Ultralight Rifle

You guys that are mocking Kutenay don't know him like I do.

Sure, he is opinionated, but aren't we all to some extent?

Before you criticize him and berate him from your cubicles, you may want to evaluate where he is coming from and what he has lived through in his 60 + years. Try looking at things from his perspective before you criticize him.

I've learned a lot from him over the past five years and he's always been a man of his word.

Perhaps his being from an older generation of folks makes him hard to relate with for some of you.

The more I think about the Pak-Rifle the more excited I get. For the weight of a day's worth of food I can have a rifle! Shoot, even if you went out for a week and only had one decent day of "hunting" the rifle would pay for its weight. When you consider the other rifles that people have mentioned, well, there's no comparison. It's like comparing a ULA Ohm to an old Dana Terraplane. Yup, they're both great backpacks. And they're both totally different packs for totally different purposes.

I don't fish, but I'd imagine that if you pulled together a basic rod, reel, tackle and box you'd be around the same weight for fishing gear or the Pak-Rifle. If nothing else, this could just be a fun, light addition to a pack. I'm really intrigued.

Anyone who sees a 16-ounce .22 rifle and thinks "grizzly" or "self-defense" or "moose" or "everyday beater utility rifle" is probably either nuts or foolish. With respect to the utility of a .22 rifle for small game, I've put a lot of meat in my belly year 'round. I'm not a great shot, but decent, and I use a middle-of-the-road .22 with an exceptionally modest scope to routinely drop squirrels and other small game. As it happens, I do know quite a lot about the life I've led in the boreal forest.

Charles, with respect to your comment "Before you criticize him and berate him from your cubicles, you may want to evaluate where he is coming from and what he has lived through in his 60 + years. Try looking at things from his perspective before you criticize him…" I'd say that perhaps he should take the same advice. He criticizes any and all comers without considering their years of experience or perspectives. Therein lies the problem. He thinks only and purely of his experiences and geography; he makes a mockery of himself in doing so. I do respect his experience and knowledge, but for community forums to work well that kind of respect needs to be mutual… the proverbial two-way street. Dewey isn't the only one with "real backcountry" knowledge, and there's a lot more backcountry than just the stuff out in Alaska and BC. His experiences are far, far from being the only valid ones… a point which seems to escape him. Talking about the effectiveness of an ultralight .22 rifle against stopping bears is completely contrary to the obvious intent of the product.

It's like we all learned as toddlers: If you don't have something nice (or constructive) to say, then keep it to yourself.

David, thanks for the OP! I can't begin to afford one of these (although it's technically pretty inexpensive for a custom rifle), but I would love to be able to add one of these rifles to my pack. I kind of wonder about the durability of the action, but it's not like this is a regular plinking rifle, either…

I've actually taken a .22lr into the wilderness for survival and to live off of the land. This was back in the 70's when lightweight backpacking food was considered a can of beenie weenies. I would live off of the land for months at a time with nothing but my beloved .22lr and a box of shells. I also built a small log cabin for shelter. I remember one time after I shot a rabbit there was a big black bear that came wondering over to see what was going on while I was skinning the rabbit. This bear must have been over 300 pounds. It came running at me at full charge and I knew it was about to attack. As soon as it got in front of me he stood up onto his hind legs and was at least seven feet tall. With no other choice I raised my .22lr and with a steady aim BAMMMMM a shot right to the ding dong. I sure was glad to have a .22lr with me on that trip.

Someone mentioned the lack of a trigger guard earlier.
I really don't like the idea! I realize that if you were careful and kept the safety on and follow all the rules you should be OK…but it looks like the trigger could easily snag on clothing, etc.
I'd love to know what an actual user feels about it.
I get one if the price were more on par with typical .22s.

Hummm … shooting a Bear in the Ding Dong ….

I can see a whole new thread coming out of that one!

New Bear defense tactic ….. only carry a .22 in the wilderness!

Tell me, what reaction did you have from the Bear?

This was his reaction

]

Why does this subject always get people all up in arms?

Dewey, could you recommend me a rifle for deer hunting?

Some of the cons mentioned sound a lot like the arguments
made against using ultralight shelters and such

IE "you risking your safety by going so light!"

Well said David. As I stated earlier in this thread, Ultralighters should know that ultralight gear usually sacrifices something for the weight savings. By being careful with our gear and using common sense, we can deal with those issues.

As soon as I have the extra funds to spend, this rifle is at the top of my list.

"Some of the cons mentioned sound a lot like the arguments
made against using ultralight shelters and such

IE "you risking your safety by going so light!""

True.
However, if I snag my lightweight shelter or pack on a bush it tears.
Bump an unprotected rifle trigger and it could kill you or someone else.
I just happen to think that the trigger guard is a pretty essential safety component on a gun. I guess this gets into a whole other debate.

Cheers.

"Bump an unprotected rifle trigger and it could kill you or someone else.
I just happen to think that the trigger guard is a pretty essential safety component on a gun. I guess this gets into a whole other debate."

Craig,

I agree that it should have one, but as I mentioned above, for many, many years single shots and double barreled shotguns have relied on the fact that they are carried unloaded and unassembled which makes them safe for carry.

Until they are assembled they are inoperable and they are never assembled or loaded until you actually have something to shoot (i.e. seeing the old guys carrying double barrels with the breech open and only snapping it closed once their dog has pointed).

There are better and more flexible options which are more tested.

Springfield Armory M6 Survival Rifle. Parkerized, 2.5 pounds with a .410 and .22LR which stores ammo on board. $300-$400.

Enjoy.

Well, I am in too fine a mood today to respond to some of the comments about me posted when I was at the dogshow we attended and brought home our 20 mo. old Rottweiler female, with a huge trophy plus a medallion to add to her ribbons won in her previous outings.

This was good, in itself, however, since my beloved "Axel", an absolutely fabulous Rottweiler male died last March, I have been looking for a good male to take over his duties as a guard at our home in Vancouver. He and his massive brother, "Woden" had done a "convincing" job of keeping the local creeps away from our home and my wife finds this most comforting when I am away in the bush.

So, today, I met "Cisco", a great 2 year old boy, given up by a couple who could not handle him and keep their careers going, as well. The breeder has several top winning stud dogs and cannot use him and after being given a reference by our usual breeder, we purchased "Cisco" for a VERY fair price and he will come home to us soon…..nothing I love as much as Rottweilers and I am just totally thrilled.

So, to the question concerning deer rifles, it depends, as so much of the endless gear discussions do, on where you hunt deer. If, you hunt in areas, such as S.E. Alaska, with large and oftimes truculent Grizzlies around, you would carry a rifle fully capable of dealing with them and this is the case here in BC, as well.

In regions which do not support such apex predators, your choices are many and personal preference enters into it more, I mostly use a very light, custom Husqvarna HVA with steel bottom metal, a Brown Precision Kevlar stock, 1.5×6 scope and it is a 7mm Mauser, shooting 140 Noslers at aboutn 2750. I have shot quite a few deer with this since I had it built nearly 20 yrs. ago and it is ideal.

Any light rifle with a decent 4x scope, I like Leupold and Zeiss and have had about everything available, in a 6.5 to .308 bore with a 125-180 gr. bullet at 2500-2900 fps.-mv. will do any deer hunting anywhere and be easy to carry and not hurt you with recoil. You can find very good deals on guns and scopes these days on 24Hr., Kifaru.Net and Accurate Reloading for Americans and on a couple of Canadian forums here in Canada.

Keep it light, simple, use ONLY ONE load and learn to shoot so that you can put five shots into five inches standing at 100 yds.,quickly and consistently and you will do just fine. I often use a fine Merkel drilling or a Miroku O/U combo gun as I can take either Grouse or Deer or Turkey in our seasons and I only hunt for meat, so, these work for me. HTH. I suggest joining AR to discuss this further as it is getting a bit outside the realm of this forum, you can PM me there and I will give what help my limited knowledge allows.

A good survival rifle should be chambered in .22 Winchester Magnum. It has about 50% more power and useable range than a .22 Long Rifle.

So, I could take:
1. a used Ruger 10/22 mag semi-auto rifle (a bit less money than the UL rifle in this thread),
2. replace the stock W/ an aftermarket plastic folder stock.
3. cut off the stock's forearm,
4. add an aftermarket carbon fiber wrapped barrel

I'd have probably a 25 oz. rifle WITH a trigger guard and removable 9 round magazines. But… it would be able to take larger game at longer distances. The new .22 mag ammo is amazing in its better propellant and bullet design.

I disagree for a couple of reasons.

First, the ammo is not re-loadable, is VERY costly relative to performance and is relatively rare, that is, hard to find, while .22LR, .5.56Nato and .308Win-7.62 Nato is everywhere and inexpensive, so, you can practice as one needs to.

I also do not think that any game can be harvested at extended distances with the .22RFM or the forgotten, but, very similar 5MM Remington RF. So, what is the point in bothering to spend the $$$$ to build such a rifle?

Many modifications can be done to inexpensive guns to lighten them and still leave them chambered in a more practical cartridge; I would always choose the military round(s) of the region I was concerned with survival in, if, I carried a "survival gun". YMMV, but, you can load a .308W. with a few hand tools found in even drug stores and make loads far more useful than the .22RFM., IMHO.

I have built quite a few of these rifles and there are numerous lightweight folding stocks & 16 inch carbon fiber barrels that would make a very lightweight rifle build on a proven semi-auto rifle. The .22 is a great round but I would rather use a .17 HM-2 or "MACH-2" (necked-down .22 cal) or even better a .17 HMR which is a necked-down .22 mag – the balistics are much better then a .22 LR. The 17 HM-2 has almost twice the velosity of a .22 and its a lighter cartridge to boot.

You can very easily convert a Ruger 10/22 to a .17 HM2 "10/17" rifle and make it very light using the same parts I mentioned before, I am not sure of the exact weight because most all my builds are VERY heavy target rifles.

I have owned both the AR-7 "floating survival rifle" and the Marlin Papose and don't consider these very high quality or accurate rifles, their main drawback is the cheap BB-gun "leaf" sights used, but then again a factory 10/22 does not have the best sights and is not very accurate, but can be easily made so where as the other rifles cannot. I also have both the Browning Buckmark and Ruger MII target versions of these .22 pistols and while very fun to shoot and accurate for a pistol, they are simply no match for a rifle in hunting small game.

Never under estimate the killing power of a .22 rifle, although its illegal almost every state every North American animal has been taken with this round and its the favorite round of poachers and hit-men alike. To many people treat it as a beefed up pellet gun and just don't realize how deadly it can be in the right, or wrong, hands. Hunting large animals with this round is just unethical in my book, except in survival situations of course.

Remember that book / movie about the kid that goes off in the Alaskan wilderness unprepared with no skills and ended up starving to death back in the mid 90's? He was not experinced with either firearms or hunting yet he managed to kill a moose with a .22, ended up starving anyway because he did not know the first thing about preserving meat in the bush.

In the US a rifle cannot have a barrel under 16 inches and a handgun cannot have a shoulder stock. This might be different in Canada I don't know. However, you can get a license to own rifles with a shorter (and lighter) barrel, its just a bit of a hassle. On the other hand if you really wanted a backpackable rifle that might be worth it. You could modify and wack down a cheap single shot .22 that way which might be simpler than finding (and paying for) the PAK rifle. I thinking I want to try a "live off the land" trip some day. It would be an interesting way to experience what it would have been like 200 years ago.

Not exactly UL but I would take a 22lr for small game and 44mag spare barrel for anything else. If I had better eyes I'll chose the same two calibers but with pistol barrels and stocks.

b.gin

Luke wrote: I want to try a "live of the land" trip some day..experience what it would have been like 200 yrs. ago.

---

Say Luke,
I guess that means you will be leaving behind modern conveniences like your "UL" pack, tent, sleeping bag, air mattress, pocket rocket stove, matches and be wearing heavy cloth made out of horse hair or cotton so you will experience what it was like 200 years ago.
Let us know how it went.

JMT Reinhold

Reinhold, there are people who do venture out into the wilderness, even during the winter, limiting themselves to materials and equipment from prior times. I know one individual who goes out into the Canadian Rockies every winter, wearing wool and buckskin, starting his fires with flint and steel, and similarly practices more "primitive" wilderness skills. (He also forges his own carbon steel blades.) Not exactly my cup of tea, but it holds a certain appeal for some.

FlIX, actaully a good buddy of mine has done that too. I wasn't thinking so much the "live in a tepee" part as just the logic of having to figure out how to hunt/gather at the same time you're traveling. Of course going hard core 19th. century would involve a lot of practices that are illegal today.

"As I stated earlier in this thread, Ultralighters should know that ultralight gear usually sacrifices something for the weight savings. By being careful with our gear and using common sense, we can deal with those issues."

Fair enough. I still think it needs a (carbon fibre if you like) trigger guard though. And a safety catch. Who wants to sacrifice a friend or themselves for a 10 gram weight saving?

"I agree that it should have one, but as I mentioned above, for many, many years single shots and double barreled shotguns have relied on the fact that they are carried unloaded and unassembled which makes them safe for carry.

Until they are assembled they are inoperable and they are never assembled or loaded until you actually have something to shoot (i.e. seeing the old guys carrying double barrels with the breech open and only snapping it closed once their dog has pointed)."

Joe, do you think our ding dong marksman Daltrey had time to load when the bear charged him or that he had it loaded and ready (hopefully on safety) beside him while he cleaned his rabbit?

Hey, Rog- I kinda agree with you in a way… I mean, a few grams isn't a big deal, right? And why not add some kind of extra safety margin? At the same time, I can understand the argument that it's unncecessary. Not to belabor the point, but (assuming this is like a normal break-open) the rifle is basically in 2 pieces and has no possibility of firing. The only time that the rifle would be able to fire is when you see something you're going to shoot and you put the two pieces together… in other words, at the same time that you would otherwise take off a safety. Locking in the rifle is effectively the same as taking off the safety (and having the breech open the same as the safety on).

Back on the original topic, the idea of having a UL .22 rifle to pack along has an appeal. Those fixated on trying to make this rifle a universal survival tool are missing the point. This 16 oz. grouse/bunny getter might get packed while the M6, which weighs two and a half pounds, might get left behind.

Admittedly, my main reason for carrying UL gear is to free up weight for carrying scary pieces of steel into the backcountry with me.

This appears to be more of a prototype at this point and undoubtedly will go through multiple revisions as field reports come in. I will reserve judgement until some of these have been reviewed. (Hint, Hint – I'm available!)

ETA: I find all of the "It'll never work!" comments to be somewhat troubling, given that nobody here has actually tried this rifle and usable data is very thin. I would much rather see innovation and creativity encouraged than crapped on. Ultimately, this rifle will either work or it won't. If the firing mechanism requires it, a trigger guard will be added, if for no other reason than to reduce liability.