Cost Effective Survival Rifle?

[Couger]

..... If I had to pick up and walk, I'd probably leave the 7.62 behind. The rest are packable. In a serious pinch, it'd come down to the revolvers. Easiest to carry, covers the most range of uses, hidable in a back pack if in town.

Absolute grab and run? Would probably take the .22. Can carry the most ammo at the same time .....

I'm impressed you picked the 7.62X54R even if it wasn't your best pick.  Lots can be done with that rifle if need be, and a Lee Loader can evem be purchased in that cartridge - for the simplist most rudimentary "reloading!"

Hopefully those choices respect everyone's thinking who offered advice.

 
Also just because you asked for advice doesn't mena you have to accept or follow it!  You expressed 'thanks' and were polite ..... all the respect I think anyone should need to show.  Just my opinion of course.
 
Plus, if you have any equipment you cannot carry, what about burying it?  Or caching it for later retrieval?  Just a thought.   

[no guns here]

flmason,
 
the oil fields in ND are begging for workers.  pay is high and unemployment is almost non-existent.  even burgerflippers are making $15/hour up there right now.  Housekeepers at motels are making $1,000/week.  I'd head up there as fast as my car would go.  Problem is housing is limited.  A lot of the oil companies are setting up man-camps for their workers though.  Look up North Dakota Oil Field jobs online.  There are several job services specializing in them.
 
 
 
NGH

[SHOOTALL]

i have seen all kinds of tests done, and a 22lr will penetrate clean through a car...through one door and out the other.  and i saw that done to an old el camino.   i still say alot of you are being foolish.   
  pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the 22lr can not be beat.

That was interesting as I had a 22 hit my truck and it stuck to the windshield . Didn't break it just stuck to it. I was doing about 60 mph at the time .

[flmason]

..... If I had to pick up and walk, I'd probably leave the 7.62 behind. The rest are packable. In a serious pinch, it'd come down to the revolvers. Easiest to carry, covers the most range of uses, hidable in a back pack if in town.

Absolute grab and run? Would probably take the .22. Can carry the most ammo at the same time .....

I'm impressed you picked the 7.62X54R even if it wasn't your best pick.  Lots can be done with that rifle if need be, and a Lee Loader can evem be purchased in that cartridge - for the simplist most rudimentary "reloading!"

Hopefully those choices respect everyone's thinking who offered advice.

 
Also just because you asked for advice doesn't mena you have to accept or follow it!  You expressed 'thanks' and were polite ..... all the respect I think anyone should need to show.  Just my opinion of course.
 
Plus, if you have any equipment you cannot carry, what about burying it?  Or caching it for later retrieval?  Just a thought.   

Yeah, have to admit, having owned some Milsurp in the past (M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, P-38)... it was an impulse buy almost. Did do some research first. But tripped over a numbers matching 1938 that had good rearsenal job done with good bore, price was right. Bought it on the spot with the Lee Loader to match. 

For whatever personal reasons I like military designs from just about all eras. Not that I don't like a good Model 70 or 700, I certainly do, LOL! Just something about Mil designs from about M1 or M14 and earlier "resonate" with me as the Ca. folks might say.

Have ended up back in Ca. from Iowa... no idea when I'll unpack it now and try it out. Greased it back up and repacked it for the move here. Only real regret in going through this exercise was that I didn't get the shotgun in the 12 gauge model, for the most part. Have resolved to make sure I hang on to this little collection until they pry it from my fingers, if neccesary, LOL!

The C.E. Harris article on Cast Bullets for Milsurp definitely shows me any of the .30 cal rifles can probably be loaded from bunny to buffalo loads. Never will be quite as cost effective as .22 or perhaps even cheap surplus, but clearly the flexibility is there if you do the homework.

[flmason]

flmason,
 
the oil fields in ND are begging for workers.  pay is high and unemployment is almost non-existent.  even burgerflippers are making $15/hour up there right now.  Housekeepers at motels are making $1,000/week.  I'd head up there as fast as my car would go.  Problem is housing is limited.  A lot of the oil companies are setting up man-camps for their workers though.  Look up North Dakota Oil Field jobs online.  There are several job services specializing in them.
 
 
 
NGH

Have ended up back in Ca. with some work. Not quite the rates the oilfields are paying, but should be able to make a go for now. No idea how long to dig out of the hole, so to speak.

Ironically, a gal working in the Shopping Mall up the way mentioned the ND Oilfield jobs to me. Apparently everyone knew this but me. Guess I live under some self imposed rock.

Have to admit, sometimes I wish I had the skills and the place to actually go "Grizzly Adams". On the other hand, have always hoped the future represented something cornball like Star Trek would come to pass also. Have to admit I'm split between the idea of 100% self sufficient vrs. Hyper Futuristic yearnings.

Anyway, meandering aside,  if this gig fails, will look into that pronto. (Always possible.) Thanks for the heads up.

Have a bud that worked oil rigs in the Gulf years ago, he has ended up living in the Rockies at 10,000 ft (literally) with a nice gal. Have to admit I'm envious.

[no guns here]

not a problem... while I have a pretty decent job now, I'm looking to possibly move from gov to private sector in the near future.  I was searching for IT jobs that would get me out of Texas and some of the oil field jobs popped up.  Not that I want one but when I realized the money and the number of jobs up there it almost looked attractive to me.  If I were a younger, single guy I know where I would probably head to to make a bunch of bucks quickly.
 
NGH

[flmason]

not a problem... while I have a pretty decent job now, I'm looking to possibly move from gov to private sector in the near future.  I was searching for IT jobs that would get me out of Texas and some of the oil field jobs popped up.  Not that I want one but when I realized the money and the number of jobs up there it almost looked attractive to me.  If I were a younger, single guy I know where I would probably head to to make a bunch of bucks quickly.
 
NGH

I hear that. I'm 49 at the moment, not getting any younger, for sure. Not wore out yet, but definitely slowing down. Realizing I may never get to anything close to the life I'd hoped for, that's for sure. Trying to figure what tradeoffs to take/make can be tough, even when you have choices. Can really take it's toll when you don't. Least that's what I've experienced. Each round of this beats me up a bit more, LOL!

[Poopers]

One thing that always comes up against the .22lr is its poor defensive capabilities....

It may be small and underpowered, but how many people will keep charging you after getting shot in the face with one?

I have 7000ish rounds of .22lr stored in 250 round ziplock bags which are in a sealed ammo can stored with dessicant. Funny thing is, as of right now I dont even own a 22.

I had a .17hmr and loved it but I just sold it to pay off bills... as much as I liked it I think I will replace it with a single shot bolt action .22 or maybe a Marlin Papoose if I can find one. Sure the 17 is a laser to 100 yards but how many of us can spot small game at distances like that?

[teamnelson]

Here's a penetration test done on a 5" thick spoiled roast wrapped in 5 layers of denim and duct tape ... placed at 300 yds (get that, 300 yds), using .22 Velocitors from a 10/22. Had some full penetrations at center mass, partial penetrations. Worth watching.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkOzr6cDx0&feature=player_embedded

[Spirithawk]

The thing that gives the .22 my vote is the price of ammo plus the ease of carry. You can pack one heck of a lot of ammo into a very small package. If you have to hit the ground running that is a very big plus. Also, with some of the new hypervelocity ammo, there's very little noise when a round is fired. That's another big plus when not wishing to advertise your presence to the whole country side. Then add the acuracy of a good .22 and with a well placed shot you can kill about anything you might need to to survive. However, if large dangerous game was a factor I'd op for a .22 over a 12 ga. barrel combo and use either .00 Buck or slugs in the shotgun barrel.

[bilmac]

Some other advantages of the lowly 22 rf. Some people say that if a sniper is using a 22, in an urban setting or some other place where there are a lot of echos, it is exceptionally difficult to locate said sniper.

Another advantage is the ability to deliver follow up shots very rapidly. Sometimes I think I kill more prairie dogs with my 22 than I do with my very accurate 223. There is almost no disturbance when the rifle fires, it is a heavy barrel 10-22, so I usually see the bullet impact. It's pretty easy to walk the bullets in when you can see where they are going and the rifle barely moves each time it is fired.

[SHOOTALL]

That's all fine and dandy but in the real world a 22 is not a gun to end all problems. Had that roast been armed and shooting back with a more powerful gun I doubt there would have been time to take even one well aimed shot much less the number on the little clip shown.

[Spirithawk]

That's all fine and dandy but in the real world a 22 is not a gun to end all problems. Had that roast been armed and shooting back with a more powerful gun I doubt there would have been time to take even one well aimed shot much less the number on the little clip shown.

Nor is any other one single caliber. I've yet to find one that doesn't have both good and bad points about it but if talking a "Cost Effective" survival rifle a .22 is a good option. However, what you expect you're going to be up against to survive is what should determine your choice. An over/under rifle/shotgun combo is hard to beat for covering the most situations.

[teamnelson]

That's all fine and dandy but in the real world a 22 is not a gun to end all problems. Had that roast been armed and shooting back with a more powerful gun I doubt there would have been time to take even one well aimed shot much less the number on the little clip shown.

True! But to get full penetration center mass on 5" of meat wrapped in denim and duct tape at 300 yds, I honestly didn't expect that. And I like to shoot .22 pistols at 100 yd steel targets. You gotta admit, for the $, that's impressive.
 
In the case where the target is shooting back, which I honestly believe will be the rare exception, they still have to hit you as well. It'll be a race to see who gets on target first. And if we're talking a firefight at 300 yds between someone with a 10/22 and someone with a 30.06, then we're also talking collapse of 911, EMS, ER or antibiotics. A nice expanding 22 that fragments off a bone and tumbles around a cavity will be just as fatal as a single well placed 30 cal bullet, itll just take longer to die. Joe Average doesn't know the sound of .22 vs .223, he's gonna duck and grab cover either way.

[SHOOTALL]

First I am skeptal of anything I see on the WWN ,so I don't believe it to start with. Second The bullet must be dropping from the sky. Second I would suggest the guy with the centerfire would have less deflection from wind and a flater shooting gun making shots faster and more accurate.
 As for the shtf or end of the world , not really. While fishing on the upper James river , the part in the foot hills . A friend and I had a bozo shooting at us with a high power rifle from a ridge above the water. 22 ?, we had a 45 acp with us and felt under gunned. Either he was just having fun ( watched "deliverance" one to many times ) or was one poor shot.

[yellowtail3]

Hi All, I know it's a topic all over the web, the "ideal survival rifle", LOL!

So here's where I'm at with it. I'm trying to figure the cheapest decent way to cover all the bases.

Get a Mosin M91/30 and 440 rounds of ammo... less than 200 out the door. You can kill anything with it, and it'll probably go through body armor of Bad Guys.

[flmason]

Hi All, I know it's a topic all over the web, the "ideal survival rifle", LOL!

So here's where I'm at with it. I'm trying to figure the cheapest decent way to cover all the bases.

Get a Mosin M91/30 and 440 rounds of ammo... less than 200 out the door. You can kill anything with it, and it'll probably go through body armor of Bad Guys.

Actually did get one of these as my .30 cal rifle. 1938 Izhevsk.  Stock finish isn't quite a nice as yours, but was all numbers matching (looks not forced) with good bore. Definitely rearsenaled I believe, as the blue is to good to not be, and the stock has typical bangs under the finish.

All in all seems to be a good gun. Only two real gripes. The safety is seriously second class for hunting. Way to stiff, etc. Just not up to par usage wise to the 98K design, let alone the Rem. 700/ Timney type thumb safety. The cartridge, though lots of surplus these days, is at a definite availability disadvantage. Can't get 'em at Wally World.  I guess a third gripe is the leaf springs in it vrs. a 98k too.

But I like it. I'm a fan if the military stuff.  Couldn't have gotten a fair 98k or 03 Springfield for anything less than 3 times as much I'd think. So  nothing to complain about to be sure. More of just  a, "Wish I still had my old Garand or had bought 03 or 98 back when they were cheap." kinda thing.  Could see picking up one of the carbines some day, if a nice one comes along.  Hoping this one won't need accuraizing, but half looking forward to the exercise too.

But to be honest, the original post was really more about survival in the woods at the present time as a homeless person than about EOWAWKI or SHTF scenarios.

I can see everyone's points. I ultimately decided to to go with 3 guns and the Mosin was an impulse thing. Went with .22, .44, 20 gauge and the Mosin.

Held to just one, I guess the .22 makes the most sense if you have to carry it all. .22 + .44 next, add the shotgun last, and .30 cal rifle is a luxury. Though I guess an .22 and an SKS would be a valid alternative to the .44. (Went with .22 and .44 handguns.)

So I think I'm covered for just about anything in the lower 48 except hostile people practically speaking. Just don't have any serious anti-personnel piece. Everything is just basic, minimal designs. SA revolvers, break action shotgun, bolt rifle. A Handy rifle with 3 barrels (.22, 30-06, 12 gauge) and a defensive sidearm  struck me as the real way to go, so you can pack it all.

I guess the real lesson in all of this is that there's no device that covers everything. Each choice leaves out some part of the overall puzzle. I kind of see these as the "domains":

1) Small Game
2) Large Game
3) Dangerous Game
4) Dangerous People
5) Wingshooting

No matter what you pick, something gets left out.

You might could say "pump 12 gauge" and it could cover it all, but you would have to be quick with getting the right load into it. But it gives up the ammo carrying capacity as the shells are heavy. Certainly would be prohibitive for long term food gathering without some way of affording ammo. I think this is where the .22 shines. You can carry scads of ammo, cheap. But you are going to have to hope to never need power.

I guess the .22 over 12 or 20 guage might represent the best compromise. But not really "cost effective" and lack firepower.

So I guess this is one of those debates that never ends because everyone is going to weigh the various "domains" differently and come to different answers.

In any event, have thankfully (I think, LOL!) avoided having to go "Grizzly Adams" for the moment. Hoping to get somewhere where I can work up some loads for the Mosin eventually. Have packed the recently acquired firearms and ammo up for "someday" so that if it ever comes to it again, won't have to sweat having the tooling on hand. Looking forward to eventually getting some casting tooling and seeing what the Mosin can do.

[flmason]

One thing that always comes up against the .22lr is its poor defensive capabilities....

It may be small and underpowered, but how many people will keep charging you after getting shot in the face with one?

I have 7000ish rounds of .22lr stored in 250 round ziplock bags which are in a sealed ammo can stored with dessicant. Funny thing is, as of right now I dont even own a 22.

I had a .17hmr and loved it but I just sold it to pay off bills... as much as I liked it I think I will replace it with a single shot bolt action .22 or maybe a Marlin Papoose if I can find one. Sure the 17 is a laser to 100 yards but how many of us can spot small game at distances like that?

Well... when it looked like I was seriously  a few weeks to a month from living out of the car I said, "Screw it" and bought several arms. But after getting ammo for all of them as well, the .22 was a clear leader in  both "rounds for the dollar" and "rounds you can carry".

So for the envisioned situation, it was probably the best choice single choice. Not my favorite, not the best for self defense, but most practical choice. Would definitely dictate your choice of strategy as well.

What stood out to me at one point was concealability. If one chose to live on the fringe between civilization and wilderness... being able to hide the gun when in town would be paramount. So in the end, I know the title was rifle, but I'm thinging a good .22 handgun would be the choice, and you'd just have to accept and deal with the limitations. I.e. hope you never have to fight something big or nasty. After all, the basic scenario envisioned was poverty level survival. So cost effectiveness probably goes to the .22 Ability to carry and hide goes to the handgun.

[jlwilliams]

  I couldn't agree more about the concealbility of a handgun making it a best choise for a survival weapon.  That's as true for the guy living on the fringes of society as it may be in some all out disaster scenario.  You hear lots of bla bla bla on the web about some imaginary scenario that involves the dot commandos getting up from their keyboards and running around with their AK rifles.  Sounds a bit far fetched to me.  No one knows what the future may be, but I really think that in any disaster situation that I can think of, a guy running around with a rifle is a target.  Whether he's a target for bad guys, a target for whatever remains of authorities or a target of a law enforcement investigation after order is restored is moot.  Point is, the guys who think that there may be a future that involves acceptable open carry of battle rifles are probably dreaming.  If you are hunting, your hunting.  I can see the possability of a future when hunting seasons and game wardens are a thing of the past after a major disaster, so you could be carrying a rifle outside of town.  In town if you are going to be armed then a handgun it is and a handgun it will always be.
 
  I have always loved takedown guns and I think they have a practicality.  This is getting a bit away from 'cost effective' survival rifles, but the idea is worth discussing.  I think that a takedown rifle has the advantage of being concealable while you are in town.  Maybe that means it's strapped to your body or one half to each leg under baggy pants or maybe that means it's cached in some sort of container in a spot you can retrieve it from when you want it.  Whatever the case may be, you could have a hunting rifle that could be transported without making yourself look like a guy with a rifle.  The handgun for defense, the rifle for rifle work.  A takedown rifle has the advantages of any other rifle plus it's less likely to get taken away by authorities (or anybody else) because you can hide it.
 
  There is really no doubt in my mind that the handun is the primary weapon because it's what you can have at all times.  The internet accepted wisdom that the future holds a time where there will be no law and roving hordes of whatever with the good guys engaging in fantasy combat is silly.  If there is a disaster there is more likely to be more law than less, at least in some places.  You may well be able to walk around with a rifle while clearly hunting and forraging, but urban commando dreaming will only get people hurt.  Martial law is more likely than no law.  Open carry of a battle rifle would only end sadly.  An AK toting dot commando looks like what he is.  A guy moving around with a concealed handgun looks like anybody else moving around. 
 
  Like I said way back in the beginning of this thread: my grandfather got himself a pellet pistol for squirreling during the depression.  It was concealable and quiet.  He could get a little food with it if he was discreet, and the bigger kids wouldn't beat him down and take it from him because they didn't know he had it.  He killed squirrels and rabbits in urban parks and in rural areas.  The concealbility worked because he passed it on and I still have it.  I have the pellet gun and the story that went with it to teach me that a discreet weapon you have is better than a more powerful one that gets taken away.
 
  I know I got a bit off topic.  Thanks for tollerating my digression.

[Victor3]

The bullet must be dropping from the sky. Second I would suggest the guy with the centerfire would have less deflection from wind and a flater shooting gun making shots faster and more accurate.
 

 If memory serves, at just 200 yds a HV 40 gn .22 lr drops ~60" and a 10 MPH constant breeze will shift POI ~15". Most scopes don't have enough elevation to get you on target.
 
 If you've ever tried for groups off a bench at 200 yds with a .22 (regardless of how great you, your rifle, ammo & scope are), you know that it's hard to get a 1 foot group on a good day. 300 yds? Pray that you can hit a 55 gal drum 50% of the time.

[SHOOTALL]

When one states cost effective survival rifle the $$$$$$$$$$ pop into many peoples eyes. Fair enough most don't have any idea what survival means across the board. They pick one possible event that could cause them to think they are in a survival situation and relate only to that. In many cases where putting food in your stomach is the only requirement of your rifle ( note OP stated rifle not handgun ) then a 22 LR might work. But if you look at all possible needs in many possible events that could come to be where a rifle would not only be a comfort but a need to insure you live then the 22 LR might not look as good.
 Consider that events in this country could make it possible for you to own only one rifle . It may be in good times and your choice will be the one you will have for the rest of your life to hunt , protect and target shoot. It may be you live where gangs start to take over or wild critters make a come back ( I live near a large city , when young we didn't have deer now we have enough problems with deer and bears there is a season for bears now and yotes are making it nessary to go armed in some places ) . I do not care to face a mob/gang with a 22 LR rifle or any handgun if I can do better. Same for the bad critters.
 Someone mentioned a shot to the face with a 22 LR . OK in some cases that might work but in some it won't . First you have to make the shot and a head shot on a moving target with a rifle in close quarters in the dark maybe isn't a high % shot IMHO. Think about the attacker we are most likely to see , in many if not most it will be someone on drugs . To stop someone on say PCP it takes a shot that shuts them down , they often recieve a killing shot only to keep going not even realizing they are dieing . They often kill and do alot of damage in the period between getting shot and dieing. In such a case a 22LR would not be my choice.
 No matter where you live and no matter how hidden you are in a time of crisis people will move from place to place looking for a new life and if your place is so good they will find it and try to take it.
 A survival rifle is the one rifle you can depend on to save your life in situations you have not yet thought of. It better be a low maintance rifle and one that is not prone to breaking parts . The ammo must not be effected by heat, cold or moisture . At some point you best effort to protect your gun and ammo might get comprised. Also the Russian surplus ammo is most likely corrosive so it or the guns that shoot it might be an unwise choice.
Just some considerations to consider , not ment to pick on anyone else or their pet rifle. Forget the $$$$$$$$$$ what is the worth of your or your love ones lives ?

[teamnelson]

I think this thread shows the point that "cost" "effective" and "survival" are all subjective. There's a qualitative factor to each. To some $500 is still alot of money, eventhough its not to others. Effective might be able to put small game in the stewpot, while others require the rifle to reach out to 600m against multiple hardened targets. Survival might just be a meal and relative safety to some, while others will only survive on a fully stocked homestead. Making do is ultimately going to be everyone's course of action at some point, and those who are most adept at the transition will be the survivors regardless of what they had when they started.
 
flmason, I think you'd be wisest to have a handgun always, even if you can't afford a long gun to go with it.

[SHOOTALL]

Like Sam Elloit said in the movie "if i need one there will be plenty laying on the ground".

[teamnelson]

Like Sam Elloit said in the movie "if i need one there will be plenty laying on the ground".

 
 
Great quote! And from a guy who went in country with only a 1911.

[Spirithawk]

Well here's my way of thinking. Why just one? I can carry both a rifle, or shotgun, and a handgun at the same time just fine. In fact, while hunting I often carry my .270, or .50, and have my PF-9 holstered on my belt, along with a spare magazine, and my P-32 in my pocket. Not to mention the two knives I carry always. I have a CCW and I carry my PF-9 and my P-32 24/7. If you see me you can bet both are on me! I make it a point to not limit myself to just one weapon when survival might become an issue. In a SHF situation, my goal would be to have many firearms, and ammo, stashed at differant locations and trust me, I do.

[mannyrock]

 
Gentlemen,
 
     I am sorry but I can't agree with the concept that the final solution was to buy a .22 pistol and carry it concealed.  Unless you have a carry permit, if you get caught with a concealed handgun in any caliber, you are facing an immediate felony arrest. No police officer is going to give you a break or let you off the hook for that.
 
    A .22 rifle, or a 20 gauge shotgun, not concealed, will generally not get you in too much trouble, even if you are in an area where you are not suppose to have one.
 
    I guess that if you are worried about how to survive without any money or house, getting arrested and imprisoned on a handgun felony is a good way to get about 3 years of free room and board.
 
Regards, Mannyrock

[flmason]

Gentlemen,
 
     I am sorry but I can't agree with the concept that the final solution was to buy a .22 pistol and carry it concealed.  Unless you have a carry permit, if you get caught with a concealed handgun in any caliber, you are facing an immediate felony arrest. No police officer is going to give you a break or let you off the hook for that.
 
    A .22 rifle, or a 20 gauge shotgun, not concealed, will generally not get you in too much trouble, even if you are in an area where you are not suppose to have one.
 
    I guess that if you are worried about how to survive without any money or house, getting arrested and imprisoned on a handgun felony is a good way to get about 3 years of free room and board.
 
Regards, Mannyrock

LOL! Good points to be sure.

Have to admit, I was amazed that I had to get a Sheriff's OK in Iowa(!) to get a handgun these days. Apparently it has gotten way more uptight than when I last bought guns some 20 years ago. Shocked me 'cause it's the midwest of all places.

I did start the thread specifically about rifles. At that moment, looked like that may have been the only affordable option.

Have to say I can see the point some folks are making that a .22 isn't big enough as well.

Interesting that all the major names don't have something aimed at this sort of thing that we're all aware of.

Common suggestions sometimes run to Savage 24 and M6, both out of print. Someone did point out a Russian manufacturer of similar. Name escapes me at the moment.

The shift in thinking to a handgun in my case came about as I tried to grapple with the idea of travelling in and out of "civilization". Though of course you could take a breakdown gun and wrap it up and tie it to a pack and probably not get any questions if you did it right. Hid it in the bedroll perhaps.

Ultimately I guess the idea of bugging out on an individual level, at this point in history is really fanciful. Just way to many entities that would make it difficult, from Law Enforcement and Rangers to Dope Growers out there. If you really just wanted to do that, I can't think of anywhere you really could. Maybe Alaska. Maybe. Anywhere third worldish and *I'd* probably be dead in a week. I'd probably die in the lower 48 in the colder parts.

Of course had it come to pass that I *had* to do it, as I was anticipating. Would've been interesting to be sure. Tough for even more sure.  Most likely would've headed for some of the job markets mentioned.

At this point, still trying to recover from it all, though now back to work. Definitely asking, "What am I gonna do now?" As I'm not making enough to really recover well. But have food, bed, income. Can only hope I can eventually get to a situation where I can enjoy the guns I did decide on, work up some loads and eventually contribute something concrete to the reloading sections around these parts.

[SHOOTALL]

The bottom line on cost is if your choice of rifle will not save your life in any situation you may find yourself you paid the highest price for nothing .

[flmason]

The bottom line on cost is if your choice of rifle will not save your life in any situation you may find yourself you paid the highest price for nothing .

No doubt. Especially if money is no object.

But one does have to be pay the price tag in the store as well. So pragmatically one may have to weigh tradeoffs.

[SHOOTALL]

It dosen't need be expensive . IMHO the addition of add ons and such can make a rifle less useful. A good 30-30 ( brand of your choice) would meet most needs quite handy. I even read an article by a  ranger that got trapped in a box caynon by six or seven grizzly bears and had to kill all to get out . He used a win 30-30 so even the bad bear deal is covered by a gun that often can be picked up for under $200 if you shop and watch the for sale section in the local papers. And a look a ammo shows the 30-30 still a bargin by todays pricing.