What .22 for a backpacking hunting gun?

[arizona98tj]

I added a Tactical Solutions 6" barrel/upper to my Ruger Mk I. The TacSol barrel weighs 7.4 ounces. I added an extra 2 ounces and included their Picatinny rail with integrated adjustable rear sight. All assembled, it is a great shooter.





The TacSol Ruger MK1 with a Burris FastFire II red dot.

 

[danez71]

What about a 3" barreled S&W 317 Airweight?

Only 12oz.

 

[Jackal]

For accuracy, get a Crickett rifle. Tiny, light and accurate. Here's mine beside a S&W 29.

 

[pikid89]

My little brothers plastic stock cricket is rediculously light...id take that...super light and quite accurate with the stock peep sights...walmarts got em for like 120 bucks to boot

 

[tubeshooter]

What about a 3" barreled S&W 317 Airweight?

Only 12oz.

These guns are light as a feather, but dang hard to shoot. Not saying it can't be done, but it will take some practice. Possibly quite a bit, actually.

I don't think I would bet dinner in the woods on one of these, if it were me. And this is from someone who has one and likes it.


Probably be better off with a Cricket, Papoose or something like that if you're really serious about eating. Even a Buckmark or MK I/II/III would be a better choice than a 317, IMO. (Super-)Light weight in and of itself isn't going to bag you any game.

 

[MCgunner]

A little off the OP's topic, but why not an H&R shotgun in 20 or .410 gauge? Light, could be taken down for storage in a backpack with a short enough barrel. I would favor my 20 gauge spartan coach gun, myself, but ah H&R would be lighter, less expensive, and as effective. The trade off to a .22 is the weight and size of the ammo, but if my supper absolutely depended on it........

 

[danez71]

These guns are light as a feather, but dang hard to shoot. Not saying it can't be done, but it will take some practice. Possibly quite a bit, actually.

I don't think I would bet dinner in the woods on one of these, if it were me. And this is from someone who has one and likes it.


Probably be better off with a Cricket, Papoose or something like that if you're really serious about eating. Even a Buckmark or MK I/II/III would be a better choice than a 317, IMO. (Super-)Light weight in and of itself isn't going to bag you any game.

Interesting. I don't have one but have wanted one for a while. Its hard for me to justify the $$ on something I wouldn't shoot much at all.


Is it hard to shot because its so light? I'd mainly shoot it as a single action.

 

[osteodoc08]

Ruger 22/45 Lite would be right up your alley

 

[tubeshooter]

Interesting. I don't have one but have wanted one for a while. Its hard for me to justify the $$ on something I wouldn't shoot much at all.


Is it hard to shot because its so light? I'd mainly shoot it as a single action.

Yes, mostly it is a situation where a stout DA trigger pull + such a light gun = hard to keep on target. It is something you could probably get used to over time.

The SA trigger is very good, and it's not as big of an issue in single action.

I ended up having a stainless steel cylinder installed in mine (long story), and I think it helped the shootability out a whole lot. I actually like it much better this way. The gun picked up about 4 ounces in doing this. It is now an awesome kit gun, but I don't shoot it very much. I have since purchased another .22 revolver that I prefer for general-purpose use.


If it's not something you really want and/or have a critical need for the light weight, I would say pass. It's not a bad specimen, but it is somewhat expensive. Then again... the new .22 revolver market in general has gotten fairly expensive, with a few exceptions. At least the 317 holds it's value well if you were to decide to sell it later.


On topic: The 22/45 Lite suggestion(s) might be just the ticket for what the OP wants. I would suggest that over the 317 if light weight is highly important. I think it would be much easier to hit small game with beyond 25 feet or so.

 

[22-rimfire]

A S&W M63 might be the ticket, except for the $400 part. I want a 3". The discontinued 4" models are pretty nice. I have a 5" which would work, but probably not what you're looking for.

 

[bannockburn]

I picked up a LNIB S&W Model 34 Kit Gun with a 4" barrel for around $400 a couple of years ago. It weighs in at about 23 oz. and is more than accurate out to 50' with most .22LR ammo.

 

[DonnyBrook13]

NAA Mini-Master

I have an NAA Mini-Master, 4" with .22 LR and .22 mag cylinders. Weighs 13 ounces. I took one rabbit with the .22 LR at about 12 yards. It's my standard backpacking/mt. biking gun, due to the light weight. Mainly for self-defense with the .22 mag. But I wouldn't want to rely on it strictly for procuring meat. With the small grip and light weight, very difficult to shoot accurately. I added the folding grip which gives a little more purchase.

For dedicated hunting, I would take my 22/45 w/ red-dot sight, or my Marlin Papoose.

 

[Armored farmer]

Like arizona98tj, I like my Ruger MKII with red-dot sight for small game/woods running.

If I thought it was too heavy for packing, I would be tempted to try a Ruger SR22 (or Walther version). My son has an SR22. It is reliable with all ammo, small, and accurate too.

 

[22-rimfire]

The Ruger SR22P is a great little semi-auto 22LR pistol. It is the hunting part that is problematic for me. With practice, I think you could reliably expect 2" groups at 15 yds. It is a small pistol but is reliable. If that is good enough for you, then that would be my suggestion as well over the S&W M63 (steel J-frame) mentioned earlier due to cost. The new Ruger SP101 in 22LR may be a bit large for you, but a good gun in single action. They run around $500 new.

 

[MCgunner]

If I thought it was too heavy for packing, I would be tempted to try a Ruger SR22 (or Walther version). My son has an SR22. It is reliable with all ammo, small, and accurate too.

I said this on another .22 thread. My SR22 is quite accurate, 2" at 25 off the bench, but practical off hand and field rested shooting, I don't do well with the gun. I think it's the weight, it's just TOO danged light. I hit MUCH better with my little 24 ounce Rossi kit gun M511 Sportsman. It shoots 1-2" depending on ammo fed at 25 and it is just esier for me to shoot. I really have no answer other than the weight of the gun steadies it better. I'm side tracked in practicing with the SR22 until I can readily get Federal bulk pack again, but I'm not a quitter. I'm going to keep practicing with it.

 

[BlindJustice]

S&W MOdel 63 "Kit" gun
3" Bbl. front ramp sight,and W&E adj. rear sight.

It's all stainless steel and 36 ozempty,
The original was a 6 shot cyl. the new
n producitonversionis an 8 Shot CYl.

IMO - the 317 since the 617 is a K-frame and
the 317 is a J Frame as is the 63
the 317 would be more properly named as a
363 model number. S&W model number assignements
will drive yah nuts in short order.

 

[dirtykid]

Is no-one even gonna mention the SP-101 ??

Eight-shots , Stainless steel , adjustable rear sights
I use it for trapping-dispatch, put a pair of CT-grips on it and dialed them in at 10-yards

granted, you would be on the high-end of your price range but its a gun I would trust anywhere,

 

[tubeshooter]

The new SP-101 is great, I really like mine...

...but if the OP's main focus is on light weight, then it's not going to come up in the conversation much.


Besides the relatively heavy weight, it would be well-suited. Some people complain about the DA trigger pull, but it does not bother me. Maybe because I was coming from trying to shoot that 317...

 

[thesecond]

Not yet mentioned: Rifle - Chiappa Badger. Take-down .22 LR, simple, single-shot, crisp trigger, 16" barrel, ghost sights, leaves $200 for optics (rail). Ruger also has a take-down 10/22.

Handguns - Ruger Mark I/II with an optic (I like the Tac-lite posted in this thread) or any of the longer barrel SA revolvers from North American Arms (e.g., The Earl), and then try out a few different grips depending on your hands.

(S & W 317 is expensive and hunting small game wouldn't be one of its best uses - better as a 'rim-fire trainer' for an airlite j-frame in .38/.357, or as a truly lightweight 8-shot BUG. With limited ammo and opportunities to shoot small, moving targets, a rifle would seem best.)

 

[CajunBass]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunBass View Post
Look around for an old High Standard, 101 Sentinel. It's a K-frame sized, 9 shot, fixed sight, aluminum frame, DA/SA, 22 revolver. The one I had had a 4" barrel, but they probably made longer back in the day. Plenty accurate to hit a rabbit or a squirrel. Light as a feather, and in an Uncle Mikes nylon holster, you won't even know it's there.

That sounds perfect. But it also sounds like something that would be very difficult to find...

Well, maybe so, but the hunt is half the fun.

BTW...Sears sold the same gun under the J.C. Higgins name. Check around on some of the auction sites. They're not rare.

There's at least one on Gunbroker now.

 

[40-82]

When you get your under 18 oz. .22 and see what you can do with it compared to the Ruger or the Henry, I think you will see that some things are worth their weight. You won't starve if you go 3 days without eating, but you can get pretty uncomfortable. If you do go with a lightweight 22, I suggest a revolver that you can load with CB caps that way you can go for head shots at under thirty feet, and if you shoot high the CB's make so little noise that you will not alert the squirrel or the rabbit and you can try again.

I have a Colt target 22 revolver with a 6-inch barrel made in 1918 that weighs 18 ozs., but when I head out I ask myself if I wouldn't really carry a much heavier Smith & Wesson K-frame.

Let us know how your trip goes. There is nothing more exciting than being out in the middle of nowhere and eating a meal that completely comes off the land.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My Colt Woodsman was made in 1938. It has the high velocity mainspring housing, and is the most accurate and shootable pistol I've ever owned. That's the gun I usually carry when hiking.

 

[22-rimfire]

Vern, aren't you "a scared" of bears in the Ozarks and is the Woodsman enough? I only say this because of the caliber wars when it comes to walk in the woods/hiking bear defense.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Every bear I've ever seen has run from me.

Now it it were grizzley or polar bears, it might be different, but blackies want to stay out of my way,

 

[Jlr2267]

I would take a small rifle (cricket, Rossi 22/410, Henry Survival, Papoose, etc.). A pistol is still gonna get heavy if your belly is empty for a couple days.