In article Dqxhc.33883$fq4.8309@lakeread05, "Bruce W.1"
wrote:

DavidG35 wrote:
The AF stopped packing AR-7s in their kits many moons ago (I packed them)
the question should be for where you are back packing what are the
threats/needs for a weapon? if you want it just for "in case" just get an
inexpensive .38 to strap on your hip and get some incendiaries rounds for
it. If theres an actual possible threat as far as animals then go with the
appropriate shotgun since you would not be shooting too far and it
eliminates the problem nicely, even if you miss!
Thats my 2 cents,
GMAN

================================================== ========

I was just hoping that the AF had made progress on survival guns. That
does not seem to be the case.

Ideally, my backpacking survival gun would be an over/under 12 ga.
shotgun (for bear defense) and 22 LR (for shooting birds for food). And
it would be made of titanium and composites for light weight. Of course
this weapon does not exist, was just hoping.

Titanium would be hideously expensive for a survival weapon,
especially as applied to moving parts in a gun.
And the light weight would create eye-tearing recoil.
Any bear defense load would generate too much recoil.

Yes the AR-7 was also used by the AF.

I would not want to have to use a Baretta 9mm for survival. But that
seems to be what our AF is stuck with. Maybe the whole notion of having
to survive in the wild is a thing of the past, what with GPS, satellite
beacons and all.

AFAIK, aircrews use the M11 which is a Sig compact.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur