule). Can be concealed on your person if you need to bring a firearm with you. The one to get for maximum flexibility of response. 2. 5.56 NATO-chambered semi-auto rifle. This means AR-15, Mini-14, SU-16, or other. Major brand, and it will be fine. Best combination of effectiveness, capacity, availability and usability. If you were sure you would only be in your house, and you were confident you weren’t leaving, this would be the one to get. But in the most likely scenarios, you can’t walk around with a rifle strapped to your back. It’s easier to shoot accurately than a handgun and any available carbine will be handy enough indoors. Not being enough to hunt medium and large game, but that doesn’t matter. You’re in the city. 3. Break-action 12-gauge shotgun. Either over/under or side by side. Not good for bugging out, but 12 gauge is the definitive stopping round at close range. A SxS has nearly the simplest manual of arms you can get (only a single shot is simpler), it’s tremendously reliable. Short versions are available (called “coach guns”) but because the action is so short (the mechanism that feeds the rounds into the chambers), even longer guns aren’t too unwieldy. The one to get for the balance of simplicity with effectiveness. Honorable mentions. You could swap these out for their analog above. Any striker-fired 9mm. Frim High Point to FN and anything in between. Not as intuitive or versatile as the revolver but close. .22 semi-auto rifle. Any major brand. Easiest to shoot accurately for literally anyone. Cheapest, cheapest ammo, smallest lightest ammo. Not super effective but nobody wants to get shot with one. Pump-action 12-gauge shotgun. Most people’s choice over a break action. Has better capacity but can malfunction if someone is unfamiliar with it.
Another advantage of a .357 revolver specifically is that it shoots .38 Special. This means that a revolver goes from soft-shooting introduction gun to fire breathing man-stopper with a change of ammunition. 357/38 is usually pretty easy to find. If the current situation deteriorates, then the best first gun is just about anything you can find in 9mm, .22, .223 or 357. However, if this too passes, then there’s more opportunity to look at options. Something else to consider is that ammo capacity may be overrated as a concern. If we take the 80/20 rule emphasized here seriously, what are the chances that a defensive situation can’t be handled in 6 shots? Im actually a semi-auto kinda guy, but have a revolver specifically as a prep gun. Between 38s and the ability for a novice to check, clear, load and fire it with minimal instruction, I don’t think there’s a better centerfire handgun in this context.