Author Topic: one rifle? (Read 17679 times)

rocko · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:10:27 PM »

If it was me and i wanted to be very versatile, and not have much to pack here is what i would do. I would get a new england in 223. Send it in and get a 22hornet, and a 410 and a 12 gauge barrel. With the 223 you have a good mid range, and deer sized game rifle. And with the hornet you have a small game gun. You can load the same bullets for the 223 and hornet and not have to stock as many variances.With the 12 gauge barrel you can shoot slugs, or standard shots for upland and waterfowl. With the 410 you have a small game shotgun, and can also shoot 45 long colts. Just the most economical and versitile in my opinion.

But in all honesty, the 223 and the 12 gauge would pretty well cover it all.

backstrap · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2009, 03:01:20 PM »

Stevens model 200 in 30/06

handi243 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 23, 2009, 12:41:00 PM »

22 mag!!!!

galster69 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 01, 2009, 08:22:53 PM »

This may be a little off topic but I see lots of posts with .22s as a necessity for small game in a survival situation. Don't get me wrong, I love my 22s but it seems to me that a good air rifle in .22 cal would be lighter and much easier to stock up on ammo in the form of field pellets, etc. For the range that one would be taking small game at, I think the air rifle would be more than adequate. Any thoughts? If it were me, I probably have the air rifle AND a 22 just for the heck of it, but I think I could get by with the air rifle alone as a small game rifle if it came down to it. Back to the original topic I like my .270 win in Rem 700.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #34 on:** February 02, 2009, 01:05:36 PM »

Air rifles work great, My friends and I have many of them up thru .50 cal and they are capablr of takeing any game in the lower 48, But they are not centerfires and never will be, They require diffrent thoughts to shoot as well but they certainly do work.

teamnelson · « **Reply #35 on:** February 02, 2009, 02:24:59 PM »

I think Bob hit the issue, "they require different thoughts." I'd apply that to the whole discussion of a survival rifle. When I think of survival anywhere from post-Katrina to an EOTWAWKI scenario, I'm not certain hunting then will be the same as hunting now, and I'm leaning away from wanting to drop anything further than 100 yds or so. Whether you fort up or go nomad, you'll be tired, sick, hungry, and you won't want to draw attention to yourself because that's means you might get hurt, and there's no medical care. It's not going to be up in a stand with a thermos and hot chow waiting at the end of a quad ride back to camp.

I'm guessing we'll shoot up every critter that walks early on when we have a little rumbly in our tumbly, instead of managing game. Lots of that will be wasted because we don't know how to butcher our kills, and most folks don't know that the gross parts are the most nutritious, and our diets are so much more meat oriented than historically. I wonder if some folks will actually be able to adapt to a survival diet, or if they will absolutely die when they run out of their brand of peanut butter. Disease will wipe out a bunch of us, and the animals as well, so we may not want to eat game depending. Poor maintenance and unfamiliarity will render alot of the weapons inert - if you've been to the 3rd world you know what I mean.

Sounds to me like the single-shot maybe w/ a chamber adapter would be the lightest, simplest, most versatile. Only one barrel for me though - I need room in the pack for dried beans & salt.

bilmac · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2009, 03:12:46 PM »

Mr Team has done some thinking rather than a lot of romanticising about what the brave new world will be like

mechanic · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2009, 03:25:07 PM »

If I had to pack out and leave tomorrow and could only carry a minimal amount, I would take my Marlin Papoose 22, and my 12 guage. At close range the shotgun should down anything on this continent. The Papoose is very light and packs well. I've got a lot of other guns, but those to me are the most versatile.

Seems we have a consensus on this topic. Glad we all agree!!!

no guns here · « **Reply #38 on:** February 02, 2009, 11:47:22 PM »

The one gun do-it-all package for me would have to be a 12 gauge pump with rifle sights and a smooth barrel. Works for fowl, small game, big game and even dangerous game in a pinch. Works against people too. Maybe louder than a .22 but much more effective in most situations. Shotguns aren't nearly as loud as most centerfire rifles either. A mixture of slugs, bird shot and larger (maybe number 4's) would take care of pretty much what needed to be taken care of. I might go with interchangeable chokes to make it more versatile. If I could, I'd back that up with a good .22 bolt gun. .22 long rifle works for many things. Deer, turkey, small hogs etc will drop to head shots. .22 shorts work for things where you need to be more quiet. Plenty of power for squirrel, rabbits etc if you head shoot.

ngh

ironglow · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2009, 12:42:15 AM »

Savage 11G in .308...will shoot with the best, and probably cost less..
But as Mechanic said, for survival a .22 & shotgun with shot & slugs would do the job...even an H&R with both barrels if you can arrange it..or a over/under.. Just for survival mind you, shooting fun is another matter..LOL

Swampman · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:14:52 AM »

Quote

and our diets are so much more meat oriented than historically.

Primitive man ate almost nothing but meat most of the time. Very few cultures farmed.

teamnelson · « **Reply #41 on:** February 03, 2009, 08:14:58 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 03, 2009, 01:14:52 AM

Quote
and our diets are so much more meat oriented than historically.

Primitive man ate almost nothing but meat most of the time. Very few cultures farmed.

Swampman, have to respectfully disagree with you. Whether you believe the Bible or the historical record (or both) the evidence is there that farming goes back as far man can remember. If you believe we descended from the Apes then we most definitely started out vegetarian. If you believe we were created in a garden then we recognize that we are by design or evolution primarily omnivores. You may remember Daniel challenged his captors to see which diet was better.

I've been blessed to have been able to travel quite a bit and live with some of the oldest cultures on the planet, in some of the harshest terrain where farming is impossible. In the hottest inhabited area in the Danakhil depression in East Africa average temperatures in the 130s, they subsist on camel's milk, ocaissional meat, and as many vegetables as they can get by trading salt for it - they provide salt for the whole region. Up above the arctic circle we ate meat sparingly, alot of fat, and as many fruits and vegetables as we could get our hands on. And in places all over Africa and South America where farming is simple, they can't remember a time that they weren't farming and their memories are much better than ours. The ranching tribes in southern Kenya carve small strips of meat off of living cows and let it grow back - its the way they manage their resources. Throw the strip in a pot of beans with peppers ... yum. Camel's milk on the other hand must be an acquired taste.

The modern American will kill themselves off eating almost nothing but meat; alot of us already are and that's with world class medical care. In a EOTWAWKI situation, dying slowly of colon or prostate cancer doesn't sound too great to me - or a heart attack or a stroke, or losing limbs to type II diabetes. It'd be a shame to survive a collapse and then be laid up with gout, the rich man's disease that comes from a diet high in meat, processed foods. Or scurvy - wow, can you imagine? We need fiber, vitamins & minerals that don't come from meat alone, or else we get sick and die. I've been to a famine - cows walking everywhere, and they eat them too, but folks are dying of malnutrition because the crops were lost. Milk and meat can only take you so far. I'd assert that truly prepare for a worst case scenario, you should plan to need more than meat to survive.

Swampman · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2009, 08:24:39 AM »

Typical vegan/health nut talk. Meat won't hurt you. Most NDNs (and the Mountain Men) pretty much ate meat. They were nomadic. The only problem with wild meat, is that there just isn't enough fat in it.

superdown · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2009, 10:37:40 AM »

Quote

Posted on: Today at 11:24:39 AMPosted by: Swampman
Insert Quote
Typical vegan/health nut talk. Meat won't hurt you. Most NDNs (and the Mountain Men) pretty much ate meat. They were nomadic. The only problem with wild meat, is that there just isn't enough fat in it.
Posted on: Today at 11:14:58 AMPosted by: TeamNelson
Insert Quote
Quote from: Swampman on Today at 04:14:52 AM
Quote
and our diets are so much more meat oriented than historically.

Primitive man ate almost nothing but meat most of the time. Very few cultures farmed.

Swampman, have to respectfully disagree with you. Whether you believe the Bible or the historical record (or both) the evidence is there that farming goes back as far man can remember. If you believe we descended from the Apes then we most definitely started out vegetarian. If you believe we were created in a garden then we recognize that we are by design or evolution primarily omnivores. You may remember Daniel challenged his captors to see which diet was better.

I've been blessed to have been able to travel quite a bit and live with some of the oldest cultures on the planet, in some of the harshest terrain where farming is impossible. In the hottest inhabited area in the Danakhil depression in East Africa average temperatures in the 130s, they subsist on camel's milk, ocaissional meat, and as many vegetables as they can get by trading salt for it - they provide salt for the whole region. Up above the arctic circle we ate meat sparingly, alot of fat, and as many fruits and vegetables as we could get our hands on. And in places all over Africa and South America where farming is simple, they can't remember a time that they weren't farming and their memories are much better than ours. The ranching tribes in southern Kenya carve small strips of meat off of living cows and let it grow back - its the way they manage their resources. Throw the strip in a pot of beans with peppers ... yum. Camel's milk on the other hand must be an acquired taste.

The modern American will kill themselves off eating almost nothing but meat; alot of us already are and that's with world class medical care. In a EOTWAWKI situation, dying slowly of colon or prostate cancer doesn't sound too great to me - or a heart attack or a stroke, or losing limbs to type II diabetes. It'd be a shame to survive a collapse and then be laid up with gout, the rich man's disease that comes from a diet high in meat, processed foods. Or scurvy - wow, can you imagine? We need fiber, vitamins & minerals that don't come from meat alone, or else we get sick and die. I've been to a famine - cows walking everywhere, and they eat them too, but folks are dying of malnutrition because the crops were lost. Milk and meat can only take you so far. I'd assert that truly prepare for a worst case scenario, you should plan to need more than meat to survive.

I truly enjoy both of your post's on a daily basis but i think the next new forum should be "the world according to swampman"

Swampman · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2009, 11:12:44 AM »

The Paleolithic Diet is a very interesting subject. The bottom line is, meat is very good for you. You can live on it a long time. You'll miss the fat bad(and perhaps die without it) unless you can take a hog, bear, or other fatty mammal.

bilmac · « **Reply #45 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:44:03 PM »

The Lewis and Clarke expedition lived almost exclusively on meat for the whole time.

teamnelson · « **Reply #46 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:50:10 PM »

Neither a vegan nor a health nut. Just having a dialogue my friend. I've been a missionary in the 3rd world; and multiple combat tours in some real hell holes. I've got some first hand knowledge that doesn't seem to bear up with your opinion. Doesnt take very big man to put down someone who disagrees with him.

Swampman · « **Reply #47 on:** February 03, 2009, 01:55:54 PM »

No put down! I've read a lot of history books, that bear out what I'm saying.....You just have to eat the parts that most folks toss.

mechanic · « **Reply #48 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:08:52 PM »

Swampman,

You would have been at home at my Grandma's house. The only part of the animal they threw away was the squeal or grunt.......We once sat down to eat at grandma's and my piece of squirrel turned out to be the head. After I licked the gravy off it, I looked over and my wife was about to lose her lunch......

mechanic · « **Reply #49 on:** February 03, 2009, 02:14:10 PM »

Lone wolf,

Getting back to your point, I just looked over your cache again, and the one gun I see missing is a 45-70. IMHO one of the most versatile calibers out there, and capable of killing anything that moves with the right load. You can get one in single shot, bolt gun, or lever gun. With the Handi rifle or Ruger #1 you can load that baby up for elephant, or down for rabbit. You can load for it with a simple Lee loader if you don't have a set up already, and if you cast bullets, it's downright cheap to operate!

ironglow · « **Reply #50 on:** February 04, 2009, 01:20:52 AM »

Hate to derail, but feel compelled to comment. The oldest culture excavated, that of the Sumerians of the Euphrates valley..had extensive irrigation ditchings in large fields..tells us something. Same goes for ome of the ancient cultures in South America. I agree with Teamnelson, we Americans eat way too much meat. Nothing wrong with eating meat, I and virtually everyone I know does so..but moderation is not a dirty word.
The one exception is the old Eskimo culture. Apparently after Nimrod's failed attempt at tower building and the human dispersal, this component of the human family obviously adapted to eating a nearly complete carnivore diet. They did things differently than we though, much of their food including blubber, was eaten raw and some was eaten after being buried long enough to turn green. It has been a long time to adapt since the tower of Babel though.

teamnelson · « **Reply #51 on:** February 04, 2009, 08:06:07 AM »

It may be good to start another thread on the Paleolithic diet Swampman mentioned.

To the one rifle subject, Make sure you've got something that will drop a human out to 100 yds. First time is rough on anybody regardless of the circumstances, best to make it clean. And our will to live is pretty high. I personally don't think 5.56 or 7.62x39 are single shot ideals. That's why we give our troops magazines and select fire and hours of training and mental health staff.

Big bore or slugs/ buck shot, and a .22. Maybe a Savage 24c? With chamber adapters you've got multi caliber potential but only one gun, trigger, sight picture.

teddy12b · « **Reply #52 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:21:54 AM »

Quote from: Badnews Bob on January 11, 2009, 06:08:25 PM

Savage or stevens bolt gun in .308, reasonable cost take anything you want to shoot with it. As for the shotgun you can get a diffrent barrel for your pump and cover anything.

+1. You beat me to it. Every gun you mentioned is relatively short range range. I'm a huge fan of the 30-06, but there are more abundant options in 308 especially in ammo. I'd buy the savage 308, a dednutz 20 moa mount/rings, and a nikon buckmaster. Find out what shoots the best out of it and buy as much ammo as you can afford. You'd be set to shoot out to a half mile if you practiced enough.

Swampman · « **Reply #53 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:24:41 AM »

I'd prefer something better made like a Remington 700, if I wanted a bolt action.

teddy12b · « **Reply #54 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:40:08 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on February 04, 2009, 09:24:41 AM

I'd prefer something better made like a Remington 700, if I wanted a bolt action.

Makes a good point. If you want to look cool standing next to target you just missed, buy the Remington. If you want to make a shot that makes you look competent with a rifle, buy a Savage.

**Just kidding Swampman and trying to get your blood pressure going.** Either a Remington or Savage will work. Both have huge following of loyal customers for a reason. Both make rifles in just about any configuration and caliber that a person could want.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #55 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:41:52 AM »

I was 258 lbs a 2 years ago and 5'9" and became a diabetic. I am 55. I did a little reading and ate a modified Adkins diet. All the meat I wanted, green veggies like salads, turnips, spinach, collards, green beans and fruit for sweets. I quit eating potatoes, corn, bread, rice, and all sugars. I was full, and lost about 35 lbs in about 6 months, felt better and cut my diabetic medicine in half. I need to loose about that much more. I am trying again to do this. Meat, low carb veggies, raw veggies are what early man ate. The Neanderthal diet was 85% meat. Eskimos ate the contents of the first stomach of a caribou, which I've heard tastes like a vinaigrette salad. We eat far too many carbs and processed food, as well as too much sugar and sugar products. If I can loose some more I can get completely off my meds. BP drops, cholesterol drops, and you feel better.

rocko · « **Reply #56 on:** February 04, 2009, 09:47:17 AM »

What is funniest to me is people picking makes and model numbers of guns..Pretty humourous. I would be alot more concerned with having something usefull, rather than a certain model and brand... Dont know why, but that is just hillarious to me..

Swampman · « **Reply #57 on:** February 04, 2009, 10:06:11 AM »

When you've spent your entire life depending on a certain brand & model to feed your family, there little reason to change in an emergency. Whatever you have confidence in, is probably the best choice. I'd prefer something that can harvest small game without blasting it to bits.

ironglow · « **Reply #58 on:** February 04, 2009, 10:32:05 AM »

The AR7 (now Henry) and the Springfield M6 have both been recommended and issued by the military for downed air crews...for survival.
They should know something about survival.. The Savage is my own suggestion as a civilian choice for the purpose.
The obvious #1 reason for a survival rifle is for something to eat, and 50-100 .22 LRs take up little space & weight, while the 20 ga slug of the Savage will bring down some large game..

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #59 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:55:38 AM »

when talking survival should we look to the military of today ?
They are great at what they do the way they do it ! How long do military weapons need to work ? how often do they get serviced ?
For the lone surviver with out back up what is best ? it would seem the fewer moving parts the better . the bolt gun seems strong and few moving parts . a gun with a break open design seems weaker . The pump maybe but not as solid as the bolt gun and the auto would seem the last choice . I know taking on a horde of attackers with a bolt gun is not a good match but should one be hiding instead of fighting ? hunting is not a good way to feed yourself as it anounces your kill to all in ear shot . pin point accy. would seem more important than spray and pray .
woods skill , a few snares , 2 good knives a hatchet , first aid and food and water seem more important . A 308 or equal bolt gun seems a good choice .