Thoughts on Compact Rifle for Hunting/Survival?

I've been looking at possible choices for a compact rifle that would be useful for general hunting/survival purposes. I'm thinking of game in the small-to-medium size, such as antelope or small deer (100-200 pounds). For this reason I don't want to go to calibers as large as 270 Winchester or 308.

It seems like there are some good choices for rifles in the 243 Winchester caliber, or the .30-30. For example, Browning makes a nice takedown rifle (BLR rifle) that comes in the 243 caliber. Recently, Henry Repeating Arms has just come out with a new lever gun in .30-30. Does anybody have any thoughts about the tradeoffs between these two calibers (243 Winchesteer and .30-30) in a wilderness setting? The 243 would give a flatter ballistic trajectory out to longer distances, but the .30-30 is a classic deer bullet for a lot of practical situations (100-150 yards).

I thought I'd post the topic to this forum - to get some practical comments. Gun owners often have very emotional loyalties and opinions on their own blogs.

the other Pete

While both the 243 and 30-30 rounds are well capable of cleanly harvesting small to medium sized game, from a survival platform perspective the 30-30 has a better advantage. Here's a couple reasons why:

It is sensible to keep the profile of a survival carbine as small as practical. For this reason, the addition of a telescopic sight to the platform is undesirable. While adding such a sight to any rifle will improve the range at which the firearm can be used, it is not essential for survival style hunting. Since a 30-30 is intended for ranges where open sight systems are proven effective, the need for an extended sighting capability with this round is greatly diminished. In the open range, the 30-30 is not as effective due to it's lower velocity. Bullet drop greatly reduces the MPBR (maximum point blank range) of the load, requiring sight adjustment or compensation with limited reliability. Additionally, a telescopic sight will be more prone to shock failure in rugged conditions, making it even less reliable in a survival situation. The advantages of the 243 cartridge are essentially negated in a survival situation. So even though it is more powerful and has a much longer effective range, the ability to wield it to its full potential probably cannot be realized practically.

Except for heavy brush environments, the 243 (with an energy level much closer to 308 than 30-30) can do what the 30-30 can do within the same range. The difference in apparent recoil between the two rounds from a similar platform will be negligible, and shot placement using iron sights within the capabilities of the shooter will have likewise minimal variance on terminal ballistics. Because the 30-30 shoots a heavier, larger bullet, it would be a superior brush gun, and would tend to deflect less if encountering light obstructions in flight.

I believe the number of firearms suited to transit and survival applications are greater for the 30-30 than for the 243. However, I would still recommend a bolt action 7mm-08 in a scouting configuration as the superior firearm to either choice above.

I can buy 30-30 ammo anywhere. The basic carbine is simple, easy to handle and very reliable.
Most deer shot here are got at about 50 yards, seldom more than 100.

I think you could find many calibers better suited, having no idea of where you are geographically or where you would wish to use this rifle mires the logic a bit. What works for the plains may not be suitable for the mountains or forested areas.
I think Thompson Center makes a great rifle that can break down easily, you can change barrels on it as well to suit the situation.
If you have millions of dollars a good drilling rifle offers the best of all worlds. Order it to suit your own peculiar wants, needs or desires.
If you are going to hunt antelope, I would think the 30-30 could be problematic in that it is a limited range cartridge and antelopes are a bit skittish. I would never consider hunting them without a scope equipped rifle.
As was mentioned before, equipping a rifle with a scope pretty much takes it out of the survival rifle category simply because of the inherent fragility of the sighting system. I also believe a scout configuration would be more practical, but my caliber preferences differ. YMMV.
I bet you will get as many opinions as you will answers.

For a "survival Rifle" check these out:


http://www.hr1871.com/Firearms/Rifles/youth.asp


- available in more calibers than most people know what to do with.

http://www.hr1871.com/Support/accessoryProgram.asp

Unless you have a way to process (preserve) the extra meat from a deer-sized animal, I would stay in the small critter range. For that reason I would stick to the Ruger 10/22 with a set of aftermarket peep sights. Other than that, I would go with a 12 gauge shotgun with a short, and legal, barrel length; very versatile.

Standard Disclaimer

My $.02

Are you looking for a hunting rifle (that you could use in a survival situation)? Or are you looking for a survival rifle that could be used to secure food in a survival situation?

If you are looking for a hunting rifle, either a 30/30 or a 243 would be fine. Both are very common so ammo is available. (I personally like the 6mm Remington over the 243 but ammo is not readily available for the 6mm - whole other story though).

If you want a survival rifle, I have to agree with MoBOB, Ruger 10/22. Ammo is: available, cheap (relatively), and light (you could carry a bunch of it). Not ideal for deer sized game but could do it (my uncle shot a mule deer in the 1940s on a dare with a 22 long rifle round because he and his buddy did not think a 22 could kill it, it did). A 22 will not absolutely destroy small game (e.g. rabbit, squirrel, etc) like a high velocity round (i.e. 243) will. Also, a 22 makes a lot less noise if consealment is an issue in a survival situation.

Aside from fighting off zombies or hordes of bad guys intent on doing you harm, I think a 22 is the best "survival gun" out there (could be used for self defense but there are many better choices for that). Next I'd pick a 12 gauge shotgun in pump action (e.g. Remington 870) and my third choice would be an AR-15 in 5.56 NATO. But none of these would be on the list "Hunting rifle for deer/antelop sized game".

Granted that a scope is relatively fragile, I would be inclined to start out with one, especially since my centerfire rifle already has a nice one. If it goes bad, I can easily remove it (giving me a couple of lenses for fire starting) and revert to the factory sights (which are sighted in). Fortunately, the rear sight is a peep, so I ought to be good for a bit more range than 50 yards.

I am with you in your preference for the 6mm Remington caliber. Good thing I like to hand load....

Like them both.

Pros/Cons:

.243 will shoot flatter and have longer over all range due to it's larger case capacity. I find it interesting that you say you don't want a .308, when a .243 is just a .308 case necked down to a 6mm bullet, but the .243 does generally have less felt recoil. Generally a bolt or break action, so cleaning is easy and you usually have a stronger action.

.30-30 can, has and will kill everything so long as you are within range. If you've got to take longer shots (200m+), then not your first choice, but for close range (<100m) it is a fine choice. Recoil is pretty minimal. Down side is that is generally a lever gun, which is harder to clean and usually a bit more crud sensitive. The tubular magazine limits you to non-spitzer bullets unless you are going to be single loading them.

But for survival, I find they are both too heavy for small game. A lever action in .44Mag that can handle the heavier hunting loads, if you've got a a light load in the chamber for bunnies, would probably do you just as well at short (<50m) ranges. Ammo is lighter, but it doesn't work so well if you've got wide open country.

Either that, or back it up with a good .22 pistol or carbine.

Marlin 1894c in .357 and a decent S&W revolver to go with it. Mutual ammunition, can be used with .38 Special or +P ammunition for training or smaller game. Packable, not as much as a breakdown rifle but it's pretty short (18.5" barrel) and not so heavy (6 lbs unloaded).

If you can't defend yourself with 9 rounds in the rifle and 6 in the revolver, you might as well give up.

If you're looking for more of a very small game, plinking type of rifle, the aforementioned Ruger 10/22 has to be about the best choice available. Small, lightweight, folding stock available depending on your location, enough other accessories and upgrades to make an AR shooter cry and the ammunition is the most widely available anywhere in the U.S. For defense purposes it's not ideal but then again, you can put 10 hollowpoints out the muzzle pretty damned quickly if you have to. You might not stop someone with 1 round but I sure wouldn't want to get hit by all 10.

For me, "survival rifle" means simple, foolproof, and bulletproof (i.e., "robust"). That rules out a scope, and semi-autos. Magazines are failure-prone too, so a tubular magazine is what I'd want. For robustness, I would look at lever actions and bolt actions. Install a tang sight (peep sight) for better sighting while still maintaining simplicity and robustness.

If you're looking for a .22LR, my choice in lever action would be the Henry H001 and my choice in bolt action would be the Marlin 981T. Both are tube fed, good quality, and inexpensive. .22LR would probably be my "one gun" choice for survival, but my thinking varies on this depending on the day I'm asked. Other good candidates are .22mag and .223 IMHO. If you're truely in survival mode, you'll most likely be hunting rabbits and other small game, so .22LR is fine. If you're surviving in a situation where you need to take larger game, you're in it for the long haul and I'd want more than one rifle to work with. Probably a higher powered springer air rifle, a .22LR, a .223/.243, a .270/.308/.30-06, and a 12ga/20ga. And a bunch of handguns too. And a thousand rounds for each caliber (quadruple that for the .22LR). And a Ford F-150 4x4 to haul all that baggage around in!

My advice is to pick a rifle that you like first and then choose from the available caliber options. For instance you won't have all the same caliber options in a lever gun as you would in a bolt gun. You will have fewer options with a pump or semi auto. Single-shots work best with rimmed cartriges. How much you like the rifle leads to how much you shoot it which leads to how well you shoot it, which is more important than caliber (within reason).
I prefer the 30/30 for my "light hunter". This is my first post so I hate to start off by disagreeing with folks but with good ammo and an accurate rifle it is more than a 100 yard gun. I also use a .44 magnum lever gun for deer. To compare the two, there is not much difference in their effect on game out to 150 yards. The 30/30 has the advantage past that. The ammo weighs about the same, but the 30/30 shoots flatter which makes 200 yard shots more do-able. So I consider it a better all-around gun.
leo

I think this last option is the best, hands down, although the .44 has its good points too. You can load it with shot cartridges. In the event of general collapse, a thousand primers, 2 pounds of powder and a bullet mould will keep you in business for a long time

First, I want to thank everyone for the comments so far. There have been a lot of good thoughts and observations in the responses. I am taking time to think about all of them.

One factor that I should have explained in my original post - is that I am also thinking about keeping the recoil of the rifle down to an acceptable level. That's because I would like the women in my family to be able to use the rifle if necessary (wife and daughters). It would be useful - as a last resort for defense - for them to be able to fire the gun in the direction of a threat. For this reason, a long gun has a better chance at accuracy for an inexperienced user. Likewise, the 243 and .30-30 calibers should be more than effective for the job ... if absolutely necessary. It's true, though, that a 44-magnum lever gun would achieve the same objective. Personally I don't think that the risk from "zombies" is all that high. But in the unlikely event that we encounter an animal problem (a bad dog or a sick cougar), it's important that the women in my family have a defense option. So part of my thinking had to do with keeping recoil at a moderate level.

Some folks mentioned Scout Rifles (see Wikpedia and look up "Scout Rifle"). It's hard to argue against such a good idea ... esp. a weapon that was devised by Jeff Cooper. I've got no problem with the Scouts and if I were the only user I would probably think about one seriously. My only objection there was that it's highly unlikely I will ever need to shoot big game, and the 308 caliber has too much recoil for the women in my family. But I'm not against the Scout Rifle - it's still a very effective design.

I expected that 22 Long Rifles would come up. And the folks here make a good point. In a real survival situation, wouldn't small game be more available? Yes ... it probably would. In addition, I realized that there's another fundamental reason for having a good 22 rifle around. It's what people use to LEARN shooting. So if I want the other members of my family to become comfortable with firearms, starting them with a 22 is a good way to go.

The moral of the story may be ... that there is no one weapon that offers a perfect solution. Hence having a 22 rifle (or pistol that fires 22LR), plus a higher-caliber rifle will greatly expand the options for survival, hunting & personal protection.

Thanks for all the comments so far.

other Pete

Just a thought. In addition to the centerfire caliber of your choice and the 22LR, I keep toying with the idea of a slingshot, mostly for taking small game. Cheap (even in snazzy versions), quiet, and an endless supply of ammunition.

If you like slingshots, you gotta check out Joerg's stuff on youtube. Do a search for the slingshot channel, his stuff is amazing.

Hikermor: I'm experimenting with hunting slingshots this year. And this discussion also reminded me to look at hi-power airguns too. These alternative weapons could be useful esp. for urban survival (small game & birds), where gunshots may not be a good idea.

other Pete

NightHiker: I'll think about what you're saying. Good shotguns are not expensive. I suspect that a 12-gage would be too much for the women in my family, but a 20-gage might be OK.

other Pete

One size fits all? Get a little smaller firearm than you might want so other folks can use it? Is that a good idea? Do you apply it to your hat, or your knife...or your underwear? Maybe each member of the family should find a firearm that suits them. Perhaps size may matters less than you believe. I know smallish women who choose .30/12 gauge, and largish men who prefer .243/20 gauge. I would not wish to have either group shooting at me with their chosen weapons. Redundancy is highly valued here, and no firearm is absolutely reliable. Having a variety of weapons in a variety of calibers could be more adaptable than having a single family gun. And now that the female hunting market segment is the fastest-growing in the country, so many weapons are available in lovely pastels...

All of the subsistence deer poachers back home hunted with .22 rimfires, and such were used in the slaughterhouse to kill full grown hereford bulls, if you didn't want to use the sledgehammer. It can be a pretty effective cartridge.

other Pete, check out Airguns of Arizona. If they don't have it, you don't need it.

There are such things as low recoil loads in 12 gauge, including slugs. I have no first hand experience with them, however. Hard to beat the 12 G for versatility.

Since lever action 30-30s are rather light, I doubt the recoil will much different than a 308.

Sounds like the women need some trigger time. The 308 recoil can be tolerated by most.

Also, think about an AR-15.

http://pakrifle.com/Pak-Rifle.html

If I could only have one firearm, it would be a shotgun; probably a 12 gauge pump. Small game, big game, birds in flight....as long as it's within a stones throw distance you will most likely be able to drop it with the correct load from a shotgun. Plus, shotguns are reasonably priced, shotgun ammunition is readily available in many varieties, it's plentiful, and it's comparatively easy to reload.

My second firearm, an AR15 style rifle along with a Spikes Tactical .22lr conversion kit (bolt assembly and magazines). .223 is very easy to shoot, small enough that you can carry a ton, accurate at longer distances than a shotgun, and packs enough punch to take care of just about anything in North America with well placed shots. With the conversion kit one can quickly adapt the rifle to shoot most .22lr ammo with reasonable accuracy for use against small game, or if you just don't need the full power of .223/5.56.

My choices are an attempt to cover the widest variety of situations though. If I knew where I was going and what I was doing in advance, I would probably choose something more tailored to the situation at hand.

Another tool that I think is often overlooked is the bow. Bows are quiet, have no harsh recoil to worry about, and have been used for a long time to hunt game in the Americas. As another upside, your ammunition can often be retrieved or you can make new ones with stuff you find in the wild, in some cases. Personally, for an unknown survival situation, I would probably take a good bow setup over most .22lr rifles.

There are lots of good suggestions in the above posts, though of course some of them contradict the others. For my own two cents I have to agree that a .22 rifle is the true "survival" rifle if you had to have just one.

Personally I prefer Marlins, and I keep an old-style wood-blued Marlin Papoose in its nylon carry case with a couple of extra factory magazines and a couple of boxes of CCI Stinger ammo. Light, discreet, perfect for small-game hunting and nasty enough to give two-legged predators pause.

I would also second the H&R/NEF Handi-Rifles if you need something in a larger caliber. Unfortunately they don't make one in 7.62x39mm as far as know (a case of cheap Russian ammo that gets used fast by and SKS or AK on the range lasts a looong time in single-shot). They do make models in all the calibers mentioned above and many more.

You haven't mentioned any military surplus rifles out there, but there are number that come to mind as perfect inexpensive hunting weapons that are also fine self-defense tools. The Mosin-Nagant carbines come to mind as they are cheap and rugged and surplus and commercial 7.62x54R ammo is easy to find. They are just fine as is (the M44 has an integral bayonet, the M38 and M59 never had them). The carbines are getting harder to find, but the long M91/30 rifles are still plentiful and you or any gunsmith can turn a $100 surplus rifle into a lighter, more accurate sporter.

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Cheers,

Matthew

Thanks for further replies.

JohnE: I'll take a look at the link for the air guns. I was just looking at pellet guns - mostly out of curiosity. They have come a long way since the old days when I was a kid and people used to shoot plain old BB guns. A .22 pellet moving at 1100-1300 fps is getting pretty lethal for small game. I could have really used one of those things just a few years ago. At that time I had a house with a bit of property - but located in a rural town in CA. The ground squirels got to be a real problem, and tore up the yard. My dog wasn't fast enough to catch them. A nice pellet gun might have really evened the score.

Other responders: I'm leaning towards a lever gun in .30-30 or 44 magnum. Probably about the right muzzle energy and range for the sorts of forested hills we have in CA. And enough stopping power to deal with a rogue animal or a cougar.

About my women folk - yes you guys are right on this forum. They need more trigger time. A Ruger 10/22 is probably a good solution.

Here's a link that I go to when looking at recoil forces / energies for weapons. But some folks here may disagree ... the numbers never tell the whole story.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

thanks,
other Pete

Leo,

Welcome newguy!!! It is great to have you around the fire. Do not worry about "disagreeing". You provided some great food for thought and your perspective. You kept it respectful and thoughtful. That is all we ask.

Again, welcome to the Forum and Happy New Year!!!

I think that's solid advice.

7.62x39 is going to be ballistically similar too and that opens up a lot of semi-autos for those so inclined.

IMO the shotty is going to be hard to beat for putting meat in the pot.

Welcome Leo!

Very very few airguns, if any, are going to get a .22 pellet to that velocity. Any that might lay claim to that velocity (no matter how bogus that claim may be) would cost you quite a bit more than a .22LR firearm. 600-900fps is more realistic for .22 pellets. .177 pellets can go faster, but they are smaller/lighter than the .22's. And remember that .22 airgun pellets are quite a bit lighter than .22LR rounds. .22LR run around 36-40 grains whereas .22 pellets are more like 8-16 grains.

Still, you can easily take rabbits, squirrels, birds, etc. with an air rifle. You don't need 1100-1300 fps

If I can add my $.02 to this topic...

I own a variety of guns, both long and pistol. I say look at the entire situation and then make a choice.

My shotgun will work great for defensive and close range hunting application. It will bring down an animal the size of a deer if you are close enough.

My 7mm mag will reach out and touch something at 500 yards and touch it hard enough to do critical damage - and I am talking ELK sized.

My AR-15 is a versitile firearm that has been proven in combat situations and can be used as a hunting rifle if things went bad.
I will also put into this catagory my Rugar mini 14. Everything above applies to it, but not as militaristic looking.

My ruger 10-22 is light, rugged and cheap to shoot. It could be used to slow down (or stop) a violent attack but I have used it to hunt many small game animals. With that being said, it could probably be used for non-flying birds (illegal).

My winchester 30-30 is a reliable carbine and is capable of fighting off bad guys (look at old west history) and is a very capable hunting rifle that I have used for intermediate - short range shots.

Now - the question is which one of these would I use in a survival situation? Again I say look at your situation. If society is crumbling down around you I would say all of them. If you are out on a hiking trip in the wilderness and you break your ankle, I would say your .22. If it is somewhere in between those two scenerios, I would say the one you are most comfortable and accurate with.

When it is all said and done, it is a personal choice. Become knowledgeable on numerous guns. Do research, go shooting, go hunting, talk to people - a lot of people. You will have so much information in such a short amount of time it will make your head swim. Then reveiw what you found out and go buy the gun that you want to use. If it turns out you dont like it, sell it and buy a different one (this is not a lifetime commitment). But for God sake these words never rang so true to a posting: To thine own self be true.

and that is my $.02

epirider: well said. I'll be taking this next year to try to get that experience.

haertig: I was only quoting what the Web pages on pellet guns are saying. Some high-power weapons are claiming .22 pellets at 1100-1300 fps. That surprised me too. But I couldn't tell you how factual those claims are, or how repeatable. One thing is for sure though ... you hit the nail on the head about COST. The high-power pellet guns are selling for $700-$1000, which is the same price as a nice quality rifle. That doesn't make any sense at all - unless people are just fascinated with air guns for their own sake. Anyway, it was just a curiosity for me.

other Pete

Sounds like many of us have the same problem. We can only manage to trim it down to our top four or five. LOL

There are air rifles that are powerful enough to hunt deer and similar sized animals that are legal to own in countries where firearms are hard to come by.

Expensive? Yep. Available? Yep. Legal? Yep.

Practical? hmmm...depends on your situation.

How about this. Get a shotgun in either O/U or double barrel configuration. Then get various adapters like .22 and 30-30 or 45-70 or 308 or pretty much and caliber. That way you have 3 choices depending on the situation. Also the shotgun is intimidating enough when it needs to be, but not out of place anywhere except in town. Just a thought.

"My only objection there was that it's highly unlikely I will ever need to shoot big game, and the 308 caliber has too much recoil for the women in my family."

It is for this reason I suggested the 7mm-08. All indications are it is mild enough even in a lightweight scout that it would be nearly as tolerable as a 243, shoot nearly as flat, but have superior terminal ballistics and better in the brush. Although Col Cooper never addressed the alternative to the 308, most from his program suggest it is quite capable.

The 22 lr is a good cartridge for practice and for taking small game, but faces too many limitations to consider it as effective as high power centerfire rounds. This is not to say it is useless, just too specialized. Someone proficient and sensible will be able to make the most of having a 22 for survival. It depends, too, on what you are trying to survive. For my consderations, a centerfire high power lightweight bolt action rifle makes the most sense. I wouldn't turn a 22 down if that's all there was, just not my first choice.

Benjammin: I'll take a careful look at the 7mm-08 before making a final decision.

In the mean time, I was looking at the .30-30 rifles by Marlin and they have a good contender in that caliber (a popular lever gun). So if I go that way, I just need to think a bit about barrel length (choice of 20 in, 22 in, or 24 in).

One nice thing I like about the .30-30 and 44-magnum calibers is that they do have some use for defense against big animals, provided they are fired at close ranges. If a bad situation happened with a rogue black bear, they do offer a last-ditch option for protection.

best,
other Pete

You bet Pete, there's nothing wrong with either the 30-30 or the 44 mag, both have been used extensively on medium size game with good effect. For survival I would favor the shorter barrel; more portable.

One thing to keep in mind, if you are getting a firearm that will be used by novice shooters, a lever action is not as easy to operate as a bolt action generally. While most people understand the basics of a lever gun, some of the safety features can be a bit troublesome, especially for smaller/weaker hands. We've had kids in class as young as 8 years of age that can effectively shoot the 243 in a bolt action, and I am sure they could manage the 7/08 just as well.

I don't think there's a bad choice if you consider the intended use well. Even the 22 lr is an effective round for survival, as many will attest to here. So long as you keep in mind the limitations the round and the gun will have, you won't make a mistake. Someone was once quoted as saying "use the biggest, most powerful cartridge you can manage", and that is a fairly important statement, for it does not matter how powerful the cartridge is if you can't hit anything shooting it.

Benjammin: I just took a look at the 7/08 cartridge. I was really unfamiliar with that round. But after checking on the ballistics and performance - that is really an excellent bullet! Furthermore, I also noticed that Browning offers a lot of their hunting rifles in 7/08. So this choice for a general purpose hunting/survival caliber moves into my #1 spot now. Thanks very much for the recommendation.

other Pete

No worries, I believe they even offer it in their BLR lever action model, which allows the use of pointed tip bullets IIRC. I am a big Browning fan as well.

If you go that route, let us know what you think once you get the gun. I'd be interested in more feedback.

My mom was a petite 5'2" and used a 7x57 ai (which is similar
to the 7mm 08) to harvest a lot of deer and antelope.
Her's was in a short action remington bolt, 20 inch barrel, with a 4 power scope and
was suitable for both the plains of Montana and the mountains
of Idaho. I have hunted large pigs with it, my mom once
shot a maurading bear, and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a elk
with it.

Guns in general: You get what you pay for. Sometimes you get a gem, sometimes a lemon. If you can, try before you buy. You didn't mention budget, so some of this might be unreasonable.

Any manufactuer names or model numbers I mention are individuals or companies I have no financial interest in, nor am I associated in any way with, other than as a satisfied customer in certain cases.

Every gun person has opinions, and some have knowledge. Here's some of mine. It is up to you figure out where or if it fits in your world.

I've know little 5'2" females shoot 44 magnum handguns and 375 medium bore rifles just fine, and 6'2" big framed men gun shy with a 12 gauge. I submit a good shooter needs to shoot more than 3 rounds the weekend before hunting season. 300 over a couple month span, maybe. Learning the proper way to hold a weapon, and how to properly control the recoil goes a long way to what an individual can tolerate. With a hand bedded action and free floating barrel, most rifles shoot better than the person behind them can hold.

Here's something you might have never considered: snares might be more effective that any firearm, pound for pound. Legal or not, in a real survival situation, I'd take snares over a firearm. It's an effective force multiplier. websearch buckshot snares for pre-made ones.

The distances I discuss below are what I personally would feel comfortable taking a deer sized animal at, based upon my knowledge of ballistics, the un-customised rifle models or shotguns I have used in those calibers, and factory ammunition.
In some cases I may know enough about a load to be able to 'lob' a bullet because I may have shot hundreds of rounds of that particular load to know how it will perform in MY rifle.

Your results will vary.

Shot placement is more important at normal hunting ranges (under 500 yards) than bullet weight, velocity, or anything else. If you hit the target and penetrate into the heart, brain, spine, even with a non-expanding solid, it's down. Lung shots often entail tracking the animal for awhile.

Having said that, are you in the market for an off the shelf weapon, or a customized one ?

Can you legally use a rifle in your state for hunting (whatever ?)

A 12 gauge has a lot going for it, close in. With a slug barrel and scope, maybe 175 yards max. change the barrel and its good for birds. 12 gauge is kind of a universal weapon, ammo is inexpensive compared to rifle ammo, in a survival situation there are even flares available. Knoxx Compstock goes a long way on recoil reduction. Many manufacturers out there. I recommend a pump over anything else.
bird or slug barrels are relatively cheap and easy to interchange.

if you can use a rifle,
reasonable odds are it will see a lot more day hunting trips than expedition hunting. Shaving weight off a rifle increases the price exponentially both from a materials and manufacturing point of view, and a decreasing market share point of view.

I'm not going to discuss the ethics of taking game at long distances, if you, the shooter has not had enough experience firing at the distance the game is at, don't send that round.

when you properly fit a stock, glass bed the action, free float the barrel, you increase the distance the rifle is theoretically accurate at by hopefully mitigating stressors on the barrel, and the human behind it.

Action design:
Leverguns are not possible to really freefloat the barrel or bed the action, therefore they may have some accuracy problems at long distances due to barrel harmonics. Changing wood to Kevlar helps.
Boltguns can have the actions bedded and barrel freefloated.
Both can usually have muzzlebrakes added, and the stock properly fit and a good recoil pad added. There are two common bolt gun designs out there, the mauser type controlled round feed, and the remington push feed. both are good. If you were hunting dangerous game, the mauser type is preferred by most guides/PH's who don't use a double rifle. Most american sniper rifles use
actions based upon the Remington action to some degree.

Cartridges:
243 Win is a classic eastern whitetail cartridge. Good out to about 450 yards if the person can hold it.
It's never been a military cartridge, so it can travel to places where civilian posession of military cartridges are banned (africa, anyone?) Doesn't kick too bad. disadvantages, ammo is expensive, and barrel life is short. I wouldn't hunt medium skinned game with it. Deer, antelope OK, elk or bigger, No.

308/7.62x51 NATO, militaries have and continue to use this cartridge, so there are some countries you cannot take it hunting. Advantages include a large selection of factory loaded ammo, from 55 grain sabots to 220 grain thumpers, with 155 grain and 168 grain being 'standard' and 173 being typical 'match' loadings. Bullet selection is important, and everything from varmints to brown bear has been killed with a 308. Surplus ammunition is available. Nothing makes me warm and fuzzy like a sealed case, just in case. Reloading components are easy to obtain. Recoil is manageable, but: restocking the action to one that fits correctly, addition of a good recoil pad, and adding a muzzlebrake goes a long way to adapting something to cover both intentions. Some mass manufacturers sell them with a muzzlebrake, bedding the action and freefloating the barrel gets the most bang for the buck if you think you're going for a long shot.
Very few cartridges are as versitile as a 308, either. The Palma matches are shot at 800,900,1000 yards with the 308 cartridge and open sights. For an off the shelf one that can be rapidly adapted to an individual shooter, look at Tikka. Some models have a spacer adjustable stock, and have a threaded muzzle for a muzzle brake.

7-08 is an attempt to get more velocity out of a 308 by going to a smaller bullet, moving faster, with higher B.C. bullets at the same mass. It's a semi-wildcat cartridge, and regardless of how many manufacturers offer a chambering, it's still not likely to ever be available at a resonable price in bulk compared to a 308. I do not see the slight advantage of velocity and B.C. outweighing the advantages of the versatility of a 30 caliber tube. I often refer such former wildcats as a solution in search of a problem. very few were more sucessful than the parent cartridge. that said, here's a few notable exceptions.
30-03/30-06 I think #1 in number of US manufactured rifles chambered until the 5.56mm overtook it somewhere in the 1980s ?
22-250 savage, 220 russian/22ppc,6mmPPC, 6.5x284 winchester. used for varmint, benchrest, and long distance, respectively.

With all due respect to benjamin, in his post, I do not agree with a choice of a 7-08. It has a lot of negatives, and the positives it does have can be satisfied by relatively inexpensive modifications to rifles with much better capabilities and ammo availability.

30-06, parent case of many, many other cartridges. Still sometimes considered a military cartridge, sometimes not. Comparable to 7.62x54, 303 british.
Classic deer cartridge, enough to kill anything in north america out to 500 yards short of moose or bear, with heavy loads, those are harvestable at shorter ranges as well. It's kind of fell off the wayside with the gunrag hyped ubersuperduper mags of late. recommend a good brake, bedding the action and freefloating the barrel. done right, it's like a 243 in recoil.
ammo is readily available and surplus can be found for practice.

30-30, legacy of a bygone era, with a thin metal buttplate, mine kicks like a mule. Replace the wood and metal with kevlar and a recoil pad, easy to shoot. Not good beyond about 300 yards, and I hesitate beyond 200. beware of top ejectors and scope use.

45-70, another legacy. but.. with good semi-factory loads, and a muzzlebraked gun..no worse than a 308, and will take anything in the world with proper loads. examine the Marlin 1895 guide gun. reach out to maybe 300 on non dangerous game.
commonly seen where there be bears about.

compact takedown 45-70 levergun: look up Jim West, Wild West Guns in Anchorage, Alaska. called the Co-pilot, for a very good reason. He also does very lightweight expedition rifles.

Levergun with pointy bullets. Winchester 1895 has been
chambered in 7.62x54R,303 british, 30-06,30-40, and 405win.
here's a levergun that you can shoot pointy bullets in, as it doesn't have a tubular magazine. 405 has taken every big game animal on earth. doesn't kick awfully bad in 405. 350 yard gun in 405, longer on 30-06.
You can find them available in take down, and scope mounts are available. One of those with a good brake on it might be a good choice for an all around levergun, particularly in 30-06. Hang a good 3-9x scope on it (Sightron, on the low end, Nightforce on the high end) and go hunting.

That being said, if you're not in the market for a high end gun, a remington 700 from wal mart isn't a bad choice if you keep it under 300 yards in a 243 or 308 chambering. I would however, go with a good scope. Sightron is a good one for the money.
avoid cheap scopes. period.
A Marlin 1895 in 30-30 or the guide gun in 45-70 with the brake are also good choices. Mossberg 500 slug gun, I'd put a knoxx compstock on it before firing heavy slug loads.

for some drool fuel, at the high end, Ed brown, wild west guns ultralightweight expedition rifles,Or WWG co pilot in 457 ww magnum. Take down bolt gun, HS precision. Then price a nightforce scope.

whatever you get, shoot it enough with your chosen hunting ammunition so you know how it performs at your hunting distances.

I carry salt, pepper, tobasco, a firesteel, some snares, and an early Fairchild/Armalite AR-7 with a box of 22 stingers in my day pack. In the unlikely event I find myself in a surivial situation I think I might eat better, longer that way. My hunting rifle chambering is always sized to take care of the biggest problem animal I might encounter, and it depends on where I'm going, what I'm hunting, and how far I plan on walking.

I am in no way advocating snaring (or poaching, hunting out of season, and so on) as a way to procure game animals for anything other than a genuine survival situation.

Another fan of the Ar-7. How nice to meet you. This would be my first choice in a survival situation, most likely used as a single shot, although I do have extra magazines.

My centerfire rifle is a relatively lightweight carbine (Rem 600) in 6mm Rem caliber - a fairly obscure cartridge very similar to the 243. That situation doesn't bother me - I handload.

I would advocate that practice for anyone serious about using their firearm in adverse circumstances. It isn't that hard; our grandparents handloaded around a campfire, at least when melting lead for bullets. Simple hand tools are all you really need. I find handloading almost as much fun as shooting.

The American military has two projects to produce rifles using caseless and polymer-cased ammo and they are supposed to be making good progress with the guns becoming available this year. Ammo that's half the weight would be very useful in a survival situation.
The Sock

hikermor: The real early fairchild ones are better in my opinion than any of the successors..which often only function single shot. and nothing wrong with a 6mm, if you handload..if you don't, then there might be issues with the care and feeding of your 600.

I often take a montana 1999 in 300 win mag (anything other than bear), or a mauser 3000 in 375 H&H (bear, moose, elk)as my primary for most hunting I do, with one of those WWG co-pilots for brush hunting in the swamps(hog).

TheSock: 2 issues with that. 1) civilian ammunition availability, 2) civilian weapon availability. Look at the FN 5.7 mm history for information on that, or the H&K G11 4.73 mm.
It's a great idea, kind of the top prize for weapon developers, short of a hand held plsama gun, but even if it went through testing and trials at aberdeen, ft. benning, and eglin, it might never be manufactured. I assume you mean the AAI LSAT project and the follow on contract..I missed the SHOT show in vegas this year, they might have had something at their booth to play with and to shoot on press day.

If I didn't handload, I think I would stick to military or ex-military calibers. Years ago, I walked into a hardware store in the booming metropolis of Bowie, Arizona. They had every military cartridge from 45-70, 30-40 Krag, on up. Look at how common 223 is now.

Greytruck444.
Yes I am talking about the LSAT project. They say they have made 'tremendous progress' and it might be out this year. But as you point out: it's not a certainty. Hence my 'supposed to' caveat.
A lot of the reason the best equipped forces in the world has a 50 year old rifle design is that the US military keep having trials that don't produce anything better.
Just thought I'd mention it in case everyones rifle is out of date six months from now...
The Sock

TheSock: There are a multitude of reasons the U.S. sticks with the basic M16/AR-15 design, mainly revolving around money. It's a 'cheap' weapon system, and it's firmly entrenched in all branches.
There are several designs that are probably better in some circumstances.
The M14 comes to mind, and it's older than the M16.

If such a weapon was completely proven, and somehow able to be able to be funded for procurement, and if the congress would leave it alone, and so on..
It would be perhaps decades before the US eliminated the M16 platform for all the front line troops and Guard units.

I submit the biggest single problem with the AR isn't the gas system, it's the chambering. It was designed as a weapon for airforce security guards, not for precision targeting at 600 yards + as is seen in Afghanistan. I don't know what an ideal chambering would be, but I don't think the 5.56mm is adequate for the conflicts we are encountering anymore.

And 50 year old design..Remember, we're still flying the B-52, and it was supposed to be obsolete and scrapped 30 years ago. Pilots retiring now realize they're flying a plane their dad or grandfather flew. We still fly the C-130 and KC-135, also in similar situations

FYI, 'Tremendous Progress' might simply mean they fixed the problem of melting propellant, which locked up the weapon during chambering, or the primer tape sliding off. Just remember, everything they release is propaganda to help secure their next round of funding. When I see the procurement contract on the Defense Industry Daily or Defenseworld, then I'll believe them.

I also think if such a weapon was to be successfully developed, it would never be allowed for civilian sale, strictly due to the fact there wouldn't be any shell casings left laying around for evidence, current shellcatchers notwithstanding. That would severely limit the market. If the lawyers keep entrenching themselves further into the military to the point it cripples operational effectiveness and are second guessing every little detail, they wouldn't let such a weapon be deployed. Might hinder prosecuting a soldier doing his or oher job.

I could easily see a heavy material, such as brass, being replaced with some form of high temperature plastic, or nito based smokeless powder replaced with a designer plastic explosive propellant. The hardest thing to eliminate in a caseless design is the primer, and that's the rub.
Only logical thing I can think of there is a disposable single use magazine. but even then, shock sensitivity might play a role.

Actually I was implying no criticism of the M16 at all by '50 year old rifle design'. A lot of people rate the 1911 Colt .45 as the worlds best pistol. And it's a century old. People are certainly still winning competitions with it.
You could hand a modern rifle to a 1916 doughboy and he'd be able to use it with a little examination. Firearms development seems to have reached a peak for the moment.
I'm as sceptical as you are of anything someone needing funding says. But thought it was worth mentioning if you were thinking of equipping yourself.
I'd feel stupid if I'd done the modern equivalent of buying a load of muzzle loaders in 1861 to find the North was massacring the Confederacy with repeaters a few years later.
By the way; they are following two lines of research; caseless and polymer-cased as I said in my first post. So your thoughts on replacing brass with plastic are being pursued. Mechanically it could be identical to an M16; but made of something that didn't need brass to eject a lot of heat along with the casing. Or maybe they'll come up with a plastic that's as good a heat sink. Apologies if this is nonsense. I'm no engineer.

The Sock

I'll simply say I believe there is a reason that a lot of AR-15 manufacturers are pursuing gas piston technology.

If the heat never really gets a chance to flow through the brass casing before it's ejected..or if the casing acts as an insulator, things are good. The heat problem with the existing AR platform is due much more to the gas impingement system heating the bolt and carrier than the cartridge being fired.
This will not mean the barrel itself will not soak heat up, but the chamber is a lot cooler on a piston gun.
Some plastics may be suitable. Whether or not they could be made to fit the existing 5.56mm chamber/throat geometry is a different matter. My gut says probably need much thicker sidewalls, and thicker cartridge web, so it wouldn't work without throating the chamber. Which means likely rebarrelling, as the barrels are chrome lined per mil-spec.
Bottom line, is how much weight is being saved. Is bulk being increased ? End result will probably be a new AR looking weapon
with a different chamber and magazines.

A plastic casing means no reloading. Some of the casing will ablate and change the structure, probably to an unsafe condition.

As an aside, muzzle loaders..look up Harry Melville Pope.

The US Civil War. little known fact. outnumbered, outgunned, outsupplied southerners killed or wounded
30% more union troops than casualties they took during the War of Northern Aggression.
A lot of people might be glad that the south didn't have a lot of Henry, Spencer, and Whitworth rifles. What they did have is people who knew how to shoot and scoot.

For what it's worth, I have a degree in chemical engineering, and I work with certain companies in the firearms industry.

I know I'm so far off topic that I'm going to suggest starting a new thread for future discussions about this.

Yep, the 7-08 isn't the most common of rounds. If economy and availability are a factor, then the 308 would be a far better choice. We were offering a proven upgrade to the 308 in a scouting rifle in terms of down range performance and felt recoil from a common platform. There are certainly myriad other factors to consider, but we agree with the late Mr. Cooper that for a light, effective field rifle, a decent bolt action in 308 or 7-08 is quite desirable, again sighting whichever preference in those conditions are the higher priority for the intended shooter. A 5 lb bolt action rifle shooting a high power centerfire cartridge in this class is certainly not for everyone. For a moderately experienced field shooter, it is of significant interest, as are all the other examples given in this thread for varying shooting situations and conditions, and even shooters.

I have a savage over under combi i think model 101? 20 ga under with 22 mag on top. pretty much covers anything you will run into.
as for a 22. my father used to poach deer back in the forties exclusively with a 22 LR just made head shots. very effective

I also like the Savage over/under combo gun, mine is a Model 24 Camper in .22LR x 20ga. it can be seen in the pictures in this ETS Post from last May. I find it a very effective and versatile tool for the woods tromping I do. Mike

I'm a fan of military surplus firearms, mostly because I'm a college student and just can't afford much, yet I'd still like a fairly robust and reliable firearm. Additionally, I enjoy target shooting and plinking and surplus ammunition makes that affordable.

For that reason, I tend to prefer them when considering firearms to carry for hunting / survival, but of course other rifles (like lever action, etc) would certainly do.

A shotgun or .22 would probably put the most food on the table at the end of the day.

For medium sized game out to 200 yards or so, just about any intermediate powered round would do... it comes down to how handy the firearm is.

At that range optics may not be necessary, but I still like them. So long as there are iron sight backups immediately available, I'm not too worried about durability in a survival scenario.

If money were no object (yeah right!) and I wanted a firearm to take small game, I would be happy with a PS90 in short barreled configuration. You have a very compact and handy firearm firing ammunition in the same class as .22 magnum, so coyote / hog / deer sized targets are plausible in a pinch. Has an optic as well as iron sight backups. Include a flashlight to help locate smaller game in twilight or darkness. I like semi-automatic, and 50 rounds in a magazine simply means I can leave it in there and don't have to worry about it for the duration (bringing a spare of course should magazine issues occur).

Then again... I suppose a 10/22 or AR-7 could do 90% of that at 1/8th the cost