Is the .22LR the most versatile caliber for urban/wilderness survival.

[PrimitiveMan]

If you look at our responses, they come from the perspective of where we are located.

Those in Bear/Lion country are much more concerned with a bigger caliber than those in the East, rural farm communities.

No wrong answer I guess, just different points of view based on our upbringing and geographic location.

Interesting, huh?

 

[udtjim]

It comes down to how long you may be out in no mans land. As mentioned, you are not going to lug around a big supply of 12 Ga. shells. As a kid, I killed many many deer not only with the 22 Rim fire but also with the long and short cartridges. The first gun I would grab on the way out the door is my Browning Buckmark. Ideal? maybe not but IMO by far the best choice when all is considered. The size and weight of the ammo makes it the best choice.

 

[dawsonbob]

It comes down to how long you may be out in no mans land. As mentioned, you are not going to lug around a big supply of 12 Ga. shells. As a kid, I killed many many deer not only with the 22 Rim fire but also with the long and short cartridges. The first gun I would grab on the way out the door is my Browning Buckmark. Ideal? maybe not but IMO by far the best choice when all is considered. The size and weight of the ammo makes it the best choice.

I'm pretty much the same. If I were actually preparing for something I would probably want an M-14. In real life though, where I'm just going for a walk in the bush, I grab my Ruger 22/45 pistol. I have faith that, in an emergency, it would see me through.

 

[Joben]

I'll disagree. Don't get me wrong, the .22 LR is great and as you descibed above is near perfect.I have a 10/22 and a MKII.

But for me a compact 12 gauge is what I will pack on trips.

Personally i find the ammo weight and bulk a big turnoff for shotguns. Also the guns themselves are rather heavy.

Though, i have to admit a couple dozen shotgun rounds is probably more than you're gonna need in any likely scenario.

Of course why do we have to go to the extreme ends of the power spectrum?

I've always rather liked the look of Marlin's lever action .357 rifles. Ammo is fairly cheap and common, and not too bulky .38 Specials should be good for small game. .357 JHPs out of a long barrel actually have rather impressive ballistics and should make most people who worry about SHTF scenarios pretty happy...

 

[Todd A]

Those in Bear/Lion country are much more concerned with a bigger caliber than those in the East, rural farm communities.

I guess I can be considered bear country up here in North Eastern Ct.

But I am more concerned with coy dogs( AKA feral dogs), having a .22LR in my hands is not gonna give me the warm fuzzies when I hear/see them roaming around.And around here it does happen all to often.

My 12 gauge with #1 buck does.

And extra ammo isn't all that hard to lug around. Sure I can carry more .22's but the 12gauge will take down anything that walks,crawls,or flies around here.

 

[derrickd803]

The .22lr is certainly a caliber that everyone who shoots should own. Anything that you can get a thousand rounds for under $30 is good to have around. But, I would also put the 12 ga. shotgun up as an extremely versatile gun.

BIG +1 to that :thumbup:
I believe the .22lr and the 12ga. are two of the most versatile guns made. Ammo is relatively cheap for both (especially the .22) both are guns that every outdoors man/shooter should own

 

[ieraseu]

But I am more concerned with coy dogs( AKA feral dogs), having a .22LR in my hands is not gonna give me the warm fuzzies when I hear/see them roaming around.And around here it does happen all to often.

^^^

Dogs? I would not feel that dogs would be a problem for a 22LR, especially at the closer ranges where they would be a threat. Actually you might be happy to see a few dogs if you were starving, I probably would. Dogs can even be driven away with a machete, spear, or even a large club in some cases provided that it is not a huge pack of them. Even with a large pack, I would feel comfortable with a semi-auto .22LR firearm. I just don't think they are that hard to take down. Also, it's not very common for dogs to attack full grown adults, so in general I would be much more worried about starvation and thirst then I would be about dogs.

If out in bear country, then perhaps you would want a large bore handgun or rifle solely for self defense with small quantity of ammo. I still think you will do most of your hunting with the .22LR, and I still think that you will have to worry more about starvation and thirst then you would bears.

When I think about shotgun or centerfire rifles use for survival, what I really worry about is the weight and space taken up by the ammo. How many centerfire or shotgun shells can you carry and still remain mobile? Even .223 rounds get very heavy very fast, and shotgun shells even more so.

For urban survival I definitely think that a larger bore handgun should be carried, but I think it should be done for self defense rather then survival. Probably not much more then 2 or 3 mags of ammo, and even that much would be pretty heavy depending on the caliber (.45 ACP, anyone?). So even though I would like to have one, it's more a self defense weapon then survival tool, imo.

For the person that suggested an airgun / pellet rifle. I think those would be an option to consider in countries where firearms are not easily available. I've found that they do pretty well on very small game such as pigeons or squirrels, but on something a little larger like a raccoon or a coyote they are pretty much ineffective.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

How the heck are you going to lug around enough 12 gauge rounds for your shotgun to be "versatile" in a wilderness setting?

Really, I duck hunt out of a kayak and 3 boxes is a PIA. Your gonna carry a 12 gauge that weighs twice what a .22 rifle weighs and then add about 4 lbs for every box of 25 rounds depending.

The question was if the .22 is the most versatile for wilderness/urban survival. It's not, end of story.
I never said the shotty was easier to carry, easier to carry ammo for, or even that it would be my choice. Just that it is the most versatile.

Now I am guilty of only answering half the question, just as most of the responses did -- the wilderness question. For the urban setting, it's a horrible choice. You'll do next to no hunting in the urban setting, almost all of the gun play will revolve around defending against humans. Assuming this is not a free-for-all end-of-world scenario, a handgun in 9mm-45ACP, revolver cartridges inclusive -- is the ONLY choice due to the need to conceal.

For the most versatile in BOTH environs, taking into account the need to conceal in the city, would be a 4" or 6" (depending on how much you can conceal) .357. You can deal with 2 legged problems, 4-legged problems, you can kill most big game, take a couple of 10-round packs of CCI shot shells, and you can take small game fairly well.

I'm going to take my chances with the .22 and snares as you suggested.

Actually I suggested snares and traps in lieu of the .22. I've done a lot of thinking on it, and If I was purposely going out to survive for a given time, I wouldn't bring a .22, unless it was as a handgun secondary to a rifle.

If for some reason someone sacrificed 33 1/3 virgins to the volcano, and God came down and said I had to pick a rimfire to survive with, it'd be a .22 Magnum.

Better ballistics (by far).
Almost as light.
Much better power.
Real bullet jackets.
Varminting bullets (if desired), shot shells, and the .22 WRF if you really must tone it down.
Not to mention reliability. I've always had more than a dozen duds in every bulk pack of LR I've bought. i will not bet my life on bulk pack ammo. The "Good stuff" .22 LR costs the same as .22 Magnum, so no real savings there. Even then, the .22 Mag is still cheap compared to anything but LR.

It's not as accurate as many calibers, but it IS accurate enough.

It's not as powerful as some calibers, but it IS powerful enough.

Subjective based on your needs, skills and how well your firearm shoots.

.22lr has been filling the pot with rabbit, squirrel, groundhog/Marmot, prarie dog, coyote, turkey and darn near any other animal up to about 50 lbs pretty effectively for a long time.

Never argued that.
In fact, that's why I mentioned it's a great gun to use foraging around a fixed place where you have enough ammo stored to take shots at game, and/or preserve larger animals. It always has been (I'd still prefer the .22 Mag ).

While the 12 gauge IS a more versatile firearm (the not disagreeing part), it is not the best, in my opinion for non-defensive wilderness survival.

Again, the question was of versatility, not what was best.
however, based on your arguments, it really only falls short for the long-term survival situation. Not the planned short-term situation.

 

[Todd A]

^^^
Dogs can even be driven away with a machete, spear, or even a large club

also, it's not very common for dogs to attack full grown adults,
.

I take it you've never been pinned to the ground while a dog was trying to rip you apart?

I wasn't a "full grown adult" but a 6' 140lbs 13 year old.
------------------------------------------------------------------
But anyway...maybe its overkill for you. For me it is just right.Just like a .22 is fine for you...to each his own.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Dogs? I would not feel that dogs would be a problem for a 22LR, especially at the closer ranges where they would be a threat. Actually you might be happy to see a few dogs if you were starving, I probably would. Dogs can even be driven away with a machete, spear, or even a large club in some cases provided that it is not a huge pack of them. Even with a large pack, I would feel comfortable with a semi-auto .22LR firearm. I just don't think they are that hard to take down.

I don't mean to sound condescending (really, I don't), but you've never run across feral dogs, have you?

What you say is true -- for domesticated dogs, not feral ones.

A person I work with had his wife get attacked by a feral dog (some scumbag dropped it off on the side of the road and it went feral). The dog clamped onto her forearm (breaking the bones no less), and he broke a shovel handle over its head. IT DIDN'T LET GO. He had to shoot it in the head with a .357.

I've had to shoot too many dogs (I'm in a prime drop-off area, it seems), and let me tell you, the way they move, a 12 gauge with 1 Buck is exactly what you want. Even with a semiauto .22, you'll have to spray at it to land hits, they won't be good hits, and bad hits will not stop a feral dog.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

I just wanted to add as a separate post, as it's really not related to my last two.

A lot of what firearm you bring (if any) with you into the woods, depends on how you plan to survive, and how you plan to use the firearm. That should determine what you carry.

Me, I have the small game taken care of other ways and don't plan on having to shoot it, which leaves me free to carry a more effective firearm for whatever I'm doing.

Oh, and another consideration, where I live, it's swampy, close in vegetation (engagement ranges of 2-50 FEET), and routinely run across feral hogs (which are also not accustomed to backing down or running from predators), and the occasional alligator or crocodile. As fast as any of the above move, at 20 to 50 feet, you want something with enough poop to do the trick on the first shot. A .22 LR isn't it.

 

[the gimp]

I have to go with the shotgun as the most versatile Surivial gun. It can handle all small game and fowl with differant shot loads and with slugs it can take down everything on 2 or four legs.

Ammo is heavier and bulkier but it's pretty hard to "get lost" for a long period of time in todays world. So I do not see the need to carry hundreds of rounds at once. The ability to carry 500 rounds on you as with the .22 although possible, is not really necessary IMO.

Some of my favorite survival guns are my Savage 24C 20ga/22lr (soon to be choked) and my Savage 24 22/410

If I had to pick one gun to leave home with it would probably be a Mossy 500 in 13ga with a 24" barrel

 

[ieraseu]

I don't mean to sound condescending (really, I don't), but you've never run across feral dogs, have you?

What you say is true -- for domesticated dogs, not feral ones.

A person I work with had his wife get attacked by a feral dog (some scumbag dropped it off on the side of the road and it went feral). The dog clamped onto her forearm (breaking the bones no less), and he broke a shovel handle over its head. IT DIDN'T LET GO. He had to shoot it in the head with a .357.

I've had to shoot too many dogs (I'm in a prime drop-off area, it seems), and let me tell you, the way they move, a 12 gauge with 1 Buck is exactly what you want. Even with a semiauto .22, you'll have to spray at it to land hits, they won't be good hits, and bad hits will not stop a feral dog.

Well how many humans are killed every year by feral dogs? The number has to be very small, and most of the victims I suspect to be elderly, women, or children. I may sound naive for saying this, but I honestly do not think a dog is a big enough animal to hunt humans, especially if the humans are in a group, which would almost definitely be the case.

No economic situation or natural disaster is going to kill every single person around, so most likely there will be pockets of people trying to keep together and pool their resources to survive.

Actually I am sure a lot will think me crazy for saying this, but I don't even think a mountain lion is a big enough animal to hunt humans. It certainly is much more capable of doing so then dogs, but again for a mountain lion to attack even a small group of humans would probably be a rare thing. I'm not doubting that it can happen, I just think that it would be rare thing because that mountain lion would be taking an awfully big risk of injury or death during the attack.

In fact, the only animal in North America that I think is capable of hunting humans to the point where we need to be concerned about it, is bears. They are big and powerful enough that even a group of people would have great difficulty in stopping one unless armed with large caliber firearms.

Even so, I think a lot more people would die of thirst and starvation then would die of bear attacks. Hunger and thirst are the real enemies, in my eyes.

 

[udtjim]

I have to admit that when I think of wilderness survival in this light, I am thinking more in terms of life or at least years. The most likely thing to drive me into the wild would be serious civil unrest or even a total breakdown of civilization as we know it. War, depression, the total failure of our monetary system. Drastic? yes but not much else would cause me to leave it all behind.

As in the military, not being seen or heard and avoiding a fight by almost any means when totally out numbered, is a life or death thing, If I had to fight, My mission was already a likely failure.

As someone said, If you are in a urban survival situation or with a large group, things may be entirely different.

The 22 Magnum would be another good choice if hunting for survival but I have already done it with the 22 rimfire as well. I also have a good 12 Ga. BPS.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

OK, so this is an end of the world situation? (1st post didn't make that clear)

I don't know how many people are killed by feral dogs each year. However they are a danger, and they will form packs. If you're going end of the world on this, it'll only exacerbate the problem, since there will be fewer people, and more room for dogs to go feral and run amok. Also, there is no reason to assume people will always be in groups large enough to deter dogs. In the community? Sure. Out in the wild? Why assume there will often be more than 2 people together at once?

Mountain lions -- the various big cats that fall under that designation -- can and do attack hikers (i.e. full grown, adults in good shape), and there are some deaths involved. This is particularly bad where they are protected and populations are increasing and their territory overlaps that of humans more and more. End of world? I'd once again expect they'd be more of a problem than now.

Bears. Now to be honest a bear attack is very rare. Most will be black bears, and they don't tend to attack unless provoked. Grizzlies? Unless you're in Alaska, there's what 500 grizzlies total in the US and Canadian Rockies? Bears, while they would be a high threat in the event of an attack, are actually the least likely to happen.

 

[PrimitiveMan]

Looking back, you did answer the whole question vs. my half answer covering wilderness survival.

Considering the urban element, the shotty and .45 or 9mm sidearm is spot on.

A lot of variables on this one, but I am in agreement with you.

Now, I LOVE 12 gauge, have 4 of them and don't own anything else in a shotgun, but do you think for this purpose, considering you can get birdshot, buckshot and slugs in 20 gauge, that a 20 gauge might be better? You could carry 10% or 15% more ammo by weight, right?

Carl-

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Let's consider another facet:

Like the "which knife?" threads, the real answer is rarely "only one".

In other words to really cover all of your bases, one firearm is really not the way to go.

Want the most utility for the least weight in a woods situation? Think a .357 rifle and a .22 handgun.


Again, if I was in Alaska, I'd at least take a full-power rifle.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Looking back, you did answer the whole question vs. my half answer covering wilderness survival.

Considering the urban element, the shotty and .45 or 9mm sidearm is spot on.

A lot of variables on this one, but I am in agreement with you.

Now, I LOVE 12 gauge, have 4 of them and don't own anything else in a shotgun, but do you think for this purpose, considering you can get birdshot, buckshot and slugs in 20 gauge, that a 20 gauge might be better? You could carry 10% or 15% more ammo by weight, right?

Carl-

If you're talking about maximizing function and weight, sure.

Absolute versatility, no. There's just WAY more sizes of shot available for the 12 ga.

 

[EMT_Lee]

I don't mean to sound condescending (really, I don't), but you've never run across feral dogs, have you?

What you say is true -- for domesticated dogs, not feral ones.

A person I work with had his wife get attacked by a feral dog (some scumbag dropped it off on the side of the road and it went feral). The dog clamped onto her forearm (breaking the bones no less), and he broke a shovel handle over its head. IT DIDN'T LET GO. He had to shoot it in the head with a .357.

I've had to shoot too many dogs (I'm in a prime drop-off area, it seems), and let me tell you, the way they move, a 12 gauge with 1 Buck is exactly what you want. Even with a semiauto .22, you'll have to spray at it to land hits, they won't be good hits, and bad hits will not stop a feral dog.

Come on, now. That story is a little shady. This feral dog is latched onto his wife's arm, attacking with enough ferocity and force to break bones, and he shoots it in the head with a .357? So, this fearsome attack was static enough for him to get a headshot? You said yourself that you'd need to "spray" at a dog, and would only get bad hits. Most dogs shake their heads pretty rapidly when attacking, and with his adrenaline pumping and his wife screaming... I dont know, man.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Actually I am sure a lot will think me crazy for saying this, but I don't even think a mountain lion is a big enough animal to hunt humans.

Mountain lions get upwards of 300lbs and are one of the largest cats on earth- 4th largest IIRC. A mountain lion half that size would be more than a match for a human.