WheelGunMan
Member
I have a Marlin 883SS in .22WMR that's wicked fast and a tack driver. I'd be comfortable using it as a survival gun.
I agree that having a combination gun has its advantages, but I was thinking more about the minimalist view, a weapon and ammo combination that doesn't weigh as much or take up space in your backpack.RedlegRick, haven't had any problem with the .22LR or the .22WMR extracting, however after shooting them I've cleaned them up really well, BTW I've done a lot of shooting with both rifles/shotguns. The problem I see with the "Little Badger" is that it's just a single barrel in .22LR/.22WMR I believe that in a survival situation the use of a .410 or 20ga. shotgun in the bottom barrel is of utmost importance
I guess that depends on what ‘Survival Rifle’ means to you.I agree that having a combination gun has its advantages, but I was thinking more about the minimalist view, a weapon and ammo combination that doesn't weigh as much or take up space in your backpack.
To me, the word 'survival rifle' means just that, a light and compact shoulder arm meant to fill the cookpot when needed. I admit that the flexibility of having two calibers at once is nice, but it ups the loadout weight in my head. A box of .22s only weighs four or five ounces while shotshells weigh a lot more, even in .410.
Agreed, but as I said before, the word means something different for everyone. If I were to purchase a rifle specifically for the purpose, it'd most likely be a single-shot, not a combination gun.I guess that depends on what ‘Survival Rifle’ means to you.
If it means a minimalist two shot weapon that utilizes two different calibers probably for getting small to medium sized game such a rifle/shotgun would be a pretty good choice.
Such guns appeal to me in the abstract and fall into the ‘neat’ category, but they leave something to be desired in the execution. For one the sights on those combination guns are usually pretty poor. Even on the centerfire rifle versions of the ones I’ve shot in .222 and .223 they weren’t very accurate past 100 yards and even on targets inwards of that they left patterns rather than groups.
Secondly two shot guns hold ... well two shots. If self defense is included in survival a two shot gun could conceivably be used in some situations, but in my opinion it would be behind a huge stack of guns and directly behind the 1870’s era Colt Single Action Army and the S&W Model 3 Schofield.
Thanks jeepnik. I like the idea of velcro on the buttstock. What a great idea. Now you got me thinkin' again.
It would be because its intended purpose is strictly as a backup for when you don't have your double or repeater. Simple, rugged, light and compact for those times you may be 'accidentally camping". For example, if you're backpacking in rugged country or for extended distances, every ounce counts, and a one to three pound pot gun is a lot easier on the feet and back than a seven to ten pound rifle and its attendant ammunition and accessories.I'm not sure why a single shot would be an advantage in a survival situation. Most hunters I've known carry repeaters of some kind (bolt, lever, even auto) to allow a faster follow up shot than is afforded by a single shot. If a quick second shot is handy in normal hunting one would think it would be even more so in a survival situation.
Sure, I guess it just depends on what you’re going for.Agreed, but as I said before, the word means something different for everyone. If I were to purchase a rifle specifically for the purpose, it'd most likely be a single-shot, not a combination gun.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to call them 'foraging rifles', just to distance them from the 'survivalist' vibe.
It would be because its intended purpose is strictly as a backup for when you don't have your double or repeater. Simple, rugged, light and compact for those times you may be 'accidentally camping". For example, if you're backpacking in rugged country or for extended distances, every ounce counts, and a one to three pound pot gun is a lot easier on the feet and back than a seven to ten pound rifle and its attendant ammunition and accessories.
Something that fits in a daypack unobtrusively is another bonus, one less article on a strap to contend with on the trail.
And most of the time with small game, one shot is all you're gonna get and it's not hard to load fast either. If nothing else, it conserves ammo and forces you to focus more on making the shot count.
I think on bigger animals you're limited to headshots with either and there's not a big edge for the Mag. If you go with .22LR the ammo is smaller and lighter allowing you to carry more or carry less weight for the same amount. Worse the two aren't really compatible.
And how many rounds do you need? This isn't a war you are fighting/ Its putting meat on the table and maybe SD in an emergency. One hundred rounds should see you through and survival situation.
There are some bolts and autos that are as light as any single shot I've ever seen. There's no mechanical reason that a single shot would be any lighter than, say, a bolt. Not sure there's a single shot that's more robust and rugged than a bolt, either. If you want unobtrusive there are several .22 LR autos that are designed to break down for storage. The Marlin Pappoos is accurate, reliable and pretty light and broken down it's very compact.
A semi auto can be fired as slowly as a single shot but the opposite is not true. If you're responsible enough to own a gun you should be responsible for trigger control! Especially if there's only time for a single shot.
Realistically if you're talking .22 cal rimfire guns one could simply take a 6" barrel auto pistol and have a lot of capability.
I'm not that sold on .22 Mag myself. It packs more punch but it still underpowered for big game while being a lot more expensive than .22LR. I think on bigger animals you're limited to headshots with either and there's not a big edge for the Mag. If you go with .22LR the ammo is smaller and lighter allowing you to carry more or carry less weight for the same amount. Worse the two aren't really compatible.
Note that I'm not saying it's useless! Nothing wrong with having one and it wouldn't be a terrible survival gun. A lot depends on what a survival gun means to you and of course where you live. Where I live I'd never choose a 'survival gun' that didn't give me a reasonable chance to kill or dissuade a large bear. If there are no dangerous predators where you live the story would be different.
I can definitely see an O/U being a good survival gun! With something like a .22 Hornet or even a 30/30 on top and a 20ga or 12ga on the bottom you could harvest a wide range of game!
Mention of the AR7 got me to thinking. Anyone else have a Charter Arms Explorer pistol? I now carry it in my Jeep with the mossy. Lots of fun and reasonably accurate.
When people say stuff like this it makes wonder if they have ever shot a 22lr and a 22 mag side by side? Did you miss the part in my earlier post where I shot holes in a burn barrel with a 22 and 22 mag? The 22 mag easily shot through both sides of a brand new steel 55 gallon barrel while not one 22lr did anymore than dent the off side. Did you read the part where I mentioned Ross Seyfried took a 22 mag to Africa and killed several whitetail sized plains game? It seemed to work for but he is an expert hunter who knows how to stalk and get close to game before shooting.
And how many rounds do you need? This isn't a war you are fighting/ Its putting meat on the table and maybe SD in an emergency. One hundred rounds should see you through and survival situation.
Thats whats fun about these threads is the sharing of ideas and concepts. And nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
Does anyone remember the old Marlin catalogs where they shot blocks of Walnut with a 22lr and a 22 mag to show how much deeper a 22 mag would penetrate? It was close to 3 times as much penetration over the 22 lr.
Again, as you say, I'm not saying anyone is wrong and that I am right. Just giving my view on it.