Thoughts on "survival rifles"

[armoredman]

PeetaH has it right.

I chose my rifle based on a few criteria - 1), I already owned it, which is important due to today's financial world. 2), I have a local buddy who is a world class gunsmith and tinkerer who loves making things work. 3), I already load for and cast bullets in this caliber, so practice is cheap and easy.




CZ 527M converted into the CSR, "Camp/Scout Rifle" with reinforced pistol grip stock including spare magazine holder and adjustable rear iron sight. Very light, accurate, and handy as all get out. There are others that probably fit the bill better for the "bug out" rifle, but like I said, I went with what i have/know.

[ThomasT]

curious how many people a have chosen their go to survival gun.. So the question has to be asked- how many of you folks actually have (that great survival rifle?)

Got it. My Marlin 1894 in 357 mag.

[CCCLVII]

I think being quiet is some thing that is often over looked here in the USA. I feel a silencer would be nearly as important as sights to a survival gun.

[MarkCO]

I agree quiet can be an important factor, and certainly, if you can afford the price of admission, worthwhile. Then again, in there is a total "collapse" having the necessary parts to suppress what you have might not be a bad idea.

Shotgun...too limited in speed, maintenance, distance and weight of ammo. Maybe in an Urban setting, but still, Book of Eli was still just a movie.

.22 rimfires, whether LR or Magnum, are not re-loadable nor weatherproof. However, a magazine fed integrally suppressed folding stock 3 pound .22 Magnum would certainly be high on the list of possibles. I think a .22RF pistol with a suppressor is probably the best choice for a second gun if you afford yourself the luxury. You can carry like 5K rounds as compared to 100 12 gauge.

When I look at ARs, I really like pistol configured 300 Blackouts with a SIG cuff and a suppressor.

But, if you really only have one, a Mares leg, Revolver or lever gun in .41 mag, .44 Mag or .45 colt has so many advantages, it is hard to find a better alternative, especially if you have a suppressor. .357 Magnum is certainly beyond some of the other options people fall in love with, and I would be happy with one of those too.

[ThomasT]

22 rimfires, whether LR or Magnum, are not re-loadable nor weatherproof. However, a magazine fed integrally suppressed folding stock 3 pound .22 Magnum would certainly be high on the list of possibles. I think a .22RF pistol with a suppressor is probably the best choice for a second gun if you afford yourself the luxury. You can carry like 5K rounds as compared to 100 12 gauge.

MarkCo I think suppressed and 22 mag are at odds to each other. The 22 mag with a 40gr bullet gets an average velocity of 1900fps and sometimes a little more. The lighter weight bullets are of course faster. If you want a suppressed gun a 22LR will always be the best bet over a 22 mag. I like the one shot theory. That is its hard to tell where a single shot comes from.

In a deer camp I was in many years ago I took a shot at a turkey with a 22 mag rifle on the backside of a hill near our camp. I missed the bird. But when I got back to camp I asked if anyone heard me shoot. Not one single person heard the shot. And the actual distance from the camp was not more than 300 yards. And they were all sitting outside around a campfire. So depending on terrain a suppressor is not always needed.

As far as being water proof the 22 RF rounds only have one opening. Thats the case mouth. a 22LR may be a loose fit but 22mags are really a tight fit. Plus if thats an issue a quick dip in fingernail polish or something should seal the rounds. Or maybe just store them ai zip lock baggies in 100 count packs.

I like these type of threads. They were the first I responded to when I joined the gun forums. And like Art pointed out in post #3 each situation dictates the best rifle. There will never be a one gun does it all situation.

Like I posted earlier I could get by with a leveraction 357 rifle. Throw in a .410 single shot shotgun and I am good to go.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Depending on the situation

.30-06 bolt gun
AR15
10/22

Just cause its what I have

[ronl]

If I were to choose one it would have to be a lightweight AR-15. The versatility, dependability, and availability of ammo, plus the inherent accuracy all add up to a winner for me. It is much more capable of dealing with various situations one might face as compared to a bolt action.

[dakota.potts]

I think I'd have to say an AR-15. I don't know of another round that can adequately kill squirrels and other small game but also take deer. I bet it could also easily take a snake or even a gator, common things in my area. It would give me more comfort than a .22 for defense against people. I had thought about 12G or 20G. With that you can have buckshot, birdshot, slugs, and even flare rounds. But you could carry maybe 25-50 of each?

A .22 handgun would compliment a primary weapon very nicely.

[44 AMP]

I think I'd have to say an AR-15. I don't know of another round that can adequately kill squirrels and other small game but also take deer.

I can. In fact, everything from .22LR on up can do it. What differs is the range you are able to use, and how much work you have to do.

Lets get a few things straight, just what kind of "survivial" are you thinking about? We don't do the "zombie apok-key-clips" here, nor TEOTWAWKI threads, so count those out right now.

SO, what is left? Two basic situations. One, survival in the wilderness. Two, survival in civilization without basic law & order and food distribution services in your local area. (like a hurricane aftermath).

Now, both of these things have one big thing in common, they are TEMPORARY.

People who choose one gun & caliber, based on what ammo is commonly available on the shelf , (such as choosing a .223 over a .22 Hornet, for instance) are missing a vital point. And that is that in a survival situation, NO AMMO IS AVAILABLE. All there is that you can count on is what you already have. PERIOD.

SO, everything is "available" right now, and nothing will be available in a disaster/lost in the wilderness situation. Think you are going to go to the local store and get some ammo in a survival situation? Think again.

People who choose a caliber based on the weight of the ammo MAY have a point, but realistically speaking, how much ammo are you going to need? HOW LONG do you think you are going to be in a survival situation? A week? possible, a month? highly unlikely.

But lets say a month, and lets say you're a lousy hunter and you need 3 shots average to bag a rabbit, or whatever. 100rnds will cover that for a month. Should cover that more than adequately, considering you aren't likely to be shooting every day. One deer will feed you for several days, even under totally primitive conditions, of course there will be a large wastage, and you might not like what you have to eat, but survival isn't a sport or a game. And, really, a month isn't realistic, unless you cannot move, and if you cannot move, hunting becomes a real problem.

Some have suggested silencers. While not needing earplugs is a nice benefit, why on earth would you need to be silent? Most folks, lost in the wilderness would be pretty glad to be found by someone (again, forget the evil hordes of whatever). Why would you need to hide?

One place where I can see a use for a large capacity repeater would be defense against a pack of wolves, or feral dogs. And a handgun will fill that role pretty well.

Several have spoken against the shotgun, mostly because of the weight of the ammo. Again, same things apply, how much you gonna need, do you think? Two boxes of 12 ga are a fair bit, but again, if you aren't stupid, (and assuming there is game to be taken), you are going to be returning to civilization (or it to you) at some level before you have shot up all of it.

Wilderness survival means more than just food. And for getting food, snares and general woodcraft go further than ever a good rifle. Also, where are you having to survive? A rifle & ammo are more useful in the woods than the desert.

And if its sitting home, waiting for the power to come back on, and worried about looters, etc. That is a different situation.

[MarkCO]

You make some very valuable points. My initial post was more of a "One gun for the rest of your life" thing, but the probability is certainly low that occurrence would ever happen.

I did spend 3 weeks in the wilderness with a .22 Ruger pistol and I actually ate pretty well. I took 200 rounds and only used 25. An acquaintance spends 3-6 months in the wilderness each year and the stuff he uses is interesting. He has a 4.5" 45 Colt, a longbow, a spear and a few knives. I contemplated to utility of a crossbow for this mythical role for a while.

Suppressors, they work on any firearm. Sure, to "silence" sub-sonic is needed, but they cut out a LOT on supersonic rounds. They accurize and reduce recoil some as well. I have used them hunting and well, the benefit is pretty significant. I have shot several animals with them where their "friends" just took a look and went back to grazing, or chipping pine cones or whatever. Call it kinder, gentler harvesting of game. There is a lot of value, especially if you need to harvest multiple animals at a time, makes it easy.

The only really major issue if you really want to pick out one gun, is to have it in a pack, with ammo, and other survival gear, while you are out in the woods camping, hunting, ATVing, etc, or stored in your mode of transportation. For most people, water, meds and hygiene deficiency are going to get them well before any zombies.

[SIGSHR]

I agree-no one size fits all. A 22LR is fine for rabbits or squirrels but relying too much on rabbit for survival food is not healthy. really depends on the terrain and climate. The AR-7s I have handled felt crude, sights a little too simple.

[TXAZ]

I'd take an under folder AK, full sized semi (9mm and up) semi-auto pistol, over a .22 "Survival" rifle any day. If I instance outlay need to survive, man any of those carrying a .22 Survival rifles won't.

[dakota.potts]

My 9mm handgun and .22 bolt action would probably see me through unless we're talking really nasty times. I would still pick an AR-15 if I could pick any gun, but the two guns I already have will do me fine if it comes down to it.

This thread reminds me that I need more .22 ammo.

[osirus82]

I think people that have their CCW's and carry are way ahead of the game if some unknown disaster happened, they already have a means of survival and protection.

[simonrichter]

@ MarkCO

a ".223 bolt ACTION", of course.

[pete2]

I would pick a .22 LR, probably a 10/22. I would also want a 12ga shotgun.

[simonrichter]

I think for both "survival" scenarios, ammo is a key issue.

For "lost in the woods" it needs to be light enough to carry a reasonable amount w/o adding too much weight, as has already been said in some posts above...

...while for the "civilization is (temporarily, hopefully) down" scenario you will most of all need something you actually have a chance to resupply in case the situation persists for a longer period of time.

And that is that in a survival situation, NO AMMO IS AVAILABLE

I beg to differ. Of course you will not be able to just walk in somewhere and buy it, but there WILL be ways of trading and exchanging other goods for ammo. Thus, the more common your caliber, the more likely you'll be able to find some. Stockpiling can't hurt, though...



All this considered, I have limited my calibers to .22lr, 9mm and .223.

[Boomer58cal]

...while for the "civilization is (temporarily, hopefully) down" scenario you will most of all need something you actually have a chance to resupply in case the situation persists for a longer period of time.

Temporary can be a very relative term. FEMA estimates 4+ years to restore power to our country's major population centers if we were hit by a Carrington level Solar event. A Carrington level event is basically the complete destruction of all unshielded electrical systems on the continent and FEMA's 4+ year estimate does not include the power grids in rural areas. That could take up to a decade.

There is a 12% chance a decade of the earth suffering a Carrington level event. The last one was in 1859. Our continents Telegraph Network literally burst into flames leaving several telegraph office in ashes and their operators in the hospital.

Imagine if half the country spontaneously combusted.

Every up to his eyeballs in it prepper I've talked to has had one thing in common... they all stock piles of 22 LR. Unfortunately with most stores having their shelves empty of .22 ammo these days, if such a disaster was to happen today it may be hard to replenish your stock.

Boomer

[armoredman]

From the only source I could look up,

Ice cores contain thin nitrate-rich layers that can be analyzed to reconstruct a history of past events before reliable observations; the data from Greenland ice cores was gathered by Kenneth G. McCracken[12] and others. These show evidence that events of this magnitude—as measured by high-energy proton radiation, not geomagnetic effect—occur approximately once per 500 years, with events at least one-fifth as large occurring several times per century.[13]

Found here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_s...e-mccracken-13
Cited source material,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9407CA2.f04t03

Possible, but highly unlikely. On the other hand, it WOULD be "interesting" to see how the 'wired' generation can live without smart phones, iPods, iPads, etc...think there was a television series about that recently.
I agree, emergencies tend to be shorter lived than Hollywood would like you to believe, unless the Chinese really do invade. Start the focus on 72 hours and move up, and like others here, I tend to focus firearm wise on defense, not offense - I'm not out to win WWIII.

[44 AMP]

And that is that in a survival situation, NO AMMO IS AVAILABLE

I beg to differ. Of course you will not be able to just walk in somewhere and buy it, but there WILL be ways of trading and exchanging other goods for ammo. Thus, the more common your caliber, the more likely you'll be able to find some. Stockpiling can't hurt, though...

Differ all you like, as we are talking about two different situations. When you have access to others, and they to you, you aren't in the same kind of situation as being lost in the woods, or cut off from the outside world.

Also being able to trade "goods for ammo" requires a couple of things, first being the folks with the ammo are willing to trade, and second, that you have something that they want more than the ammo.

[Boomer58cal]

Possible, but highly unlikely. On the other hand, it WOULD be "interesting" to see how the 'wired' generation can live without smart phones, iPods, iPads, etc...think there was a television series about that recently. I agree, emergencies tend to be shorter lived than Hollywood would like you to believe, unless the Chinese really do invade. Start thefocus on 72 hours and move up, and like others here, I tend to focus firearm wise on defense, not offense -I'm not out to win WWIII.

"Possible, but highly unlikely."

^ Famous last words. ^

It's not a question of what the odds are that you will experience a disaster, Natural or otherwise in your lifetime. This is almost a certainty and the only unknown is the magnitude of that event. It could be a small storm, a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, or a solar flare that knocks the entire Earth into the Stone Age. You just never know.

I'd rather be the idiot that was prepared for something that never came, then the idiot that wasn't prepared for anything at all.

Boomer

[MarkCO]

I know of a guy who was a prepper, had enough food, water, clothes and other "self-sufficiency" stuff to last 15+ years autonomously. He went to Disney World on Vacation and his house burned down, with over $100K of prepper stuff inside. He could not afford to rebuild, now lives in an apartment with a shotgun and a 55 gallon water barrel.

Moral of the story had to be "don't put all your eggs in one basket."

While I enjoy the mental gymnastics of the discussion, some versatility, adaptability and multiple options are always better than just "Plan A."

[Boomer58cal]

The moral of the story is He should have spent half that hundred grand on a bunker and his bunker would still have 50 grand worth of stuff in it.

Boomer

[darkgael]

I bought my "survival" rifle some years ago....after waiting for some years before that. A Springfield Armory M6....a copy of an USAF survival rifle.
.22/.410. Very sturdy. Very accurate.



Pete

[Wyosmith]

I don't think there is any such thing as a "survival rifle" any more than I think there are "Evil Guns”, Righteous Guns", "Communist Guns" or "Gangster Guns"

There are guns used by survivors of bad situations. But the gun is very much the smallest part of the equation. The person is the real part that matters.

“Survival” is too broad a term. What does it mean? It means staying alive. However it doesn’t mean any specific dangerous situation.

If you survive the impact of a plane crash in on top of the Andes you will need to do a lot of things different than if you survive a plane crash in North Korea.
In these situations you need help from friends far more than you need any gun.

To survive in the Rocky Mountains with a broken foot for 2 weeks until you are found, you’d want a different kind of rifle than you would if you were trapped in LA California for 2 weeks during a total civil melt down, or along the Arizona border during an invasion by 100 Illegal aliens who want to take your home your food and your life.

To my way of thinking there are really only 2 kinds of applications for firearms in “survival situations”
#1 is hunting ( but hunting what?)
#2 is fighting. ( but fighting who or what?)

It’s an interesting subject to compare the attributes of different arms which may cover the bases of both #1 and #2.

But I think we should leave the title “survival gun” behind. It’s not really a valid moniker.