It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Survival Rifle

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by docklands
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


I guess survival to you means finding game in the woods. So your weapon is to keep you alive with food you shot. My survival scenario involve running and keeping only ONE compact firearm that I dont have to use hands to carry at any time, holster or in backpack, done, I'm running faster that some guy with a sling. Multiple firearms will require double the ammo, multiple slings. And if you ever run with a sling and backback, you know it gets annoying fast.


That's you. I know that a pistol is very limited in its' uses. Indeed outside close range self defence the pistol is fairly useless. A rifle can be stretched to both offensive (scavenging etc), defensive and hunting scenarios.

BTW, have you ever tried running or moving quickly with any sort of weight on your back? if so, you will know that the weight pulls at your shoulders and wercks your centre of balance. If you ditch the sling, a rifle in you hands is actually a benefit as it helps with momentum.


Long range shot means you know whether the target is hostile or not? How would you know 2 unidentified person 600yard away are friends or foe? Unless you are trying to snipe him and to sneak up to his property to steal his supplies?


That is a potential scenario. Another is one that you state yourself - a hunter force tracking your movements. If in this scenario they are close enough for you to use a pistol then you are at best caught, at worst dead. A lone individual will not be able to fight their way from a group of well armed and trained individuals while armed with just a pistol. That's TV stuff.

An individual armed with a rifle will be able to keep such a force at a distance, and make them very reluctant to approach. This buys valuable time, giving the opportunity to make some distance. Take it from someone who has been on the wrong end of sniper fire, you do not want to start advancing if you think your head is going to disappear the next time you move. You call up support, which takes time to arrive. You try to flank, which puts you on the back foot. You call for air support, which may not be available. This is a lot of fireower to take on one individual. In sit X there will be plenty of esier targets to take on instead.


In combat situation sure, I'd even use a 50mm why not, grenade laucher, toss 1st ask question later.


But we're not talking combat, we're talking a survival situation. If we were talking pure combat, then there are plenty of other weapons that I'd have given the choice. For basic survival I'll stick to my .308.




posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Heck, I think my old 30-30 lever would serve me well for survival and in fact I think if you look at people that live in and around the bush you will always find a 30-30. From American Cowboys to Australian bushmen this is an all around short barrel rifle with stopping power up to 250 yds. Plus where my .308 might ricochet off a twig, the 30-30 round will most often barrel right thru.

The point is fighting your way out of an urban area into the mountains. So, for the long term you have to think about shooting at food more than hostile people. Maybe work thru the city with a rifle and a handgun and then maybe hide the handgun along with it's rounds once safely into the mountains.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I would not want to be paired up with an ar-15/m16. any one who has ever ben issued one knows what im talking about.UNRELIABLE.
after a little mud,dirt,sand,little fouling from dirty nato ball rounds.you are left with a rifle shaped club.this weapon CRAPS WHERE IT EATS.
as far as the 5.56 round. ammo would not be hard to find.As its what most military and police use.its just a matter of searching bodies.
(on second thought how about one of those gas piston conversion kits
for the ar-15/m16.a must have if you must carry an AR)
has any one given any thought about Kel-tec?
the su-16. is not a bad weapon.cost effective,piston driven,light weight ,compact ,and it uses AR mags,as well as many AR types of accesories
and is chambered in 5.56



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
As far as a general survival gun a 22LR rifle is probably your best shot, and can be purchased relatively cheap at Wal-Mart for around 125.00 to 200.00. I purchased a Savage 63, 5 years ago for 124.00 and it has been accurate and reliable. Get some extra clips (about 11.00) because the 10 round clip does not last long. You can also get a box of 500 rounds of 22LR for 15.00 - 30.00. The ammo is small and easy to pack around.

My ultimate survival weapon is an SKS chambered for 7.62x39mm. 7.62x39mm is a medium sized round and easy to get. 4.00 to 20.00 for a box of 20 rounds. My wife and I both own a SKS, and purchased one from a gun shop and the other from a pawn shop. The SKS is a very reliable rifle, and can be made in Bulgaria, Russia, Chekoslovokia, Yugoslavian, and Chinese models. My 2 SKS's came from China. They are both semi-auto, and you can run 100 rounds through them as fast as you can and they do not jam or misfire when hot. There are also less parts in an SKS compared to an M16, or M14. I have shot many different rifles while I was in the service, and once an M16 gets dirty you have jamming problems. The only complaint about the SKS is that it is heavy compared to most military rifles, but to me the reliability makes up for the weight(about 7 lbs).

A 12GA shotgun is always a must in any survival situation. You can get shells for it just about anywhere, and it is perfect for up close defense, and hunting numerous types of game. There are many types of shells for it, like, bird shot, buckshot, slugs, sabbots, BB and many more.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
My Choice is the Springfield M1A

It is also Massad Ayoob's

Caliber: 7.62x51 mm NATO (.308 Winchester)
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Length: 1120 mm
Barrel Length: 559 mm
Weight loaded: 5,1 kg (6.6 kg M14A1)
Magazine: 20 rounds, detachable box
Rate of fire: 700 -750 rounds per minute

www.backwoodshome.com...




posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
My survival room has the following:

Marlin .22lr semi-auto
Marlin .22 mag bolt action
Ruger mini-ranch .308 semi-auto with scope
Winchester .30-30 lever action
Remington 1300 pump 12 ga
Mossberg 500 SP 12 ga
Fred Bear #55 Recurve Bow
llots of fishing gear, hunting gear, outdoor supplies etc. My dad dug out the space when i was a kid in 1980, used cinderblock for the walls and kitchen tiles for the floor. I have seeds, a chemical toilet, and all kinds of gear there. There is a 4 inch pipe covered with mesh for ventilation. Very cozy there in the winter.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I found this topic late . . . wish I had seen it months ago.

Anyway, I think the best survival weapon is going to be which ever one best fits your survival plan . . . which is why there can never be a consensus in a thread like this. Anyone who has thought on the subject for any length of time has come up with what they think of as a realistic survival strategy.

Whatever that strategy is, pick the weapon that is going to make it work.

Some here obviously think in terms of high-mobility, carry whatever you need on your back and survive off the land (the wanderer). Some think in terms of holing up in a single isolated spot (the hermit). Others who live and work in metro areas seem to think in terms of getting out of the city with their family and necessary belonging intact as being the biggest component of their survival plan (the refugee). Some seem to think in terms of scrounging out an existence in the city, where in theory there should be plenty of food, water, and shelter to survive for many years (the rat).

Obviously, each of those strategies is going to call for a different weapon.

Now playing by the rules of this thread, you can only have one weapon for any strategy.

The Wanderer: I think this is the strategy where the 22LR is king. If I'm going to basically live out of a backpack for an extended period, months to years, I'm going to need a few core things out of my weapon: relative light weight, able to consistently put small game in my pot with some degree of stealth, and the ability to carry a year's supply worth of ammo. The 22LR flat out excels here. A 12g is also a consideration, but it comes up short in the stealth and ability to carry a year's worth of ammo categories. Obviously no weapon is ideal, but I'll live or die with the 22LR's strengths and do my best to minimize the weaknesses.

My choice: Ruger 10/22 with a removable 4x scope.

The Refugee: OK, I've got the survival gear loaded into the QX4 along with the family and need to negotiate my way out of an urban environment filled with scared unprepared folks. Or we're hiking out with our packs loaded. Either way, what single weapon do I choose to take? Well, it's not a .22LR and it's not my .308 turnbolt. Personally, I think it has to be either the 12g or the AR/AK. If I don't get out of the city, my strategy fails and nothing else matters (some other b*stard has all my survival gear). Get me through the first 2 days and we'll manage. Brute killing power and intimidation are critical. I think the 12g wins out as it has a far greater ability to put game on the table consistently once we do get passed the city limit.

My choice: Any decent pump 12g and 200 rounds, half buck half field load.

The Hermit: OK, you're holed up in your Montana cabin, fairly isolated, and planning to keep it in your possession. There is less of a need to survive off small game as you'll be able to lay in some venison a few times a year. You'll probably never have to pack more than a day or two worth of provisions and ammo on you and ideally you fire less than 10 rounds per year. Depending on your geography, you'd ideally be able to monitor obvious ingress points at a standoff range. Here is where the tunbolt makes it's case, but in the end I think I'd want something that fills more of a dual-role in case unwanted guests appear.

My choice: M1A1.

The Rat: I honestly think this is a realistic survival strategy for urban folk. The key to long-term success would be in forming a social network of like-minded people, a strong-armed neighborhood watch program as it were. You should be able to scrounge a living off of canned goods in the vicinity until your social groups develops green areas and brings their collective strengths to bear over time (group survival is always the most reliable). No small game, just protection in close quarters, hands free most times but always armed.

My choice: handgun, .45acp or 9mm, either does the trick equally well.

IMO



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I definately agree many of the posters who recommend getting atleast one .22LR rifle. I've got two Marlins; they're cheap (~ $150), reliable, and generally all-purpose.

One note, this past weekend I bought another 500-pack of ammo and the price has jumped a lot since the end of last year (now it's $23 for 500 of the American Eagle High Velocity 40gr .22 rimfire cartridges).

Maybe we all should be stocking up now!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
You can take anything with correct shot placement. Even a 22 LR can kill a grizzly... just make sure you hit it in the eye on a vector intersecting the brain.


A wimpy gun is still a whole lot better than no gun at all.


Everyone who considers gun ownership should have a .22. Ammo is cheap and plentiful. A 22 rifle can be pretty accurate. Can do the job if you're a patient hunter and good shot. You're certain to hit within 3 inches at 75 yards, which is enough to take a spinal or head shot on medium game, or a body shot on anything small.


After that, you want something that is centerfire. This gives you range and the ability to take animals of larger size. While a 22 is a great deal better than throwing rocks, never forget that a "small" centerfire, such as the .223 Remington, is still 10x as powerful as the little .22 in terms of energy.


What do I have? It changes pretty frequently, though my standard set lately includes the following:


- AK 47 in 7.62 x 39. 30-round mags
- Bolt .22 LR. 2000 rounds
- Handgun in .357 SIG with 5" barrel
- .357 Magnum revolver
- .223 bolt action w/ 20x scope. Get 2.5-3" groups at 400 yards with this gun

- Beretta Storm CX4 in 9mm
- 9mm concealed carry auto
- 1911 .45
- AK style semi auto in .308 Win
- Knife


My other family members who live nearby have a number of AR rifles, and shotguns so I haven't collected many of those myself. Though they are definitely useful in certain situations :-)

The AR, while trouble in a battlefield situation, certainly has one advantage: accuracy. If you are obsessive about keeping yours clean, you've got a semi auto with bolt action accuracy. Good makers would be DPMS, Rock River, Bushmaster, Stag.


Also stuffed the basement with food, water, backup power, and other junk. At least 15,000 rounds of ammo. I think I have enough to last 6 months if all hell broke loose. Hope it never happens, but hope isn't a plan. I've got it covered.


It's expensive, but I'm still working on getting some solar power for the house. Man, with the trillion dollars our government has spent on this war, they could have provided solar power for all of us....



If I had to pick just 1 gun to try and solve all gun-related problems, what would it be? The AK-47. I would also feel comfortable with one of the plentiful lever-action .30-30s. 3rd place you could get by with in rural survival I'd say is a 22.



[edit on 6-5-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I was just reading some of the information given during this discussion. I felt that it is important to make some clarifications with respect to the 9 mm of which I have much experience and am quite fond of. Before I begin, I have many of the firearms previously mentioned: 44 magnums, 308s, 30-06s, 22 hornets, and many others. They all work extremely well for their intended purpose. That being said, 9 mm parabellum means " for war'. All this talk of them being ineffective is absolute rubbish. The 9 mm has been around during all the wars since 1904. It has served well which is why it is the most popular military pistol round in the world bar none.. With ball ammunition, no handgun cartridge is very effective; the 45 acp is 66%. Fortunately, for all of you reading this article, you can use modern ammo which launches the 9 mm to very powerful levels. cor bon and buffalo bore approaches levels seen by any non-magnum handgun, with 500 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. That is more than most 45 acp loads and is closing in or 357 sig loads. When I was in the Marine Corps, we had 45s. I liked them ok, but we all wanted the new berretta's. They were much better made, were much more accurate, and held many more rounds, than our standard issue 45s. You could carry alot more rounds too. Unfortunately, we never saw any of those new guns. It is funny to me all the interest in 45s now, as if they were something new. They are not. They were replaced and with good reason. They are inferior to the weapons that replaced them period. I don't know what the best survival round is, I would go with the 22 hornet I think, but I just wanted to give the 9 mm the credit it deserves with over a 100 years of military service. It is more popular and powerful today than at any other point in history.

Take Care

Michael. Iron Mike...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Times and opinions change
A year ago i was certain that a 7.62x54R bolt action rifle was the best option for my survival scenario.

Since then both my most probable scenario and weapon experience have changed. Back then i tought that most probable Sit-X would have been a collapse of modern logistics and food running out of stores. Now i feel that it's a lot more probable that any catastrofic event will include a significant portion of the 6-million Russians, living within 300km of me, moving west. This in turn increases the importance of firepower to defend myself. Weapons are abundant in western Russia.

My new choise?

CZ-858 (Semiautomatic VZ-58) Price was roughly 400€ with 18 mags and spare parts for a decade. It's lighter than an AK with common caliber that is also the mlitary caliber in Finland. It's slightly more accurate than the cheaper AK variants. I allso use the CZ-858 as my race gun in IPSC so i train with it a lot and thus i'm very familiar with it.

So now i plan to carry the CZ-878 and 9mm Cz-75. They offer me a balanced combination of firepower and ease of supply.

Ps. I'm even planning on installing a scout scope for it because after trying a scout scoped AR i found it quite handy. (I currently have side mounted Aimpoint in addition to the original iron sights)

Pps. it's funny how power requirements have risen through the years. My granpa was perfectly happy to have his 32ACP FN at his side during ww2, he said it killed russians just as well as 9mm pistols, at the ranges they used sidearms.



[edit on 23-7-2008 by northwolf]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
In a true "survival" type scenario, I rec\commend the Marlin Papoose. It is a small take down rifle in 22 long. Dead on accurate and light to carry. Also a pocket full of ammo is light. It will take enough game to provide for a small group of people. Larger game is not necessary for short term survival. A larger rifle is too cumbersome to carry at all times. I have carried the stainless version of this rifle for a number of years and it has provided excellent service. For those of you that say they will carry anything from an AR to a M1 have net been in a true survival type scenario. Yes they will work for a total collapse and or a revolution but not in a true survival situation. I have never had to shoot anything larger than a groundhog to put food on the table, in this type of situation. I am also sure that I have considerable more experience in wilderness survival type situations than most of the posters here. My two cents worth.


respectfully
reluctantpawn



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Does anyone remember this rifle?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by reluctantpawn
 


I think a lot of the folks here need to try it out and find out how it goes. For me its a 7.62 but only for defense. There is a thread here about trapping and killing wild game and that is very similar to my work in the field, seldom if ever using a round for game.

Although we will be well armed,we doubt we will burn much ammo if any.

Just some thoughts.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
Does anyone remember this rifle?

en.wikipedia.org...


I had one as a kid with a plastic stock set to look like a heavy barrel smg, and the plastic 30 round clips. Fun for a kid but not a real working tool like a 10/22.

Still way back then there wasn't a pop can in the countryside around me without holes in it. Great fun but a kids toy. Sold it when I was 19


It has a lined aluminum barrel and was designed to support a pilot who bails out for the week or so till he gets recovered, but not for any long term use.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee

Originally posted by Wotan
Does anyone remember this rifle?

en.wikipedia.org...


I had one as a kid with a plastic stock set to look like a heavy barrel smg, and the plastic 30 round clips. Fun for a kid but not a real working tool like a 10/22.

Still way back then there wasn't a pop can in the countryside around me without holes in it. Great fun but a kids toy. Sold it when I was 19


It has a lined aluminum barrel and was designed to support a pilot who bails out for the week or so till he gets recovered, but not for any long term use.


Ah, but that is the point of it ...... its a survival rifle.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Ther barrel will usually separate from the liner at a certain amount of sustained rounds. They were made as a throw away to go under the ejection seat and not to be used for more than the extraction period. I had mine for 3-4 years and although it never spun its liner like some do, taking it apart and putting it together caused wear that kept the sights off because of the slop tolerances it never went back together with the same impact point.

Point is they slap that name on everything that they try to sell but in practice and after owning a hardened aluminum receiver and cleaning chips out of it......


I also forgot to mention the recoil return spring guides are plastic. If anyone is still interested in these toys, they need to fully strip one before purchasing.


Here is real advice, the papoose is very nice quality:

"In a true "survival" type scenario, I rec\commend the Marlin Papoose."

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Illahee]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Illahee]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Magpul - chamber with a 6.5mm X 39mm Grendel.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Illahee
 


Okay, I'll take your word for it


The wiki link does say it had some problems under its old manufacturer. I just thought it might be a nice little rifle to 'tuck away' in a corner of a rucksack. Never mind, nice thought.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


I couldn't recommend it with plastic internals. I had a lot of fun with mine blasting cans but you don't want to depend on aluminum and plastic. The very first ones from armalite were a bit better but not much. Of course the trade off for all the faults is 2 pound or close weight.....



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join