For those of you who are unfamiliar with his works, Mel Tappan was one of the leading voices of survivalism back in the ’70s. His two most classic works are “Survival Guns” and “Tappan On Survival“. Like a lot of scribes on this topic, he appeared in various gun magazines as well as, from time to time, popping up in Soldier Of Fortune (remember them?).
Tappan’s opinions were based on the times he lived in. The US was facing inflation and unemployment, as well as a Cold War, when Tappan was doing his writings. As such, his worldview was predominantly of the economic collapse being the most likely catalyst of TEOTWAWKI, In typical 70’s survivalist fashion, Tappan’s work was long on guns and everything else got far less ink.
I’ve been re-reading his book, Tappan On Survival, and it’s interesting to see how dated it has become. You have to remember that at the time Tappan was hammering his typewriter there were no Glocks, .40 or 10mm, most AK’s were bringbacks from VietNam and finding ammo was unheard of, your only choice for .223/5.56 guns were AR15’s and Mini-14’s, revolvers ruled the cop world, and the ‘wondernine’ was still a good five years away from becoming a thing.
So, after re-reading Tappan, what seems like it would have been updated to reflect the modern times, had Tappan made it this far? I think that he might have moved from being a 1911 devotee to enrolling in the church of the double-stack 9mm. With the advent of bullet technology gains, the 9mm of today would far surpass the limited and limiting offerings of his day. Perhaps Tappan would have remained hidebound in his relation ship with the 1911 and the .45 AARP ACP cartridge, but at least the modern 1911’s would run out-of-the-box.
As far as rifles, Tappan disliked the .223 and preferred the .308. In his world, the only real choices in .308 were the HK91, the M1A and the BM59. Today we have the AR-10, SCAR, FAL, AK, and a few other platforms to choose from. Even if Tappan eschewed the .223 I would think he could have appreciated the ergonomics of the AR-15 and found one in .308 to be a ‘best of both worlds’ sort of thing.
Would Tappan have been a Glock guy? Maybe. Perhaps in .45. Or maybe he’d crunch the numbers and find that he preferred the .40 Smith for its increased capacity of .45, and for its heavier weight and larger diameter over the 9mm. Or maybe he’d have decided that the new crop of defensive 9mm ammo was so good that a 17-rd pistol was just what he wanted.
Tappan was also a subscriber to the Elmer Keith school of revolvers shooting big heavy bullets. And, while I am probably the worlds #1 .44 Special fan, I think that as a general purpose revolver, the .357 is a bit more practical. Oh sure, for claws and teeth its the .44 Mag in a revolver, but for day-to-day around the ranch or whatever I think a lighter weight .357 (L-frame or GP100) is pretty much ideal.
If you get a chance to read Survival Guns, Tappan recommended something along the lines of two dozen different guns for the ‘survivalist battery’. It was quite a gamut….22 revolvers, .38 snubbies, .45 Colt, .30-06 bolt guns, .308 battle rifles, .223 carbines, etc, etc. I’m a major gun nerd and even I think it was a bit excessive.
But, as I said, we are all products of our time. Despite being written over fifty years ago, Tappan’s books provide something that is still relevant even half a century after his death. While the choices of tangible things like guns and gear may be outdated or even obsolete, his attitude, mindset, and outlook remain just as important and just as valid today. He had the view that something bad was coming and that the prudent and wise man should prepare for it. Once you’ve that idea in your head, the rest of it….deciding what guns and gear….is really secondary.
Anyway, if you haven’t read his books I’m sure there are online copies around you can view. They’re worth a read, especially Survival Guns, just for the step back fifty years to see what the survivalist of the day thought was necessary.