# You are going on a wilderness adventure...



## Missourian

I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.

So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



 When you say extended,I'm going to assume you mean in a survival type situation where your using it for hunting.
 Easy........ Scoped Ruger 10-22 with a bull barrel.
My reasoning?
  You can carry a crap load of ammo. You can drop anything from a deer to squirrels. Much quieter then a high powered rifle or shotgun.
And it doesnt weigh much.

If it was a SHTF situation I might change my mind and go with an AR.


----------



## Spoonman

i guess a lot would depend on where these backwoods were located.  would my source of food primarily be small game i need ot hunt often? big game, I need power to take down, possible at a long range? Waterfowl or game birds?  So I guess I'd go with a savage 24,  12 gauge - .30-30 combo


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Spoonman said:


> i guess a lot would depend on where these backwoods were located.  would my source of food primarily be small game i need ot hunt often? big game, I need power to take down, possible at a long range? Waterfowl or game birds?  So I guess I'd go with a savage 24,  12 gauge - .30-30 combo



 Good choice. For some reason the ol combo guns didnt enter my mind.
But I think i'd still stick with the .22 just for the weight of the ammo. Dont really think the weight would be worth it for birds. And their really isnt to many things you cant hit with a good .22.  
  And while location would make a difference,most places would have squirrel or rabbit.


----------



## Spoonman

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess a lot would depend on where these backwoods were located.  would my source of food primarily be small game i need ot hunt often? big game, I need power to take down, possible at a long range? Waterfowl or game birds?  So I guess I'd go with a savage 24,  12 gauge - .30-30 combo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good choice. For some reason the ol combo guns didnt enter my mind.
> But I think i'd still stick with the .22 just for the weight of the ammo. Dont really think the weight would be worth it for birds. And their really isnt to many things you cant hit with a good .22.
> And while location would make a difference,most places would have squirrel or rabbit.
Click to expand...


you could always go with the savage 24  .22 - .410


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Spoonman said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess a lot would depend on where these backwoods were located.  would my source of food primarily be small game i need ot hunt often? big game, I need power to take down, possible at a long range? Waterfowl or game birds?  So I guess I'd go with a savage 24,  12 gauge - .30-30 combo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good choice. For some reason the ol combo guns didnt enter my mind.
> But I think i'd still stick with the .22 just for the weight of the ammo. Dont really think the weight would be worth it for birds. And their really isnt to many things you cant hit with a good .22.
> And while location would make a difference,most places would have squirrel or rabbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you could always go with the savage 24  .22 - .410
Click to expand...


  My biggest problem with shotguns as survival guns is weight and volume of ammo vs the amount of protein your going to get.
  I'm just guessing here but I would think you could carry eight to nine .22 rounds vs one 4-10 shell.
  A 4-10 would have trouble with most birds bigger then a small duck.
You could kill 8 rabbits and or squirrels with the .22 and even if you missed a couple times you still come out way ahead.
  And you could cure the rabbit hides and make yourself a warm pair of tighty whities for the winter...


----------



## Michelle420

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



Tim Gunn


----------



## Missourian

Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Taurus M62


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...



  Well that changes things for sure.
I would say go with an over under .22 / 20 ga.
 And use slugs in the twenty for bears and what not.
The only problem is they generally only hold one round each so you better not miss.

    I guess if deer were plentiful you could pack a semi auto 30-06.
But squirrel and rabbit would be off the menu. You'd hate to waste a round on one.


----------



## Spoonman

Missourian said:


> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...



that's why I have the 30-30


----------



## PredFan

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



Shotgun with a variety of shells. Shells suitable for bird and buck, possibly a slug or two.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...





  To make things a little more interesting. How long are we going to be in the wilderness?
A month? six months? Winter or summer?
   Do we have to pack in all gear and ammo?
All those things would come into consideration as to what kind of gun I would bring.

 And of course location. Since bears and wolves are in play,I'm guessing up north.

  Might be interesting to pick a location and a time of year.


----------



## PredFan

The last wilderness adventure I went on was in Shining Rock Wilderness in the Blue Ridge Mountains. At the time I only had my 44 Magnum revolver. When we were setting up camp the 2nd night, we heard what sounded like a very large bear coming our way in the brush. I pulled out my pistol and waited.

First a little piglet about a foot long came out of the brush, then another and another. They wandered along the trail about 5 feet away fromus when momma came out. All 300 pounds of her. She looked at us, sniffed the air then followed her young down the path away from us.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make things a little more interesting. How long are we going to be in the wilderness?
> A month? six months? Winter or summer?
> Do we have to pack in all gear and ammo?
> All those things would come into consideration as to what kind of gun I would bring.
> 
> And of course location. Since bears and wolves are in play,I'm guessing up north.
> 
> Might be interesting to pick a location and a time of year.
Click to expand...



Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...

McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.

He carried everything with him in one trip.

It was both summer and winter.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that changes things for sure.
> I would say go with an over under .22 / 20 ga.
> And use slugs in the twenty for bears and what not.
> *The only problem is they generally only hold one round each so you better not miss.
> *
> I guess if deer were plentiful you could pack a semi auto 30-06.
> But squirrel and rabbit would be off the menu. You'd hate to waste a round on one.
Click to expand...


This was the same problem I was having.

I thought about maybe a 12 gauge with a .22 LR and a .44 MAG insert.

Solves some of the ammunition issues,  but an 8 inch rifled insert wouldn't eject, and a 3 inch insert (which may or may not eject) lacks the accuracy necessary for small game.

You're left with a "one shot" solution...and that isn't acceptable.


----------



## chikenwing

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make things a little more interesting. How long are we going to be in the wilderness?
> A month? six months? Winter or summer?
> Do we have to pack in all gear and ammo?
> All those things would come into consideration as to what kind of gun I would bring.
> 
> And of course location. Since bears and wolves are in play,I'm guessing up north.
> 
> Might be interesting to pick a location and a time of year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...
> 
> McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.
> 
> He carried everything with him in one trip.
> 
> It was both summer and winter.
Click to expand...


22 hands down,a brick doesn't weigh that much and ya got 500 effective rounds on anything but bear,or moose and such,wolves are going down with a good head shot and they are no threat anyways. 22 keep you in meat as long there is some and you have rounds


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

PredFan said:


> The last wilderness adventure I went on was in Shining Rock Wilderness in the Blue Ridge Mountains. At the time I only had my 44 Magnum revolver. When we were setting up camp the 2nd night, we heard what sounded like a very large bear coming our way in the brush. I pulled out my pistol and waited.
> 
> First a little piglet about a foot long came out of the brush, then another and another. They wandered along the trail about 5 feet away fromus when momma came out. All 300 pounds of her. She looked at us, sniffed the air then followed her young down the path away from us.



 When it's dark? All things sound like a bear in the woods.
I've encountered bears,mountain lions and bobcats.
 The bear had to be the scariest one. The wife and I were paddling the shoreline on lake Okanagan in B.C. and rounded a huge boulder only to come face to face with two of the cutest  black bear cubs you've ever seen about 10 ft from us...........and mom was on the other side of em. It took about 2 seconds for it to sink in.

  I could have pulled a water skier!!!


----------



## hoosier88

I'd take a crossbow for everyday - rabbit, small game.  With line attached & the right tips, you could go for bird on the wing &/or fish.  You can make your own bolts, although factory-made are going to be nicer right out of the box.  I assume you can fit razor heads to bolts - I'd have to look into that.  Mostly, you can recover hits & most misses.  If you're going to be out in the wild for extended time, you need that.  

I'd also lug along a hefty sidearm in a holster, plenty of ammo - 50-60 rounds?, for last-ditch against big predators - a .44 magnum?  A revolver, unless you have the tools & expertise to work on a semi-auto in your den.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

chikenwing said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> To make things a little more interesting. How long are we going to be in the wilderness?
> A month? six months? Winter or summer?
> Do we have to pack in all gear and ammo?
> All those things would come into consideration as to what kind of gun I would bring.
> 
> And of course location. Since bears and wolves are in play,I'm guessing up north.
> 
> Might be interesting to pick a location and a time of year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...
> 
> McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.
> 
> He carried everything with him in one trip.
> 
> It was both summer and winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 22 hands down,a brick doesn't weigh that much and ya got 500 effective rounds on anything but bear,or moose and such,wolves are going down with a good head shot and they are no threat anyways. 22 keep you in meat as long there is some and you have rounds
Click to expand...


 I'm with you all the way on that.  LARGE predators would be your only issue.
When I stop and think about it I would probably take my chances with a the original .22 I suggested.
  Thirty rounds in the dome would make most bears think twice.
Assuming you had the time to empty your magazine anyway.
  The .22 is way more lethal then most realize.

  And halfway through this response I think I came up with a decent soluti.....never mind.
I was thinking .22 mag but round capacity is weak.

  I might be back with the 5.56 since it's accurate and the ammo is somewhat light weight,and you have a large magazine for large predators.

And you could still hit small game as long as it wasn't so far out the 5.56 round started to tumble. That was one of the complaints in V.N. ...it only punched a small hole if the round hadn't started to tumble.
   But again you can avoid the lethality issue by using hopped up .223 hollow points. Which are illegal in a 5.56.
   So after much thought? AR-15 with large predators. 22 LR without.

  Free your mind with drugs??? Shiiiiiiit!!!  Crown Royal seems to be doing a fine job !!!!


----------



## Sallow

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



I didn't read the book but I saw the movie. It's not something I would do unless forced. The few times I've been camping have been punctuated with bug bites and rainy nights. I do like a rustic cabin now and again.

Much as I think a shotgun would be the way to go, a .22 and lots of bear/wolf repellent probably would fill the bill. Both are pretty shy creatures despite their strength and size.

Along with a map and a compass...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make things a little more interesting. How long are we going to be in the wilderness?
> A month? six months? Winter or summer?
> Do we have to pack in all gear and ammo?
> All those things would come into consideration as to what kind of gun I would bring.
> 
> And of course location. Since bears and wolves are in play,I'm guessing up north.
> 
> Might be interesting to pick a location and a time of year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...
> 
> McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.
> 
> He carried everything with him in one trip.
> 
> It was both summer and winter.
Click to expand...


 So we're talking four months in Alaska. .......Damn thats harsh!!!
This southern boy hates it when it gets below 40!!!!! Unless I'm duck hunting of course.

  I could sit here and play couch QB as far as McClandless goes,and I firmly believe I could do much better considering I grew up hunting and fishing. Hell my favorite book as A kid was My Side Of The Mountain.
  Surviving in the wilderness has always been something I wanted to try.


----------



## rightwinger

Ultimate survival weapon


----------



## chikenwing

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> To make things a little more interesting. How long are we going to be in the wilderness?
> A month? six months? Winter or summer?
> Do we have to pack in all gear and ammo?
> All those things would come into consideration as to what kind of gun I would bring.
> 
> And of course location. Since bears and wolves are in play,I'm guessing up north.
> 
> Might be interesting to pick a location and a time of year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...
> 
> McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.
> 
> He carried everything with him in one trip.
> 
> It was both summer and winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're talking four months in Alaska. .......Damn thats harsh!!!
> This southern boy hates it when it gets below 40!!!!! Unless I'm duck hunting of course.
> 
> I could sit here and play couch QB as far as McClandless goes,and I firmly believe I could do much better considering I grew up hunting and fishing. Hell my favorite book as A kid was My Side Of The Mountain.
> Surviving in the wilderness has always been something I wanted to try.
Click to expand...


The kid was a dumb ass,I was on a small tributary of the Susitna the summer after he was found,the Anchorage paper had a large piece about his fool hardy misadventure,he was from the DC burbs and had gotten himself in trouble before doing a similar thing,he was just miles from a ranger cabin,unmanned but supplied,no map no life.Nature is amazing,but very indifferent.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book but I saw the movie. It's not something I would do unless forced. The few times I've been camping have been punctuated with bug bites and rainy nights. I do like a rustic cabin now and again.
> 
> Much as I think a shotgun would be the way to go, a .22 and lots of bear/wolf repellent probably would fill the bill. Both are pretty shy creatures despite their strength and size.
> 
> Along with a map and a compass...
Click to expand...


   You grew up in the city I take it?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

chikenwing said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...
> 
> McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.
> 
> He carried everything with him in one trip.
> 
> It was both summer and winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're talking four months in Alaska. .......Damn thats harsh!!!
> This southern boy hates it when it gets below 40!!!!! Unless I'm duck hunting of course.
> 
> I could sit here and play couch QB as far as McClandless goes,and I firmly believe I could do much better considering I grew up hunting and fishing. Hell my favorite book as A kid was My Side Of The Mountain.
> Surviving in the wilderness has always been something I wanted to try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kid was a dumb ass,I was on a small tributary of the Susitna the summer after he was found,the Anchorage paper had a large piece about his fool hardy misadventure,he was from the DC burbs and had gotten himself in trouble before doing a similar thing,he was just miles from a ranger cabin,unmanned but supplied,no map no life.Nature is amazing,but very indifferent.
Click to expand...


  Thats kind of the impression I got. City boy WAY out of his element.
If the fool hadn't found the bus he wouldn't have survived as long as he did.
  And I asked the question....if the damn bus could make it out there,there had to be a way back. And if the bus was there it's not like he was a hundred miles from nowhere.

  Idealistic moron???? ....Yeah.


----------



## chikenwing

HereWeGoAgain said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we're talking four months in Alaska. .......Damn thats harsh!!!
> This southern boy hates it when it gets below 40!!!!! Unless I'm duck hunting of course.
> 
> I could sit here and play couch QB as far as McClandless goes,and I firmly believe I could do much better considering I grew up hunting and fishing. Hell my favorite book as A kid was My Side Of The Mountain.
> Surviving in the wilderness has always been something I wanted to try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kid was a dumb ass,I was on a small tributary of the Susitna the summer after he was found,the Anchorage paper had a large piece about his fool hardy misadventure,he was from the DC burbs and had gotten himself in trouble before doing a similar thing,he was just miles from a ranger cabin,unmanned but supplied,no map no life.Nature is amazing,but very indifferent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats kind of the impression I got. City boy WAY out of his element.
> If the fool hadn't found the bus he wouldn't have survived as long as he did.
> And I asked the question....if the damn bus could make it out there,there had to be a way back. And if the bus was there it's not like he was a hundred miles from nowhere.
> 
> Idealistic moron???? ....Yeah.
Click to expand...


Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

rightwinger said:


> Ultimate survival weapon



 You can only pick ONE gun....although I guess you could call it a side by side.

  Yeah she qualifies. And she could keep you warm at night!!


----------



## chikenwing

HereWeGoAgain said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimate survival weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can only pick ONE gun....although I guess you could call it a side by side.
> 
> Yeah she qualifies. And she could keep you warm at night!!
Click to expand...


I want to do the aiming!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

chikenwing said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimate survival weapon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can only pick ONE gun....although I guess you could call it a side by side.
> 
> Yeah she qualifies. And she could keep you warm at night!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to do the aiming!
Click to expand...


 And she's obviously a semi auto,and thats a big plus!!


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  this thread was inspired by "Into the Wild",  so let's use that as a guide...
> 
> McCandless was out of contact with civilization for at least 113 days.
> 
> He carried everything with him in one trip.
> 
> It was both summer and winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22 hands down,a brick doesn't weigh that much and ya got 500 effective rounds on anything but bear,or moose and such,wolves are going down with a good head shot and they are no threat anyways. 22 keep you in meat as long there is some and you have rounds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you all the way on that.  LARGE predators would be your only issue.
> When I stop and think about it I would probably take my chances with a the original .22 I suggested.
> Thirty rounds in the dome would make most bears think twice.
> Assuming you had the time to empty your magazine anyway.
> The .22 is way more lethal then most realize.
> 
> And halfway through this response I think I came up with a decent soluti.....never mind.
> I was thinking .22 mag but round capacity is weak.
> 
> I might be back with the 5.56 since it's accurate and the ammo is somewhat light weight,and you have a large magazine for large predators.
> 
> And you could still hit small game as long as it wasn't so far out the 5.56 round started to tumble. That was one of the complaints in V.N. ...it only punched a small hole if the round hadn't started to tumble.
> But again you can avoid the lethality issue by using hopped up .223 hollow points. Which are illegal in a 5.56.*
> So after much thought? AR-15 with large predators.* 22 LR without.
> 
> Free your mind with drugs??? Shiiiiiiit!!!  Crown Royal seems to be doing a fine job !!!!
Click to expand...


I thought about that too,  but like Hoosier pointed out,  one broken part,  and you're completely weaponless.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Stable rounds tumble on impact. 

Unstable rounds exist; are not accurate, have no widespread military application.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Stable rounds tumble on impact.
> 
> Unstable rounds exist; are not accurate, have no widespread military application.



 The M-16 wouldnt always tumble. A lot of times it would just punch straight through and do little damage. Colder denser air tended to make the round tumble as it left the barrel.
  It was most effective when the bullet tumbled on impact. If it hit you in the kneecap it would very likely come out at your butt doing massive amounts of damage.

   I've found that heaver rounds work better with my 1-7 twist. The 55 grain will occasionally disintegrate when it leaves the barrel. 65 Grain and up work far better.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 22 hands down,a brick doesn't weigh that much and ya got 500 effective rounds on anything but bear,or moose and such,wolves are going down with a good head shot and they are no threat anyways. 22 keep you in meat as long there is some and you have rounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you all the way on that.  LARGE predators would be your only issue.
> When I stop and think about it I would probably take my chances with a the original .22 I suggested.
> Thirty rounds in the dome would make most bears think twice.
> Assuming you had the time to empty your magazine anyway.
> The .22 is way more lethal then most realize.
> 
> And halfway through this response I think I came up with a decent soluti.....never mind.
> I was thinking .22 mag but round capacity is weak.
> 
> I might be back with the 5.56 since it's accurate and the ammo is somewhat light weight,and you have a large magazine for large predators.
> 
> And you could still hit small game as long as it wasn't so far out the 5.56 round started to tumble. That was one of the complaints in V.N. ...it only punched a small hole if the round hadn't started to tumble.
> But again you can avoid the lethality issue by using hopped up .223 hollow points. Which are illegal in a 5.56.*
> So after much thought? AR-15 with large predators.* 22 LR without.
> 
> Free your mind with drugs??? Shiiiiiiit!!!  Crown Royal seems to be doing a fine job !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought about that too,  but like Hoosier pointed out,  one broken part,  and you're completely weaponless.
Click to expand...


  You could say that about any weapon. As far as maintaining an AR goes it's pretty simple.
You can field strip it with no tools. And I've fired thousands of rounds without a single jam or miss fire,so it's pretty reliable. Or as reliable as any semi auto I've fired.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Obviously velocity (distance to impact) affects tumbling of stable rounds. 

No stable round (full spec; right round for the twist)  ever tumbled before impact.


----------



## Sunshine

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



I live in the wilderness.  Not like the Alaska frontier, but with its own set of challenges given that this is the 21st centure.   Two tin cans and a string would be better than this phone company, and the water system is down half the time.  The roads are dirt and gravel, and I count myself lucky that I live in what you might, roughly speaking, called paved.  But it's quiet, pretty in all 4 directions - nothing ugly to look at, no one can find you except those you give the directions to, and no one bothers you.

I haven't read that book, and likely won't, but I get perturbed with the media when someone lives through something tried to do that was completely unnecessary and stupid they, like climbing Everest, and then calls the person a 'hero.'  IMO, heros don't start out  to do stupid stuff to begin with.  Sometimes those stupid acts will cost the life of a responder trying to rescue them.  If they had just stayed home............

Guns kept for self protection only.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Henry Survival rifle.






 ultra-compact, ultra lightweight rifle that quickly dissassembles into 3 parts, and fits inside its own buttstock.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Skull Pilot said:


> The Henry Survival rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultra-compact, ultra lightweight rifle that quickly dissassembles into 3 parts, and fits inside its own buttstock.



  I always considered those emergency rifles. Maybe something you would throw in the trunk.
If you're out in the woods you would never disassemble it so you might as well bring a standard rifle with a scope.
 Sure as shit,right about the time you packed it away you'd need it.


----------



## Missourian

The wife said take a pump action shotgun with slugs and #6 shot for medium/large game and birds,  trap and snare your small game.


----------



## Missourian

Skull Pilot said:


> The Henry Survival rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ultra-compact, ultra lightweight rifle that quickly dissassembles into 3 parts, and fits inside its own buttstock.




As a part of a two gun solution,  I would agree...but I wouldn't want to face a bear with a 22lr.

I'm not sure there is a one gun solution.


----------



## Spoonman

i'm still going with te savage 24.   30-30/ 12guage. smaller game you can snare or trap.  you have something large enough for big game and protection.  if you are bringing down something big, it lasts longer and you need less ammo.  I deer will feed you longer then 50 rabbits, 1 moose, more then a few hundred rabbits.  plus if by chance you have a mechanical failure on one, you still have the other.


----------



## Missourian

Spoonman said:


> i'm still going with te savage 24.   30-30/ 12guage. smaller game you can snare or trap.  you have something large enough for big game and protection.  if you are bringing down something big, it lasts longer and you need less ammo.  I deer will feed you longer then 50 rabbits, 1 moose, more then a few hundred rabbits.  plus if by chance you have a mechanical failure on one, you still have the other.



Adding a Pathfinder eight inch rifled 12 gauge to .22lr adapter gives the option of converting the lower barrel for small game.

This is probably the closest to a one gun solution as we have so far.

The set back is,  configured for small game,  you have one 30-30 shot,  and a .22 for a last ditch Hail Mary in the event of a predator attack.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Spoonman said:


> i'm still going with te savage 24.   30-30/ 12guage. smaller game you can snare or trap.  you have something large enough for big game and protection.  if you are bringing down something big, it lasts longer and you need less ammo.  I deer will feed you longer then 50 rabbits, 1 moose, more then a few hundred rabbits.  plus if by chance you have a mechanical failure on one, you still have the other.



  Thats assuming you know how to preserve the meat or it's winter.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm still going with te savage 24.   30-30/ 12guage. smaller game you can snare or trap.  you have something large enough for big game and protection.  if you are bringing down something big, it lasts longer and you need less ammo.  I deer will feed you longer then 50 rabbits, 1 moose, more then a few hundred rabbits.  plus if by chance you have a mechanical failure on one, you still have the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats assuming you know how to preserve the meat or it's winter.
Click to expand...

Good point.

McCandless managed to kill a moose with his .22LR Remington Nylon 66...

He tried to preserve it in chunks instead of strips and it went bad.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm still going with te savage 24.   30-30/ 12guage. smaller game you can snare or trap.  you have something large enough for big game and protection.  if you are bringing down something big, it lasts longer and you need less ammo.  I deer will feed you longer then 50 rabbits, 1 moose, more then a few hundred rabbits.  plus if by chance you have a mechanical failure on one, you still have the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats assuming you know how to preserve the meat or it's winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point.
> 
> McCandless managed to kill a moose with his .22LR Remington Nylon 66...
> 
> He tried to preserve it in chunks instead of strips and it went bad.
Click to expand...


  My first thought when I saw that was....why the hell didnt he gather wood and prepare his smoker BEFORE he shot the moose. 
  I was watching that reality show filmed about living in the wilds of Alaska.
That guy had it down. His wife was fishing while he made a smoker with three limbs and a small tarp. They smoked a shitload of salmon in a few days then headed home.
  And if I remember correctly McClandless didnt do any fishing. The guy was woefully unprepared.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats assuming you know how to preserve the meat or it's winter.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> McCandless managed to kill a moose with his .22LR Remington Nylon 66...
> 
> He tried to preserve it in chunks instead of strips and it went bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first thought when I saw that was....why the hell didnt he gather wood and prepare his smoker BEFORE he shot the moose.
> I was watching that reality show filmed about living in the wilds of Alaska.
> That guy had it down. His wife was fishing while he made a smoker with three limbs and a small tarp. They smoked a shitload of salmon in a few days then headed home.
> And if I remember correctly McClandless didnt do any fishing. The guy was woefully unprepared.
Click to expand...



I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know,  he didn't use it.

He has a map too,  but no compass.

I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat in that environment without salt.


----------



## Missourian

Check this out...

Over/under  12/30-06,  12/308,  12/762x39 and 12/.233 with wood furniture...a little pricey @ MSRP $745...but intriguing... 

https://eaacorp.com/portfolio-item/mp94-series-combo-shotgunrifle/


PS....the new Savage model 24 (the model 42) looks like a POC.


----------



## editec

chikenwing said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kid was a dumb ass,I was on a small tributary of the Susitna the summer after he was found,the Anchorage paper had a large piece about his fool hardy misadventure,he was from the DC burbs and had gotten himself in trouble before doing a similar thing,he was just miles from a ranger cabin,unmanned but supplied,no map no life.Nature is amazing,but very indifferent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats kind of the impression I got. City boy WAY out of his element.
> If the fool hadn't found the bus he wouldn't have survived as long as he did.
> And I asked the question....if the damn bus could make it out there,there had to be a way back. And if the bus was there it's not like he was a hundred miles from nowhere.
> 
> Idealistic moron???? ....Yeah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.
Click to expand...


He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.

He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.

Pretty crummy way to die, eh?

But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

editec said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats kind of the impression I got. City boy WAY out of his element.
> If the fool hadn't found the bus he wouldn't have survived as long as he did.
> And I asked the question....if the damn bus could make it out there,there had to be a way back. And if the bus was there it's not like he was a hundred miles from nowhere.
> 
> Idealistic moron???? ....Yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.
> 
> He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.
> 
> Pretty crummy way to die, eh?
> 
> But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.
Click to expand...


  He ate those berries that looked like the edible type....whoops!! But anyway you look at it,his inexperience got him killed.
But you would still have to think there was a way out. If the bus made it out there you would think there was bridge somewhere.


----------



## hoosier88

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> McCandless managed to kill a moose with his .22LR Remington Nylon 66...
> 
> He tried to preserve it in chunks instead of strips and it went bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first thought when I saw that was....why the hell didnt he gather wood and prepare his smoker BEFORE he shot the moose.
> I was watching that reality show filmed about living in the wilds of Alaska.
> That guy had it down. His wife was fishing while he made a smoker with three limbs and a small tarp. They smoked a shitload of salmon in a few days then headed home.
> And if I remember correctly McClandless didnt do any fishing. The guy was woefully unprepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know,  he didn't use it.
> 
> He has a map too,  but no compass.
> 
> *I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat *in that environment without salt.
Click to expand...


(My bold)

I read the book - *Into the wild*.  The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID.  He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits.  He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat.  Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat.  He had problems with flies, maggots, etc.  The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.  

There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream.  McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge.  So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.


----------



## koshergrl

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared, into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about, if I could only take one, what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you, if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods, what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the book but I saw the movie. It's not something I would do unless forced. The few times I've been camping have been punctuated with bug bites and rainy nights. I do like a rustic cabin now and again.
> 
> Much as I think a shotgun would be the way to go, a .22 and lots of bear/wolf repellent probably would fill the bill. Both are pretty shy creatures despite their strength and size.
> 
> Along with a map and a compass...
Click to expand...

 
It isn't the shy ones you need to worry about.


----------



## hoosier88

HereWeGoAgain said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.
> 
> He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.
> 
> Pretty crummy way to die, eh?
> 
> But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He ate those berries that looked like the edible type*....whoops!! But anyway you look at it,*his inexperience got him killed.*But you would still have to think there was a way out. If the bus made it out there *you would think there was bridge somewhere*.
Click to expand...


(My bold)

The movie must shortcut the info in the book, I haven't seen the movie.  McCandless correctly IDed an edible wild potato-like tuber, the book said the tubers were edible, in season (but they become hard & indigestible out of season).  There is also a closely related plant that looks v. much like the potato-like plant.  The field guide McCandless had didn't mention that the seeds of the lookalike are slow poison - incidents of such poisoning are v. rare, because you have to ingest a lot of it.  The author of *Into the wild *thinks that McCandless switched from the increasingly inedible tubers, incorrectly IDed the lookalike, switched to eating the seeds, ate a lot, & the poison persists in the body.    

To flush the poison from the system, you need a lot of protein & fats - McCandless was losing weight all the time he was out there in AK - the poison meant he would have had to have eaten prodigious amounts of food (& stopped eating the poisonous seeds), & he just couldn't gather that much food.  He may have understood he was eating the wrong plant, there @ the end.  Too late to do anything about it.

The author points out - winter in AK is when it's easiest to travel, physically.  (The rivers, swamps, etc. freeze - like a highway.  But food is a problem then.)  There was no bridge, someone dragged 3 old buses in as hunting shelters.  The other 2 were gone.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

hoosier88 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first thought when I saw that was....why the hell didnt he gather wood and prepare his smoker BEFORE he shot the moose.
> I was watching that reality show filmed about living in the wilds of Alaska.
> That guy had it down. His wife was fishing while he made a smoker with three limbs and a small tarp. They smoked a shitload of salmon in a few days then headed home.
> And if I remember correctly McClandless didnt do any fishing. The guy was woefully unprepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know,  he didn't use it.
> 
> He has a map too,  but no compass.
> 
> *I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat *in that environment without salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> I read the book - *Into the wild*.  The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID.  He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits.  He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat.  Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat.  He had problems with flies, maggots, etc.  The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.
> 
> There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream.  McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge.  So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.
Click to expand...


   He was trying to make jerky. You need a certain amount of heat to kill bacteria so air drying isn't a good idea. And the smoke not only cures the meat it also keeps the flies away. But even jerky has a limited shelf life without refrigeration.

  It does sound like he had some skills,just not the ones needed for Alaska. Live and Lear......never mind.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

hoosier88 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.
> 
> He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.
> 
> Pretty crummy way to die, eh?
> 
> But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He ate those berries that looked like the edible type*....whoops!! But anyway you look at it,*his inexperience got him killed.*But you would still have to think there was a way out. If the bus made it out there *you would think there was bridge somewhere*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> The movie must shortcut the info in the book, I haven't seen the movie.  McCandless correctly IDed an edible wild potato-like tuber, the book said the tubers were edible, in season (but they become hard & indigestible out of season).  There is also a closely related plant that looks v. much like the potato-like plant.  The field guide McCandless had didn't mention that the seeds of the lookalike are slow poison - incidents of such poisoning are v. rare, because you have to ingest a lot of it.  The author of *Into the wild *thinks that McCandless switched from the increasingly inedible tubers, incorrectly IDed the lookalike, switched to eating the seeds, ate a lot, & the poison persists in the body.
> 
> To flush the poison from the system, you need a lot of protein & fats - McCandless was losing weight all the time he was out there in AK - the poison meant he would have had to have eaten prodigious amounts of food (& stopped eating the poisonous seeds), & he just couldn't gather that much food.  He may have understood he was eating the wrong plant, there @ the end.  Too late to do anything about it.
> 
> The author points out - winter in AK is when it's easiest to travel, physically.  (The rivers, swamps, etc. freeze - like a highway.  But food is a problem then.)  There was no bridge, someone dragged 3 old buses in as hunting shelters.  The other 2 were gone.
Click to expand...


  Movies never do justice to the book. I'm sure there's a shitload of info left out. I'll have to read it.


----------



## hoosier88

HereWeGoAgain said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know,  he didn't use it.
> 
> He has a map too,  but no compass.
> 
> *I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat *in that environment without salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> I read the book - *Into the wild*.  The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID.  He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits.  He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat.  Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat.  He had problems with flies, maggots, etc.  The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.
> 
> There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream.  McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge.  So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was trying to make jerky. *You need a certain amount of heat to kill bacteria so air drying isn't a good idea. And the smoke not only cures the meat it also keeps the flies away. But even jerky has a limited shelf life without refrigeration.
> 
> It does sound like he had some skills,just not the ones needed for Alaska. Live and Lear......never mind.
Click to expand...


(My bold)  I don't know, the book's author didn't say if jerky was the goal for McCandless.  Certainly cutting it into chunks - instead of strips - wasn't the way to go.  He was trying to smoke the meat, but McCandless noted that it wasn't working - he couldn't generate enough heat/smoke?  Air-drying strips is what the author reports would have worked - that also works in Navajo country.  Certainly a whole moose would have solved McCandless' food problem, & helped with the slow poisoning problem.

By the account in the book, he was brilliant.  He wrote software - his dad was a big name in SAR radar, McCandless played 3 instruments well, sang well, was a good student (when the subject interested him), was a prize-winning long-distance runner.  He overestimated his survival skills, especially for the AK environment.  But he was young ...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

hoosier88 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> I read the book - *Into the wild*.  The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID.  He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits.  He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat.  Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat.  He had problems with flies, maggots, etc.  The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.
> 
> There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream.  McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge.  So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He was trying to make jerky. *You need a certain amount of heat to kill bacteria so air drying isn't a good idea. And the smoke not only cures the meat it also keeps the flies away. But even jerky has a limited shelf life without refrigeration.
> 
> It does sound like he had some skills,just not the ones needed for Alaska. Live and Lear......never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)  I don't know, the book's author didn't say if jerky was the goal for McCandless.  Certainly cutting it into chunks - instead of strips - wasn't the way to go.  He was trying to smoke the meat, but McCandless noted that it wasn't working - he couldn't generate enough heat/smoke?  Air-drying strips is what the author reports would have worked - that also works in Navajo country.  Certainly a whole moose would have solved McCandless' food problem, & helped with the slow poisoning problem.
> 
> By the account in the book, he was brilliant.  He wrote software - his dad was a big name in SAR radar, McCandless played 3 instruments well, sang well, was a good student (when the subject interested him), was a prize-winning long-distance runner.  He overestimated his survival skills, especially for the AK environment.  But he was young ...
Click to expand...


 Just smoking the meat wont do it.Thats just BBQ. And you're right about cutting into strips not chunks.
You dont want it any thicker then A quarter inch or it wont dry properly.
   And yes you can air dry meat. It's just a lot easier to use smoke and some mild heat to help with sanitation and to speed the process. And of course it's pretty tasty that way to,assuming you dont use the wrong type of wood.
  I've seen people place sliced meat between two return air filters then hang it in front of a fan to dry. The filters and the wind keep the bugs off and the fan speeds the process.

   When I make jerky the actual drying process takes about twelve hours in a dehydrator.
If I make it in the smoker the old fashioned way I increase the heat slightly so the meat doesnt get to smokey and I make sure the logs have burned down to coals. Just like in BBQ it's a good idea to have a secondary fire to pre-burn your wood to avoid the thick bitter smoke you get with a fresh log. Thin blue smoke,not billowing white smoke is what you need.


----------



## hoosier88

*Here* - Thanks for the info on drying/smoking.  Good to know.  Yah, I recommend the book, the author is sympathetic to McCandless - he'd done similar things in mountain climbing.

McCandless would have done better if he'd prepared better, no doubt about it.  A good topo map would have given him detailed info he could have used to escape the flooding @ the end.  But then, apparently he wanted the whole Man v. Nature or maybe better, Man in Nature thing.  

He was impatient, & it looks like he took one shortcut too many in deciding what to eat.  (Never a good idea to make those decisions under pressure of hunger - too much hunger, & you're @ the mercy of your appetite.  Kinda like walking through the impulse buy items @ the grocery checkout.)


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

hoosier88 said:


> *Here* - Thanks for the info on drying/smoking.  Good to know.  Yah, I recommend the book, the author is sympathetic to McCandless - he'd done similar things in mountain climbing.
> 
> McCandless would have done better if he'd prepared better, no doubt about it.  A good topo map would have given him detailed info he could have used to escape the flooding @ the end.  But then, apparently he wanted the whole Man v. Nature or maybe better, Man in Nature thing.
> 
> He was impatient, & it looks like he took one shortcut too many in deciding what to eat.  (Never a good idea to make those decisions under pressure of hunger - too much hunger, & you're @ the mercy of your appetite.  Kinda like walking through the impulse buy items @ the grocery checkout.)



  I'll definitely read it. I've always had a fascination with living in the wild and the process used to procure and preserve meat as well as other aspects of wilderness living.
  It takes a lot of balls to do what he did. I've done it on a limited basis,but nothing like he did. Having two people to spread the work load would make it a hell of a lot easier.


----------



## koshergrl

HereWeGoAgain said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He was trying to make jerky. *You need a certain amount of heat to kill bacteria so air drying isn't a good idea. And the smoke not only cures the meat it also keeps the flies away. But even jerky has a limited shelf life without refrigeration.
> 
> It does sound like he had some skills,just not the ones needed for Alaska. Live and Lear......never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold) I don't know, the book's author didn't say if jerky was the goal for McCandless. Certainly cutting it into chunks - instead of strips - wasn't the way to go. He was trying to smoke the meat, but McCandless noted that it wasn't working - he couldn't generate enough heat/smoke? Air-drying strips is what the author reports would have worked - that also works in Navajo country. Certainly a whole moose would have solved McCandless' food problem, & helped with the slow poisoning problem.
> 
> By the account in the book, he was brilliant. He wrote software - his dad was a big name in SAR radar, McCandless played 3 instruments well, sang well, was a good student (when the subject interested him), was a prize-winning long-distance runner. He overestimated his survival skills, especially for the AK environment. But he was young ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just smoking the meat wont do it.Thats just BBQ. And you're right about cutting into strips not chunks.
> You dont want it any thicker then A quarter inch or it wont dry properly.
> And yes you can air dry meat. It's just a lot easier to use smoke and some mild heat to help with sanitation and to speed the process. And of course it's pretty tasty that way to,assuming you dont use the wrong type of wood.
> I've seen people place sliced meat between two return air filters then hang it in front of a fan to dry. The filters and the wind keep the bugs off and the fan speeds the process.
> 
> When I make jerky the actual drying process takes about twelve hours in a dehydrator.
> If I make it in the smoker the old fashioned way I increase the heat slightly so the meat doesnt get to smokey and I make sure the logs have burned down to coals. Just like in BBQ it's a good idea to have a secondary fire to pre-burn your wood to avoid the thick bitter smoke you get with a fresh log. Thin blue smoke,not billowing white smoke is what you need.
Click to expand...

 
This is how you smoke to preserve:






http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://arcticrose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hung-salmon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://arcticrose.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/040808-traditional-foods-and-recipes-smoking-salmon-and-other-fish/&usg=__37VQeZkySuYSNGflN6sxSfUp3_A=&h=253&w=450&sz=40&hl=en&start=17&zoom=1&tbnid=tz7PY3NON549jM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=127&ei=RAW2UfTNGaWkigLI9IGICQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsmoking%2Bsalmon%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address%26rlz%3D1I7GGLT_enUS386%26hl%3Den%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CEwQrQMwEA

You will note the necessity of brining the fish first, then air drying...before you smoke. 

This is why you need a gun that will stop a bear. Because trust me, bears will come to visit. And anything else that likes to eat meat or salmon. 

When you are subsisting, you have to be able to take advantage of feasts when they are presented...you might go months before you catch another salmon, so if you can catch 300 in a month or 15 in a day, you have to be able to make use of them.

You don't have to build a shack, btw. You can just make a little lean to or whatever...big enough to accomodate a small, constant fire. You need the smoke, not the heat, with this method.

I don't know what's up with that link...I did a search on traditional smoking and I came across this site which is awsome, but it's showing as a google image. But the site is cool.


----------



## koshergrl

If you're going to play this game, you might as well do it right:

"

The most important animals, demanded special treatment by the Koyukon, are the four predators: the bear (black and cinnamon alike), wolf, wolverine, and lynx, and their _yegas_ are to be dreaded. A. M. Clark (1970) reported that the Koyukuk Indians believed that these four animals had souls like those of human beings. Jette` mentioned important furbearers that are likewise treated with special care after death. In general, the proper names of these animals must not be used, but they may be referred to by circumlocutions. Their flesh and bones must not be given to dogs, and the bones or other discarded parts must be disposed of in special ways: burned in the cases of most land animals, or put back in the water for fish and beaver. Animal remains must never be left where people might walk over them, or dogs gnaw them, so the important parts of some species are cached in trees. When a bear is killed, its eyeballs are slit and its paws cut off, so that its spirit cannot see or run away. Then men eat the head and paws at a special feast, which the women do not attend."

05.05.08?Athabascan Animal Spirits and Hunting Practices « Raven's Ruff Stuff And Other Things Native


----------



## Missourian

editec said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats kind of the impression I got. City boy WAY out of his element.
> If the fool hadn't found the bus he wouldn't have survived as long as he did.
> And I asked the question....if the damn bus could make it out there,there had to be a way back. And if the bus was there it's not like he was a hundred miles from nowhere.
> 
> Idealistic moron???? ....Yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.*
> 
> He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.
> 
> Pretty crummy way to die, eh?
> 
> *But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.*
Click to expand...



It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.

As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausenthe biochemist at the University  of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (_Hedysarum alpinum_) for Jon Krakauerconcluded after exhaustive testing that no part of _H. alpinum_  is toxic.  Neither the roots nor the seeds.  Accordingly, McCandless  could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his  1996 book _Into the Wild_, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade. 

Likewise, Dr. Clausens analysis of the wild sweet pea (_Hedysarum mackenzii_)given  as the cause of Chriss death in the current Sean Penn filmhas also  turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in  modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species  of plant.

::: Terra Incognita films :::
​McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out.  When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

koshergrl said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold) I don't know, the book's author didn't say if jerky was the goal for McCandless. Certainly cutting it into chunks - instead of strips - wasn't the way to go. He was trying to smoke the meat, but McCandless noted that it wasn't working - he couldn't generate enough heat/smoke? Air-drying strips is what the author reports would have worked - that also works in Navajo country. Certainly a whole moose would have solved McCandless' food problem, & helped with the slow poisoning problem.
> 
> By the account in the book, he was brilliant. He wrote software - his dad was a big name in SAR radar, McCandless played 3 instruments well, sang well, was a good student (when the subject interested him), was a prize-winning long-distance runner. He overestimated his survival skills, especially for the AK environment. But he was young ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just smoking the meat wont do it.Thats just BBQ. And you're right about cutting into strips not chunks.
> You dont want it any thicker then A quarter inch or it wont dry properly.
> And yes you can air dry meat. It's just a lot easier to use smoke and some mild heat to help with sanitation and to speed the process. And of course it's pretty tasty that way to,assuming you dont use the wrong type of wood.
> I've seen people place sliced meat between two return air filters then hang it in front of a fan to dry. The filters and the wind keep the bugs off and the fan speeds the process.
> 
> When I make jerky the actual drying process takes about twelve hours in a dehydrator.
> If I make it in the smoker the old fashioned way I increase the heat slightly so the meat doesnt get to smokey and I make sure the logs have burned down to coals. Just like in BBQ it's a good idea to have a secondary fire to pre-burn your wood to avoid the thick bitter smoke you get with a fresh log. Thin blue smoke,not billowing white smoke is what you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how you smoke to preserve:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://arcticrose.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hung-salmon.jpg
> 
> You will note the necessity of brining the fish first, then air drying...before you smoke.
> 
> This is why you need a gun that will stop a bear. Because trust me, bears will come to visit. And anything else that likes to eat meat or salmon.
> 
> When you are subsisting, you have to be able to take advantage of feasts when they are presented...you might go months before you catch another salmon, so if you can catch 300 in a month or 15 in a day, you have to be able to make use of them.
> 
> You don't have to build a shack, btw. You can just make a little lean to or whatever...big enough to accomodate a small, constant fire. You need the smoke, not the heat, with this method.
> 
> I don't know what's up with that link...I did a search on traditional smoking and I came across this site which is awsome, but it's showing as a google image. But the site is cool.
Click to expand...


   It's the same process I described. When making jerky or any other type meats in a smoker,nitrates(sodium nitrate)are used as a curing agent. In the case of beef, the nitrates and seasoning soaks in at a rate of about a quarter inch every 24 hours.

   A good example of a cured meat you can buy at the grocery store is corned beef. Which is a pure salt/nitrate cure. Let it soak in fresh water for about two days to get rid of the salt  and throw it on the smoker for about 12 hours and you have pastrami. 

  You can dry meats without using nitrates as long as they're thin but they wont last as long, and with thick cuts of meat you have to use nitrates and be sure you let them soak in.


----------



## Swagger

When it comes to defending yourself against large predators, you're going to need something you can draw with ease and will send a heavy slug towards the threat. In terms of negotiating with weight, rapid deployment and the number of rounds you can realistically carry, I'd have to go with something like a .44 revolver.

If you found yourself in the wilderness for an indeterminate amount of time, conserving ammunition would be priority. I'm a seasoned archer, and could quite easily make a bow with enough draw weight to bring down deer and other large game. I even know how to make a bow string with nettles and other fibrous roots and plants.


----------



## hoosier88

*MO* - Thanks.  Information is good.  I hadn't thought to check to see if there was more info out there. 

So, McCandless' lifestory falls prey to Hollywood?  It's a good story, I don't see the point to embellishing it.  But then, I'm not making movies, nor writing docudramas.

*Sic transit gloria mundi*, I suppose ...


----------



## Missourian

hoosier88 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first thought when I saw that was....why the hell didnt he gather wood and prepare his smoker BEFORE he shot the moose.
> I was watching that reality show filmed about living in the wilds of Alaska.
> That guy had it down. His wife was fishing while he made a smoker with three limbs and a small tarp. They smoked a shitload of salmon in a few days then headed home.
> And if I remember correctly McClandless didnt do any fishing. The guy was woefully unprepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know,  he didn't use it.
> 
> He has a map too,  but no compass.
> 
> *I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat *in that environment without salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> I read the book - *Into the wild*.  The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID.  He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits.  He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat.  Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat.  He had problems with flies, maggots, etc.  The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.
> 
> There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream.  McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge.  So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure you could even dry meat sliced thin in that environment without salt...too much time is required to butcher the meat and too many flies are present.


Dipped in a 14% salt solution,  the meat would resist insects,  bacteria and mold.





​


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rented the movie the other night...he had a fishing pole and fish net...as far as I know,  he didn't use it.
> 
> He has a map too,  but no compass.
> 
> *I don't think he stood a chance of preserving read meat *in that environment without salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (My bold)
> 
> I read the book - *Into the wild*.  The author says McCandless was too optimistic, but he'd survived in desert for months @ a time with just rice & whatever he could hunt/fish/edibile plants he could ID.  He had a copy of a book on AK plants & edible bits.  He'd also asked advice on hunting, preserving meat.  Unfortunately, the advice he got (in the MW) was to smoke the meat.  He had problems with flies, maggots, etc.  The author points out that the way to do that in AK is to air dry the meat, cut into strips.
> 
> There was actually an old surveying bridge - more of a zip line & basket, really, upstream.  McCandless didn't have a large-scale topographic map, which would have shown the bridge.  So he retreated to his bus, & waited for the river to recede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you could even dry meat sliced thin in that environment without salt...too much time is required to butcher the meat and too many flies are present.
> 
> 
> Dipped in a 14% salt solution,  the meat would resist insects,  bacteria and mold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


  Getting it prepped fast enough would be a major problem. Wonder if you could use a smokey fire to keep away insects? You would most definitely want to start with the backstrap.


----------



## earlycuyler

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



Chris McCandless is an example of Darwen in action. That said, he did kill a moose with a .22 . For me, I think I would like a .270 Winchester bolt gun from any company. The ammo has been getable through the fake shortage, its been used to kill every animal on the continent, and the recoil is such that a lightened and shortened model wouldent kick hard or burn your face off when you shoot it.


----------



## earlycuyler

Swagger said:


> When it comes to defending yourself against large predators, you're going to need something you can draw with ease and will send a heavy slug towards the threat. In terms of negotiating with weight, rapid deployment and the number of rounds you can realistically carry, I'd have to go with something like a .44 revolver.
> 
> If you found yourself in the wilderness for an indeterminate amount of time, conserving ammunition would be priority. I'm a seasoned archer, and could quite easily make a bow with enough draw weight to bring down deer and other large game. I even know how to make a bow string with nettles and other fibrous roots and plants.



Natural fiber strings suck bad. Get one wet and you will see. That said, I would feel okay with the bow,but I want my carbon fiber arrows and my D-97 string. .44 mag ? Sure, for when I fall in the woods and need to make noise. This round is awesome in a lever gun though.


----------



## chikenwing

Missourian said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got himself killed for it,the spruce grouse up there are a dumb as rocks you can just about walk right up to them,should have never starved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.*
> 
> He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.
> 
> Pretty crummy way to die, eh?
> 
> *But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.
> 
> As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausenthe biochemist at the University  of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (_Hedysarum alpinum_) for Jon Krakauerconcluded after exhaustive testing that no part of _H. alpinum_  is toxic.  Neither the roots nor the seeds.  Accordingly, McCandless  could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his  1996 book _Into the Wild_, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.
> 
> Likewise, Dr. Clausens analysis of the wild sweet pea (_Hedysarum mackenzii_)given  as the cause of Chriss death in the current Sean Penn filmhas also  turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in  modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species  of plant.
> 
> ::: Terra Incognita films :::
> ​McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out.  When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.
Click to expand...


He didn't need to cross the river,what he needed was a map and some common sense and some real survival skills
He had nether.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

chikenwing said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He slowly starved because he ate a plant that poisoned him and made it impossible for him to digest food.*
> 
> He was trapped by a rising river and therefore could not get out to get the help he needed.
> 
> Pretty crummy way to die, eh?
> 
> *But he had plenty food, he just could not digest it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.
> 
> As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausenthe biochemist at the University  of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (_Hedysarum alpinum_) for Jon Krakauerconcluded after exhaustive testing that no part of _H. alpinum_  is toxic.  Neither the roots nor the seeds.  Accordingly, McCandless  could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his  1996 book _Into the Wild_, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.
> 
> Likewise, Dr. Clausens analysis of the wild sweet pea (_Hedysarum mackenzii_)given  as the cause of Chriss death in the current Sean Penn filmhas also  turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in  modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species  of plant.
> 
> ::: Terra Incognita films :::
> ​McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out.  When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't need to cross the river,what he needed was a map and some common sense and some real survival skills
> He had nether.
Click to expand...


  Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned the guy spent months in the desert.
So he does have some survival skills. To bad they didnt apply in the Alaskan wilderness.
  And the whole thing about the compass and map? Thats beyond ignorance.
I would have known what was going to be around me for miles in every direction before I even started.


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah a compass doesn't do you any good, nor a map, if you don't know where to go.


----------



## squeeze berry

Missourian said:


> Check this out...
> 
> Over/under  12/30-06,  12/308,  12/762x39 and 12/.233 with wood furniture...a little pricey @ MSRP $745...but intriguing...
> 
> https://eaacorp.com/portfolio-item/mp94-series-combo-shotgunrifle/
> 
> 
> PS....the new Savage model 24 (the model 42) looks like a POC.



I have the .222 over 20ga model with a 3X9 and see through mounts

that would be my choice

I like the .22 mag cartridge in some applications as all around for 1 ctg


----------



## chikenwing

HereWeGoAgain said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It turned out that that information was false...creative license by the author.
> 
> As far back as 1997, Dr. Thomas Clausenthe biochemist at the University  of Alaska, Fairbanks, who examined the wild potato plant (_Hedysarum alpinum_) for Jon Krakauerconcluded after exhaustive testing that no part of _H. alpinum_  is toxic.  Neither the roots nor the seeds.  Accordingly, McCandless  could not have poisoned himself in the way suggested by Krakauer in his  1996 book _Into the Wild_, and in every subsequent reprinting of the book over the next decade.
> 
> Likewise, Dr. Clausens analysis of the wild sweet pea (_Hedysarum mackenzii_)given  as the cause of Chriss death in the current Sean Penn filmhas also  turned up no toxic compounds, and there is not a single account in  modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species  of plant.
> 
> ::: Terra Incognita films :::
> ​McCandless's daily caloric intake was substantially less than his daily caloric expenditure even before his rice ran out.  When he exhausted his supply of rice and couldn't cross the river...he starved to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't need to cross the river,what he needed was a map and some common sense and some real survival skills
> He had nether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned the guy spent months in the desert.
> So he does have some survival skills. To bad they didnt apply in the Alaskan wilderness.
> And the whole thing about the compass and map? Thats beyond ignorance.
> I would have known what was going to be around me for miles in every direction before I even started.
Click to expand...


Yes he did and almost died then,if he had a map of the area he would have know what was around him.like the ranger cabin on HIS side of the rive just a few miles away.

The guy had put himself in danger in the dessert and all but died,he had NO skills or sense.


----------



## whitehall

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



There are backwoods and then there is Alaska. Carrying a gun in many "backwoods" areas in the lower 48 might get you time in the slammer.


----------



## koshergrl

No, not really.


----------



## whitehall

The first step is to determine if it's legal to carry or possess a firearm in the area you are considering and then you have to consult the state hunting laws. It's illegal to carry a modern weapon in some areas and times of the year restricted to black powder. It's complicated but you have to know. In Alaska you have to consider self defense so you need a weapon that can take down a large bear. A .44 mag used to be the preferred sidearm for defense against critters but other more potent stuff is on the market. In the lower 48 it's more about self defense from crazy humans or maybe taking an animal for food or shooting a rabid raccoon. There are few weapons that can efficiently do it all but a 4 inch barrel .38 and a cut down 20ga. shotgun might be the way to go. Again you absolutely need to be aware of often conflicting regulations and laws.


----------



## Survivalist

I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.

For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.

That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.


----------



## Missourian

Survivalist said:


> I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.
> 
> For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.
> 
> That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.




Isn't bear spray a one and done?  Use it once and it's gone?

Not what I'd call a long term solution.

I've certainly been pretty hard on McCandless over the years,  but I used his *situation* as an example of the circumstance I'm refering to...long term survival without resupply in a predator rich environment.

A pump action shotgun would be a good choice,  and likely as close as we're going to get to a one gun solution,  but 12 gauge ammunition is both bulky and heavy...not especially conducive to long term survival without resupply.

IMO,  the ideal one gun solution for this situation does not exist,  or if it does,  it is so esoteric and expensive,  the average outdoorsman couldn't afford it.


----------



## Survivalist

Missourian said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.
> 
> For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.
> 
> That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't bear spray a one and done?  Use it once and it's gone?
> 
> Not what I'd call a long term solution.
> 
> I've certainly been pretty hard on McCandless over the years,  but I used his *situation* as an example of the circumstance I'm refering to...long term survival without resupply in a predator rich environment.
> 
> A pump action shotgun would be a good choice,  and likely as close as we're going to get to a one gun solution,  but 12 gauge ammunition is both bulky and heavy...not especially conducive to long term survival without resupply.
> 
> IMO,  the ideal one gun solution for this situation does not exist,  or if it does,  it is so esoteric and expensive,  the average outdoorsman couldn't afford it.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if the can is resuable---I'd assume it is---like hairspray.  From what little I've heard, there have been no bear attacks on anyone who's sprayed them.  Bears are not like the predators in the hood.  Bears don't give hopped-up on PCP to give them super strength and ignore pain.  

Bear's have attacked pleanty of humans even after being shot multiple times.  Guess the bears' noses are more sensitive than their ears or torso.

I certainly would ditch your 9 shot .22 for this mission.


----------



## JoeBlam

I had a Savage .22Mag/20ga at one time; wish I'd kept it.  I feel my Winchester 190 is as good as the Ruger 10-22....15LR tube load...but it hates HPs.  I've got a NEF 3" 20ga single shot and a .357 barrel insert for it....22" barrel, light, probably what I'd take if I didn't take the Mossy 500.....that's the only BEAR stopper I got.......300 rounds of .22, 100 rounds of .357 doesn't weigh much.  In Vietnam I carried a combination of CAR-15, Ithaca 37, Thumper, .45 Colt, .357 Ruger revolver and various hand grenades...  Wish I still had a couple frag grenades...I wouldn't worry about a BEAR with them.


----------



## Missourian

Survivalist said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.
> 
> For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.
> 
> That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't bear spray a one and done?  Use it once and it's gone?
> 
> Not what I'd call a long term solution.
> 
> I've certainly been pretty hard on McCandless over the years,  but I used his *situation* as an example of the circumstance I'm refering to...long term survival without resupply in a predator rich environment.
> 
> A pump action shotgun would be a good choice,  and likely as close as we're going to get to a one gun solution,  but 12 gauge ammunition is both bulky and heavy...not especially conducive to long term survival without resupply.
> 
> IMO,  the ideal one gun solution for this situation does not exist,  or if it does,  it is so esoteric and expensive,  the average outdoorsman couldn't afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if the can is resuable---I'd assume it is---like hairspray.  From what little I've heard, there have been no bear attacks on anyone who's sprayed them.  Bears are not like the predators in the hood.  Bears don't give hopped-up on PCP to give them super strength and ignore pain.
> 
> Bear's have attacked pleanty of humans even after being shot multiple times.  Guess the bears' noses are more sensitive than their ears or torso.
> 
> I certainly would ditch your 9 shot .22 for this mission.
Click to expand...



 

Although,  I definitely think a .22LR pistol has a place in a two gun solution.

Not my snub-nosed revolver,  but something like a Single-Six with a 6.5 to 9.5 inch barrel.

In conjunction with something like a Remington 870 shotgun or Mossberg 500 ,  you'd have an ideal two gun combination.


----------



## Missourian

I checked it out to refresh my memory.

Bear spray is one and done.

Most spray 8 ounces of 2% capsaicin for 7 seconds at 70 mph up to 35 feet.

BUT,  once the seal is broken,  the nitrogen propellent leaks out even if the contents have not been completely expelled.


----------



## whitehall

Anybody who wants to pattern their life on a Sean Penn docudrama about a hippie who fails at self sufficiency and finally is reduced to eating plants and roots that he knows nothing about and freaking dies, needs to reorientate his fantasy world


----------



## Missourian

whitehall said:


> Anybody who wants to pattern their life on a Sean Penn docudrama about a hippie who fails at self sufficiency and finally is reduced to eating plants and roots that he knows nothing about and freaking dies, needs to reorientate his fantasy world




I would agree.

But I do wonder what in this thread led you to believe anyone was interested in patterning their life after a Sean Penn docudrama?

The scenario is all that is being patterned.

Long term survival without resupply in Alaska.


----------



## Missourian

I still don't think we have a viable one firearm solution...so let's change the question.

How about the best long gun sidearm two firearm solution?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> I still don't think we have a viable one firearm solution...so let's change the question.
> 
> How about the best long gun sidearm two firearm solution?



  I guess your biggest decision then would be,do you want to carry a small caliber long barreled pistol and hunt small game with it. Or do you carry a 44 mag for a last line of defense against large predators.
  I find myself wanting to go with the hand cannon,but I think the wise choice would be the small caliber pistol and maybe a 30-06 in semi auto for big game and protection.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't think we have a viable one firearm solution...so let's change the question.
> 
> How about the best long gun sidearm two firearm solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess your biggest decision then would be,do you want to carry a small caliber long barreled pistol and hunt small game with it. Or do you carry a 44 mag for a last line of defense against large predators.
> I find myself wanting to go with the hand cannon,but I think the wise choice would be the small caliber pistol and maybe a 30-06 in semi auto for big game and protection.
Click to expand...


I think I would go with the combination 20g/.22 or .410/.22 Savage 42 with the hand cannon .44 magnum.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't think we have a viable one firearm solution...so let's change the question.
> 
> How about the best long gun sidearm two firearm solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess your biggest decision then would be,do you want to carry a small caliber long barreled pistol and hunt small game with it. Or do you carry a 44 mag for a last line of defense against large predators.
> I find myself wanting to go with the hand cannon,but I think the wise choice would be the small caliber pistol and maybe a 30-06 in semi auto for big game and protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I would go with the combination 20g/.22 or .410/.22 Savage 42 with the hand cannon .44 magnum.
Click to expand...


 I like the idea of being able to hit large game and predators from a distance.
And with the semi auto you'll have multiple chances.
  The problem with the hand cannon is it really only has one use,defense against predators.
  And you'd like to think that wouldnt happen on a regular basis.
As comforting as it would be to have one,I dont see it as practical.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess your biggest decision then would be,do you want to carry a small caliber long barreled pistol and hunt small game with it. Or do you carry a 44 mag for a last line of defense against large predators.
> I find myself wanting to go with the hand cannon,but I think the wise choice would be the small caliber pistol and maybe a 30-06 in semi auto for big game and protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would go with the combination 20g/.22 or .410/.22 Savage 42 with the hand cannon .44 magnum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like the idea of being able to hit large game and predators from a distance.
> And with the semi auto you'll have multiple chances.
> The problem with the hand cannon is it really only has one use,defense against predators.
> And you'd like to think that wouldnt happen on a regular basis.
> As comforting as it would be to have one,I dont see it as practical.
Click to expand...


Lots of folks hunt deer with 44 pistols.

You would give up long range shots,  but with the .22 and .410 or 20 gauge,  you gain birds,  small game and even fish...and a lot more ammo you could carry,  especially .410 and .22LR.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would go with the combination 20g/.22 or .410/.22 Savage 42 with the hand cannon .44 magnum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of being able to hit large game and predators from a distance.
> And with the semi auto you'll have multiple chances.
> The problem with the hand cannon is it really only has one use,defense against predators.
> And you'd like to think that wouldnt happen on a regular basis.
> As comforting as it would be to have one,I dont see it as practical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of folks hunt deer with 44 pistols.
> 
> You would give up long range shots,  but with the .22 and .410 or 20 gauge,  you gain birds,  small game and even fish...and a lot more ammo you could carry,  especially .410 and .22LR.
Click to expand...


While people do hunt deer with a .44 they do it it for sport. A rifle has a much higher kill percentage then a pistol. And a greater range.
  As far as weight of ammo goes it's pretty close to a wash. A 30.06 rnd is about the same size as a 4.10 shell.
  But the 30.06 has the ability to bring down large game.  So pound for pound the 30.06 will give you more calories per rnd.
 Assuming it's winter or you have your shit together when it comes to curing.

 Another factor I would want to weigh is are there fish available?
Drop lines off tree limbs can produce a shitload of food.


----------



## Missourian

Been working on this,  and I think I have the best two gun solution available.

USSG (Baikal) MP94 .223 rifle/12 gauge combo (Bud's Gun Shop $590) with a 20 gauge adapter (Shotgunadapter.com $22),  plus a 22LR and 22WMR adapter  (MCA $28 each) and if you really want to go all out,  an 18 inch 12 ga. to 30/30 Win. insert (MCA $150). 

One gun.

Small game:  22LR,  22WMR, 20ga.
Medium game: 22WMR,  .223 Rem,  20ga.,  12ga.
Large game:  .223 Rem,  12ga.,  30/30 Win.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> Been working on this,  and I think I have the best two gun solution available.
> 
> USSG (Baikal) MP94 .223 rifle/12 gauge combo (Bud's Gun Shop $590) with a 20 gauge adapter (Shotgunadapter.com $22),  plus a 22LR and 22WMR adapter  (MCA $28 each) and if you really want to go all out,  an 18 inch 12 ga. to 30/30 Win. insert (MCA $150).
> 
> One gun.
> 
> Small game:  22LR,  22WMR, 20ga.
> Medium game: 22WMR,  .223 Rem,  20ga.,  12ga.
> Large game:  .223 Rem,  12ga.,  30/30 Win.



    That does sound like the ideal solution.
Only problem would be the weight of the shotgun shells. It would be nice in a 410ga. since you can bring down most birds with it. When you compare a box of 12 or 20ga. shells to a box of 410ga. the weight difference is considerable as is the space they take up.
  If it were me,I would try and avoid trying to survive on birds. They just dont have the calories compared to the weight of the shells.
   And if you ran into some turkeys or other large fowl the 22lr. would drop em just fine as long as you catch em on the ground.

   Pretty slick gun for sure.


----------



## Missourian

I agree...unfortunately the only offering in .410 combo is .22LR and .22WMR.

There is a 12 gauge to .410 adapter,  but my understanding is the tiny shot-string inside that huge barrel causes a multitude of shot collision and deformations,  resulting in a useless multi-voided pattern.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

I think I'd have to leave the shotgun out of the picture altogether.
A combo 22./.270 or maybe a 22./30-06.

   But I'd still like a 44. mag on my hip for a last line of defense. Having only one shot with that 30-06 while being scared shitless when a bear is coming at me.....? No thanks.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I think I'd have to leave the shotgun out of the picture altogether.
> A combo 22./.270 or maybe a 22./30-06.
> 
> But I'd still like a 44. mag on my hip for a last line of defense. Having only one shot with that 30-06 while being scared shitless when a bear is coming at me.....? No thanks.



Check this out...a modular combo with repeating rifle fire capability.

Hybrid

Only $6500.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd have to leave the shotgun out of the picture altogether.
> A combo 22./.270 or maybe a 22./30-06.
> 
> But I'd still like a 44. mag on my hip for a last line of defense. Having only one shot with that 30-06 while being scared shitless when a bear is coming at me.....? No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out...a modular combo with repeating rifle fire capability.
> 
> Hybrid
> 
> Only $6500.
Click to expand...


  The furniture on that thing is amazing!!
I've got one rifle that comes close to that price....the wife told me I couldnt have another.


----------



## Camp

Much depends on how much you will being moving, hiking, climbing, etc. Climate and weather has got to be considered also. If everything you have is carried on your back, weight is a big deal and there are big limits on what you can haul.
My ammo choice for eastern woodlands and mountains was always the 22 LR or MAG. For out west and the Rockies, .357/38 revolver. Some bird shot for both. Only time I felt a little uncomfortable was in Grizz country. Wished I had a .44 mag. but never had any close encounters.


----------



## WinterBorn

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



First off, I would reject the premise that I only get to carry one gun.  I agree with the poster who talked about the Ruger 10/22.  That would be an excellent survival rifle.  I would also pack my Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 Rem. Magnum.   One rifle & one sidearm seem to be a minimum for extended camping in Alaska.

If the one gun rule were written in stone, I would take a Thompson Center Encore, with a pistol bbl in .44, .454 Casull or 45-70 Govt, a rifle bbl in one of the good 30 calibers (.308, .30-06, or .300Win Mag), and a 20 ga shotgun bbl.   I might add a .243 or 25-06 for distance shots on smaller game.


----------



## WinterBorn

The idea of one gun with multiple barrels seems to be simply sidestepping the one gun rule.

It would be bulkier and heavier than one rifle and a sidearm.


----------



## Spoonman

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd have to leave the shotgun out of the picture altogether.
> A combo 22./.270 or maybe a 22./30-06.
> 
> But I'd still like a 44. mag on my hip for a last line of defense. Having only one shot with that 30-06 while being scared shitless when a bear is coming at me.....? No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out...a modular combo with repeating rifle fire capability.
> 
> Hybrid
> 
> Only $6500.
Click to expand...


now lets see if that is still legal in the communist state of NY.   I'll have to check with Albany, I mean mosco on the Hudson.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> The idea of one gun with multiple barrels seems to be simply sidestepping the one gun rule.
> 
> It would be bulkier and heavier than one rifle and a sidearm.



  True. If I had my choice it would be the combo 22./ 30-06 for small game and large.
And a 44. wheel gun for those nasty surprises.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd have to leave the shotgun out of the picture altogether.
> A combo 22./.270 or maybe a 22./30-06.
> 
> But I'd still like a 44. mag on my hip for a last line of defense. Having only one shot with that 30-06 while being scared shitless when a bear is coming at me.....? No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out...a modular combo with repeating rifle fire capability.
> 
> Hybrid
> 
> Only $6500.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The furniture on that thing is amazing!!
> I've got one rifle that comes close to that price....the wife told me I couldnt have another.
Click to expand...



Good for you,  you're doing something right...my wife balked at the $600 for the Baikal.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out...a modular combo with repeating rifle fire capability.
> 
> Hybrid
> 
> Only $6500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The furniture on that thing is amazing!!
> I've got one rifle that comes close to that price....the wife told me I couldnt have another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you,  you're doing something right...my wife balked at the $600 for the Baikal.
Click to expand...


   I did manage to get the OK on a FNX-45 Tactical.
Picked it up Friday and put a couple hundred rounds through it Saturday.
  HIGHLY recommend it!! Best shooting 45 I've ever fired.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The furniture on that thing is amazing!!
> I've got one rifle that comes close to that price....the wife told me I couldnt have another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you,  you're doing something right...my wife balked at the $600 for the Baikal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did manage to get the OK on a FNX-45 Tactical.
> Picked it up Friday and put a couple hundred rounds through it Saturday.
> HIGHLY recommend it!! Best shooting 45 I've ever fired.
Click to expand...



Sweet!


----------



## Missourian

Today I found myself in Lexington, KY with some time to kill,  so I stopped at Bud's Gun Shops retail location to look around and found a Chiappa folding 22lr over '410 fixed full choke combo.

5.5 lbs,  19 inches folded.






Have that as the second gun...with whatever long range large game repeater as the primary.

Plus,  at $300 out the door,  my wife probably won't beat me to death with it...probably...


----------



## westwall

If I could have just a single longarm and a single handgun it would be my Ruger 10/22 with Gemtech suppressor and my Colt Python.  Both are pretty much bombproof and with the .22 I can kill anything I need to to eat and it's firing signature is so small that if there were two legged predators they would have a hard time figuring out where I was.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> Today I found myself in Lexington, KY with some time to kill,  so I stopped at Bud's Gun Shops retail location to look around and found a Chiappa folding 22lr over '410 fixed full choke combo.
> 
> 5.5 lbs,  19 inches folded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have that as the second gun...with whatever long range large game repeater as the primary.
> 
> Plus,  at $300 out the door,  my wife probably won't beat me to death with it...probably...



  I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

westwall said:


> If I could have just a single longarm and a single handgun it would be my Ruger 10/22 with Gemtech suppressor and my Colt Python.  Both are pretty much bombproof and with the .22 I can kill anything I need to to eat and it's firing signature is so small that if there were two legged predators they would have a hard time figuring out where I was.



   Yeah,you can pretty much drop anything with a well placed .22 round as far as getting something to eat goes.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today I found myself in Lexington, KY with some time to kill,  so I stopped at Bud's Gun Shops retail location to look around and found a Chiappa folding 22lr over '410 fixed full choke combo.
> 
> 5.5 lbs,  19 inches folded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have that as the second gun...with whatever long range large game repeater as the primary.
> 
> Plus,  at $300 out the door,  my wife probably won't beat me to death with it...probably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.
Click to expand...


I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.

I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today I found myself in Lexington, KY with some time to kill,  so I stopped at Bud's Gun Shops retail location to look around and found a Chiappa folding 22lr over '410 fixed full choke combo.
> 
> 5.5 lbs,  19 inches folded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have that as the second gun...with whatever long range large game repeater as the primary.
> 
> Plus,  at $300 out the door,  my wife probably won't beat me to death with it...probably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
Click to expand...


  I buy guns that fill a specific need or niche. The only gun I own based on sentiment would be my Winchester 30.30. At some point I'd like to find an old Colt Peace Maker as well.


----------



## WinterBorn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I buy guns that fill a specific need or niche. The only gun I own based on sentiment would be my Winchester 30.30. At some point I'd like to find an old Colt Peace Maker as well.
Click to expand...


I own a few guns that have been handed down, so I have sme with sentimental value.

I tend not to buy guns that compromise for convenience.  The .22/.410 over & under is a novel piece.  But I would think it would not be a particularly great example of either a .22 rifle or a .410 shotgun.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I buy guns that fill a specific need or niche. The only gun I own based on sentiment would be my Winchester 30.30. At some point I'd like to find an old Colt Peace Maker as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I own a few guns that have been handed down, so I have sme with sentimental value.
> 
> I tend not to buy guns that compromise for convenience.  The .22/.410 over & under is a novel piece.  But I would think it would not be a particularly great example of either a .22 rifle or a .410 shotgun.
Click to expand...


  Same here. I wouldnt mind putting a few rounds through it,but it's not a gun I would buy.
   My purchases go like this: Shotgun for general bird hunting. Shotgun for home defense. Pistol for carry.Pistol for home defense.
 This is rather simplified obviously but it's my thought process when purchasing firearms.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I buy guns that fill a specific need or niche. The only gun I own based on sentiment would be my Winchester 30.30. At some point I'd like to find an old Colt Peace Maker as well.
Click to expand...


I'm hoping this will fill a need.

I'd like to carry it with me when I'm hunting something else...but wouldn't mind bringing home something when I fail to call in a turkey,  or the wild boar are nowhere to be found.

we'll see if this fits the bill.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I buy guns that fill a specific need or niche. The only gun I own based on sentiment would be my Winchester 30.30. At some point I'd like to find an old Colt Peace Maker as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm hoping this will fill a need.
> 
> I'd like to carry it with me when I'm hunting something else...but wouldn't mind bringing home something when I fail to call in a turkey,  or the wild boar are nowhere to be found.
> 
> we'll see if this fits the bill.
Click to expand...


   Then I guess it fills that niche for you.
 Most of my hunting was done on my own property.(Sold that place for a nice profit and we're in the market for a new place) So I really never stressed if I wasn't successful because there's always the next day.
  So carrying a multi purpose gun was never really a concern for me.
Hell,easily half the deer I shot were from my back porch.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I buy guns that fill a specific need or niche. The only gun I own based on sentiment would be my Winchester 30.30. At some point I'd like to find an old Colt Peace Maker as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping this will fill a need.
> 
> I'd like to carry it with me when I'm hunting something else...but wouldn't mind bringing home something when I fail to call in a turkey,  or the wild boar are nowhere to be found.
> 
> we'll see if this fits the bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess it fills that niche for you.
> Most of my hunting was done on my own property.(Sold that place for a nice profit and we're in the market for a new place) So I really never stressed if I wasn't successful because there's always the next day.
> So carrying a multi purpose gun was never really a concern for me.
> Hell,easily half the deer I shot were from my back porch.
Click to expand...


That would be ideal,  but unfortunately we moved 70 miles from my huntin' land...so I mostly hunt public land.

We moved out here three or four years ago,  so on many occasions I find myself in strange woods.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping this will fill a need.
> 
> I'd like to carry it with me when I'm hunting something else...but wouldn't mind bringing home something when I fail to call in a turkey,  or the wild boar are nowhere to be found.
> 
> we'll see if this fits the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess it fills that niche for you.
> Most of my hunting was done on my own property.(Sold that place for a nice profit and we're in the market for a new place) So I really never stressed if I wasn't successful because there's always the next day.
> So carrying a multi purpose gun was never really a concern for me.
> Hell,easily half the deer I shot were from my back porch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be ideal,  but unfortunately we moved 70 miles from my huntin' land...so I mostly hunt public land.
> 
> We moved out here three or four years ago,  so on many occasions I find myself in strange woods.
Click to expand...


  Then I would have to say that your choice in firearms is a wise one.
I would do the exact same thing if I were in your position. You gotta make those trips count in anyway possible. Because nothing taste better then fresh game you put on the table through your own efforts. Be it squirrel,rabbit or any other critter that flies our walks.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

Survivalist said:


> I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.
> 
> For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.
> 
> That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.



Why not just have some slugs for that 12-gauge and then it'll be good bear protection, too?

I live in Alaska and I'm afraid of bears, so I agree with the 12-gauge, I'd just include some slugs in my ammo.  I'd be more worried about running into an angry brown bear than finding enough to eat.  You put all your planning and effort into feeding yourself and then you stay nice and healthy and the bears are saying, "Look at that nice, plump human stumbling around out there, I wonder how he'd taste?"


----------



## WinterBorn

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Survivalist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.
> 
> For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.
> 
> That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just have some slugs for that 12-gauge and then it'll be good bear protection, too?
> 
> I live in Alaska and I'm afraid of bears, so I agree with the 12-gauge, I'd just include some slugs in my ammo.  I'd be more worried about running into an angry brown bear than finding enough to eat.  You put all your planning and effort into feeding yourself and then you stay nice and healthy and the bears are saying, "Look at that nice, plump human stumbling around out there, I wonder how he'd taste?"
Click to expand...


If we are limited to what we can pack in, I'll have a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44Mag, a Ruger 10/22 and a Thompson Center Encore with bbls in .338 & 12 ga.

The plus to a big bore handgun is that you will have it with you when something happens.  I can have it in a holster and not notice it as I go about my work of surviving.  Not so much with a long arm.


----------



## WinterBorn

Survivalist said:


> I've both read and watched "Into the Wild."  McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp would be the wrong person to get advice on going into any wilderness.  He did pack in a .22 rifle, but was too foolish to pack a saw or a hatchet.  When he killed a moose, he was too unprepared to harvest the big animal, and most was wasted.  He was more of a progressive hobo than a true survivalist.  He took over an abandoned bus made into a cheap cabin, but then vandalized two nearby cabins that offended his twisted ideas of nature.
> 
> For this thread to have the same relevance, you'd have to be limited to what YOU could pack in under your own strength.  Otherwide I'd have everything I needed choppered-in.
> 
> That being said, for the same Alaskan wilderness, I'd get a can of bear spray and a lightweight 12 guage pump with a few pounds of birdshot, small game loads and buckshot.



McCandless would not be someone I would choose to emulate.  He may have had so great sounding ideas, but he was seriously unprepared for living in the wilderness.  Hobos survive by the generosity of society.  The wilderness has no such generosity.


----------



## DriftingSand

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



I'm a little late to the party but I like these types of questions and dilemmas. 

I guess it would depend on the terrain and the type of wild game available in the area.  It would also depend on whether or not I had pack animals or if I would be hoofing it on my own.  

First of all, I would probably focus my attention on smaller game as I would have to find a way to store all the extra meat that comes from deer or elk or other larger game animals. Small animals could be eaten in one sitting.  So my focus would likely be on a smaller caliber which would serve two purposes: 1) Enough killing power for small game and 2) lighter ammo.  However, I would still want something big enough to kill large predators if that became necessary.

I actually like the idea of taking a 12GA shotgun with plenty of slugs, buckshot, and birdshot.  That would give me the option of going after multiple game mammals and birds.  But the ammo is so heavy and bulky that I'm not sure it would be practical (unless I had a pack mule).  I also love my AR15 (my favorite rifle) but am not sure if that would be the best choice when it came to shooting really small game like rabbits or squirrels.  So I'm kind of leaning towards a .22 Magnum rifle.  It's a little light for my tastes but it may be the most practical round in this situation.  I don't own one and have never shot one so I'm "shooting in the dark," so to speak.


----------



## WinterBorn

DriftingSand said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little late to the party but I like these types of questions and dilemmas.
> 
> I guess it would depend on the terrain and the type of wild game available in the area.  It would also depend on whether or not I had pack animals or if I would be hoofing it on my own.
> 
> First of all, I would probably focus my attention on smaller game as I would have to find a way to store all the extra meat that comes from deer or elk or other larger game animals. Small animals could be eaten in one sitting.  So my focus would likely be on a smaller caliber which would serve two purposes: 1) Enough killing power for small game and 2) lighter ammo.  However, I would still want something big enough to kill large predators if that became necessary.
> 
> I actually like the idea of taking a 12GA shotgun with plenty of slugs, buckshot, and birdshot.  That would give me the option of going after multiple game mammals and birds.  But the ammo is so heavy and bulky that I'm not sure it would be practical (unless I had a pack mule).  I also love my AR15 (my favorite rifle) but am not sure if that would be the best choice when it came to shooting really small game like rabbits or squirrels.  So I'm kind of leaning towards a .22 Magnum rifle.  It's a little light for my tastes but it may be the most practical round in this situation.  I don't own one and have never shot one so I'm "shooting in the dark," so to speak.
Click to expand...


Even without a pack mule, you could take a dog and have it carry some of the weight. 

As for the .22 Magnum, Ruger makes both a lever action and a bolt action in that caliber.  Both are pretty rugged and use the rotary magazine that seems to function regardless of abuse.


----------



## Clement

Missourian said:


> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?



I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.


----------



## WinterBorn

Clement said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
Click to expand...


In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.

But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.


----------



## Ernie S.

Missourian said:


> Those seem like good choices,  but let's throw in some predators like wolves or bears...



Give me a 12 gauge with some #4 and some slugs Fine for rabbits and bear up to 75 yards or so. I'll carry the weight for the punch.


----------



## Ernie S.

WinterBorn said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
Click to expand...


I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.


----------



## Clement

Ernie S. said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
Click to expand...


You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.


----------



## WinterBorn

Ernie S. said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
Click to expand...


I sure as hell want more than one shot!


----------



## WinterBorn

Clement said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
Click to expand...


Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?


----------



## Clement

WinterBorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as hell want more than one shot!
Click to expand...


True dat.


----------



## Clement

WinterBorn said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
Click to expand...


From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.


----------



## Ernie S.

Clement said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
Click to expand...


A sane man would avoid grizzlies to begin with, but if I'm going into an area where I may run into one, I sure as hell don't want a single shot weapon.


----------



## WinterBorn

Clement said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
Click to expand...


If you are able to do that (and stay away from their cubs) it would be great.

However, in the brush it is all to easy to accidentally end up in a bad spot.  This is why my selection included a big bore revolver.  I would be more prone to carry it when doing almost anything, and it would be available in a moment.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

Ernie S. said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most places, I think your choice would be an excellent one.  I would make sure and pack the powder in several containers, to insure your supply was never contaminated, thereby leaving you without a firearm.
> 
> But in Alaska the threat of large bears is very real.  I'm not sure I've got the balls to face a grizzly with a single round of a black powder 12 gauge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sure as hell don't want a grizzly close enough to me that I can kill it with one shot from a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot.
Click to expand...


Bird shot will probably just make him mad.  Really mad.  Gotta have slugs.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

Clement said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
Click to expand...


And their cubs.  And I disagree, I think they actually get in bad moods.  Then, here you come, and they take it out on you.  They may be angry about something else, but you're just handy, know what I mean. Moose certainly do that, and I'm sure a bear would also.

You also don't know you've gotten yourself between them and the cubs (or that food cache they're guarding).  You're walking through the woods and you see a cute little bear cub or two.  And it's...OH SHIT!!!!!!  'Cause where's the damn mama! 

No, bears are nothing to mess with.  Assuming they won't mess with you is kind of stupid.  I would never walk in the woods without something big enough to protect me against bears.

Now, I've lived in Alaska all my life, grew up in rural Alaska.  I see newcomers up here (Cheechakos) going out hiking without an appropriate gun, and I'm like...whatever, go for it.  Better you than me.

I carry bear spray while walking my dogs around in the middle of the city of Anchorage...for protection against moose.  Our sacred cows that wander around the city and can be very dangerous.

But for bear...I'm going to want more than just bear spray.


----------



## DriftingSand

WinterBorn said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little late to the party but I like these types of questions and dilemmas.
> 
> I guess it would depend on the terrain and the type of wild game available in the area.  It would also depend on whether or not I had pack animals or if I would be hoofing it on my own.
> 
> First of all, I would probably focus my attention on smaller game as I would have to find a way to store all the extra meat that comes from deer or elk or other larger game animals. Small animals could be eaten in one sitting.  So my focus would likely be on a smaller caliber which would serve two purposes: 1) Enough killing power for small game and 2) lighter ammo.  However, I would still want something big enough to kill large predators if that became necessary.
> 
> I actually like the idea of taking a 12GA shotgun with plenty of slugs, buckshot, and birdshot.  That would give me the option of going after multiple game mammals and birds.  But the ammo is so heavy and bulky that I'm not sure it would be practical (unless I had a pack mule).  I also love my AR15 (my favorite rifle) but am not sure if that would be the best choice when it came to shooting really small game like rabbits or squirrels.  So I'm kind of leaning towards a .22 Magnum rifle.  It's a little light for my tastes but it may be the most practical round in this situation.  I don't own one and have never shot one so I'm "shooting in the dark," so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even without a pack mule, you could take a dog and have it carry some of the weight.
> 
> As for the .22 Magnum, Ruger makes both a lever action and a bolt action in that caliber.  Both are pretty rugged and use the rotary magazine that seems to function regardless of abuse.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  My biggest worry would be my concern over whether or not a small caliber like that could stop large predators.  But it would really depend on where I was going.  There are some wilderness areas that don't really have large predators.


----------



## whitehall

Protection vs survival. It's easy in the lower 48. Kill chipmunks for food with a 10/22. You can carry a lot of .22s but you can't stop a grizzly with anything less than a .44 mag.


----------



## DriftingSand

whitehall said:


> Protection vs survival. It's easy in the lower 48. Kill chipmunks for food with a 10/22. You can carry a lot of .22s but you can't stop a grizzly with anything less than a .44 mag.



When I first saw this thread my first thought was the wilderness in my area of the country -- the Rocky Mountains.  I live at the base of the mountains but not 30 minutes from me is an area known for its cougars.  Then another 30 minutes up the highway is an area known for its black bears.  No grizzlies in the area.  They're much farther north.

So if I had to go into my wilderness area I would likely want a 12GA with 3" rounds.  Plenty of slugs, buck shot, and large bird shot for the geese that can be seen migrating back and forth.


----------



## DriftingSand

Clement said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
Click to expand...


Worse yet ... getting between a mother and her cubs.


----------



## WinterBorn

DriftingSand said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little late to the party but I like these types of questions and dilemmas.
> 
> I guess it would depend on the terrain and the type of wild game available in the area.  It would also depend on whether or not I had pack animals or if I would be hoofing it on my own.
> 
> First of all, I would probably focus my attention on smaller game as I would have to find a way to store all the extra meat that comes from deer or elk or other larger game animals. Small animals could be eaten in one sitting.  So my focus would likely be on a smaller caliber which would serve two purposes: 1) Enough killing power for small game and 2) lighter ammo.  However, I would still want something big enough to kill large predators if that became necessary.
> 
> I actually like the idea of taking a 12GA shotgun with plenty of slugs, buckshot, and birdshot.  That would give me the option of going after multiple game mammals and birds.  But the ammo is so heavy and bulky that I'm not sure it would be practical (unless I had a pack mule).  I also love my AR15 (my favorite rifle) but am not sure if that would be the best choice when it came to shooting really small game like rabbits or squirrels.  So I'm kind of leaning towards a .22 Magnum rifle.  It's a little light for my tastes but it may be the most practical round in this situation.  I don't own one and have never shot one so I'm "shooting in the dark," so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even without a pack mule, you could take a dog and have it carry some of the weight.
> 
> As for the .22 Magnum, Ruger makes both a lever action and a bolt action in that caliber.  Both are pretty rugged and use the rotary magazine that seems to function regardless of abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  My biggest worry would be my concern over whether or not a small caliber like that could stop large predators.  But it would really depend on where I was going.  There are some wilderness areas that don't really have large predators.
Click to expand...


I think most people in this conversation have accepted that there would be more than one firearm.  It is up to you to determine what you can pack in.

I think a .22LR or .22Magnum would be an excellent small rifle to put food on the table.  And a large bore revolver on your belt would mean you have some protection from predators.


----------



## WinterBorn

One option to make packing in easier, is to have a rifle & sidearm in the same caliber.  A revolver and lever action rifle, both in .44Mag would make packing lighter and simpler.


----------



## Clement

Kooshdakhaa said:


> I see newcomers up here (Cheechakos) going out hiking without an appropriate gun, and I'm like...whatever, go for it.



"Cheechakos" - I always wondered where that word came from.


----------



## WinterBorn

Clement said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see newcomers up here (Cheechakos) going out hiking without an appropriate gun, and I'm like...whatever, go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cheechakos" - I always wondered where that word came from.
Click to expand...


After I saw it here I looked it up.  Apparently it comes from two words and does mean "newbie".


----------



## whitehall

The sad fact is that the days of "wilderness adventures" are long gone. Carrying a gun in the American wilderness and shooting game for survival can get you time in the slammer from about a hundred local,state and federal regulations.


----------



## WinterBorn

whitehall said:


> The sad fact is that the days of "wilderness adventures" are long gone. Carrying a gun in the American wilderness and shooting game for survival can get you time in the slammer from about a hundred local,state and federal regulations.



Yeah, the days of being able to live off the land are in the past.  I guess you could possibly only hunt in season and have enough meat to last.  But preserving it would be tough.  Drying isn't the best, and refrigeration in a wilderness setting is almost impossible.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Clement said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd load it with a single ball or very large shot. Or avoid the bear altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
Click to expand...


 What if you're the food?


----------



## Moonglow

There is roots....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

DriftingSand said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worse yet ... getting between a mother and her cubs.
Click to expand...


  The wife and I were in a rowboat on lake Okanagan up in B.C. and we were paddling the shoreline.
  We came around a boulder at the waters edge and two black bear cubs were no more then ten feet from us.
  Your first thought is COOL!!!! Right up until we saw momma ten feet behind the cubs.
I could have pulled a water skier behind that rowboat....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad fact is that the days of "wilderness adventures" are long gone. Carrying a gun in the American wilderness and shooting game for survival can get you time in the slammer from about a hundred local,state and federal regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the days of being able to live off the land are in the past.  I guess you could possibly only hunt in season and have enough meat to last.  But preserving it would be tough.  Drying isn't the best, and refrigeration in a wilderness setting is almost impossible.
Click to expand...


  You could probably pull it off in Alaska if you could manage to survive the winters.
But I'm a Southern boy....so I'd probably freeze to death by November.


----------



## Clement

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you're the food?
Click to expand...


Pray.


----------



## WinterBorn

Clement said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you're the food?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pray.
Click to expand...


So they won't issue a citation to the bears?


----------



## Missourian

Clement said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
Click to expand...



FWIW,  Short Lane makes a 12 gauge to black powder adapter...

[youtube]a8exOwACljA[/youtube]

Ol' Dave Canterbury does the same thing with a spent high-brass hull...

[youtube]ES59LtA7XE8[/youtube]


----------



## Missourian

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding the bear would be a good plan.  The question is, will the bear cooperate with my plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I have heard about bears, not getting between them and the food is the key.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And their cubs.  And I disagree, I think they actually get in bad moods.  Then, here you come, and they take it out on you.  They may be angry about something else, but you're just handy, know what I mean. Moose certainly do that, and I'm sure a bear would also.
> 
> You also don't know you've gotten yourself between them and the cubs (or that food cache they're guarding).  You're walking through the woods and you see a cute little bear cub or two.  And it's...OH SHIT!!!!!!  'Cause where's the damn mama!
> 
> No, bears are nothing to mess with.  Assuming they won't mess with you is kind of stupid.  I would never walk in the woods without something big enough to protect me against bears.
> 
> *Now, I've lived in Alaska all my life, grew up in rural Alaska.  I see newcomers up here (Cheechakos) going out hiking without an appropriate gun, and I'm like...whatever, go for it.  Better you than me.
> *
> I carry bear spray while walking my dogs around in the middle of the city of Anchorage...for protection against moose.  Our sacred cows that wander around the city and can be very dangerous.
> 
> But for bear...I'm going to want more than just bear spray.
Click to expand...



Sounds like a great way to have a transformational experience...as in transformed from a person into bear poop.

Talk about being one with nature...the ultimate in recycling.


----------



## Clement

Missourian said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading this thread (http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-stupid-but-can-we-make-them-pay-for-it.html)...that referenced the book "Into the Wild", in which  the story culminates with Chris McCandless' adventure, unprepared,  into Alaska's last frontier...it got me to speculating about,  if I could only take one,  what firearm would I take on an extended solo wilderness adventure.
> 
> So I ask you,  if you could only take one gun into the wilds of the backwoods,  what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have spent some time thinking about this, and I have to wonder if my Thompson Center blackpowder shotgun wouldn't be a good choice. For the uninitiated, the T/C had only one barrel but was as easy to hit with as any modern shotgun. A couple pounds of powder and shot would last quite some time without the bulk of cartridges. I have hunted with it and it is no more inconvenient than any other single shot. Plus, you can customize your loads in the field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW,  Short Lane makes a 12 gauge to black powder adapter...
> 
> [youtube]a8exOwACljA[/youtube]
> 
> Ol' Dave Canterbury does the same thing with a spent high-brass hull...
> 
> [youtube]ES59LtA7XE8[/youtube]
Click to expand...


What a brilliant idea! The only thing I would add is that loading a muzzleloader with a primer already in place makes me VERY nervous, so if you are going to try this at home make sure to keep the bore pointed away from your face.

Also, black powder and Pyrodex are very corrosive, so you have to make sure you clean at the end of every day. Hot water works a lot better than cold - just heat a pot of water in camp and pour it through the barrel. 

Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Clement

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txedePKtMu4#t=395[/ame]


----------



## Clement

I think I am going to get a couple of those for my modern double barrel. Missourian, I think you have found the answer to this "which gun" conundrum. They also have 12 ga. to .45 ACP adapters.


----------



## srlip

By FAR the best choice would be a sound-suppressed, short barreld AR-15, in 223, with a scope and .22lr conversion unit. With 60 gr Nosler Partion softpoints, it's as effective on deer as the 30-30 ever was.  with brain hits, good 223 sp'd drop elk, deer, and moose like ROCKS.  Chris was IGNORING hunting regulations, shot a moose calf with his .22rimfire rifle. 

Google for Ciener Firearms .22lr conversion units.  $200 (30 rd box mag) they group 2" or smaller at 50 yds, so the accuracy is adequate for foraging small game. the caliber swap takes less than 20 seconds. The AR weighs just  6 lbs, the silencer less than a lb, a scope and mount 1 lb.  the .22 unit just  3/4 lb.  You can build an AR for $600, and you can always sell it for that. 

An AR comes with a dark, corrosion-resistant finish. Yuo can get it with a chromed bore and chamber, to protect same from rust.  many barrel lengths and rifling rates of twist are available. You can get a drop in trigger job, luminous iron sights, "see thru" scope bases (to let you use the iron sights, under the scope tube) you can push 2 pins and put on a different upper reciever/barrel/sight group in 10 seconds.  

You can disassemble the shorty AR in 5 seconds, conceal it in a pack, etc, and reassemble to fire it in 10 seconds. That's often helpful when you want to hitch a ride (as Chris often had to do, in his other 2 years of wandering Alaska).

the lw, lightweight of the AR and ammo let you use it with one hand, let you carry more water, salt, shelter-sleep- clothing options.  The shorty AR, scoped, will snipe effectively to  1/4 mile, making it a fine "resistance" rifle. Why bother to own lots of different longarms, hyou can only carry ONE (with a pack)

20" long AR 223 barrels WIN the  600 yd NRA BE (bullesye) matches all the time. Do NOT make the mistake of "thinking' that the 223 is just a "groundhog" cartridge".  it will pierce  1/4" of mild steel plate, out to any range where  308 ball will do so.  In fact, the shorty AR and softpoints will do this, at 50 m of range, and at  100m if you use the steel capped  62 gr military load.

weight and bulk SUCK when yuo have to foot slog with it.  the 223 rds weigh 35-40 to the lb (depending upon bulelt weight)  12 ga shells, 454 Casul, 50 DE, 45-70, rds are 10 rounds to the lb.  308 and similar rds are 16 to the lb. .22lr's are  135 to the lb. You don't want to bother with 308's on small game (which is far more common than large animals).  You also don't want to be limited to the short range of the shotgun, (which is MUCH less 'reach" than the 223 shorty has.  hell, the .22 conversion unit has more range capability than a 12 ga with birdshot.  

The sound suppressor makes all the difference in the WORLD, too.  It removes all flash at night. It makes full power 223 ammo no noisier than a normal .22lr rifle. It makes the Aquila 60 gr subsonic 22 ammo ( loaded in .22 SHORT cases) as quiet as a BB gun. Often, game that you MISS just sits there, when you use a silencer! of course, no other game is scared off, and no enemies come looking for the sound of your shots, either.

Not having a rapidfire repeater is stupidity itself. Men are a danger everywhere, as are rabid animals and dog packs, and you CAN miss, ya know. especially without ear protection and especially at night. No, you AINT going to be making your own black powder, that's bs.  Dupont and Pyrodex have both blown up black powder plants, killing people, and they knew FAR more about the process than you  (or Dave Cantebury) will ever learn about such things.


----------



## srlip

muzzleloaders, on a daily "stay ready" basis are an unbelivable pita.  The powder is constantly drawing moisture from the air, and it causes misfires, half-power shots (ie, miss the target); It corrodes the HELL out of the gun if you don't take it apart and clean it CAREFULLY after every time you fire the piece.  it's a frigging single shot, it's loud, it smokes so much that often you can't tell if you hit your mark, it'[s short ranged, especially with bird shot (ie, 50 ft is LONG range for such a smoothbore).

  You would be a fool to choose the muzzleloader, in this day and age.  there's little reason for hunting, per se. it's very inefficient. what you do, instead, is keep your (silenced, rapidfiring) autorifle at hand, while you tend your traps, trotlines, snares and traps. You will catch FAR more food with the latter, rather than with just the gun and  not waste time and calories prancing around looking for game.  such items are readily made in the bush, too

The 6 lbs (or so) saved by using a Marlin papoose (scoped, silenced) takedown .22lr (as vs the muzzleloader) will provide you with the ability to carry 800 rds of .22lr, which will feed you for a lifetime, rather easily. So why have the single shot, corrosive, noisy, short ranged muzzleloader, hmm? You aint finding lead to mine, or saltpeter or sulphur, in the area you can roam on foot (in Alaska, especially). the muzzleloader burns 70 grs of powder per shot (ie, only 100 shots per lb. The shot pellets or ball run 3/4 oz (or so) per shot, too.  it's just not a viable deal.  There's almost no elk east of the Mississippi, no bison, no bears or moose south of our most northern states.  So the muzzleloader is a huge waste of resources. Don't do it.


----------



## Clement

srlip said:


> muzzleloaders, on a daily "stay ready" basis are an unbelivable pita.  The powder is constantly drawing moisture from the air, and it causes misfires, half-power shots (ie, miss the target); It corrodes the HELL out of the gun if you don't take it apart and clean it CAREFULLY after every time you fire the piece.  it's a frigging single shot, it's loud, it smokes so much that often you can't tell if you hit your mark, it'[s short ranged, especially with bird shot (ie, 50 ft is LONG range for such a smoothbore).
> 
> You would be a fool to choose the muzzleloader, in this day and age.  there's little reason for hunting, per se. it's very inefficient. what you do, instead, is keep your (silenced, rapidfiring) autorifle at hand, while you tend your traps, trotlines, snares and traps. You will catch FAR more food with the latter, rather than with just the gun and  not waste time and calories prancing around looking for game.  such items are readily made in the bush, too
> 
> The 6 lbs (or so) saved by using a Marlin papoose (scoped, silenced) takedown .22lr (as vs the muzzleloader) will provide you with the ability to carry 800 rds of .22lr, which will feed you for a lifetime, rather easily. So why have the single shot, corrosive, noisy, short ranged muzzleloader, hmm? You aint finding lead to mine, or saltpeter or sulphur, in the area you can roam on foot (in Alaska, especially). the muzzleloader burns 70 grs of powder per shot (ie, only 100 shots per lb. The shot pellets or ball run 3/4 oz (or so) per shot, too.  it's just not a viable deal.  There's almost no elk east of the Mississippi, no bison, no bears or moose south of our most northern states.  So the muzzleloader is a huge waste of resources. Don't do it.



Spoken like someone who has never hunted with a muzzleloader, and probably nothing else, either.

On range: I don't know where you got that 50 foot range number from (16 yards???) but if you know how to load the thing you can get performance close to a smokless firearm. I have had exactly one misfire in the field and that was with a flintlock. But, I know how to use one. 

What is this silencer crap about? Are you planning on hunting illegally? Who do you think is going to hear you? 

By all means, you take your peashooter .22 out into the woods and try to kill enough gray squirrels for a meal. I'll be back in camp, having cleaned and eaten my kill AND cleaned my gun by the time you get back. 

We are talking about hunting here, not playing Rambo. I am a really good shot, one shot is no handicap for me.

Ear Protection, he says! Bwahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## srlip

I"ve been hunting with pistols, since 1968, cause rifles make it too easy. No, I have never bothered with a muzzleloader, they are stupid wastes of time and money.  what I said are the FACTS, dude. trying to keep those pos's ready IS a stupid pain in the ass waste of time and money. for what?  A noisy, short ranged single shot. What's the gain in that, hmm? are you going to claim that you 've got potassium nitrate and sulphur naturally available in your back yard, liar?


----------



## Clement

srlip said:


> I"ve been hunting with pistols, since 1968, cause rifles make it too easy. No, I have never bothered with a muzzleloader, they are stupid wastes of time and money.  what I said are the FACTS, dude. trying to keep those pos's ready IS a stupid pain in the ass waste of time and money. for what?  A noisy, short ranged single shot. What's the gain in that, hmm? are you going to claim that you 've got potassium nitrate and sulphur naturally available in your back yard, liar?



There ain't no bullet trees in the wild, either, junior.


----------



## Missourian

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today I found myself in Lexington, KY with some time to kill,  so I stopped at Bud's Gun Shops retail location to look around and found a Chiappa folding 22lr over '410 fixed full choke combo.
> 
> 5.5 lbs,  19 inches folded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have that as the second gun...with whatever long range large game repeater as the primary.
> 
> Plus,  at $300 out the door,  my wife probably won't beat me to death with it...probably...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
Click to expand...



Finally got to the range...love this gun.

Both barrels are properly indexed and extremely accurate.

I'll write up a full review in the morning.


----------



## Clement

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love odd guns. I just cant bring myself to spend money on em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Finally got to the range...love this gun.
> 
> Both barrels are properly indexed and extremely accurate.
> 
> I'll write up a full review in the morning.
Click to expand...


I finally found out what a "handy rifle" was, I looked it up. They look like they'd be handy.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

O9A requires one to survive alone in the wild for three months away from civilization and I didn't even need or take a firearm.


----------



## WinterBorn

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> O9A requires one to survive alone in the wild for three months away from civilization and I didn't even need or take a firearm.



The topic was to go into the Alaskan wilderness.   And perhaps you would be able to survive there without a firearm.  The natives did.

But I prefer some method of assuring I do not end up as a bear's breakfast.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> 
> O9A requires one to survive alone in the wild for three months away from civilization and I didn't even need or take a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was to go into the Alaskan wilderness.   And perhaps you would be able to survive there without a firearm.  The natives did.
> 
> But I prefer some method of assuring I do not end up as a bear's breakfast.
Click to expand...


  I'm not saying she's a liar but......she's full of shit.
Next she'll tell us she used Jedi mind tricks to fool rabbits into jumping into the cook pot.


----------



## Clement

HereWeGoAgain said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> 
> O9A requires one to survive alone in the wild for three months away from civilization and I didn't even need or take a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was to go into the Alaskan wilderness.   And perhaps you would be able to survive there without a firearm.  The natives did.
> 
> But I prefer some method of assuring I do not end up as a bear's breakfast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying she's a liar but......she's full of shit.
> Next she'll tell us she used Jedi mind tricks to fool rabbits into jumping into the cook pot.
Click to expand...


"You don't want to sell me death sticks...you want to go home and rethink your life."


----------



## Missourian

Clement said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't spend the $400 on that plastic Savage model 42...but this I could abide.
> 
> I'll be interested to see how the .410 bore patterns,  and if the barrels are properly indexed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally got to the range...love this gun.
> 
> Both barrels are properly indexed and extremely accurate.
> 
> I'll write up a full review in the morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I finally found out what a "handy rifle" was, I looked it up. They look like they'd be handy.
Click to expand...


I'm addicted to them.  They are really fun to shoot and tinker with.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess it fills that niche for you.
> Most of my hunting was done on my own property.(Sold that place for a nice profit and we're in the market for a new place) So I really never stressed if I wasn't successful because there's always the next day.
> So carrying a multi purpose gun was never really a concern for me.
> Hell,easily half the deer I shot were from my back porch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be ideal,  but unfortunately we moved 70 miles from my huntin' land...so I mostly hunt public land.
> 
> We moved out here three or four years ago,  so on many occasions I find myself in strange woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I would have to say that your choice in firearms is a wise one.
> I would do the exact same thing if I were in your position. You gotta make those trips count in anyway possible. Because nothing taste better then fresh game you put on the table through your own efforts. Be it squirrel,rabbit or any other critter that flies our walks.
Click to expand...



Cobbled together a carrier out of a scabbard,  a rifle sling,  some sunglass cases and a 12 gauge belt shotshell carrier...plus a store bought first aid kit.




Holds my ammo,  map,  compass,  signal mirror,  first-aid supplies,  solar blanket,  matches,  firetabs, and a little extra food.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be ideal,  but unfortunately we moved 70 miles from my huntin' land...so I mostly hunt public land.
> 
> We moved out here three or four years ago,  so on many occasions I find myself in strange woods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would have to say that your choice in firearms is a wise one.
> I would do the exact same thing if I were in your position. You gotta make those trips count in anyway possible. Because nothing taste better then fresh game you put on the table through your own efforts. Be it squirrel,rabbit or any other critter that flies our walks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cobbled together a carrier out of a scabbard,  a rifle sling,  some sunglass cases and a 12 gauge belt shotshell carrier...plus a store bought first aid kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holds my ammo,  map,  compass,  signal mirror,  first-aid supplies,  solar blanket,  matches,  firetabs, and a little extra food.
Click to expand...


   Thats a cool set up!

 I'm looking at a chest rig to set up something similar.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Clement said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was to go into the Alaskan wilderness.   And perhaps you would be able to survive there without a firearm.  The natives did.
> 
> But I prefer some method of assuring I do not end up as a bear's breakfast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying she's a liar but......she's full of shit.
> Next she'll tell us she used Jedi mind tricks to fool rabbits into jumping into the cook pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You don't want to sell me death sticks...you want to go home and rethink your life."
Click to expand...


  In English please.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would have to say that your choice in firearms is a wise one.
> I would do the exact same thing if I were in your position. You gotta make those trips count in anyway possible. Because nothing taste better then fresh game you put on the table through your own efforts. Be it squirrel,rabbit or any other critter that flies our walks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cobbled together a carrier out of a scabbard,  a rifle sling,  some sunglass cases and a 12 gauge belt shotshell carrier...plus a store bought first aid kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holds my ammo,  map,  compass,  signal mirror,  first-aid supplies,  solar blanket,  matches,  firetabs, and a little extra food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a cool set up!
> 
> I'm looking at a chest rig to set up something similar.
Click to expand...



You'll have to post a pic when you get it done.  

Squirrel season opens Saturday.   

Going to get to try it out in the field. I'll slip the 30/30 in there and carry the Badger,  in case I run across a wild boar while I'm out and about.

BTW...ever eaten crow...literally,  not figuratively?

Found this website...http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm...thinking about giving it a try this winter.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cobbled together a carrier out of a scabbard,  a rifle sling,  some sunglass cases and a 12 gauge belt shotshell carrier...plus a store bought first aid kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holds my ammo,  map,  compass,  signal mirror,  first-aid supplies,  solar blanket,  matches,  firetabs, and a little extra food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a cool set up!
> 
> I'm looking at a chest rig to set up something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to post a pic when you get it done.
> 
> Squirrel season opens Saturday.
> 
> Going to get to try it out in the field. I'll slip the 30/30 in there and carry the Badger,  in case I run across a wild boar while I'm out and about.
> 
> BTW...ever eaten crow...literally,  not figuratively?
> 
> Found this website...http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm...thinking about giving it a try this winter.
Click to expand...


  That sounds interesting.Those breast nuggets look pretty good! Some friends of mine rent a couple of cabins on Cold Pass every year(Galveston Bay system west side)and they caught a crap load of 4 and 5 pound Gafftop. Most dont eat em but they filleted em up and removed the red meat and deep fried em. Said they were damn good after soaking. These things are slimy as hell!! As one guy so poetically put it: It looks like an elephant jacked off into my ice chest.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gaf...2BcetyAS33YKYCA&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1397&bih=696

   I'm waiting on High Speed Gear, Inc. ® | Battle Proven Nylon Tactical Gear to get back with me on a drop leg holster for the new FNX-45. They make some great stuff from what I've heard,and will customize stuff for you if need be.
  If all goes well with them I'll pick up one of these.Double Decker Value Combo
   They have different pouches and you can remove or add different pouches and mag carriers to customize your load out.


----------



## Missourian

Your friend has a way with words I'll tell ya...bet he gets ALL the ladies that way.

Going to have to give those Gafftops a try sometime...I've never been saltwater fishing,  but I do end up by the docks on the Gulf pretty regularly.  We eat a good bit of gar,  which is also not much sought after,  but delicious when properly prepared. 

That Double Decker Combo is sweee-eet!  Not a bad price either,  for what you are getting.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> Your friend has a way with words I'll tell ya...bet he gets ALL the ladies that way.
> 
> Going to have to give those Gafftops a try sometime...I've never been saltwater fishing,  but I do end up by the docks on the Gulf pretty regularly.  We eat a good bit of gar,  which is also not much sought after,  but delicious when properly prepared.
> 
> That Double Decker Combo is sweee-eet!  Not a bad price either,  for what you are getting.



  You being in Missouri and all I figure you've tried Paddlefish. Thats some good eating right there! First time I tried it was in Excelsior Springs Mo. while visiting my uncle.
   They use to be common in Texas but they got fished out. Thankfully they are making a come back.


----------



## Missourian

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your friend has a way with words I'll tell ya...bet he gets ALL the ladies that way.
> 
> Going to have to give those Gafftops a try sometime...I've never been saltwater fishing,  but I do end up by the docks on the Gulf pretty regularly.  We eat a good bit of gar,  which is also not much sought after,  but delicious when properly prepared.
> 
> That Double Decker Combo is sweee-eet!  Not a bad price either,  for what you are getting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being in Missouri and all I figure you've tried Paddlefish. Thats some good eating right there! First time I tried it was in Excelsior Springs Mo. while visiting my uncle.
> They use to be common in Texas but they got fished out. Thankfully they are making a come back.
Click to expand...



Makes me want to go snaggin' ,  but unfortunately we are between seasons...no snaggin' 'til September.


----------



## Missourian

I finally picked up a Rossi matched pair pistol.  It shoots 45 Long Colt,  410 bore shotshells/slugs and 22 Long Rifle.

With this and a 12 gauge pump with screw in chokes,  IMO you would have all the hunting and protection you would need,  and you could conceivably hunt anything in North America.

Taking the Rossi to the range tomorrow,  i'll write up a review in the next week or so.


----------



## Moonglow

Missourian said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your friend has a way with words I'll tell ya...bet he gets ALL the ladies that way.
> 
> Going to have to give those Gafftops a try sometime...I've never been saltwater fishing,  but I do end up by the docks on the Gulf pretty regularly.  We eat a good bit of gar,  which is also not much sought after,  but delicious when properly prepared.
> 
> That Double Decker Combo is sweee-eet!  Not a bad price either,  for what you are getting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being in Missouri and all I figure you've tried Paddlefish. Thats some good eating right there! First time I tried it was in Excelsior Springs Mo. while visiting my uncle.
> They use to be common in Texas but they got fished out. Thankfully they are making a come back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me want to go snaggin' ,  but unfortunately we are between seasons...no snaggin' 'til September.
Click to expand...

Go down to NW Arkansas


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> I finally picked up a Rossi matched pair pistol.  It shoots 45 Long Colt,  410 bore shotshells/slugs and 22 Long Rifle.
> 
> With this and a 12 gauge pump with screw in chokes,  IMO you would have all the hunting and protection you would need,  and you could conceivably hunt anything in North America.
> 
> Taking the Rossi to the range tomorrow,  i'll write up a review in the next week or so.




 Congrats!! 
Let us know how it does.


----------

