If I really,really, need a survival firearm, I will hacksaw the barrels on my superposed. Have 50 rounds of buckshot!

I'd build it AROUND the cartridges most likely to be in widespread availability. Pointless having a gun with no cartridges it's just a useless club.

So that's .22LR, .223 Remington, .308 Winchester, 12 Bore and in pistol .357 Magnum, 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP.

In theory .22LR, .223 Remington and .357/9mm would answer all you need. Something like one of the modern 9mm self-loading paramilitary carbines with a decent set of robust sights.

For the shot gun a Remington 870 with iron sights.

I would have a hard choice between my 24 22 mag over .410 and my Timberwolf 357. Most likely if I had somebody with we would have both. Just my own thoughts.

Survival where?? City? Wilderness? Both? City or Both is easy. Don't build it buy it: good AR. Learn ammo discipline. Wilderness is more complicated for me. Probably my chipmunk 22, it's little scope,and a case of 40 grain lead that could be cached in 500 round lots. 500 go with me.

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.

Yep yep yep.

I already have the survival rifle. Several in fact. All 22's and 22 Mags. All scoped with irons.

I dropped our fall butcher steer last year with the 10/22 Ruger. One shot. Wolf 22 target ammo, solid lead bullet, not hollow point, at about 1100 ft sec. One shot behind the ear. Dropped like a rock. This guy was 511 pounds hanging weight.

If humans are the problem, I can pluck out the eye balls at over 100 yards with the Marin bolt action tube magazine, holds 14 rounds. Takes all the fight out of a guy.

The packing handgun is a 8 shot 22 mag revolver.

Lots of game in my area. Elk, deer, bear, cougar, grouse, geese.


Ammo: Solid lead bullets in the 22's. Solids and HP for the 22 Mags.

22 Mag solids for the head shots. 22 Mag HP for just behind the shoulder, less than 50 yards and they pile up.

Back in my southern days in Georgia as a teen I killed a lot of whitetails with a 22. One of my cousins was a somewhat market hunter. When the 22 Mag came out he said "The Perfect Poachers Cartridge". Previously he used the 22 Hornet.

One of my uncles was a game warden. His deer rifle was a 22 Hornet. And my dad used a 222 Rem, I still have it.

Most folks go over gunned.

And I have several life time supplies of fodder to feed the rifles.

A long time ago one of my high school friends was shot and killed while hunting by his hunting buddy. 22 RF. One shot entered the ribs, went through the liver. He was bled out in less than 2 minutes. The buddy said he thought he heard a pig in the brush and fired off a shot through the leaves.

I wouldn't build anything. I have a couple of old Lee Enfields which shoot well enough, hold ten shots, and will kill anything I want to shoot. They have been proven to be pretty rugged and function in adverse conditions. I pack one of them around quite a lot and it has killed coyotes, a cougar, a bear and some deer. Lyman peep and sour dough front. Of course, I have a rack full of hunting rifles which are perfectly adequate. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I wouldn't build anything. I have a couple of old Lee Enfields which shoot well enough, hold ten shots, and will kill anything I want to shoot. They have been proven to be pretty rugged and function in adverse conditions. I pack one of them around quite a lot and it has killed coyotes, a cougar, a bear and some deer. Lyman peep and sour dough front. Of course, I have a rack full of hunting rifles which are perfectly adequate. Regards, Bill.

Yeah, with several .223's and .308's in the safe, no need to build. However, closest I think would be a Surplus FN Mauser I acquired with a badly corroded barrel. It came with a Redfield receiver sight and sporterized stock. I had a NOS 7.62x51 stepped barrel that I installed and installed a front sight on. Light, handy, rugged, and easy to feed.

I would go for something a small CZ527 in 22 Hornet, with a good set of iron sights and compact little scope. 22 Hornet is compact - 100 rds doesn't take much room or weight and as a hunting rifle, adequate for most deer, provided you stalk in close and put bullet in right place. Would be worth having some solid ammo as well for use on birds. A good case can be made for a 223 or the 7.62x39, but amount of ammo for the same weight / volume would be a lot less.

A 22lr would also be a good option, something like the AR7, but it is pretty marginal on deer sized animals. But for small game you are probably better off, snaring / trapping - much less hard work than hunting for them.

If its long term survival, then you had better think about not using firearms, but instead invest your time in making fish traps and learning to use a bow - all of which can be made from materials that will be readily at hand.

If survival, also means the requirement for personal defence, I would be erring towards bigger bullets - 7.62x39 out of a bolt action is probably good for 150 to 200 yards, the 223 quite a bit further, and a solid hit from either is probably able to keep an attacker at bay long enough for you to get the hell out of the place. Lightweight and more powerful cartridge- 308 etc, makes hitting that much more difficult.

Anything more, then its a military type operation and you need lots of ammo.

And if you are dealing with dangerous animals, good field skills should keep you out of harms way.

I don't live in or near a city, so the SHTF scenario has no meaning to me - therefore I'll use the other definition of survival...
I would not build but use a Marlin 336 (or Win 94)in 30-30 for all the same old obvious reasons.

quote:

I don't live in or near a city, so the SHTF scenario has no meaning to me

Have no people that are in walking, bicycling distance

So you are totally independent and self efficient.

Never need to go to town.

Don't use any liquid fuels, no commercial electricity, no store brought food, or animal feed.

No need for replacement parts for your things and machinery.

No need for modern medical systems drugs doctors or any thing else related.

All major highways and other transportation systems at some time and place are routed through cities.

If the cities are hit with a SHTF scenario you well not be effected as soon but it well have an effect.

Even the pioneers had to go to town to get things they could not make or get other wise.

What's with the third degree ? I simply stated that the SHTF stuff means nothing to me. Boy, did you get off topic from the OP.