Cheapshooter
New member
A comment that can only be credited to a "younger" generation!
Handguns have been called pistols for long before the semi auto was invented.
An equally immature, and uninformed viewpoint!
Survival Pistol?
- Thread starter jplacquay
- Start date
A comment that can only be credited to a "younger" generation!
Handguns have been called pistols for long before the semi auto was invented.
An equally immature, and uninformed viewpoint!
22-rimfire
New member
A Ruger Mark II or III is a good choice. I'd choose the heavy barrel version even though it adds a little weight.
An alternative is a Ruger Single Six with the 22 WMR cylinder. The 22 mag offers increased power without adding a lot of weight. You probably wouldn't carry more than 50 rounds anyway.
I was thinking out of the box on this question as I have considered the same thing. What makes sense? A rifle is easier to hit your target with, but are often perceived as too large. Something like the Henry Mare's Leg (22LR) would fit inside a pack (but heavier than most handguns) and from a rest, you're close to rifle accuracy. You don't have to worry about loosing magazines as it is tubular fed (10-shots).
For pure survival, I am starting to lean toward a 22WMR rifle. But I am not concerned about toting a rifle in this situation. You're situation is a little different.
An alternative is a Ruger Single Six with the 22 WMR cylinder. The 22 mag offers increased power without adding a lot of weight. You probably wouldn't carry more than 50 rounds anyway.
I was thinking out of the box on this question as I have considered the same thing. What makes sense? A rifle is easier to hit your target with, but are often perceived as too large. Something like the Henry Mare's Leg (22LR) would fit inside a pack (but heavier than most handguns) and from a rest, you're close to rifle accuracy. You don't have to worry about loosing magazines as it is tubular fed (10-shots).
For pure survival, I am starting to lean toward a 22WMR rifle. But I am not concerned about toting a rifle in this situation. You're situation is a little different.
I agree that a rifle would be the way to go, but (an I should have explained this earlier) I am looking at situations where a rifle wouldn't be practical to bring at all, such at a day hike to go flyfishing with my kids, or something like that, OR in a situation such as hunting where I would have a larger firearm, but it either being damaged or running out of ammo would become a factor. If I was plannning on going out on a camping trip to live off the land or something similar then I would bring a good rifle or shotgun, but I'm looking at the survival kit as a ture "SOL" type situation hit me. Like I said if I was out doing something where I COULD bring my .243 or my 12ga I would do so.
22-rimfire
New member
Take a look at the Mare's Leg before you buy. You might like what you see.
22-rimfire
New member
It is not class 3. It is classified as a handgun.
22-rimfire
New member
But it is still 25" long end to end, so it would be a bit large for a day pack, but would fit inside a larger pack. I have one. Best to see one in-person rather than looking at a picture. They are really interesting as a potential survival gun.
Hammerhead
New member
SAAMI's definition of a pistol;
For a handgun I would pick a .357 DA pistol.
Any gun? My CZ Scout. Tiny, light, nice open sights, magazine fed, steel and wood, more accurate than most full size .22's.
Thinking about the 16" 10/22 compact.
For a handgun I would pick a .357 DA pistol.
Any gun? My CZ Scout. Tiny, light, nice open sights, magazine fed, steel and wood, more accurate than most full size .22's.
Thinking about the 16" 10/22 compact.
orthosophy
New member
to me it's a question of offense vs defense.
If you mean survival as in killing things that may try to eat you, you want a big enough gun to at least give yourself a chance.
If you mean survival as in killing food until you are dragged from the woods by the forest rangers, then a .22 will give you a usable carcass and you can carry more ammo in the same space.
If you mean survival as in killing things that may try to eat you, you want a big enough gun to at least give yourself a chance.
If you mean survival as in killing food until you are dragged from the woods by the forest rangers, then a .22 will give you a usable carcass and you can carry more ammo in the same space.
bamaranger
New member
heck with a handgun
I like handguns, but if I am going to try and feed myself w/ small game and a .22, I want a rifle! Despite the comments, the Henry Survival rifle we have would work just fine, if there was enough game.
Another option is to take one of the youth single shots, like a Cricket, and break it down into action and stock. It would stow and pack easy, and reassemble with just a coin or screwdriver.
I'm not a slouch with a handgun,. but I can shoot either of the two above better than any handgun.
Hook and line too!
I like handguns, but if I am going to try and feed myself w/ small game and a .22, I want a rifle! Despite the comments, the Henry Survival rifle we have would work just fine, if there was enough game.
Another option is to take one of the youth single shots, like a Cricket, and break it down into action and stock. It would stow and pack easy, and reassemble with just a coin or screwdriver.
I'm not a slouch with a handgun,. but I can shoot either of the two above better than any handgun.
Hook and line too!
An accurate 22 LR would give you the ability to carry 50 or even 100 cartridges which is a lot of meals or at least chances for a meal in a survival situation. Something like a browning buckmark camper is a light survival arm with a good degree of accuracy. The ruger is a heavier gun by design. A 22 magnum revolver would be maybe even better cause it's a bit more powerful but not much heavier and does not take up much more space. 327 magnum might also be a good choice for a survival kit gun cause you can shoot 32 longs, 32 mags or much more powerful 327s. The GP100 is pretty compact. Accuracy is really important for a survival gun as you may have to shoot small game to survive at distance. As others have said feeding yourself with a handgun is much harder than with a rifle. Having a gun sighted in for all the ammo you have will increase your chances of scoring hits. Unless you want to live on snakes and they are plentiful, a 410 handgun just isn't a good choice. 45 colt ammo is also neither the most powerful or lightweight. A 357 mag is also a viable choice if weight of ammo, gun and space for your kit is not a big concern. Ultimately, I think you'll like the buckmark for your intended purpose.
I think 22-rimfire was on to something with the Ruger single six convertible. Say a 5.5" or 6.5" stainless. Very easy to hit with, ultra reliable, slip in the mag cylinder for more punch. Thats the backpack/survival gun I would choose.
If it means anything the US military issued small survival rifles to air crews in WWII chambered in 22 hornet.
If it means anything the US military issued small survival rifles to air crews in WWII chambered in 22 hornet.
I would suggest a Ruger Single Six. I prefer blued but if this is for a survival gun then stainless may not be a bad choice. To me the 5.5 barrel feels just right and points very nice. The new ones come with a 22 magnum cylinder but personally I think the 22lr will be just fine.
dalegribble
New member
there are alot of good suggestions and some questionable in my mind. the pmr 30 from keltec is a very interesting suggestion. it would seem a handgun with 30 rounds of 22 mag and a couple extra mags could cover an awful lot of bases from small game and deer to personal protection against anything but the largest bears. problem is i have not seen one yet and i'm not sure if it works smoothly or is a jam o matic. if it works well it might be my top choice.
there are some nice, proven 22/22mag revolvers out there although in a survival situation i would probably keep the 22 mag cylinder in 100% of the time anyway.
there are alot of 22 semi auto choices as well and when all is said and done a 22 is probably all you would need.
i'm not sure i would like any of the 22 survival type rifles. thier size is nice but i'm not sure i want to have to assemble the gun when i need it and accuracy might be a big trade off.
the "new" 45/410 revolvers are very interesting. regardless of what i have read here they seem to be popular, accurate with the 45 and reliable. i guess you would have to pattern the 410 with different shot sizes to see how it shoots.
personaly, if i were to go into the woods and needed to take a backpack (which means more than a short walk) i would probably have a larger caliber handgun on my belt. a smaller trail sized 357 or 44 mag, maybe the 45/410 or 9mm or 45 pistol and 2 extra reloads. in my pack would be a smaller, lighter, reliable 22 pistol or revolver and a box of ammo. they would cover more bases than a single rifle and take up less space and weight. i guess when you are talking about survival or protection everyone has their own ideas and comfort level and whatever they choose is their personal choice.
there are some nice, proven 22/22mag revolvers out there although in a survival situation i would probably keep the 22 mag cylinder in 100% of the time anyway.
there are alot of 22 semi auto choices as well and when all is said and done a 22 is probably all you would need.
i'm not sure i would like any of the 22 survival type rifles. thier size is nice but i'm not sure i want to have to assemble the gun when i need it and accuracy might be a big trade off.
the "new" 45/410 revolvers are very interesting. regardless of what i have read here they seem to be popular, accurate with the 45 and reliable. i guess you would have to pattern the 410 with different shot sizes to see how it shoots.
personaly, if i were to go into the woods and needed to take a backpack (which means more than a short walk) i would probably have a larger caliber handgun on my belt. a smaller trail sized 357 or 44 mag, maybe the 45/410 or 9mm or 45 pistol and 2 extra reloads. in my pack would be a smaller, lighter, reliable 22 pistol or revolver and a box of ammo. they would cover more bases than a single rifle and take up less space and weight. i guess when you are talking about survival or protection everyone has their own ideas and comfort level and whatever they choose is their personal choice.
Motownstan
New member
I like the S&W M-63. It's compact, durable, 8 shot and accurate enough out to 25 yards. As has been stated already you can carry lots of .22's and it doesn't matter what kind they are, they will go bang. This thread needs pictures.
30-30remchester
New member
When survival is the question there are 2 differing situations that must be addressed. Food aquisition and self protection. Food is by far the most important if past real life experences teach us anything. The next statement with surely fire up the forum responces but here goes. How many of you are truley willing to live or die on your ability to shoot a handgun accurately? I am very good with a handgun and regularly compete in handgun bullseye matchs and win the majority. That being said I doubt I could survive long with a handgun in real world situations. The one handgun I would choose is a 22 target handgun if I had to. I admire the OP's concept of rescuing himself. You can carry 400 rounds of 22 lr's for the same weight as 25 rounds of 12 guage's. If I had to choose I would choose a quality compact takedown 22 rifle. Since my work takes me into the mountains of Colorado, I count the number of game shooting possibilities per day while afoot. Most small game spooks at @50 yards average. My shooting ability with a 22 handgun at 50 yards is @15% on first shot on squirrel sized animals. So I would have to encounter 30 to 40 game animals per day to get one average sized meal. This is an interesting test. Walk in the woods, count and record the distance and size of the game you encounter. Now at the range set like size targets at the same angles encountered. Now you get one shot only at the animal in question . How many do you take on the first shot?
22-rimfire
New member
Surviving in the woods is a very difficult thing to accomplish even with a rifle. 30-30, I agree with what you say and I also know that actually taking small game with regularity (when your life depends on it) is not easy even with a rifle let alone a handgun. All you have to do is watch some of the survival shows and you can see a good meal is hard to come by.
I approach survival from a food gathering perspective rather than self defense in the East. A 22 LR or 22 mag would be my choice of RIFLE caliber. Woods survival is something that is done to buy time unitl you can walk out or get rescued.
The Henry AR-7 is designed for this, but are not terribly accurate. But I suspect they are minute of squirrel accurate. There have been fuctionality questions with the AR-7 since its inception although I read that the Henry version is pretty reliable overall.
I lean toward a non-take down rifle. The CZ Scout would be close to ideal. The Henry Mare's Leg (offered in 22LR and 45LC, 44 Mag, and 357 mag) http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-mares-leg.cfm is an interesting design from a compact "rifle" perspective and Henry has developed a history for reliability although there are forum complaints that certain parts are plastic and so forth. The sights are now metal. (There are lawsuits going on regarding use of the term "mare's leg".) I have only seen 45 and 22LR versions. But the 357 mag has a lot of interest to me. There is a Taurus version also.
I think with practice, a shooter could do very well with the Mare's Leg from a rest and that lends itself to a survival firearm in a fairly compact package. It also could be used for self defense in a pinch even in 22LR.
I approach survival from a food gathering perspective rather than self defense in the East. A 22 LR or 22 mag would be my choice of RIFLE caliber. Woods survival is something that is done to buy time unitl you can walk out or get rescued.
The Henry AR-7 is designed for this, but are not terribly accurate. But I suspect they are minute of squirrel accurate. There have been fuctionality questions with the AR-7 since its inception although I read that the Henry version is pretty reliable overall.
I lean toward a non-take down rifle. The CZ Scout would be close to ideal. The Henry Mare's Leg (offered in 22LR and 45LC, 44 Mag, and 357 mag) http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-mares-leg.cfm is an interesting design from a compact "rifle" perspective and Henry has developed a history for reliability although there are forum complaints that certain parts are plastic and so forth. The sights are now metal. (There are lawsuits going on regarding use of the term "mare's leg".) I have only seen 45 and 22LR versions. But the 357 mag has a lot of interest to me. There is a Taurus version also.
I think with practice, a shooter could do very well with the Mare's Leg from a rest and that lends itself to a survival firearm in a fairly compact package. It also could be used for self defense in a pinch even in 22LR.
TheGoldenState
New member
S&W .500 4inch.
The blast will kill any small game within 360 degrees of shot out to 10 yards or so, and the following fireball will cook them. 2 for 1 special. Also good for large game out to 856yards.
-For your requirements, the judge looks good on paper, i've never shot one, but in practice they seem to get a bad wrap.
The blast will kill any small game within 360 degrees of shot out to 10 yards or so, and the following fireball will cook them. 2 for 1 special. Also good for large game out to 856yards.
-For your requirements, the judge looks good on paper, i've never shot one, but in practice they seem to get a bad wrap.