Survivalist Handgun

[Dr Dirt]

I am going to by a handgun and would appreciate some recommendations. I am having a hard time deciding on which caliber to get, let alone the specific model. I am somewhat of a survivalist at heart so I have come up with the following criteria: 1) Reliable 2) Easy to get ammo even if things get bad 3) Easy to fix 4) Easy to get parts 5) Good for defense of my family and country.
Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[Mac Scott]

Dr Dirt,

This isn't my forum, but your question piqued my interest so thought I'd throw my two cents into the ring.

While I'm a 1911 kinda guy, I've always maintained that, if I should be allowed only one handgun, period!, that it would have to be an S&W Model 66 4" .357 revolver. A person could substitute any number of other models here (19, 586, 686, etc.)and be okay -- my favorite is just the stainless K-Frame.

Rationale? Ammo is available, in many variations and two different calibers, in just about any location on the globe. Not being reliant upon its ammo for its motive power (as is an auto), it will shoot everything from primed cases, blanks and shotshells through heavily-loaded magnums -- and do so repetitively.

In the right hands, and given the proper motivation of the moment, there is precious little that man fears that couldn't be taken or stopped with this gun.

It is small and light enough that it can (and, more appropriately, WILL) be carried regularly on the person without interfering horribly with other necessary gear.

It is simple and reliable; its basis has been manufactured in quantity, in various forms, for over half a century, meaning that parts will be available for it for a long time to come.

There are other reasons, but these are the first that come to mind. And, as an opinion, it is worth exactly what you paid for it (grin).

Regards,

----Mac Scott

 

[Hernan Peyras]

Go with a 1911. .45 is easy to get anywhere. Great stopping power. Plenty of parts. Easy to fix.

Just my HO.

Hernan

 

[Kodiac]

Even though I usual anwer "what gun" questions with "H&K", this time, and for the first time I will answer with RUGER. For .357 Mag, the GP-100 is an anvil. At my academy we had one to abuse (it was taken from a thug that was arrested in town). We threw it up in the air, against a brick wall, even ran over it with a patrol car... The thing still fired and reloaded with little trouble, and even if the rear sight did break off ( the only breakage on the gun) I still shot a qualifying score with it. Oh yeah it was dinged up bad... but it still worked. For your situation I would consider the GP 100, or go with another RUGER, in .44 Magnum, maybe a BLACK HAWK or RED HAWK.

 

[.]

Opinion: I'd opt for one of the new 10-shot S&W .22lr revolvers or an old H&R model 999 top-break revolver, in the same caliber.

Rationale: .22lr is *the* most plentiful production ammo on the planet. You can carry *lots* of ammo, compared to centerfire types. And since it isn't likely you'll be hunting bull elk in a survival situation, the .22lr will do just dandy for the predominate food sources you're most apt to encounter rodents, reptiles, fish and birds. Probably could make do with fingers and a small stick for the bugs.

If you envision a survival situation in any context of a dramatic shoot-out in an urban riot situation, then you want a battle gun, not a survival gun. The centerfire cartridges also tend to make lots of noise, and that *attracts* attention, which is great for signaling other folks where you are *if* that is desireable. If not, then a the report of the little double duece doesn't carry far, especially in wooded or mountainous terrain. IMHO these accurate little pieces are the way to go for a survival firearm, but *not* as the only piece of gear in your survival kit! If you only get to take one tool, then make it a knife!

 

[spark@onestopknifeshop.com]

I have to agree with Myki on this: the .22 is pretty hard to beat for a survival handgun. The S&W models, Colt Woodsmans or Ruger's are all very good.

I own a Ruger Government Model .22 (the only Ruger I'll ever own now) and while the barrel is way heavy, too heavy for survival use really, it's reliable and accurate. One brick of 500 rounds takes up very little room and comparitively little weight, and unless you can't shoot/have a bad firearm, it should be enough to keep you in critters for a while. Long enough to make it back to civilization at least.

Spark

 

[growlbear]

only one? well hard choice but for "survival" and not "combat" I would go with a 22 revolver or auto. My choice would be a S&W. accurate, easy to feed ( a brick of 22 is cheap and easy to come by) It wont destroy too much meat . But if your Idea of srvival is shooting something big(2 legged or 4) I would go with a 357 mag

 

[fal308]

Given any thought to the Medusa? It will shoot most any round with a .355-.357 dia. bullet? I don't have any experience with the gun though so I don't know about reliablily.BTW Popular Mechanics has a writeup on it. PM is the only non-gun magazine that I know of that carries positive articles on guns.

 

[JP]

I'd go with a S&W 686. You can shoot from light .38 wadcutters to heavy .357 magnum loads with it. It's accurate and very dependable right out of the box.

 

[Kodiac]

A .22? Hmmm... Yeah, I can see that. Last week when I had to dispatch a possum, I used a single shot .22 LR Remington Model 514. I loaded a round of Quik-shok - the one that breaks into 3 parts... Youve seen it. Any ways, that bullet performed BETTER than advertised. I couldn't have killed that ugly little beasty any quicker than if I used a Battle Axe. *POP* = Dead critter. Shot was center mass, thing didn't even spasm once. I've only seen that kinda effect out west on prairy dogs using a 6MM Benchrest Sako rifle.
Thats pretty dang potent. .22LR is no joke.

 

[Bottom Gun]

Although I like my S&W revolvers, I believe I'd go with a 1911 style pistol with a .22 conversion if it's within your means.
That would give you an accurate .22 for plinking, practicing, and small game hunting while still having a large caliber sidearm for serious business.
It only takes a minute or two to change back and forth.

 

[Bubba]

I've got a number of diferent toys around. But when the chips hit the fan, I'm reaching for the Python. The .38 & .357 ammo is plentyful. It shoots where I point it every single time. Time and time again I get on the range and start getting a little wild. I pull out the Python, shoot 15 or 20 rounds to settle myself and get the rest of the practice session back in the 10 ring.

There is something to be said for the .22 as well. Personally, I might opt to have the .357 in a handgun and then get a Ruger 10/22 or maybe even a Nylon99 rifle around for the reasons everyone else has mentioned.

My .02 cents.

Bubba

 

[Dr Dirt]

Thank you for your responses to my question. I very much enjoyed reading your recommendations. I am still undecided but you have narrowed down my focus.
I like the .357 revolvers, but the .22 revolver has made me think more. I do have a Ruger 10/22 which I love although I keep it at my dad's farm. He uses it all the time for pesky critters, so I hate to take it from him. He also has a .22 revolver which he bought in the early 50's when he had a trap line. It is a 9 shot, but I don't even know what kind it is. Anyway this .22 revolver still shoots great.
I read about the Medusa a couple months ago, and I really like it. It's suppose to be very accurate and shoot .357 and 9mm, etc. But I think the price was over $2000!
A 1911 .45 with a .22 conversion would also be a great way to go. The only thing holding me back is the higher price.
Thanks again.

 

[Mark Cook]

While the .22 has plenty of merit, I'd have to go with Kodiak's first post. My choice would be my Ruger GP-100 .357 Mag. When it comes down to your life, it's better to have too much stopping power than not enough. Remember that a "survival gun" must be useful for more than just shooting dinner. It should be adequate to protect you against predators (two-legged and four-legged) that want *you* for dinner (so to speak.)

I'll stick with my Ruger. (In fact, I deliberately rotate between my Ruger, my Glock 23, and my Glock 21 during Defensive Handgun practice and competition, so as to maintain as much flexibility as possible when it comes to pistolcraft mastery.)

Regards,

- Mark C.
Instructor, Willamette Small Arms Academy
EOD, U.S.M.C. 1st MarDiv (Camp Pendleton), Class of '75
Full-Auto Director, Albany Rifle & Pistol Club, Albany, OR
NRA (Life), SAF (Life), CCRKBA (Life)
Front Sight First Family member #1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
mark f. cook * mark cook consulting * shoestring graphics & printing
2055 s.w. whiteside dr. * corvallis, or, 97333-1406 * markc@ssgfx.com
Phone: 541-753-2732 Fax: 541-753-2738 http://www.ssgfx.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Rob Pincus]

I have a hard time to distinguishing between the hunting side of survival and the shoot-out side of survival. IF we were at the point where we were having to hunt and kill our own food for *survival*, It seems like we would also be in a position where we could expect other people who might want to take *our* stuff for their own survival. I would leave the .22s at home and grab the centerfire revolver. Allow me to throw my own little favorite in here. The S&W Model 19.

 

[Steve Koski]

Here Here Kodiac, Another vote for the Ruger GP-100 in 357 Mag, 4" barrel.

 

[Dr Dirt]

I am wanting a survival handgun that can be used for defense and for shooting small game (rabbits, squirral) and if need be a white-tail deer. For work, I travel to some remote rural areas. I have on occation found myself in a bad area of a large city. I try to do this as little as possible but sometimes I get lost and don't want to ask for directions
Is there any high powered .22 ammo that will work for defense?
Or should I get a .357 and use .38s for small game? Is the .38 ammo small enough?

 

[Kodiac]

Quik-shok - the one that breaks into 3 parts... You've seen it.

Very effective.

Of course the only truelly effective .22 for self defense is the Glock 22 IMHO.

 

[.]

Rob,

The scenario you propose is survival on a modern battlefield under conditions of anarchy. A survival pistol doesn't really make the grade here, neither does going it alone.

This does not mean that being prepared can't encompass both situations. It does imply, however, that good risk management requires addressing and remediating the most probabilistic risk first, then move on to those of less immediate probability.


[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited 10-28-98).]

 

[Kodiac]

You got about 14 months to get your risks managed too.