2 months in deep wilderness which rifle

[runningboar]

Anybody look at when this thread was started.

 

[ChristopherG]

I'll be the second to say the Marlin 1894 in .357. Mine has at least a couple of thousand rounds through it. It's a delight to shoot, easier to haul in my hands than a 10/22. The ammo isn't as light as .22, but you could carry a good stash of both .38 for small game and .357 for larger creatures without any trouble. I don't want to haul a scope around for 2 months, and with a Lyman receiver mounted aperature sight, I don't need to; it's easily accurate enough for survival hunting.

Oh--and yeah, the question is old, isn't it; but just as good today as 5 years ago ;-)

 

[mr.trooper]

Savage bolt gun in .223 with iron sites.

I'm going to detach from the norm and scope it with a decent 30mm Red dot. This will allow you quicker sight alignment for shots on smaller or moving game than a magnified scope would.

The 223 is probably too strong for smaller game, so you will have to take head / upper body shots on small game. Its weak for deer sized game but the rifle has a fast enough twist so you can use the heavy grain hollow points. Overall I think its a good compromise.

 

[Liam Ryan]

For two months? I would have to go with one of the mixed over and unders by Savage. I think a .22LR over a 20ga. would handle about whatever you could come across. Small game could be had either with the 22 or the shot. Something bigger, try a 20ga. slug.

This is what I'd take, but it would probably end up being an NEF sporter with exchangable barrels.

 

[borrowed time]

Here is another opportunity to tout the Springfield M6 scout. .22lr over .410 ga. A variety of available loads could handle nearly any eventuality- just as the Savage or Stevens combos would.

Absolute dittos on this, i love mine and it would be all i would need.

mine gets the job done! - Eric

 

[udtjim]

My browning 22 pistol. Or Stevens Little Favorite rifle in 22.

 

[King Bear]

Anybody look at when this thread was started.

Yeah, but there's different people here now (like me), so new opinions. Besides, if someone starts a new thread, some wise-acre always comes up with "Use the search function (which doesn't function) it's been discussed before".

Anyway, the OP said fishing gear and traps will be taken. There's the small game right there, concentrating on a gun for small game is redundant and inefficient at this point.

IMO the combination guns aren't very good. The .410 is an expert's gun, the shot load is too small and the little 93-grain slug is underpowered. You really have to be good with the thing to efficiently take game.

Personally, I'd take Mosin Nagant. It's tough, reliable, and powerful. It's heavy, but then if physical weakness was a problem, you wouldn't be spending 2 months in the bush, either.

 

[runningboar]

Yeah, but there's different people here now (like me), so new opinions. Besides, if someone starts a new thread, some wise-acre always comes up with "Use the search function (which doesn't function) it's been discussed before".

Looks like exactly the same old answers to me.

 

[ROCK6]

Looks like exactly the same old answers to me.

Only when you read through the whole thread only to realize you've read it a couple years ago

It's always nice to see different perspectives. As much as I like the M6 scout, I would much prefer at least a 20 gauge with a .22LR. I think with a reasonable number of 20 gauge shells (slugs, buckshot and bird shot), you could really provide big-game capability and self-defense potential. Plenty of .22LR will take everything from small-sized deer on down. Augment with a decent little fishing kit and some snares/traps and you have a good long-term package.

Of course, I would most likely have a pistol for backup protection. If it was anywhere near bear country, I would most likely carry along my Redhawk .44. Majority of the lower 48, and a nice Glock 23 in .40S&W along with a the Advantage Arms .22 conversion kit gives you even more versatility. Of course, a simple Blackhawk SA .357 would be more than enough for 99% of non-rifle close encounters and in-close hunting.

ROCK6

 

[22-rimfire]

Thngs haven't changed much. But it is still somewhat interesting to see the various opinion camps. (1) Shotgun/rifle combination, (2) Shotgun Only, (3) 22 rimfire rifle or handgun, (3) Medium bore rifle (such as 30-06 or 308), (4) Large bore rifle, (5) Small bore centerfire rifle (.223 more or less), (6) and finally the handgun caliber rifle bunch. All have merits depending on where you envision this wilderness adventure it to take place.

I envision hiking to a location and making a base camp. The only time you will be transporting everything is the trip in. I lean toward either a scoped 22LR or 22WMR rifle such as my TC Classic or Remington 541-S in 22 or any reasonably accurate 22WMR rifle; or the Marlin 1894 rifle series. I like 41 mag but that is because I like the caliber in handguns. 357 or 44 mag is just fine too. Protecting the firearm from the weather would be very important. If I were going on this adventure in the next month, it would be the Marlin 1894 or a 22WMR.

 

[batosai117]

Damn, runningboar is right, the OP was 5-6 years ago . But to keep things civil, I'd go with my Henry .22 lever action .

Oh yeah, and one more thing, I could use all of your opinions in this thread: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=528281

 

[blazink]

Christopher McCandless proved the value of a .22 rifle even in the hands of the untrained.
He fed himself for 4 months with his and even took down a Moose cow.
In the end it was the "Rabbit Starvation" and eating the wrong wild plants that killed him.

The kid was crazy, but he did more before dying at 24 than most of us will in a much longer life.

 

[batosai117]

Christopher McCandless proved the value of a .22 rifle even in the hands of the untrained.
He fed himself for 4 months with his and even took down a Moose cow.
In the end it was the "Rabbit Starvation" and eating the wrong wild plants that killed him.

The kid was crazy, but he did more before dying at 24 than most of us will in a much longer life.

Great story, and Welcome to Bladeforums :thumbup:.

 

[runningboar]

Christopher McCandless proved the value of a .22 rifle even in the hands of the untrained.
He fed himself for 4 months with his and even took down a Moose cow.
In the end it was the "Rabbit Starvation" and eating the wrong wild plants that killed him.

The kid was crazy, but he did more before dying at 24 than most of us will in a much longer life.

I don't think Chris McCandless did a very good job of anything, except to prove he was egotistical, arrogant and ignorant. You might be surprised just how little food it takes to "survive" for 4 months. Many woodsman have proved the worth of the 22 lr in the early years of the 20th century to present. BTW Welcome aboard. Chris

 

[longbow50]

Since my initial post in 2002, I come to love the idea of having a good .22 rifle with me. Having a shotgun would be excellent, but the ammo is bulky and heavy, so my choice has changed some.

The CZ452FS in .22lr would be my choice. The full stock and iron sights, along with it's excellent reputation for accuracy are the reasons behind my choice. Add several magazines and 500 rounds of it's favorite mix, plus a quick target aquisition sight and sling and I'd be good to go.

 

[misanthropist]

I don't own anything with a full wood stock like that so this is purely a guess...but to me with my lack of experience, it seems like a full wood stock would be a disadvantage for a couple of reasons:

1. a little bit of extra weight (personally not a big issue to me)

2. I would THINK that in changing weather conditions accuracy would degrade. It SEEMS like having wood the full length of the barrel would tend to pressure the barrel one way or another as the wood swells and shrinks.

Granted I realize that there is almost nothing as Canadian as a SMLE so I feel some sense of national betrayal by making this point, but what are people's thoughts on this possible issue?


Incidentally, my choice would be a Lakefield (ahh, got my nationalism back) .22. I come from a long line of guys who live and work in the bush, and of all the guys who've spent their lives in the backcountry, I have known two that were attacked by bears, and both got no warning at all. The rest have had many encounters with wild animals (myself included) and no attacks. So I would guess that odds of being attacked by a predator at some point in only sixty days of bush living would be pretty tiny compared to odds of going hungry. The .22 would fix that problem around here!

 

[batosai117]

I don't own anything with a full wood stock like that so this is purely a guess...but to me with my lack of experience, it seems like a full wood stock would be a disadvantage for a couple of reasons:

1. a little bit of extra weight (personally not a big issue to me)

2. I would THINK that in changing weather conditions accuracy would degrade. It SEEMS like having wood the full length of the barrel would tend to pressure the barrel one way or another as the wood swells and shrinks.

Granted I realize that there is almost nothing as Canadian as a SMLE so I feel some sense of national betrayal by making this point, but what are people's thoughts on this possible issue?


Incidentally, my choice would be a Lakefield (ahh, got my nationalism back) .22. I come from a long line of guys who live and work in the bush, and of all the guys who've spent their lives in the backcountry, I have known two that were attacked by bears, and both got no warning at all. The rest have had many encounters with wild animals (myself included) and no attacks. So I would guess that odds of being attacked by a predator at some point in only sixty days of bush living would be pretty tiny compared to odds of going hungry. The .22 would fix that problem around here!

Guns have been made from wooden stocks since the beginning of the gun, so I don't believe that that would play a big roll in accuracy. Maybe the cold weather going against you with your hands shaking.

 

[TWBryan]

Since my initial post in 2002, I come to love the idea of having a good .22 rifle with me. Having a shotgun would be excellent, but the ammo is bulky and heavy, so my choice has changed some.

The CZ452FS in .22lr would be my choice. The full stock and iron sights, along with it's excellent reputation for accuracy are the reasons behind my choice. Add several magazines and 500 rounds of it's favorite mix, plus a quick target aquisition sight and sling and I'd be good to go.

That's a beautiful rifle. Of what I have on hand it would be either a centerfire pistol and rimfire rifle,or viceversa. Likely my Marlin 39A and Ruger gp100 6" or Ruger MKII and Marlin 1894 in .44 mag. Long as I can mount a scope to the rifle I'll be ok... I really feel much more comfortable with a handgun.

 

[The Grand Pooh-Bah]

Ruger 10/22 would be a reliable choice.

 

[misanthropist]

Guns have been made from wooden stocks since the beginning of the gun, so I don't believe that that would play a big roll in accuracy. Maybe the cold weather going against you with your hands shaking.

Well, I definitely notice a difference in accuracy in changing weather with my wood stocked guns vs. my synthetics (and for this reason I generally switch out my wooden stocks) but nothing I own has a full wood stock that extends right out to the end of the barrell. What I am wondering is not really whether wood stocks decrease the accuracy of a rifle as the wood sheds or absorbs water, as this is definitely the case, but whether a full length stock is noticeably worse than a normal stock?