User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 9:54:12 AM EDT
[#1]
New Model Mauser 375 H&H
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 9:56:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
details? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My Quest carbine in 308. http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j480/Mauserone/DSC_0246_zpsc3a4ada1.jpg http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j480/Mauserone/DSC_0244_zps503d8e66.jpg SMLE would be hard to beat. details? I forgot one thing the Quest2 I think it was called were British actions that were converted to 45x70. 
Recoil was said to be brutal with anything more than cowboy loads. But it would work really well in Alaska I bet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 9:56:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Kimber Montana or Rem 700 Titanium (Original model) in .308 Winchester. Barnes TSX 165 grain ammunition. 4x Leupold glass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:13:07 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
something light and handy that has very manageable recoil so I would say savage trophy hunter xp in .308 or 30.06 I don't know about you, but I would not under any circumstances describe my Savage 111 in .30-06 as having "manageable recoil." It's a great rifle but it kicks like a mule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:15:11 AM EDT
[#5]
Mossberg mvp .308
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:15:47 AM EDT
[#6]
Mossberg mvp .308
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:16:16 AM EDT
[#7]
Tika T3 Lite in 300WM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:17:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Pre-64 Winchester Model 70 .30-06 or 7mm...
Easily fixed, easy to maintain the bolt/firing pin, all without tools. I'd want the wood stock because if shit really hit the fan I could hollow out the butt stock for dry tinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:18:24 AM EDT
[#9]
stainless claw extractor bolt action with non-wood stock, 3-9 on detachable scope rings, buis, 30-06 (i would prefer 35 whelen, but since you mentioned stranded 30-06 could be scavenged)....
eta i would normally keep scope detached - only add on when needing long shot |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:34:44 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 10:53:02 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know about you, but I would not under any circumstances describe my Savage 111 in .30-06 as having "manageable recoil." It's a great rifle but it kicks like a mule. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: something light and handy that has very manageable recoil so I would say savage trophy hunter xp in .308 or 30.06 I don't know about you, but I would not under any circumstances describe my Savage 111 in .30-06 as having "manageable recoil." It's a great rifle but it kicks like a mule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 11:51:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Something CRF, with iron sights, a 3-9 scope, and in .30-06 or better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 12:05:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 22 Guys better hope the plane crashes within the city limits of Anchorage.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: CRF Model 70 chambered for either the 300 Win Mag or the 338 Win Mag. I'm seeing a consensus among guys with AK under their name, or guys who have spent some time in the woods catchin' small, furry edible things without using a gun (see avatar). Some of you suggesting .22, I would suggest to spend some more time practicing with stuff like this: Figure 4 trigger. The workhorse. They can be set many different ways. http://www.survivalschool.us/wp-content/uploads/large-figure-43.jpg The Piute trigger. Simpler to make. Harder to set. http://i49.tinypic.com/2yoo8r7.png Ojibwa bird snare. Works very well. My cubs built walking sticks with these built in, and a sling shot "Y" at the top. Not very practical, but for a 10yo boy, it was the coolest thing ever. http://huntergathercook.typepad.com/huntergathering_wild_fres/images/2008/04/16/18_ojibwa_bird_pole_699.jpg http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yAB7KljY-9E/hqdefault.jpg There. Ya got fish, fowl and game. Go practice. The 22 Guys better hope the plane crashes within the city limits of Anchorage.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 12:11:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Lacks relevant information.
Is this a "hike back out after a plane crash" test, or a "survive for months in the wilderness" test? Shouldn't take you a quarter of the year just to hike back out from a plane crash. Am I sitting in one place, waiting to be rescued (it is summer and presumably the pilot filed a flight plan and S&R will kick in); or was this a sooper sekret squirrel mission and no one knows or cares where I am? Do I have a sidearm? Do I have any other supplies? In a plane crash scenario there were most likely emergency rations on the plane, so food would likely not even be an issue and you can just hike your happy ass back to to the world. The task of gathering food is much more efficiently accomplished with traps and snares versus shooting animals. Way way lower caloric output to get food that way. I know that some game animals can be killed fairly efficiently with a throwing stick used properly (see Dan Mannix's classic work A Sporting Chance) and given the season there may be significant non-game food options. Fish, berries, edible plants etc. I'd plan on the rifle being solely for defense against predators, and stick with probably 375 H&H. It allows a light enough rifle to be able to hike, while still being effective against the largest bear. If I had a sidearm I'd want a little .22 pistol, ideally suppressed. Use that for potting small game as opportunity allows. ETA: oh, and I'd want BUIS and one of the high end 1-5/6 illuminated reticle scopes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 12:20:05 PM EDT
[#15]
My CZ550 in 9.3 x 62 Mauser
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:09:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lacks relevant information. Is this a "hike back out after a plane crash" test, or a "survive for months in the wilderness" test? Shouldn't take you a quarter of the year just to hike back out from a plane crash. Am I sitting in one place, waiting to be rescued (it is summer and presumably the pilot filed a flight plan and S&R will kick in); or was this a sooper sekret squirrel mission and no one knows or cares where I am? Do I have a sidearm? Do I have any other supplies? In a plane crash scenario there were most likely emergency rations on the plane, so food would likely not even be an issue and you can just hike your happy ass back to to the world. The task of gathering food is much more efficiently accomplished with traps and snares versus shooting animals. Way way lower caloric output to get food that way. I know that some game animals can be killed fairly efficiently with a throwing stick used properly (see Dan Mannix's classic work A Sporting Chance) and given the season there may be significant non-game food options. Fish, berries, edible plants etc. I'd plan on the rifle being solely for defense against predators, and stick with probably 375 H&H. It allows a light enough rifle to be able to hike, while still being effective against the largest bear. If I had a sidearm I'd want a little .22 pistol, ideally suppressed. Use that for potting small game as opportunity allows. ETA: oh, and I'd want BUIS and one of the high end 1-5/6 illuminated reticle scopes. Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:38:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Tikka T3 in 6.5x55 w/ Norma or Lapua 155-56gr SP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:47:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My custom CZ 527 M Carbine with shilen 6.5 grendel barrel. Lightweight and capable round that I could put quite a few in my pocket, and the rifle with scope only weighs 7lbs. Details please |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:47:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:49:17 PM EDT
[#20]
I'd make due with a 7mm-08, something light. But I'd rather have a shotgun and a variety of ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:50:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Steyr in 7mm Win Mag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:55:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? I think he's trying to debunk the guys that would bring 375's and the like and plan on trapping small game with snares and such. Basically saying you would need to keep moving and not have time to dick around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? You're not gonna average 3mph in AK, or most other places of wilderness. You're not gonna do it 12 hours a day for very long, living on what you can catch, either. Even in the best of seasons, living off what you catch generally sucks unless you get lucky enough to nail a large critter AND you know WTF you're doing to preserve it from everything that wants to take it from you, from flies to varmints to mother nature trying to rot it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 1:59:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he's trying to debunk the guys that would bring 375's and the like and plan on trapping small game with snares and such. Basically saying you would need to keep moving and not have time to dick around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? I think he's trying to debunk the guys that would bring 375's and the like and plan on trapping small game with snares and such. Basically saying you would need to keep moving and not have time to dick around. The scenario stated "stay three months". Trapping is much more efficient than hunting at securing meat, if you know something about it. Even covering ground, you put your traps out at night and gather them on the way out of camp the next day. Sometimes you may stay two days in an area of good activity. You won't have a high degree of success because your scent doesn't have time to dissipate. But, more devices bring your odds back up, along with not following normal trapping laws like not snaring burrowing animals, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:06:02 PM EDT
[#25]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:17:13 PM EDT
[#26]
A big one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:33:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're not gonna average 3mph in AK, or most other places of wilderness. You're not gonna do it 12 hours a day for very long, living on what you can catch, either. Even in the best of seasons, living off what you catch generally sucks unless you get lucky enough to nail a large critter AND you know WTF you're doing to preserve it from everything that wants to take it from you, from flies to varmints to mother nature trying to rot it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? You're not gonna average 3mph in AK, or most other places of wilderness. You're not gonna do it 12 hours a day for very long, living on what you can catch, either. Even in the best of seasons, living off what you catch generally sucks unless you get lucky enough to nail a large critter AND you know WTF you're doing to preserve it from everything that wants to take it from you, from flies to varmints to mother nature trying to rot it. What do you consider a reasonable foot speed and duration of march? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:41:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah those cannons will be great when your bellys empty and all you see is birds and small game. I have taken grouse and seen many others taken out of trees with deer rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:49:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Rem 700, 7mm STW, good glass. Does everything I'll ever need it to do, except keep the bugs off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:50:43 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:52:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My CZ550 in 9.3 x 62 Mauser Wait...I already said this! 
You have immaculate taste in firearms, sir! Semper fi too! 77-81. Was in the 2nd Wing. What about you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 2:53:31 PM EDT
[#32]
i would not want a bolt action. id take my marlin guide gun in 45/70... laminate and stainless.
if i HAD to take a damn bolt.. it would probably be a ruger stainless synthetic, with a qd scope, and good iron sights. i reread the op.... if i had to SURVIVE, for 3 months, with a firearm, in alaska... it would be a .12 guage pump shotgun... no second choice about it. slugs and buckshot for the bears, wolves, and other big critters... and shotshells for the bunnies and other edible small game. heres my first choice, of the guns i own right now. i picked these, because i own them.. and i would feel comfortable carrying these. remington 870 magpul. light, powerful, and very flexable. with a bandoleer of slugs, buck, and small game shot. it will kill everything. bears, bucks, wolves, rabbits, squirrels, ducks, etc. its not a perfect hunting shotgun, but it does a damn good job. 
second choice, that i own..... marlin 45/70 guide gun. very powerful, pretty simple, light, short, and reliable. 
if i had to move to alaska, and could only take a handful of the guns i currently own, it would be. 45/70 guide. 870 shotgun ruger sr762 glock 10mm 10/22 remington .308 ltr im not saying those are perfect.... but its what i own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:14:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mauser 98K in 7x57. You think starving is more of a threat than the bears. What I don't think you understand is that you do not decide how much of a threat the bears are. The bears decide. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mauser 98K in 7x57. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As much as a big gun would be handier defending yourself from predators. I'd opt for a marlin 983 in 22 magnum. Exposure and starvation is more likely to kill me than an animal. You're from MO obviously you're a city boy like me and don't know about AK . Not sure if serious.. but incase you are, you're god damn right I'm a city boy. I didn't grow up in the woods trapping small game and stalking elk.Which means I need every advantage I have in keeping myself fed. As I said I feel like starving is more a threat to me than bears. And although it's not ideal a 22 mag is still better than a sharp stick or starving. You think starving is more of a threat than the bears. What I don't think you understand is that you do not decide how much of a threat the bears are. The bears decide. Yes, because in Alaska you're more likely to have an aggressive encounter with a bear then the need to eat food in a 24 hour period. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:16:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep read all of the annual mauling stories and a vast majority could have been Avoided. But some people choose stupidity Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like this guy : Eventually, Nate said, they caught up to the bear where it had bedded in a creek bed. For reasons as yet unclear, Wes then decided to take photographs of the animal instead of shoot it. "He took out his camera to take a picture," Nate said. "He had his rifle on his back." http://www.adn.com/article/heroic-response-saved-alaska-bear-mauling-victim Yep read all of the annual mauling stories and a vast majority could have been Avoided. But some people choose stupidity mebbe bears up there are different than the browns here on the ABC islands in SE Alaska... I know several people over the years who got chewed on and they did everything right. I know many more who dropped a charging bear right at their feet, mostly while they were deer hunting. Gotta understand that the thick foliage of SE Alaska is completely different than the interior and seeing 50 yrds in the timber is a very open area. Its very easy to accidentally surprise a bear and if its a sow with cubs, you'll probably get chewed on. So like I said before, Give me my .338 Win mag. ETA: two of the guys who were attacked uprovoked were fatalities. One of which I helped with the retrieval of. He sat at a fire and the bear came up and grabbed him from behind, ate him (guts mostly) buried the rest and left his decapitated head sitting several feet from the cache. I stood guard with a few others while the cops dug him up and She was out there pissed off just out of sight. That was a shoot on sight moment... cops finally got her and her cubs 3 days later. makes a guy think twice to see shit like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:22:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I am absolutely STUCK with a turn-bolt mauser style rifle, I'd take a .338 win mag. If I had MORE choice it'd more likely be an 1895 lever gun, in 45-70. You ever try to clean the chamber and action of a lever in the field with a multi tool? Bolts are far superior from a maintenance and reliability perspective, not to mention the ability to work prone and shoot pointy things a long way. I'd take any modern stainless bolt action in .300 or .338 WM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:24:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you consider a reasonable foot speed and duration of march? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? You're not gonna average 3mph in AK, or most other places of wilderness. You're not gonna do it 12 hours a day for very long, living on what you can catch, either. Even in the best of seasons, living off what you catch generally sucks unless you get lucky enough to nail a large critter AND you know WTF you're doing to preserve it from everything that wants to take it from you, from flies to varmints to mother nature trying to rot it. What do you consider a reasonable foot speed and duration of march? On the road and well fed, you can do 25-30 miles a day if you're in excellent shape and not carrying to much and maintain it for weeks. Hard core through hikers do it for some sections. There are parts of AK where you'd be doing good to cover 5 miles a day. Add in poor caloric intake and the necessity to acquire those calories and things turn mighty bleak from a realistic perspective. We have a nice backpack loop here at Zalesky in OH. It's 25 miles and fairly hilly. I've done it in 9 hours a few times and that's hoofin' it with a day pack and no gun and I was in pretty good condition with plenty of calories. I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it again the next day. Most races we do (freestyle nav races) we have to plot our course to get the most control points we can. We figure 2 mph to gage our loop size for 12 hour races. (there is a lot of bushwacking and serious altitude changes) 24 hours we scale back to 1.50-1.75 depending on terrain. Sounds slow until you do it. Average back packers, on a trail, with good food will plan for around 12-14 miles a day. Some more, some less. We try to keep it under 10 for the scouts. General answer? ...It depends on a lot of factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:25:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 Without the Boss on mine please. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stainless Browning A-Bolt 300mag w/Boss +1 Without the Boss on mine please. Hey, I have one of those! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:32:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
What bolt rifle would you wish you had, if your small plane crashed and stranded you (alone) in the Alaska bush for 3 months; with only the rifle on your back and 1 cargo pants pocket full of ammo? Lets assume its summer, and you did not get badly hurt in the crash. and Yes, I have been watching a bit of Mountain Man & Alaskan Rail Road tv shows lately  30.06 would do just fine. but ya know without several other things as well it going to be probably not a survivable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:45:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about you, but I would not under any circumstances describe my Savage 111 in .30-06 as having "manageable recoil." It's a great rifle but it kicks like a mule. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
something light and handy that has very manageable recoil so I would say savage trophy hunter xp in .308 or 30.06 I don't know about you, but I would not under any circumstances describe my Savage 111 in .30-06 as having "manageable recoil." It's a great rifle but it kicks like a mule. I concur my 110 is unpleasant to shoot. In fact I was thinking of adding a new stock to it to add weight so it it a better shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:52:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can make low powered "plinking" rounds for .30cal rifles. I've heard of people doing it with 30-06 and 30-30 often. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah those cannons will be great when your bellys empty and all you see is birds and small game.  308 won't kill rabbits in AK? Kills em here, dead as fuck.
You like eating bloodshot mush? You can make low powered "plinking" rounds for .30cal rifles. I've heard of people doing it with 30-06 and 30-30 often. Yep, ive got some .30-06 to .32 ACP conversion rounds. they take a .32 ACP and put it in a stainless steel .30-06 bored out shell. fires the .32 ACP nicely, I haven't tested the .30-06 to tokarev conversion but it is on my list... there is also a .30 carbine conversion . accuracy with the .32 is well into the range of rabbit at 50 yards and a solid .32 ACP hitting a rabbit will easily take it out. 220 grain .30-06 rounds would easily take out a grizzley, and a168 grain would take a caribou nicely. what am I missing. remmy 700 with pocket of .32 ACP .30-06, and some tokarev in there just in case I found a porcupine or a boo that needed shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:56:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Details please Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My custom CZ 527 M Carbine with shilen 6.5 grendel barrel. Lightweight and capable round that I could put quite a few in my pocket, and the rifle with scope only weighs 7lbs. Details please I had shilen make me a 20" stainless steel 6.5 grendel barrel for my cz527 in 7.62x39. Had the barrel swapped and headspaced the old 7.62x39 magazines work just fine in for the grendel and glass bedded it to the orginal walnut stock from the rifle. Slapped a harris bipod on it, and a primary arms 4-14, and its been a great little rifle for me. I think i'm going to swap to one of the SWFA variables soon though to step up the glass quality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 3:59:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On the road and well fed, you can do 25-30 miles a day if you're in excellent shape and not carrying to much and maintain it for weeks. Hard core through hikers do it for some sections. There are parts of AK where you'd be doing good to cover 5 miles a day. Add in poor caloric intake and the necessity to acquire those calories and things turn mighty bleak from a realistic perspective. We have a nice backpack loop here at Zalesky in OH. It's 25 miles and fairly hilly. I've done it in 9 hours a few times and that's hoofin' it with a day pack and no gun and I was in pretty good condition with plenty of calories. I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it again the next day. Most races we do (freestyle nav races) we have to plot our course to get the most control points we can. We figure 2 mph to gage our loop size for 12 hour races. (there is a lot of bushwacking and serious altitude changes) 24 hours we scale back to 1.50-1.75 depending on terrain. Sounds slow until you do it. Average back packers, on a trail, with good food will plan for around 12-14 miles a day. Some more, some less. We try to keep it under 10 for the scouts. General answer? ...It depends on a lot of factors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? You're not gonna average 3mph in AK, or most other places of wilderness. You're not gonna do it 12 hours a day for very long, living on what you can catch, either. Even in the best of seasons, living off what you catch generally sucks unless you get lucky enough to nail a large critter AND you know WTF you're doing to preserve it from everything that wants to take it from you, from flies to varmints to mother nature trying to rot it. What do you consider a reasonable foot speed and duration of march? On the road and well fed, you can do 25-30 miles a day if you're in excellent shape and not carrying to much and maintain it for weeks. Hard core through hikers do it for some sections. There are parts of AK where you'd be doing good to cover 5 miles a day. Add in poor caloric intake and the necessity to acquire those calories and things turn mighty bleak from a realistic perspective. We have a nice backpack loop here at Zalesky in OH. It's 25 miles and fairly hilly. I've done it in 9 hours a few times and that's hoofin' it with a day pack and no gun and I was in pretty good condition with plenty of calories. I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it again the next day. Most races we do (freestyle nav races) we have to plot our course to get the most control points we can. We figure 2 mph to gage our loop size for 12 hour races. (there is a lot of bushwacking and serious altitude changes) 24 hours we scale back to 1.50-1.75 depending on terrain. Sounds slow until you do it. Average back packers, on a trail, with good food will plan for around 12-14 miles a day. Some more, some less. We try to keep it under 10 for the scouts. General answer? ...It depends on a lot of factors. That's a lot of great info and sounds like you know what you're talking about . BUT......you're STILL having to survive for three months , so why spend it all walking ?? Find a nice spot with water and a view , some natural features to help against the wind and set up camp . Do a little fishing and hunting and store the meat out of reach of bears and such and relax a bit ........you're still there for three months |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:01:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alaska food cache, google it. Or you know, ask a homesteader. ETA - if a person who is stranded in the AK wilderness for 3 months isn't ingenuitive, what kind of rifle he has is not his only concern. (see Chris McCandless) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind any big game you kill if not eaten on the spot must be carried or defended from scavengers including bears. Alaska food cache, google it. Or you know, ask a homesteader. ETA - if a person who is stranded in the AK wilderness for 3 months isn't ingenuitive, what kind of rifle he has is not his only concern. (see Chris McCandless) IIRC He made it from april to mid august with a brick of .22 LR and 5 lbs of rice. Meals including an immature moose, lots of ptarmagin, and rabbits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:29:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC He made it from april to mid august with a brick of .22 LR and 5 lbs of rice. Meals including an immature moose, lots of ptarmagin, and rabbits. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind any big game you kill if not eaten on the spot must be carried or defended from scavengers including bears. Alaska food cache, google it. Or you know, ask a homesteader. ETA - if a person who is stranded in the AK wilderness for 3 months isn't ingenuitive, what kind of rifle he has is not his only concern. (see Chris McCandless) IIRC He made it from april to mid august with a brick of .22 LR and 5 lbs of rice. Meals including an immature moose, lots of ptarmagin, and rabbits. and he died in the end,. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:31:37 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? You ever walked up here!?!?! Look up "muskeg", then look up number of calories burned an hour walking, Simply walking on a flat ROAD for 12 hours will burn around 6000 calories( I would assume that a 50% increase for muskeg wouldn't be out of line). Now add in the basic requirement of 1200 calories (assuming you weigh 120lbs, a rough approximation is 100 calories for 10lbs of weight ), 3500 calories is a pound of butter(pure fat, as energy dense as you can get), so that is 2 lbs of butter per day for your 90 days of travel. A pound of king salmon is 800 calories(yeah that means 8 lbs of king salmon per day to keep that pace up, HAHA). You see any butter moose running around or you going to start out with 180 lbs of butter in a pack.(not to mention that carrying a 180lb pack would make your consumption rate of calories go up to about 1000 per hour) What about straight line? Having done land navigation here you cant go straight, while the river may be flowing you cant cross it due it's temperature being 40 degrees, or that it is partially frozen. There are areas up here where the road is the only sign of civilization for miles. You can travel up here but you need to do it smart, canoe, raft, ski (with sled), are all very viable ways to travel distance. Look up the locations of the native villages see how many are on rivers. Water, you going to walk a marathon and a quarter every day for 90 days on what a liter a day? Having done distance running with a 10lb pack ( I run self sustaining) I burn about a liter every 6 miles( hot days it goes to about double, really cold same). The remoteness of parts of Alaska is alarming from a survival standpoint. The ideal plan wouldn't bwalk out it would be boat out. majority of the settlements are on water, and water moves you faster than you can walk, way less work, water supply is there, fish are a potential proposition, and you have crops of hunters and fishers routinely plying the area for game your odds would go up significantly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:35:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ever walked up here!?!?! Look up "muskeg", then look up number of calories burned an hour walking, Simply walking on a flat ROAD for 12 hours will burn around 6000 calories( I would assume that a 50% increase for muskeg wouldn't be out of line). Now add in the basic requirement of 1200 calories (assuming you weigh 120lbs, a rough approximation is 100 calories for 10lbs of weight ), 3500 calories is a pound of butter(pure fat, as energy dense as you can get), so that is 2 lbs of butter per day for your 90 days of travel. A pound of king salmon is 800 calories(yeah that means 8 lbs of king salmon per day to keep that pace up, HAHA). You see any butter moose running around or you going to start out with 180 lbs of butter in a pack.(not to mention that carrying a 180lb pack would make your consumption rate of calories go up to about 1000 per hour) What about straight line? Having done land navigation here you cant go straight, while the river may be flowing you cant cross it due it's temperature being 40 degrees, or that it is partially frozen. There are areas up here where the road is the only sign of civilization for miles. You can travel up here but you need to do it smart, canoe, raft, ski (with sled), are all very viable ways to travel distance. Look up the locations of the native villages see how many are on rivers. Water, you going to walk a marathon and a quarter every day for 90 days on what a liter a day? Having done distance running with a 10lb pack ( I run self sustaining) I burn about a liter every 6 miles( hot days it goes to about double, really cold same). The remoteness of parts of Alaska is alarming from a survival standpoint. The ideal plan wouldn't bwalk out it would be boat out. majority of the settlements are on water, and water moves you faster than you can walk, way less work, water supply is there, fish are a potential proposition, and you have crops of hunters and fishers routinely plying the area for game your odds would go up significantly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most of the 185 Sky Wagons and Beavers I have flown on didn't have an emergency food supply that would sustain you. Trapping for food while hiking out wouldn't expedite your rate of travel. Walking out wouldn't be a cake walk even if you knew where you were headed. Icy stream crossings and muskeg don't make for fast foot travel. I read about a guy that left a road house near Circle to fish a lake and when he started back he took a "short cut" to avoid retracing his steps and get him around a swampy section of the trail He thought the stream he was following would join the main river beside the road. It did but in 200 miles. He walked out 67 days later and had lost 70 pounds. When reality sets in survival fantasies don't amount to much. I'm not sure what your point is here. Average 3 mph foot speed, walk a conservative 12 hours a day, for 90 days, and you've covered over 3000 miles. Cut it in half and you've still covered >1500 miles. Exactly what "survival fantasy" are you trying to debunk here? You ever walked up here!?!?! Look up "muskeg", then look up number of calories burned an hour walking, Simply walking on a flat ROAD for 12 hours will burn around 6000 calories( I would assume that a 50% increase for muskeg wouldn't be out of line). Now add in the basic requirement of 1200 calories (assuming you weigh 120lbs, a rough approximation is 100 calories for 10lbs of weight ), 3500 calories is a pound of butter(pure fat, as energy dense as you can get), so that is 2 lbs of butter per day for your 90 days of travel. A pound of king salmon is 800 calories(yeah that means 8 lbs of king salmon per day to keep that pace up, HAHA). You see any butter moose running around or you going to start out with 180 lbs of butter in a pack.(not to mention that carrying a 180lb pack would make your consumption rate of calories go up to about 1000 per hour) What about straight line? Having done land navigation here you cant go straight, while the river may be flowing you cant cross it due it's temperature being 40 degrees, or that it is partially frozen. There are areas up here where the road is the only sign of civilization for miles. You can travel up here but you need to do it smart, canoe, raft, ski (with sled), are all very viable ways to travel distance. Look up the locations of the native villages see how many are on rivers. Water, you going to walk a marathon and a quarter every day for 90 days on what a liter a day? Having done distance running with a 10lb pack ( I run self sustaining) I burn about a liter every 6 miles( hot days it goes to about double, really cold same). The remoteness of parts of Alaska is alarming from a survival standpoint. The ideal plan wouldn't bwalk out it would be boat out. majority of the settlements are on water, and water moves you faster than you can walk, way less work, water supply is there, fish are a potential proposition, and you have crops of hunters and fishers routinely plying the area for game your odds would go up significantly. So what you're saying is that the Op's initial proposition is hopeless and unrealistic? Why are you not yelling at him then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:36:33 PM EDT
[#47]
A Ruger Alaskan. ??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:37:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My custom CZ 527 M Carbine with shilen 6.5 grendel barrel. Lightweight and capable round that I could put quite a few in my pocket, and the rifle with scope only weighs 7lbs. Pic? I want to do exactly this but I don't know where to get the barrel or who can install it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:43:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i reread the op.... if i had to SURVIVE, for 3 months, with a firearm, in alaska... it would be a .12 guage pump shotgun... no second choice about it. slugs and buckshot for the bears, wolves, and other big critters... and shotshells for the bunnies and other edible small game. +1 to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2014 4:45:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stainless Browning A-Bolt 300mag w/Boss +1 Without the Boss on mine please. Hey, I have one of those! https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/p417x417/388905_2967791874955_997468408_n.jpg?oh=8268e001aeddd3af09d6a9d0797da5a9&oe=54CF2874&__gda__=1417978405_b79cecb08a49895a6738c4947196d28a lefty and all! 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
