Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 97

Thread: two revolvers better for survival than a "survival rifle"?

  1. #1
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default two revolvers better for survival than a "survival rifle"?

    Wouldn't you rather have a 22 magnum type pistol and a big bore revolver for survival than a 22 rifle or a 22/rifle/ 22/shotgun over n under combo?

    You'd have 44 magnum, 45 long colt, or 454 casull ammo that would handle large game/bear protection. You'd then have a 22 magnum for defense against people, small game hunting, or whatever other scenario you "survivalists" could think up.

    So many advantage here: A rapid repeater, lightweight, more ammo for less weight, less bulk, ect.

    Twin handguns......anybody agree?

  2. #2
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default

    My choice is easy. A TC Contender .44 mag, 10" shot barrel with a 1X scope.

    I have muzzle loading balls loaded with 6 grains of Unique for rabbit sized game.
    With the choke in it, shot shells with #7 shot for birds.
    I can shoot .44 Special rounds but no need too as I can duplicate those by reloading the .44 mag.
    I can go 180 grains all the way to 300 grain.
    I have harvested whitetails out to 125 yards with it, no problem with the Speer 225 grain hollow points.
    And if you think it is slow with a singe shot, NOT. I am not as fast as Larry Weishuhn but we look alike.

    If I could only have one pistol, the Contender in .44 mag would be it.


    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  3. #3
    Member akiceman25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Two Rivers, AK
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I'm no survivalist but I would think handguns would be easier to misplace. I'd choose a long gun.
    I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    I often carry two as the Alaskan stays with me.I like to carry one of my 22's for small game trips and just started again hunting with 9 1/2" scoped 44mag both fun for hunting but don't replace the 454.
    If they were going to drop me in the bush hundreds of miles from anywhere Please leave me a good 22lr/12ga OU with plenty of ammo
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default two revolvers better for survival than a "survival rifle"?

    Ever shot a rabbit at 30+ yards with a 22 revolver? My record is a head shot on a grouse at 15ish with a semi 22. Give me a 12 GA with a variety of ammo, thank you
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,892

    Default two revolvers better for survival than a "survival rifle"?

    .22 is all I need.
    Do I give my friends advice? Jesus, no. They wouldn't take advice from me. Nobody should take advice from me. I haven't got a clue about anything..

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    Wouldn't you rather have a 22 magnum type pistol and a big bore revolver for survival than a 22 rifle or a 22/rifle/ 22/shotgun over n under combo?

    You'd have 44 magnum, 45 long colt, or 454 casull ammo that would handle large game/bear protection. You'd then have a 22 magnum for defense against people, small game hunting, or whatever other scenario you "survivalists" could think up.

    So many advantage here: A rapid repeater, lightweight, more ammo for less weight, less bulk, ect.

    Twin handguns......anybody agree?
    This is an interesting question, and the answer is NO. Nothing wrong with the combination, but it ain't "BETTER".

    Rifles are always better than revolvers for "Survival", because you can shoot them more accurately and that's especially important in a survival situation. The difference in meat to eat, or starving.

    2 long guns may be a bit unhandy to carry, but 1 long gun and a revolver wouldn't be as bad.

    Given my durthers, here in the Greatland, I'd choose my hunting rifle, with cast bullet small game loads.

    If I was proficient with a shootgun, I might choose a 12 Gauge with both shot and slug Ammo.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  8. #8
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    Wouldn't you rather have a 22 magnum type pistol and a big bore revolver for survival than a 22 rifle or a 22/rifle/ 22/shotgun over n under combo?

    You'd have 44 magnum, 45 long colt, or 454 casull ammo that would handle large game/bear protection. You'd then have a 22 magnum for defense against people, small game hunting, or whatever other scenario you "survivalists" could think up.

    So many advantage here: A rapid repeater, lightweight, more ammo for less weight, less bulk, ect.

    Twin handguns......anybody agree?
    I'm not a survivalist in the usual sense...but as a hunter I know that my effective range is pretty limited with a handgun. If I'm shooting for food to survive I think that's significant. If I'm shooting to keep my butt from getting mauled- even more so.

    I think my comfort level with the proposed combination is commensurate with my perceived level of danger...I prefer long guns in the field- I think the scenario is pretty important to evaluate how the 2 revolver proposal would work.

    A .22 rifle and a big bore revolver for "bear protection" is perhaps the best combo for both...otherwise I'd take a shotgun with a mixed bag of shells and be happy about it.
    "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    I guess a lot would depend on the terrain and what would be available for food or threat but I think a nice combo would be an old savage o/u rifle/shotgun such as .22/20g and a 629 on my chest. If I had to choose 2 revolvers I would take my K-22 and 629 and would feel pretty comfortable for most scenarios.

  10. #10
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Default

    Well if you can shoot them I see no problem but most folks cant hit squat with a handgun past 20 foot. Redundancy is always a good idea, if all ya have is a double barrel survival gun what happens when it brakes? Id be fine with my Smith 460V and an assortment of ammo, Id be sittin pretty with that and my 12 gage too for redundancy. If you cant shoot your handguns real well (and I mean being honest with yourself about it) youll be way ahead to have at least one long gun and two would be wiser.
    Andy
    On the web= C-lazy-F.co
    Email= Andy@C-lazy-F.co
    Call/Text 602-315-2406
    Phoenix Arizona

  11. #11
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hodgeman View Post
    "...a shotgun with a mixed bag of shells and be happy about it.
    ... is correct. A twelve gauge pump-action shotgun could provide food for the table, from bird to moose, and also protection from most any predator, two legged or otherwise. If it had to be pistols, then a .22 revolver and a .44 revolver would be my picks.

  12. #12

    Default

    The problem with this question (As we discovered on the Wilderness Survival Forum) is one person is answering thinking one or two nights lost in the wilderness.

    Yet others are answering from the perspective of E&E with 6 to 24 months in the wilderness (Ala'EOTWAWKI).
    See: http://seresurvival.freeforums.org/?...576a397e537748
    (Be warned: This is a very specialty forun and, you should expect to be thrown out in short order, if you cauce problems)

  13. #13
    Member akiceman25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Two Rivers, AK
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    (Be warned: This is a very specialty forun and, you should expect to be thrown out in short order, if you cauce problems)
    Statistics

    Total posts 607 Total topics 171 Total members 25 =


    I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akiceman25 View Post
    Statistics

    Total posts 607 Total topics 171 Total members 25 =
    I think the forum is about 3 to 5 weeks old which might be a factor.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    Wouldn't you rather have a 22 magnum type pistol and a big bore revolver for survival than a 22 rifle or a 22/rifle/ 22/shotgun over n under combo?

    You'd have 44 magnum, 45 long colt, or 454 casull ammo that would handle large game/bear protection. You'd then have a 22 magnum for defense against people, small game hunting, or whatever other scenario you "survivalists" could think up.

    So many advantage here: A rapid repeater, lightweight, more ammo for less weight, less bulk, ect.

    Twin handguns......anybody agree?
    No. IF those are your only two choices, select the O/U combination.

  16. #16
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AGL4now View Post
    The problem with this question (As we discovered on the Wilderness Survival Forum) is one person is answering thinking one or two nights lost in the wilderness.

    Yet others are answering from the perspective of E&E with 6 to 24 months in the wilderness (Ala'EOTWAWKI).
    See: http://seresurvival.freeforums.org/?...576a397e537748
    (Be warned: This is a very specialty forun and, you should expect to be thrown out in short order, if you cauce problems)
    Guess I'm thinking from a perspective that involves swamping a boat, and only having what's attached to you. As I continue to run up new rivers every year, seems to be a possibility It then could be days if not weeks of walking. Over the years, I've used 22 magnum and 17 hmr revolvers for rabbit, beaver, and grouse. Beaver seems to be the predominant food source. Shooting larger game would be wasteful, and unnecessary when your sole purpose is to walk everyday. The 12 gauge doesn't give you much ammo, the stuff weighs a alot too. 40 shells would be a considerable amount of bulk and weight. If you were in a survival situation, you could legally take waterfowl with a handgun, and a 22 magnum would do this well too. This rules out the 12 gauge for me. Food with a 22 magnum would be a non-issue, and so would large game. That would be the least of my concerns, to shoot a caribou or a moose. Bear protection.......and over n unders........no thanks. The excessive bulk of a sufficient supply 12 gauge fodder.......no thanks.

    If you weigh a 22 magnum, 100 bullets, a loaded 44 mag with three speed loaders. You're right at 4-5 lbs with a 50-150 mile walk along the river bank. Something to think about........

  17. #17
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default two revolvers better for survival than a "survival rifle"?

    How's about a 45LC/410 revolver.
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  18. #18
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
    The 12 gauge doesn't give you much ammo, the stuff weighs a alot too. 40 shells would be a considerable amount of bulk and weight. If you were in a survival situation, you could legally take waterfowl with a handgun, and a 22 magnum would do this well too. This rules out the 12 gauge for me. Food with a 22 magnum would be a non-issue, and so would large game. That would be the least of my concerns, to shoot a caribou or a moose. Bear protection.......and over n unders........no thanks. The excessive bulk of a sufficient supply 12 gauge fodder.......no thanks.
    Good points about the 12 gauge. I guess I was thinking short term, emergency. The chances of running into a bear are totally unpredictable, however, and I would hate to face a hungry bear with just a .22 mag. So, back to two light(er) guns: one for food and one for defense.
    Also, what if you couldn't walk out, for example a snowfall or an injury which kept you local? Would be nice to drop a caribou, black bear or even a moose and have a meat source until help arrives.

  19. #19
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Yes, injuries are always a possibility. If it's one serious enough, I guess a trip plan letting folks know where you are and when you should return is of greatest concern, maybe a spot device too.

    If you find a rest, you'd be surprised what you can do with a revolver. 75yds is my max on a large game animal. With a tuned trigger, 50 yds is a frequent shot for me with a hangun on grouse/rabbits/beaver, but oftentimes much closer.

    Every single extended trip I've ever gone on (more than two weeks) always involved a bear in camp at least once. A savage over n under rifle/shotgun or .22/rifle isn't my cup o tea.

    Funny you mention this Sayak, I had a combination canoe/hike trip to get to my remote property. I sprained my ankle on a tussock. Everything heavy got cached in the woods during the hike back to the canoe. I then took my time during the hike out, shooting spruce grouse/rabbits along the way. All I had at the time was a 45 acp and a 17 hmr single six. I didn't get my rifle back until winter when I could snow machine in to find the waypoint I marked with a GPS.

  20. #20
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TWB View Post
    How's about a 45LC/410 revolver.
    Probably not. I don't know if a 410 shotshell in a pistol is a worthy substitute for poor hangun marksmanship, nor as effective at small game as a well placed 22 magnum. Again, if you weigh 100 shotshells against 100 22 mag, is the extra weight a necessity? I'm also wondering if that particular revolver can handle the hot loaded 45 colt. I think I'd rather have a ruger 4 in. 45 colt and still.......a second revolver in 22 magnum.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •