pistols in survival?

R

Random Mutant

Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
59
If, for whatever reason, a rifle isn't available or you choose not to carry one in a situation, what do you all think about pistols? (I'm thinking of a hypothetical long-term survival-camping trip, not worrying about defense.)
Specifically:
1. What sights on a .22LR pistol? Short of optics, are standard open "v"/front post most accurate? I can't really imagine peeps on a pistol.
2. What calibers would have the ballistic capability to take a whitetail deer? at what range? Midsize calibers please, i.e. .22 is a bit small, but has killed them, and something like .454 cassull is a bit bigger than I am thinking of.
3. I saw a folding shoulder stock for a Glock on the web somewhere (forgot the site). Worth the weight? (on any pistol, not necessarily a Glock?)
4. What is the hunting range of a .22 pistol?

Maybe this will start another "caliber war"

Thanks,
Asa
 
IMHO, pistols do have a place in survival. I personally opt for a .40 caliber Glock and a .22 caliber Ruger. The .357 mag, .40, .41 mag, .44mag, 10mm, .45LC all seem to be good deer calibers.

The .40 is a great defensive round that will (and has for me) take whitetails at reasonable yardage. The .22 will easily take small game at reasonable yardage.

Reasonable yardage is dependent upon your skills and abilities with the weapon. Under perfect circumstances at the firearms range, either of the aforementioned weapons is capable of 100 yard shots, as long as I do my part. With either pistol, I try to limit shots on game to <50 yards.

For sights' I use standard Trijicon night sights on the Glock and factory standard adjustable sights on the Ruger, as they are sturdy and seem to work best for me.

Mike
 
obviously you should have a .22 in camp. preferably a rifle. your meat procuring ability would be much greater with any rifle than any pistol. i dont know how much pistol shooting you have done, but hit probability definately decreases with barrel length. you would need to expend a lot more time at the range to maintain competency with the short gun, and at hunting ranges you will still be working hard to make killing shots.

that being said, i would pick one of the magnums- 44/357/454/10mm as a hunting round. these will hit hard, shoot flat and deliver enough energy to take game. optics are the way to go for hunting. especially if you want to reach out and touch something. i doubt that you would want to take a shot at over 100 yards with a pistol at a deer sized animal but that depends on your ability to shoot the pistol, and see the target. as in all hunting, shot placement is crucial, in this case as a food procuring method, you need to make neck and head shots to not waste meat which will happen with body or hip or shoulder shots. this requires that you be able to sight in on the particular body part and not just the animal in general. aim small miss small!!!

by attaching the shoulder stock to a pistol you become an instant felon unless your pistol barrel is at least 16 inches long. unless you are a class three license holder, manufacturing of short barreled rifles (which is what you just created) is a felony. if you are caught with this attached to your gun you may spend some prison time.

as far as the effective range of a .22, fired from a pistol, this depends on the game that you are shooting, and how talented are you at placing a round exactly where you need it.

hope this helps,

alex
 
For a pistol in a survival kit, I would favor a .22 Ruger. Preferable the new 22/45. It's very light, and accurate has great sights from the factory, and the amount of ammo you can carry with a .22 is a big help.
 
Given the minimal added weight and cost, I would opt for .22WinMag rimfire as a light rifle or pistol cartridge. The noise is increased, but excepting a 'behind the lines' sort of situation, the added noise would be welcome for signalling and possibly shooing away nosy carnivores. The .22mag offers greater wounding capability for hunting, and makes better use of barrel length without increasing the overall weight of firearm and ammo.
With the advent of well-made lightweight centerfire revolvers, I think the SW Mountain Gun, Taurus Tracker and similar pistols are a great choice, and in many cases can be used with cheaper,lighter recoiling 'Special' rounds or the full-power Magnums. If there's a good chance that there's dangerous critters in the area I would opt for a .44Mag or possibly a .45LC with the right loads. With open sights these guns are easy enough to still/blind hunt with for survival out to 50, maybe 75 yds.
Revolvers, in .22 or something more potent, are much more forgiving (from a reliability standpoint) to shoot with a single and/or injured arm than a semi-auto.
 
I have a Glock 20 10MM, with the high capacity magazines.. If you get some REAL 10MM ammo, you are looking at a 15 round pistol with power approaching .41 mag levels of performance..
I have 9mm and .40 S&W GLocks but if I had to pick just one, and wasnt worried about finding ammo the 10MM would be the one.. I like the Ruger .22's but they can be a pain to field strip, but since I only have a Ruger target model it would be my choice for a .22

Take Care
Trace Rinaldi
www.thrblades.com
 
I have to second the Ruger 22/45. It is a light weight version of their historic MKII. The factory sights are some of the best in the business, factory or aftermarket. I tend to stick with the iron sights they come with. For survival use, there are just too many "Murphy Factors" (He always tags along, that's why you end up in a survival situation.)
The Ruger's accuracy is short of world class out of the box. Unless you are a seasoned Olympic or silouhett target shooter, the pistol will shoot much better than you can.
Remember that in a true survival situation (Not to mention several hundred poachers caught every year.) the .22lr is quite effective with well placed headshots on larger than just small, game. I include that for TRUE SURVIVAL aka. LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS. I do not propose that folks deer hunt with a .22 for the heck of it.
The .22lr is still noted as one of the statisticly most effective annually manstoppers around. Lots of folks get killed with .22s every year. One of the most effective ways to defend yourself with a .22 is to fire a rapid sequence of rounds into the head. Not many would be evil doers survive this kind of response and those that do usually change their opinion of their intended "victim".
Aside from the afor mentioned attributes is the ease of ammunition availiability. Weight of ammo.(You can carry a couple hundred rounds of .22lr and hardly notice it until you need it.) Low cost of ammo. (You will be much more effective with a pistol that you practice with regularly. Cranking off 250 rounds in a range session will cost you about $8.00 as opposed to $13.50per 50 rounds or .45ACP)
Hope this helps. Be safe.
recondoc
 
As a "survival gun" rather than a hunting or self defense piece, nothing beats a .22 pistol. Mine is a Browning Buckmark (gotta buck the crowd). I have used this pistol to shoot goats prior to butchering, and with a well-placed shot, they dropped instantly. Given the general similarity of goats and deer, I feel it would work equally well on deer, within 50 yards or so (assuming you can shoot that well).

As has been pointed out, the .22 pistol and ammo are almost invisible until you need them, especially with a good holster. And considering the VAST amount of .22lr rounds and loads, it's easy to find a variety of ammo that will fit your needs exactly.
 
Thanks for all the great info.
I'm actually a year and a half shy of being able to legally own a handgun, but I am planning on getting one in the future, probably a .22 to start (I have done a fair amount of shooting with .22s, and only minimal shooting with larger calibers), and I just wanted to get some opinions about real world use...you know...plan ahead:D .
 
Originally posted by V Shrake
As a "survival gun" rather than a hunting or self defense piece, nothing beats a .22 pistol. Mine is a Browning Buckmark

Yeah, the Browning would be a great choice also, I owned one about ten years ago and the out-of-the-box accuracy was almost unbelievable! These are a somewhat under appreciated gun in my opinion. You don't see near as many of them as you do Rugers, but for the money they are a real tackdriver. The only possible complaint I could come up with was they do tend to be somewhat heavy to carry compared to the Ruger. Otherwise you can't go wrong with the Browning.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by recondoc1
snip...Remember that in a true survival situation (Not to mention several hundred poachers caught every year.) the .22lr is quite effective with well placed headshots on larger than just small, game. ...snip
Click to expand...

I believe I read somewhere that every animal found in North America has been taken with a single shot from a .22lr. Not that I'd want to try it against a big grizzly, but...
 
Originally posted by Charles Gallo


I believe I read somewhere that every animal found in North America has been taken with a single shot from a .22lr. Not that I'd want to try it against a big grizzly, but...
Click to expand...

Crazy as it sounds, a Griz' has been taken in Alaksa with a Ruger .22 a few years ago. I have a friend that is an Eastern Orthodox Priest (lotta Orthodox in Alaska) he was living in Alaska when it happened.

Canoer got off 1 shot at point blank as one charged their boat. right through the nose into the brain.
 
Last Confederate, you're right about not seeing Buckmarks being talked about in survival forums; Rugers rule the roost, there. I really prefer the Buckmark's magazines (better design than the Ruger), mag release (again, MUCH more user-friendly than the Ruger). The only real advantage the Ruger has is easier takedown, and the fact that POI doesn't change when you take the gun completely apart for cleaning. I get around that by no longr tearing my Buckmark down all the way; I leave the barrel in place, and clean from the muzzle, and use a toothbrush to clean up the bore and breech faces. Works well enough, and eliminates the need to re-sight the pistol after cleaning. I used to own a Ruger MK I, and wouldn't go back for anything. Love that Bucky.
 
Originally posted by The Last Confederate


Crazy as it sounds, a Griz' has been taken in Alaksa with a Ruger .22 a few years ago. ...snip
Click to expand...

Like I said, I know it's been done, but let's put it this way, I'm not going out LOOKING to do it <g>
 
If I was only going to have ONE, and wanted to be able to use it (REASONABLY)on anything from a snake to a bear (ONLY as a last resort on a bear, as in he is about to close his jaws around my head), I'd get a .357 magnum revolver. While I know the revolver has many more moving parts, is much more susceptible to fouling from dirt and crud (IMO, compared to say a Glock), and generally is much heavier than any of the others mentioned here, it has the potential to be the most versatile, with the wide variety of ammo available. If you're good enough to hit a squirrel with a handgun, it can be done with light-loaded .38 ammo. Shot for snakes. Mid-range high speed ammo for social work. Big-heavy-solids for deer-sized game (and that last resort bear).

Just my thoughts. I have the 22/45, and it's a tack-driver. But I have shot S&W .357 tack-drivers, too. And I've easily been within range of a doe where a .357 would have put her down in a heart-beat with a head shot.
 
Double action revolvers have an advantage that no semi-auto has in combat...that is IF you squeeze the trigger and it doesn't go "bang"...all you have to do is squeeze it again. This is why my back-up is a snub .357. If I would have to pick only one handgun for long-term backpacking & survival, take either my S&W 686 or a Glock 20. The S&W has the advantage of mechanical simplicity, greater(?) reliability (see above), and increased ease of maintenance...the Glock offers greater capacity (esp. the pre-ban) and potentially more power per rd. However, 6rds. at a time of good .357 hard-cast lead rounds should be more than you will need at one time for most situations. That being said, I am planning a wilderness backpacking trip for my wife and I this summer...on it I will be carrying a Glock 20 - loaded with hot 180gr. JSP handloads. I guess I like the extra security of a few extra rounds, lighter weight, and the close to 100 extra ft. pounds of muzzle energy that comes out of the Glock (680 vs. 600). Plus, I already have a tactical leg-holster w/ extra mag pouch for the Glock. The belt-holster for my S&W would be covered by the hip-belt on my backpack...
 
For a .22, I have a Colt Woodsman mod. III with a 6" barrel or my Ruger MKII government match with humunguss bull barrel.

Any bigger then I would have to rely on my Colt Series 70 MK IV with Bo-Mar sights.

:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by rigormootis
That being said, I am planning a wilderness backpacking trip for my wife and I this summer...on it I will be carrying a Glock 20 - loaded with hot 180gr. JSP handloads.
Click to expand...



Mmmmmmmm.... Glock 20......:cool:
 
Actually, this is a very interesting time for this topic to go "hot" again. As much as I love the Buckmark I talked about in my first response to this question, I'm actualy planning on trading it for a Ruger Single Six in .22lr/.22mag. If I had the money, I'd keep the Buckmark, because it is a super gun, but the SS is going to be an even better "survival gun". WAY more rugged and mechanically simpler, plus the option of firing a much more potent round. These would all be great assets in a true survival situation where you had to depend on your pistol to feed yourself, and only occasionally (if ever) defend yourself. Plus, I just love the looks of the Ruger SA's. Never had an SA, but I've always wanted one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top