I have a friend who has the opportunity to go on the trip of a lifetime to the Alaska Bush Country to help build some community buildings (school/churches) for some research teams that will be living way up north for several years.
They will not be hunting but given where they will be the team is being advised to bring some form of portable firearm for wildlife protection.
Here is the odd thing. The organization that puts this group together gave a list of suggested firearms and their primary recommendation is a 10 MM semi auto with the suggestion to purchase and bring common spare parts such as recoil springs and firing pins. They specifically called out the Glock 20 along with what parts to bring back ups of.
I have not see the documentation although I asked for a copy. This seems odd to me as I would have suggested a 44 mag revolver for this kind of work. According to my friend the thought process outlined in the documentation is that a semi auto is easier to work on and fix broken parts than a revolver and where they will be the ability to get to civilization is less than ideal.
I have never thought about a survival situation quite like this before but now that I do it kind of makes sense. Most items on a semi auto are replaceable with limited skill out in the wild. If you break an ejector or crane on a revolver or your timing is out of whack how likely is that to be fixable on your own with limited tools?
I have always assumed revolvers were my preferred survival type firearm and now I'm second guessing. Does the above thought process make sense to all of you? I have far more experience with Revolvers and Semi's.
They will not be hunting but given where they will be the team is being advised to bring some form of portable firearm for wildlife protection.
Here is the odd thing. The organization that puts this group together gave a list of suggested firearms and their primary recommendation is a 10 MM semi auto with the suggestion to purchase and bring common spare parts such as recoil springs and firing pins. They specifically called out the Glock 20 along with what parts to bring back ups of.
I have not see the documentation although I asked for a copy. This seems odd to me as I would have suggested a 44 mag revolver for this kind of work. According to my friend the thought process outlined in the documentation is that a semi auto is easier to work on and fix broken parts than a revolver and where they will be the ability to get to civilization is less than ideal.
I have never thought about a survival situation quite like this before but now that I do it kind of makes sense. Most items on a semi auto are replaceable with limited skill out in the wild. If you break an ejector or crane on a revolver or your timing is out of whack how likely is that to be fixable on your own with limited tools?
I have always assumed revolvers were my preferred survival type firearm and now I'm second guessing. Does the above thought process make sense to all of you? I have far more experience with Revolvers and Semi's.
) Though generally moose didn't need to be shot nearly as often as bears....