Survival Rifle

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:51:30 GMT, Anthony W
wrote:

Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
for NEF single shot rifles. These rifles are light and way more
accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest...

I'll second that; I bought a NEF 20 gauge with a slug barrel for my
daughter when she was 14. It's beautifully finished, the action is
very solid, and it's a tack driver out to 100 yards with sabot slugs.
Not what I'd pick for a survival gun, but then again it might not be
such a bad choice.

I also have one of the FMJ 2 barrel .45LC/.410 derringers. It's a
piece of junk in a way, but it does what it's supposed to do,
reliably, and the under $100 price can't be beat. I bought it mainly
for backpacking. It can also shoot .410 slugs as well as the ,45's,
but though I tried it on the one occasion I found a box of .410 slugs
in a store (why do they even make such a thing?) I don't know offhand
which would be better ballisticly.

The AR-7 breakdown .22 is very popular in Alaska, where I understand
(perhaps somebody can confirm?) by law you must carry a firearm in
your aircraft. People that think the law is silly go for the cheapest
solution, and the AR-7 is cheap. The Marlin Papoose, though, is
similar but a _much_ higher quality gun. I use mine for squirrel
hunting on occasion. It breaks down in a similar manner and although
it doesn't store inside the stock, its stock isn't so big and clunky
as the AR-7; the Papoose comes with a nice little case. Like the
AR-7, it floats _IF_ it's in the case and IF you don't throw away the
styrofoam insert that comes with it.

-Dana
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the *******s.

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Before the rifle, before the spam, even before the first aid kit, Water.

Not very entertaining, but I've always heard that's true.

Dana M. Hague wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:51:30 GMT, Anthony W
wrote:

Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
for NEF single shot rifles. These rifles are light and way more
accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest...

I'll second that; I bought a NEF 20 gauge with a slug barrel for my
daughter when she was 14. It's beautifully finished, the action is
very solid, and it's a tack driver out to 100 yards with sabot slugs.
Not what I'd pick for a survival gun, but then again it might not be
such a bad choice.

I also have one of the FMJ 2 barrel .45LC/.410 derringers. It's a
piece of junk in a way, but it does what it's supposed to do,
reliably, and the under $100 price can't be beat. I bought it mainly
for backpacking. It can also shoot .410 slugs as well as the ,45's,
but though I tried it on the one occasion I found a box of .410 slugs
in a store (why do they even make such a thing?) I don't know offhand
which would be better ballisticly.

The AR-7 breakdown .22 is very popular in Alaska, where I understand
(perhaps somebody can confirm?) by law you must carry a firearm in
your aircraft. People that think the law is silly go for the cheapest
solution, and the AR-7 is cheap. The Marlin Papoose, though, is
similar but a _much_ higher quality gun. I use mine for squirrel
hunting on occasion. It breaks down in a similar manner and although
it doesn't store inside the stock, its stock isn't so big and clunky
as the AR-7; the Papoose comes with a nice little case. Like the
AR-7, it floats _IF_ it's in the case and IF you don't throw away the
styrofoam insert that comes with it.

-Dana
--

AR-7 will float on its own whether assembled or not. For us lefties
the stock can be a handful while shooting.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan" wrote

AR-7 will float on its own whether assembled or not. For us lefties
the stock can be a handful while shooting.

What makes a difference, left vs. right? Is the stock not symmetrical?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Dan" wrote
AR-7 will float on its own whether assembled or not. For us lefties
the stock can be a handful while shooting.

What makes a difference, left vs. right? Is the stock not symmetrical?

No, it's not. The left side near the receiver is wider (deeper?) to
allow the muzzle of the barrel to fit when stored.

I have large hands so it's not a big deal, but someone with small
hands could have problems. I actually prefer shooting it over my Marlin
and Ruger 10-22. For longer range accuracy I'd go with the Ruger, but
for shorter ranges the AR-7 is more than adequate.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
wrote:
Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
which was all aluminum.

The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
yourself.

There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)

A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
condemning the idea.

With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.

There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.

Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.

Just a thot. Outside the box.

-R.S.Hoover


The old AR-7 in .22 LR, now made by Henry, is a good choice. Mine is a
Carter Arms. It disassembled and stores in its own stock, will float and
is inexpensive by today's standards.

This is one of those "my Ford is better than your Chevy" eternal
arguments as to the best single firearm. I suggest a little research
into what you are likely to use it for in the area in which you will be
flying. You never know, maybe a .410 with an assortment of shot and slug
shells may be the best bet.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

was that Carter Jimmy or billy ?? I gots one & mine sez Charter
arms....Jerry

Jerry Wass wrote:
Dan wrote:
wrote:
Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
which was all aluminum.

The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
yourself.

There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)

A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
condemning the idea.

With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.

There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.

Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.

Just a thot. Outside the box.

-R.S.Hoover


The old AR-7 in .22 LR, now made by Henry, is a good choice. Mine is
a Carter Arms. It disassembled and stores in its own stock, will float
and is inexpensive by today's standards.

This is one of those "my Ford is better than your Chevy" eternal
arguments as to the best single firearm. I suggest a little research
into what you are likely to use it for in the area in which you will
be flying. You never know, maybe a .410 with an assortment of shot and
slug shells may be the best bet.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

was that Carter Jimmy or billy ?? I gots one & mine sez Charter
arms....Jerry

OK, so I'm lysdexic, mine says Charter Arms also.

The only thing I don't like about it is the bolt handle will drop out
if one rolls the rifle right side down and installs or removes the
barrel. I have been meaning to install a detent. I'm going to
procrastinate a bit more, it's only been 25 years.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Jerry Wass" wrote

was that Carter Jimmy or billy ?? I gots one & mine sez Charter arms

I'll bet it was gotten in a time of gun restrictions, and they just got the
"H" out of there! g
--
Jim in NC

On Nov 27, 7:16*am, Dana M. Hague wrote:

The AR-7 breakdown .22 is very popular in Alaska, where I understand
(perhaps somebody can confirm?) by law you must carry a firearm in
your aircraft.

A quick web search turned up this site:

http://www.equipped.com/ak_cnda.htm

Seems at one time it was required to carry a firearm - but no longer.
Also I won't be flying up there any time between October 15 and April
1. I haven't enough room to carry the required items................
===================
Leon McAtee

wrote:
Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
which was all aluminum.

The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
yourself.

There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)

A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
condemning the idea.

With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.

There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.

Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.

Just a thot. Outside the box.

-R.S.Hoover

Yup, just love theidea of carrying black powder in my airplane... for
survival after a crash of course.