into the wild

Probably my scoped Rem 700 .30-06 with its back up iron sights, and a Mk III .22lr.

Might even take my L-E #4 Mk 1 instead, for its rugged and protected front and rear peep sights. It would stand up to lots of rough use.

I would hope to make a few more friends of the locals I met along the way. The wilds are no place to snub a neighbor, even if they are 20 miles away.

i hate how cheap and crude the stamped out ak47 feels pluss be care fullful chambering it youll cut your self on the safety
what about a bolt action 3006 and a ruger 10/22 both with the yet to be made carbonfiber stocks

Click to expand...

Your grammar teacher must be spinning in her grave.


To answer the OP's question, I would carry a 7.62mm AK in the wilderness, assuming I'm going a few months without any maintenence while I'm there.

keep it simple
a big cliber handgun such as 44mag or 500s&w somthing that will kill a charging moose or bear, since i wont need a large rifle for game i would take 22 mag rifle for the hunting

the reason i dont want to take a big rifle is if i kill a moose or whatever it would go to was before i could eat it so i would stick to smaller game with a smaller caliber and just use the handgun for self defense against wild animals

Maybe, but I know that country and if you don't know what you're doing you can VERY EASILY blunder right past a cabin or bridge. It's endless, trackless and unforgiving. Also I don't remember any mention of multiple cabins "within a few miles" of the bus. IIRC there were some in the general area, but you'd have to know exactly where to find them.

He was grossly unprepared. But then again most people who think they are prepared are still grossly unprepared for Alaska. The maps are often absurdly inaccurate and outdated. You can guarantee nothing out there other than risk.

Click to expand...

No offense, but the fact that you do not remember a mention of the cabins does not change the fact that they existed. One cabin, clearly marked on topographical maps, was six miles due south of the bus in which he was living. Rangers and others who frequent the area have described the trip from the bus to that cabin as, "an easy day's walk". He was within a day's hike of at least 3 supply cabins.

Whether or not a map would have listed them correctly isn't the point. I'm certainly not attempting to imply that he would have definitely survived if he'd had one; merely pointing out that it seems odd to me that so many people lionize someone who quite clearly took absolutely no precautions and repeatedly refused advice from those more experienced than he. The person who dropped him off in the wilderness even went so far as to offer to drive McCandless to Ankorage, pay for proper survival gear, and then drive McCandless back to the drop-off point. The point here is that there's a difference between someone who takes precautions but still dies and someone who acts with a complete and utter disregard for his own well-being.

Risk is absolutely a certainty. It is certain in everything we do, and even moreso in the Alaskan bush. However, rational people attempt to mitigate that risk. McCandless did not. His death is a tragedy, but it is not the death of a hero or a martyr (I don't believe you are implying either, but there are many who do). McCandless was a clueless kid who ran into opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to mitigate risk and make proper arrangements, but steadfastly refused to do so.

What McCandless did was the equivalent of running out into a thunderstorm dressed in damp copper while standing at the top of the highest hill he could find and shouting "all gods are bastards". (Acknowledgment to Terry Pratchett for the metaphor.)

357, i couldn't agree with you more

I heard from more than once source that it wasn't the Berry's that finnished off Mr Mcandiss,it was a .22 from under the chin.

There is/was a cable over the river about four miles away from the Bus.I went in there in 2004,using a rock climbing harness and pully to cross the River.For Chris to have lived where he did for that long,and not have ranged at least as far as the Cable would have been strange indeed.Whe you are alone in the wilderness,Rivers,Streams,even Ponds becone like a freind.You vist then often.

Strange and sad ending to a young mans life.

What McCandless did was the equivalent of running out into a thunderstorm dressed in damp copper while standing at the top of the highest hill he could find and shouting "all gods are bastards". (Acknowledgment to Terry Pratchett for the metaphor.)

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but so what? He chose how he wanted to live and then did so. Freedom also means free to be stupid.

As for the firearm question, I'm with the .357 revolver and levergun combo. Preferably in Stainless with synthetic furniture.

He chose how he wanted to live and then did so. Freedom also means free to be stupid.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here has anything against a guy who made dumb, yet free, choices.

But the fact that the account of his life was distorted or romanticized, both in print and in film, in order to cast him as some kind of a hero is what is causing the heat.

He was where I was a long time ago. And I think a lot of young men with romantic wanderlust go through this. For most it was a phase. But for Chris it was a reality and he lived it, and was willing to pay with his life for his standards.
Does that make him a fool or a hero?




Maybe heros are fools. Fools with admirable standards.

If we are asking what the best single firearm for a survival situation is, I would go with a combination rifle/shotgun in a center-fire cartridge and twelve gage version, similar to what Savage Arms used to market. A good aperture sight for the rifle barrel, and a mix of shot and slugs for the 12 gage, plus cartridges appropriate for mid sized game in the rifle.

Slugs would be good for close range defense against bears, and could also be used on moose if close enough. Shot shells for birds and small game, and the rifle for medium game at distances up to about two hundred yards.

The only real problem with that choice is that it only provides two shots before reloading, in case of bear attack. But then, few people will live long enough to get more than two shots off, if they do not drop the bear with the first two shots.

He was where I was a long time ago. And I think a lot of young men with romantic wanderlust go through this. For most it was a phase. But for Chris it was a reality and he lived it, and was willing to pay with his life for his standards.
Does that make him a fool or a hero?

Maybe heros are fools. Fools with admirable standards.

Click to expand...

At the risk of diverting further...

It makes him a fool.

A hero helps others without regard to himself. McCandless sought his own solace without regard to his loved ones. He was too caught up in his own life to see what he did to his parents and to his sister.

People who want to call him a hero or a martyr are people who want to legitimize their own youthful indiscretions. If McCandless is a hero, then their own foolishness can be excused as being some sort of heroic quest and they don't have to admit that they were too young to know better and made mistakes.

I'll not go further on this though, as I have already taken up too much of this thread on tangents. To the OP, I apologise.

And to get back to the topic at hand, I stand by my choice of a Mosin Nagant M91/30 for a rifle since it is virtually indestructible and ammo can be found cheaply. For a handgun, I think I'd want a double-action .44 Magnum revolver with a 6" or 8" barrel. Not great for small game, but it's not the small things I'm worried about.

You can just follow two Ruts from repeated Bulldozer traffic from years ago almost right to the Bus.

Click to expand...

Only when the river is low. "Supertramp" walked in easy and figured walking out would be easy too. Big mistake. But a very, very easy one to make up here.

McCandless was a clueless kid who ran into opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to mitigate risk and make proper arrangements, but steadfastly refused to do so.

Click to expand...

Exactly, he was a clueless kid. I'm not in the habit of heaping blame on clueless kids. Esp. since I've BEEN one! LOL. There but for the grace of God go I, or anyone else who's seen the elephant. He took some risks, but I'm sure he didn't think he was leaving the safety net entirely. He was still on an old road, there was an old bus there. He knew the way out. Why would he need a map or a trip to Anchorage for gear? Once his supplies ran low he'd just walk right back out and hitch another ride down the road.

His mistakes were real, but they were also very easy to understand. Esp. for someone from outside who's used to roughing it on very different terms. He was already way underweight when he went out there, as a result of his lifestyle for the past months. By the time he got in a danger zone and tried to leave, it was too late. If you set foot on those waters you realize the insanity of any notion of swimming across. So he figures he'll wait it out a bit longer, and rely on berries and game. But he doesn't know enough about either to keep himself alive, and he dies. Once the body starts down that slope it's very difficult to recover even under the best of circumstances. He did all he could, but like so many others here he did not make it.

I would not call him a "hero" or a martyr. He's just one of the guys who saw the elephant and got stomped by it. Not the first, not the last. It can happen even to the very prepared.

III. Counter to the portrayal in the Krakauer book and Penn film, Chris McCandless carried “into the wild” a wallet with multiple sources of identification and $300 in cash, as well as a map.

Click to expand...

http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_debunked.htm

Okay, so I haven't read the book, nor seen the movie, but I DID read that link above, and they say he had a map with him.

I would carry a large enough rifle to kill a bear, maybe a 7mm mag or something similar. I would also bring a .22 revolver, for small game. Weight would be a major issue for ammo considerations. I wouldn't bring a whole lot of ammo for the rifle, but would be able to haul a lot of .22lr.

in the book he has a 22 bolt gun, completely stupid if you plan to hunt to survive

He killed a moose with it, didn't he?

At the risk of diverting further...

It makes him a fool.

A hero helps others without regard to himself. McCandless sought his own solace without regard to his loved ones. He was too caught up in his own life to see what he did to his parents and to his sister.

People who want to call him a hero or a martyr are people who want to legitimize their own youthful indiscretions. If McCandless is a hero, then their own foolishness can be excused as being some sort of heroic quest and they don't have to admit that they were too young to know better and made mistakes.

Click to expand...

Right on 357!!

I will also point out, that this is arrogance and being self-centered at the core.

And furthermore I think people who want to legitimize this not only want to legitimize their own youthful mistakes, but they also want to affirm their own continuing in making the same mistakes. They don't consider these mistakes!

BTW about killing bears ... I have been watching reruns of season 1 of "Lost" and in one of the first few episodes some dude kills a charging polar bear with about 5 rounds from a Sig 9mm, and then fails to kill a dying man with one shot from the same gun. You just need magic bullets!

Its easy to criticize the dead isn't it?

Let me be equally critical,

"Dale Earnhardt was a hero to many, and all he did was drive cars in a circle, and died doing it."

Not that either of the aforementioned peoples are my heroes, but before you start to flame away, think about it.

What makes them different?
Both can be seen as equally foolhardy, but did they not die doing what they loved?

***(slams nuke grade bunker door shut behind self.)***

Hi All-

All right, I am coming in here late, but here is my take on it-

Disclaimer: I hated this movie and am not condemning nor condoning Chris or what this kid did.

First, what everyone here seems to forget is that he did not die because he chose to stay or because he couldn't read a map, or failed to bring enough gun. He died because he mistook a poisonous plant for an edible plant. From what I read (luckily not experienced) the plant that he ate causes intestinal cramps and fatigue so bad that one cannot physically move, never mind hike in Alaskan wilderness.

As far a weapons, I would not be caught dead (or alive for that matter) in Alaska with just a 22, but, remember, he lived off of small game; squirrels, small birds, etc. Try shooting a squirrel with an '06 or a 44 an see how much edible meat is left. The moose thing was probably a lack of knowledge, but then again, one person would have a heck of a time dressing out and preserving a moose with the proper equipment. Alone in the Alaskan Bush with minimal tools, I dont think that most of us would fair any better. I think that for "survival" purposes, a 10/22 would be your best bet for gathering food. That said, I would still want a 44 mag or a very stout loaded 45 Colt on my hip.

Also, this kid was an experienced outdoorsman, I just think that he seriously underestimated Alaska.

I am not defending him, just stating what I have read.

He died because he mistook a poisonous plant for an edible plant.

Click to expand...

That theory has been called into question, IIRC

just watched the movie and i think that his rifle was a remington nylon 66, am i right

you are correct. it is also mentioned in the book as such.

As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausen—the biochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (Hedysarum alpinum) for Jon Krakauer—concluded after exhaustive testing that no part of H. alpinum is toxic. Neither the roots nor the seeds. Accordingly, McCandless could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his 1996 book Into the Wild, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.

Click to expand...

I think McCandless was young, nieve and to some degree foolish. I've spent enough time in harsh conditions to know that you can generally get away with going in light but not with going in unprepared. My experience in the outdoors has been that one small mistake leads to another, larger, mistake which leads to disaster.

I'd consider my .22 mag scoped with iron sights and a .45 Blackhawk.

oh the 7.62x39mm has taken every walking think in africa
but alaka yukon is tougher?

Click to expand...

the standard technique for using a 7.62x39 vs an elephant is to unload a 30 round mag into it's side and then drive away/run away and wait for it to bleed to death

Aside from humane reasons, I don't think logiscically using 30 rounds vs an elephant or even 10 rounds vs a moose is as effective as a single shot of something bigger. Second, I don't think gutshooting and waiting for it to die works in the woods of the Yukon, where say a moose could in it's half hour of life swim out and drowned or dash off somewhere unrecoverable.

Nope, 338 winchester seems about right to me.

Alternatively, passing on the biggest animals and going with a .223 might be a good choice too.

Ya well, the kid in that movie proved you wrong. He really did kill a moose with a 22 rimfire BOLT ACTION RIFLE! That should make anyone holding a 338 winchester look awfully silly.

No doubt about it, this:



If I could get one with a single shot .22LR barrel on top, I'd prefer that.