Free time is a terrible thing, and it got me thinking (another terrible thing). I have been contemplating what I would buy/build for a survival/walk about gun (it could be rifle, pistol, or shotgun).
The qualifications in order of importance are:
1) Reliability; function and fire in all environments with only the most basic of care and maintenance.
2) Ability to reliably take deer-size game, and in a pinch, larger game out to 100-yards.
3) Capable of field accuracy of three shots in less than three inches at 100 yards.
4) Combined weight of gun and 100 rounds of ammo under 10 pounds.
These specifications would seem to me to leave a lot of room for solutions. What would you do and why?

You need a hobby (grin)

If we were talking about SHTF scenario's, an AR in 300 Blackout loaded with 125 gr sp's would fill the bill for man or beast. If we are talking about going walkabout in the woods for an extended time, any good synthetic stocked bolt action in 30/06 would do the job. Your criteria is a little generic so that is my take. In other words, if you were in Texas, caliber size is less important than it would be in Alaska, which is why I generalized on the good old '06. I weighed 100 rds of 06 and in boxes was just under 4 lbs, so I guess iron sights are in order, but that still fits for your accuracy requirements. Good Topic!

Remington Mohawk 600 in .243 or .308. Iron sights. Rifle = 5.5 lbs
100 rds ammo = .243 Win/3 lb, .308 Win/4 lb
Total weight = 8.5 - 9.5 lbs.
If you want to add a scope and sling then the .243 gives you more leeway.

Why? Well proven and reliable bolt action. Simple to operate and requires little maintenance. Accurate and ammo readily available.

http://www.hwsportsman.net/M600-1964-Ad-1920.jpg

You're WAY to late. John M Browning already made it, about 123 years ago. It's still being made.

A single shot falling block rifle is everything you mention. A double rifle is, too. A Paradox gun approaches the accuracy you specify and has the added advantage of shooting shotshells.

But for me, since you are talking "survival", I would choose a well made M16/AR15. I have carried and used them in swamps, deserts, jungles, forests, mountains, and arctic environments in rain, snow, dust, and blistering heat and I have found them to be highly reliable, effective, and easy to clean. I've taken them from submarine to beach, parachuted with them, crawled through mud with them, buried them, dropped them, and thrown them. They are virtually indestructible. Most of the USGI optics are extremely rugged. The original carrying handle rear and A2 front metallic sights are extremely robust, more so than folding sights. The 5.56mm caliber would do but I would opt for either 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel calibers - just because. The main advantage to the 5.56mm is that you can easily find tracer ammo. Tracers would be very handy for signalling - remember you said survival. An AR15 weighs 2-3 pounds less than a similarly set up AR10 and, IMHO, is more reliable. I would choose a standard, non-folding buttstock for strength and because I could put survival items behind the trap door. Anyway, once out in the environs a folding stock doesn't offer any tangible benefit I can think of. The M16/AR15 bolt carrier group wasn't designed for the shorter recoil spring and buffer of the carbine. Those are adaptations to the carbine that adversely, even if only slightly, effect reliability and longevity. Do we need to mention firepower, compactness and weight of ammo, or the number of rounds carried in the rifle? The biggest limitation of an AR as a survival arm is that it is not suitable for shooting flying birds but that's also true for any rifle. Are ARs perfect? No, but nothing is.

Of course! My Browning 1885 in 45-70 solves lots of problems !

I deleted my first post. I overlooked the part about combined weight of rifle and ammo being no more than ten pounds. I would have gone with an ultralight stainless synthetic Mauser 98 in 308 or 30-06. Given the ten pound limit, I'd first have to figure out what 100 rounds of several rounds like 222 Rem, 223, and 221 fireball, 300 blackout, and 7mm TCU weighs. A custom Kimber 84m mountain ascent or Adirondack in 221 Fireball might do the trick. The 10 pound limit makes things pretty interesting. I would try to build the rifle in as common a round as possible. I like rugged open sights, but a 2.5X Leupold might enter the equation.

I would guess that 100 rounds of 223 is 3 pounds by itself. But 223 is pretty diminutive for big game and is actually not legal in a lot of places for big game hunting. 30-30 is probably the lightest cartridge with enough umph to shoot big game and especially bears up to 250 yards. A 94 Trapper is about 6 pounds. 70 rounds of 30-30 ammo weighs about 4 pounds.

Savage light weight is 5.5lbs.

quote:

I have been contemplating what I would buy/build for a survival/walk about gun (it could be rifle, pistol, or shotgun).

So have I over the last 50 years now I own 100 plus firearms.

If the situation didn't involve getting into fire fights with other humans. The lightest weight rifle I could buy in 357 mag.

Done right a TC carbine should come in under 5 pounds leaving one room for lots of ammo.

Combined with good bullets is very capable of taking big game and the cartridges are compact and fairly light weight.

If you were really in a survival situation. it would be a 22 rifle. Forget about dreams of killing big game to eat; you will be mostly shooting small game, and the 22 will still kill a cow. Done it many times. It will also kill a zombie when they start coming out of the cities once they run out of food.
I have a feeling that you aren't really talking about an end of civilization scenario.

The case for a .22 LR is a good one in some ways but not in others. Yes, you can carry a brick of ammo and the .22LR will kill deer at close range. But shooting deer with a .22LR at 100 yards? I wouldn't want to do it. And what about defense from nasty critters?

I live in a state with over 25,000 black bears. Bear attacks in Washington are on the increase. Also, almost 1/4 of the state is confirmed range for at least 20 wolf packs. The wolf population increased by 28 percent last year and it looks like that trend will continue. In addition, Washington is home to about 2500 cougars. Cougar encounters are also on the increase.

When I think about survival I must also consider protection from big things with sharp teeth. The .22LR has a lot of merit as a foraging arm but is lacking as protection against bears, wolves, and cougars, or, for that matter, gators, mean hogs, and other nasty critters that might roam where you happen to be.

But, the point about the weight of ammo is a very good one. I pulled my postal scale out and did some weighing.

The rifles I was speaking of:
Colt AR-15A3 with Burris AR332 scope and 20 round magazine = 7 lbs 8 ounces
Rock River Arms 16" barrel 6.8 SPC, A2 front, carry handle rear, sling, 10 rnd mag, A1 stock = 7 lbs 10 ounces

The ammo:
100 rounds of 5.56mm SS-109 on stripper clips = 2 lbs 13 oz
100 rounds of 110gr 6.8 SPC cartridges = 4 lbs 1 oz
100 rounds of 90gr 6.8 SPC cartridges = 3 lbs 12 oz

Combined:
100 rounds of ammo would bring the AR-15A3 to 10 lbs 5 oz
100 rounds of 110gr ammo would bring the 6.8 SPC to 11 lbs 11 oz
100 rounds of 90gr ammo would bring the 6.8 SPC to 11 lbs 6 oz

All three of those options are overweight. But, when considering the possibility of defending against bears (brown in AK?), cougars, or wolves, carrying the extra weight of an AR in 5.56 or 6.8 would be worth it. If it must be 10 pounds then limiting yourself to 90 rounds for the AR-15A3 or 60 rounds for the 6.8 SPC AR would make the 10 pound limit. Alternatively, building either type of AR in a lightweight configuration could easily take enough weight off the rifles to be able to carry a full complement of 100 rounds. In fact, with the AR-15A3 removing the scope and replacing it with an A2 carrying handle is all that would be required.

I imagine the weight situation for an AR in 6.5 Grendel would be similar.

All good points. How long will you be in the survival situation? Days, weeks, forever? That is important to consider. If it is only a short time, then take anything you like.
Defense is important, but what about in 3 years when all your ammo is gone? You will learn to get to within ten yards of a deer and to deal with the bears; like the early inhabitants did. You are down to spears.
In a true survival situation where everything collapses, few will last long.
Surviving in the North? Few will last long there either. I am talking about complete breakdown of all civilization. If you just want to spend a couple of weeks in the bush, another scenario completely.

Winchester Model 94 30-30. I have seen several that would make your 3" at 100.

FYI - 5 boxes of Remington 150gr .30-30 ammo weighs a whopping 5-1/2 pounds by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
All good points. How long will you be in the survival situation? Days, weeks, forever? That is important to consider. If it is only a short time, then take anything you like.
Defense is important, but what about in 3 years when all your ammo is gone? You will learn to get to within ten yards of a deer and to deal with the bears; like the early inhabitants did. You are down to spears.
In a true survival situation where everything collapses, few will last long.
Surviving in the North? Few will last long there either. I am talking about complete breakdown of all civilization. If you just want to spend a couple of weeks in the bush, another scenario completely.

I don't think the OP meant an end of civilization situation. To me survival means being able to sustain yourself until rescue/extraction or until you can move yourself back to civilization or a "friendly" environment. What say you, Loud-n-boomer?

Regardless, the .22LR falls way short of one of the OP requirements:

quote:

2) Ability to reliably take deer-size game, and in a pinch, larger game out to 100-yards.

I like exercises like this and the thinking they generate.

Single shot 12 gauge or 308 with a drop in 22 lr chamber .

other than the 1"@100 requirement, my 45 colt SW mtn gun fills the bill --- it's taken nearly everything in texas big enough to die ....

i'd love a 223 TC, with a 22LR adapter and 45 colt barrel .. thinking that through... with a 357 barrel, carbine, of course, with a picatinny rail.. optics are user's choice


223 or 308 savage accutrigger in stainless would be nice

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the Steyr Scout.

Keep it in .308 Win., or perhaps more interesting, .243 Win., .260 Rem. or 7mm-08.

Jeff Cooper got that one right!

This is as much as anything, a thought exercise. I was not thinking of a zombie apocalypse doomsday scenario; I was more thinking plane crash, walk about, natural disaster that isolates you, or another 911 no-fly period where one could find yourself away from civilization for a maximum of eight weeks. Even if it was a doomsday scenario, I would put the duration at three months at most. In a doomsday scenario, I would be seeking to band together with others for mutual aid and hopefully to try and rebuild something worthwhile.

For 3 months I'm with dpcd, a.22 LR.

Three months of constant moving? Still a 22 LR. Bears kill very few people. You hopefully will be carrying more than a rifle so ten pounds will soon be a lot. Now, steal a horse and things are different. . And not be doing it in the far north in winter.
Now, I would want something bigger too, but do the mission planning from beginning to end and do the math for everything you need to carry. Minus the horse.
German pilots were issued Krieghoff drillings as survival weapons; totally impractical, but Germanic in thinking. US pilots were issued a 22/410 M6 or earlier, the M4 22 Hornet. Now we are getting somewhere with the survival thought process; already done by the US War Department. I would go with the M6 and some modern 410 ammo.

Ammo choice: Not sure about the rifle....single shot break action?

.223/5.56X45
(milsurp) British Radway Green SS109 63gr
Rounds per pound: 37.21
Weight per 100 rounds (lbs): 2.69

You would pick military ball ammo for hunting?

No. I copied the first thing I could find. Weight reference only.

Well hell, if this is a zombie deal use the .22 LR to get a better gun. I thought this was a backpack issue!

It is not a zombie issue, but I will modify the rules and raise the weight to 12 pounds.

Don't forget the risk of a sharknado.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Well hell, if this is a zombie deal use the .22 LR to get a better gun. I thought this was a backpack issue!

I have given this tiny thought over the years. The ARs are great until you run out of ammo and reloading supplies etc. I lean toward one of the lever guns, nickled or nitrided against rust, in most likely .44 Magnum. .44/40 gave good account of itself in combat and huntingg. One winchester ad had Buffalo Bill reporting he put 11 slugs in a bear (grizzly I think) as the bear came 40 or 50 feet. Most discouraging to bear.) .44 magnum with a supply of nickle cased ammo should give good account, your circumstances AND since you can make black powder, you can reload in the worst of circumstances and have approx. 44/40 performance. I doubt if I would last long. Some other malady would "get" me, but I would have self protection equal to the old west. Haven't worked with them, but I lean toward side eject and one of the red dot sights along with the iron sights. Luck. Happy Trails.

quote:

Originally posted by loud-n-boomer:
... I will modify the rules and raise the weight to 12 pounds.

That's the clincher for me. I would take the 16" barreled AR15 in 6.8 SPC with 100 rounds of 90gr ammo (if it MUST be 100 rounds), alternatively caliber 6.5 Grendel. That comes to 11 lbs 6 oz and leaves enough weight allowance to add a bottle of water purification tablets, fire making stick, and some fishing basics in the buttstock. I might even be able to throw in a mini LED flashlight that works off a single AAA cell but I would have to start weighing things to determine if that could go.

I have successfully convinced myself! I just took the cleaning kit out of the buttstock of my 6.8 SPC and I will be setting the rifle up just as above. If I'm going to hike or hunt with it I might as well have it set up for survival as well.

As to USAF M4/M6 survival guns, they were designed for foraging. Remember, flyers typically carried handguns as well. The best version was the .22 Hornet/.410. It was a good choice for foraging because it was both a rifle and shotgun and even held 9 .22 Hornet cartridges and 4 aluminum cased #6 .410 shells inside the buttstock. The USAF stopped issuing them in the early 1970s. Why then? I don't know. But I suspect it had something to do with the fielding of the M16, a much better firearm to have in a downed aircraft/survival situation.

Remington 600 in .308 with original scout scope.
It is accurate and easy to pack.

I will stay out of the "survival rifle" discussion as that can have too many different definitions, so I will address your "walkabout" rifle as that is what I use my guns for quite a bit. This is what I have thought about but have never done so take it with a grain of salt as well.

Anyway, for me I have a lot of very hilly land so I would like a light rifle that can be comfortably carried on extended walks with just one hand. Also where I live you cannot legally use centerfire rifles on deer so I would have the upper end of performance based on coyotes at 125 yards. At the same time if I could have a workable reduced load for squirrels and rabbits that would increase the usefulness of the rifle immensely.

So for me, I would use a TC Encore frame with a pistol grip stock chambered in 25-35. Pistol grip stocks are great to carry one handed provided the barrel does not risk touching or dragging on the ground. So that is how I'd choose the barrel length, hold the gun at my side and let my arm hang down and cut the barrel to hopefully give me a couple inches of clearance when walking.

For bullets the standard factory loading is usually 100 or 117 grains and on the light side you can get an assortment of 70-85 grain bullets which loaded light would make great small game rounds.

Topped with a 2-7 scope would be my preference as this would be more of a woods rifle and I have a dedicated varmint rifle anyway.

I do like David Craigs suggestion for larger animals except for the scout scope as in my experience those can be iffy when the sun is low and behind you.

Mini Mauser or Sako L461 in 6x45
Weight on a Mini Mauser can be kept to about 5lbs scoped and your hundred rounds of ammo will weigh in at about another 3lbs giving you 2lbs to spare.
Alternately you might look at a Mini Mauser in 7.62x39

Just throwing in a couple of points....

In a "survival" or SHTF situation, I,m not going to be too worried about the game warden who feels my choice of caliber is too small to legally take game in my particular state. He's probably going to be out foraging too.

I'd be much more concerned with the amount of noise my round of choice produces. The last thing I'd want to do is announce my location to everyone in a five mile radius, which would probably then require me to be armed with something with a great enough rate of fire to deal with the horde that would be attracted.

In a foraging situation, the large game (will disappear first, leaving less reason to choose something big. I'd be happier with a couple of squirrels or runny-Babbits in the pot than a deer that I might have to hunt a week or more to find. Trophy hunting will not be high on my things to do list. Again, this points to something smaller being the better choice.

An added plus would be to have something that can tolerate ammo produced from salvaged components. Cast bullets from scrap lead and powder scrounged from pulled down ammo of unusable calibers would probably not play well in anything that got it's start on Gene Stoner's drawing board. Sorry, AR fans. Also, I'd have to give extra points to anything user serviceable enough as to allow the user to make replacement parts with minimum tools. You'll be waiting a long time for the Big Brown Truck to bring you parts for that semi-auto.

Given these parameters, personally I'd lean toward a top break single shot built on a good quality .410, in something like .25-20 or .32-20. Just about every Old Timer I knew as a kid had one or the other which they used back in the depression to feed their families. I never heard any of them say they weren't enough to get the job done.

As a parting note- in a couple of weeks. I'll be on vacation in N. Kalifornia. Three weeks of camping and fishing in the middle of nowhere. I'll be taking a rifle with me for protection (pot country) and entertainment, and that rifle will be a Winchester 1892 in .25-20. The less attention I draw, the less hassle I should have to cope with.

Porosonik.

Savage Model 24 in 30/30 - 20 gauge if you wanted the longer range centerfire but I think that the most useful would be 22lr - 20 gauge with slugs in the 20 gauge for big game.

I could live comfortably with that choice.

Porosonik.

A light weight single shot bolt action rifle in 22 rimfire. I wouldn't shoot a deer at 100 yds but usually have no trouble getting closer. No big critters in my part of the country to deal with either. Like already mentioned, I would want to be as quiet as possible.

quote:

I would want to be as quiet as possible.

If one could a TC contender carbine with suppressor in 357 44 would be very nice.

With sub sonic ammo one would hear the hammer fall and the thud of the bullet hitting target.

There is a lot going for a 22rf amount of rounds per pound being one of them.

Used properly it can and has killed big game.

A scoped 10-22 two 100 round packs of ammo. I would not feel bad about grabbing it and going out the door.

One wouldn't want to be chasing a good shot and woodsman around if they were armed such.

They would make your life short for sure.

Savage 24C with peep sights, for me.