Ultralight Rifle

[Joe Kuster]

"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?"

I'd suggest bear spray instead. 22lr is a capable round for some things, but in my experience little more than a loud noise or intimidation item for self defense. A round in the air turns around most black bears. The are little more than overgrown racoons from what I've seen.

While I've personally taken a few large game with a .22lr in a pinch (bobcat trying to eat my hunting dog for one and putting a spike buck whitetail out of its misery after being injured by a vehicle), I feel that I personally owe an animal a clean kill, that isn't something a .22 can reliably offer.

If your worried about bears, cougars and such, this isn't a partical item to carry. If however you think you might like roasted grouse or rabbit over an open fire next to a pristine mountain valley, it might fit the bill.

My personal ethics are to only hunt for food and that I'd prefer to see a bear detered rather than put down. Unfortunately it's a sad fact that its not always possible due to animal populations, illness or aggressiveness. That said, I'll suffice to say that legal hunting guidelines are the closest agreement we have to an agreement on how hunting should be permitted. In that case, rimfire cartridges are not allowed for intentional hunting of large game – something I tend to agree with.

[Anonymous]

"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."

Nasty, brutish, and short…. ;-}

[alan genser]

"Max Brooks, in the Zombie Survival Guide, suggests a crowbar but these weigh several pounds and are no good for UL backpacking."

titanium crowbar: http://www.materials.com/Titanium_tools.HTML

:)

[Reinhold Metzger]

Hey Flix & Luke,
I know what you guys are talking about…I have tried this primitive stuff many years ago.
I was not knocking Luke, more or less trying to find out just what his plan was.
Some guys say they are going to rough it by going Pioneer style and then go equiped with all the latest modern equipment and bells and whistles.
That is not the way the pioneers went.
I now gather Luke is going for a more or less modified Pioneer experience…living of the land, but not completely giving up on modern conveniences.
Good choice….I think he will enjoy it more that way.

Enjoy your trip Luke and let us know how it went.

JMT Reinhold

[Dewey Riesterer]

I wonder, how many of those here considering "living off the land", HAVE actually gone alone into a truly remote region of North America and LIVED there, alone, for even a mere 30 consecutive days? Most of the comments reveal, to me, an utter lack of ANY "hands-on" experience with actual wilderness conditions, let alone living there and being dependent on one's ability to stalk close enough to an animal to kill it with a .22LR or even a .44Mag.

Let's talk "The Boreal Forest" or "Taiga", which is circum-global in scope, covers much of Canada and some of Alaska and is NOT found south of the 49th parallel of latitude. My last stint in this forest ecosystem type was in 1993 and I spent four months alone in northern Alberta, where I frequently was visited by local aborigines, known as "Slavey Indians" and they DO still hunt, fish and gather much of their food year-round….they DO NOT do any of the things suggested here.

Some 20 years earlier, I spent time in extreme north-central B.C., in a camp where we maintained a "satellite tanker base" for our A-26 "Invader" air tankers for secondary suppression work. The aborigines there, WERE almost exclusively hunters, fishermen and trappers and I was right beside a couple of them when they killed Moose with a .22 as they asked me to assist with my heavy rifle due to a particularly nasty Grizzly that was about. Even these people were VERY eager to have ANY modern techno-convenience that we would bring them on our supply flights and this area is STILL wild, although nothing like it was then.

The last of the dozens of deer I have shot was killed from TEN FEET away, after I stalked him on a century-old "skid trail" in the deep moss and dark timber of the B.C. coast and this was with an appropriate cartridge, as using a rimfire is illegal here and I obey the laws. I COULD have used one of my .22s to shoot him in the ear and into his brain, however, this would be a stunt and not what a real hunter would even contemplate.

"Bear Spray"….in a SURVIVAL situation….yeah, right…..

My point here is very simply that living in remote wilderness teaches one certain things very quickly and the FIRST is that you DO NOT compromise your tools EVER. You also DO NOT see edible animals very often, ESPECIALLY in the relatively barren and "low bio-productive" Boreal Forest, where most true "survival" situations,say due to aircraft accidents would tend to occur….mountain crashes almost always are fatal.

So, given that this IS North America, WHY would an otherwise "sane" individual WANT to go out and SUFFER by trying to survive using either archaic or inefficient technology? Sometime, come to BC and visit the oldtime cemeteries of the surviving "ghost towns", which document how tough life was and how many died young, a mere 100 years ago, let alone 200.

So, who here has ACTUALLY stalked and shot and prepared and eaten ANY of the various animals that one might try to kill for sustenance if lost in a wilderness area? I do NOT mean "hunting" on some ranch or at a "feeder" and, HOW, would you deal with the meat should you make a kill with this "rifle"? Just some practical questions to keep the discussion realistic.

[Luke Schmidt]

Thanks Reinhold, I figured you weren't knocking me, I probably wasn't being real clear anyhow. I would be interested in trying a gather as you go trip but can't at the moment not enough time or funds, someday maybe. I was thinking modified pioneer like you said, just focus on the idea of mastering the hunting/gathering skills and save food weight for longer expeditions. I wonder if we'll see someone try an Artic 1000 type trip but hunting on the way.
A seperate subject would be the idea you mentioned of living without modern convienances of nylon, raingear etc. Thats another one I'll have to try someday.
You said you'd tried this how did it go for you? I'd be interested to hear what you learned.
Luke

[Timothy Roper]

Miguel:

Pointing out the fact that non whites commit a disproportionate amount of crime isn't racist, it's simply the truth.

If non whites are tired of hearing about the fact that they commit crimes more often than whites, perhaps they should alter their behavior.

[. Callahan]

""the Pakrifle is made for small game hunting – and not for self defense against bears and the like"……
"Anyone trying to use this thing for defense against large creatures has a poor perception about stopping power. :-)"

Yeah, but they wouldn't have it for long! (o:

[Bob Kiley]

Unless I'm mistaken, this is backpacking light and not "field & Stream" sooooh how about getting back on track so to speak ! Enough rifle stuff.

[alan genser]

Timothy.

please leave racist commentary off these boards.

[Dewey Riesterer]

My comments which seem to have motivated a few posters to make rather inchoate comments, were about the loss of the traditional individual freedoms that are traditional in western civilization and the lack of concern about this I see in younger people. The term, "Multicultural" IS repeat IS the OFFICIAL Canadian GOVERNMENT policy used in reference to VARIOUS cultures now extant in this nation and it IS NOT concerned with RACE….THAT was my reason for using it.

The whole point was ABOUT FREEDOM and CULTURE and RACE is NOT synonymous with "culture"; the "multicultural" crimes here that I referred to are committed by persons of VARIOUS RACES and Caucasians, the "whiteys" of one poster's comments, among them.

I want to make it VERY repeat VERY clear, that, I am NOT concerned with RACE, but, am concerned with CULTURE, the obvious degradation of "Western Civilization" and freedoms, such as those of speech and bearing arms.

Now, can we just get on with a backpacking/firearms discussion and stop fighting among ourselves, PULEEZE?

[Joe Kuster]

"So, who here has ACTUALLY stalked and shot and prepared and eaten ANY of the various animals that one might try to kill for sustenance if lost in a wilderness area? I do NOT mean "hunting" on some ranch or at a "feeder" and, HOW, would you deal with the meat should you make a kill with this "rifle"? Just some practical questions to keep the discussion realistic."

Well, what your asking isn't that hard for most of us who grew up in rural areas. For a country boy who's gigged fish, frogs, hunted small and big game and trapped for pelts, it isn't too difficult. Of course, it matters massively where you are, hunting on 2,000 acres of family land in the midwest is a bit different than up north or where I live now nearby the rockies.

It's not that hard to get the basics down. Patience is the biggest key, perhaps even more important than understand game behavior.

I'd suggest starting a seperate thread just for meat preparation and preservation, it gets involved depending on what type of game, your climate and what you have with you. It could be as easy as just wrapping it in an old t-shirt and slogging it along with you (avoid plastic bags, it can get rancid easier). It's 18F here, wouldn't be a problem to keep meat fresh for as long as you needed.

The short of it is that for meat preservation, typically the small game that rifle is designed for is a single course meal. If say for instance you get 50-100 lbs of deer meat with it, there's several means of extending it's life span such as smoking and salting, but frankly it's a imperfect science and you wouldn't want to haul it around anyway as it takes days and days to process it all.

As a quick thing most people never thing of, every bird in the world is edible (not all are all that tastey in my opinon). They are pretty easy to take with a .22 assuming you've got plenty of ammo. Collect a few berries or a bit of left over granola bar and they'll even come to you. In a survival situation, I'd have no problem taking a roosted turkey or a duck on the water. Lots of Geese around here too. Just wait for morning or evening on the nearest water.

Squirels, rabbits, turtles, racoons, opposums – all pretty easy to clean, prepare and eat with minimal worry. Taste wise, I'd avoid racoons from experience – too greasy.

As far as being lost in the woods, 3 shots in the air – signal of distress and the sound travels several miles if you get to a high point first.

[Anonymous]

"Taste wise, I'd avoid racoons from experience – too greasy"

Parboil 'em first and skim the fat off the surface of the water. Them fry, bake, roast, whatever your preference. I'm not saying it's venison or squirrel, etc, but it isn't half bad that way. Better than possum, IMO.

[Dewey Riesterer]

When I think of a "survival" situation, as distinct from being "lost" for 2-3 days in some rural area where the government agencies will find and rescue one, I think of being a survivor from a downed aircraft in the N.W.T. and, being there until one's emerg. supplies are exhausted….THAT, is "survival" and when a firearm kept for that purpose may well keep you alive.

When it is -45* for days on end and you are without modern "navaids" due to frozen batteries….what then? You will NOT find Opossums, Turtles, Squirrels large enough to bother with or Racoons in "The Boreal Forest" in summer, let alone January…so, WHAT would you do?

You "might" find a Moose or a pack of Wolves or maybe a Bison in certain areas and you would be trying to kill a VERY WARY animal in it's own territory…..with an U/L .22RF. rifle??????

Well, I would choose a much different tool for the task and have, but, this IS the U/L forum, so, each to his own.

[. Callahan]

The discussion is about an ultralight utility breakdown rifle/rod which is well designed to supplement the pot with game or fish.

It is NOT an aircrew or bear encounter survival rifle!

The photographs on the maker's website clearly show the mode of fishing that the rifle is intended to achieve.

It serves NO constructive purpose to repeatedly state the survival and bear encounter merits or otherwise of an ultralight utility rifle/rod which appears to fulfill its INTENDED role!

[Dewey Riesterer]

For those of us here who actually DO backpack where killing gamebirds and smaller edible animals is a legal and possible aspect of our treks, one of these might well be more useful if chambered in a cartridge that can be reloaded. My choice would be the .357 S&W Magnum, loaded with hardcast lead bullets.

While the Pakrifle would not be my first, second or even third choice for a gun to carry while backpacking, something I seldom do, anyway, I would find it more useful if I could have one chambered as above.

Due to the oppressive nature of Canadian government, as we have yet to break free totally of the archaic "monarchist" tradtions of the Commonwealt; it is VERY difficult to legally carry a handgun while backpacking here and the ruthless suppression of freedoms now underway here makes it very foolish to chance doing so without the permit.

This means that something like this, "might" be of some use in some situations here and having shot various edible birds/animals with a wide variety of cartridges, I much prefer a larger bullet to humanely kill a "Blue Grouse", for example.

All in all, even though this specific rig is not my ideal companion firearm, any development along these lines that gives us more options in choice of gear and keeps domestic firearms manufacturing and ownership strong and vibrant is a GOOD thing and one which I strongly support.

I ENVY the Americans here, your fabulous "Second Amendment" and wish we had politcos of sufficient guts and integrity in Canada to enact such an amendment to OUR "constitution" as the freedom to bear arms and speak one's mind are absolutely fundamental to the existence of a free society.

[Rog Tallbloke]

"the freedom to bear arms and speak one's mind are absolutely fundamental to the existence of a free society."

Although it seems unlikely Americans would take up their arms to defend the liberties removed from them by the Patriot Act (AKA the Surveillance and liberty removal act). I don't think that overweening big govt fears the ownership of arms by the population any more.

And the negative effect became obvious to me in conversation with a lost American in northern England who didn't understand his map and guidebook.

"You just climb the stile over this wall and walk across the field" I explained.

"But that's private land" he worried. "Doing that sort of thing in America will get a gun pointed in your face".

In Britain, no right to bear arms, no ultimate 'freedom', but enshrined 'freedoms' to access the land on the ancient public footpath network. And freedom of speech is well defended here, though the 'PC' brigade are making inroads on that as they are in America/Canada.

On the other hand, I agree with you that it's an important principle. It's just that it comes at a price.

[Dewey Riesterer]

Well, I have always walked across private property here in BC with NO difficulty and most of our provinces have laws that protect the right of hunters to access private lands when hunting, so, I don't much worry about it.

As to "freedom", my concept and that of most Yanks I know and am related to is VASTLY different from that of the Britons living here and British tourists I have known/met, but, that is a different issue.

Freedom of speech in Britain is protected….how long was Jame's Joyce's masterwork, "Ulysses" banned? Nah, you are a British SUBJECT and Americans are CITIZENS with clearly protected RIGHTS, not mere "traditions", which are protected by their Constitution, the finest of it's kind in human history.

[Chris Townsend]

Dewey, I don't know which Brits you've met but you've picked up much misleading information.

In Scotland, where I live, there is a right of access to all land and a right to camp wild. This certainly isn't true for the USA or Canada. I've walked thousands of miles in North America and in the USA I was warned that I should never cross private land without permission or I could be shot. In Scotland I don't need permits nor am I restricted as to where I can camp unlike in many areas in the USA and Canada.

Ulysses, which I studied at school, was banned in the USA from 1920 until 1933.

There is also a strong movement to ban books in the USA that doesn't exist in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/30/american-library-association-banned-books

I am a British citizen, as it says on my passport, not a subject.

Britain is a signatory to the European Human Rights Act.

All countries have tensions between freedom and authority of course.

[Dewey Riesterer]

Well, my maternal grandmother was a "war bride" from "Merrye Englande" who came here with my GF, an officer with the 21st. Batt.-C.E.F., severely wounded at Courcelette and then at the magnificent Canadian victory at Passchendaele. His family, the McCallums came to Canada, first from Argyllshire with Sir William Alexander and I have met hundreds of Brits, this IS "British Columbia", old boy.

My father's family came to the U.S.A. from "Baden" at about the same time and I also have relatives there, in the U.K. and Norway, so, I am not entirely without direct contact with inhabitants of the nations I referred to.

I CAN, HAVE and DO camp anywhere in Canada that I wish to and have since 1964; the situation here is far different than in over-crowded Europe and NOBODY I have EVER KNOWN has EVER had a gun pointed at them for "trespass", which is considered a very minor issue here, except where certain industrial situations are concerned. In fact, my brother and I bluntly told some German foresters to (bad word) when they challenged us on property that, legally, they "owned" and tried to keep we Canucks from entering, this is 550 square kilos. We told them that it is OUR country and we go where we damm well want to and we do.

However, while I used to own my own bookstore and could debate the issue I mentioned, we are getting very far afield here. The FACT is that a Briton CAN NOT own a handgun, your coppers control your ownership of rifles and shotguns and simply carrying a gun afield, because you WANT TO, is "not done" in the U.K.

That, is my main point here and OUR dammed government is following lockstep with the EU and the loathsome UN in further restrictions on my BIRTHRIGHT to own and bear arms, as I see fit. What I think of "Human Rights" laws is not printable on a forum of this type, they militate against the very freedoms that men on both sides of my family bled in both wars to preserve.

You guys have a very unreal concept of North America and people here do NOT point guns at others except in VERY rare circumstances, especially in Canada.

[Arapiles .]

"Due to the oppressive nature of Canadian government, as we have yet to break free totally of the archaic "monarchist" tradtions of the Commonwealt; it is VERY difficult to legally carry a handgun while backpacking here and the ruthless suppression of freedoms now underway here makes it very foolish to chance doing so without the permit."

Sooo … do you mean that it's the Queen that won't let you have a handgun when backpacking? That's a little surprising as I understood Her Majesty was rather keen on guns … and this thread on shooting grouse might be of real interest to her as I'll bet she's shot more grouse than anyone here.

But in relation to the OP, of course Her Majesty would never use a rifle to shoot grouse because it would need to be sitting, which is unsporting.

[Chris Townsend]

I'm well aware that there are huge differences between the USA and Canada, having spent much time in both countries.
I've walked and camped all over the place in Canada too. Ths situation isn't the same in the USA where I don't think trespass is considered a minor issue. The only time I've had someone with a gun ask me to leave an area was actually in England. On my long walks in Canada and the USA I've never had a gun pointed at me (except once by a hunter looking for his friends who gave me a bit of a fright by sticking a rifle through the door of my tent – he was perfectly friendly, just not thinking) and I've never worried about being shot. I would agree that some Brits think of the USA as a place where you are likely to be shot. I don't think any think that about Canada.

Canada doesn't actually have a law giving a right of access to private land and right to camp wild like Scotland, Norway and Sweden though.

One difference between Britain and the USA is that most Brits can't understand the American desire to have guns. Here it is public pressure that has resulted in strict gun laws. The outcry after shooting massacres in the 1980s and 1990s caused the governments of the day to enact strict legislation – some of it undoubtedly poor kneejerk legislation as it so often is when governments are responding to popular pressure. The point is though that it's the vast majority of people who want strict gun laws rather than governments imposing them on people.

I live in the Scottish Highlands where hunting is a popular sport and local farmers all have guns. There are two gun shops in my local town and I meet people with guns in the woods and on the hills quite often. I don't have a gun myself, though I could easily get a licence and did do rifle training many years. The last time I had a licence and carried a rifle was on a ski tour in Spitsbergen, where it was a legal requirement in case we were attacked by a polar bear (we never even saw one).

[Dave T]

.

[Thomas Burns]

>please move this to Chaff.

Oy. Ditto the above.

[Reinhold Metzger]

Boy, this forum is getting hot…seems like a lot of angry
folks on this list.
Yes, I'm moving….not to chaff, but OFF…looking for a
more tranquil neighborhood.

Adios
JMT Reinhold

[Author]

Posts