hunting to lighten pack load by eating meat?

I recently got back from an elk hunting trip with my dad in the Mt. Zirkel wilderness area. I wasn't doing any elk hunting, but did bring a sling shot and fishing pole that both broke down to pack. Mostly I would just day hike around to small lakes next to our main camp and do some fishing. I went on two separate overnight hikes along the Continental Divide Trail and made a loop back to our camp. I ended up not using the sling shot at all, but could have on several occasions. Basically, I wouldn't rely on hunting or fishing as a primary food source to save weight. I would only do it for the "adventure" of living off the land.

Fishing was great and it's really nice having fresh trout to eat for lunch and dinner. A few thoughts: The case to protect my pole was bulky and all my fishing gear weighed over a pound. I knew that there would be fish where I was fishing. I wouldn't rely on fishing unless you had fished where you are going before and even then always keep enough food to get you through just in case.

Interesting point. The Indians and frontiersmen did some of their hunting/travelling with no game laws and very plentiful game. But its also worth remembering that they preserved and carried food as well.

I am a hunter(fishermen too) not just a hiker but as far as hunting while hiking its not something I really do. My rule is though if a warm fuzzy critter(say a squirrel, inside proper hunting seasons only of course but in my state squirrel season is in all but 2 months now) runs in front of me and I can whack it with my trekking pole its going to be dinner. I don't actively hunt anything though and wouldn't want to rely on my method for keeping me fed.

I do carry a collaspeable fishing pole(weights 4.8oz w/spare line and hooks) and fish a lot but you really can't really on that either. I fool heartedly tried that once and didn't catch a thing and therefore was hungry.

I'd try for a take-down "survival" rifle in .22 magnum. That cartridge has about 75% more power (and effective distance) than a .22 long rifle cartridge. I know, I have both.

Plus, the newer .22 magnum cartridges are available in copper JACKETED bullets which have better terminal ballistics (killing power). And that's what you want, a quick, clean, one shot kill. .22 long rifle bullets are merely copper dipped or guilded.

You don't need copper jackets for this. Wasted cost/weight … you're not going to be doing super-long range shots and you're not going to end up melting lead from .22s. The copper jackets also inhibit hollow-point expansion.

"Shorts" are better than longs because they're smaller, lighter and FAR (far) quieter.

Blowguns are illegal many places (such as here in California) and an aluminum pole converted to a blowgun carries the added "hidden weapon" attachment if they feel like it.

Indians did carry much of their food with them, even though they were experts at living off the land. We have the added 'hardship' of limited hunting seasons, dispersed game, more skittish game in many areas (due to human encroachment), noise levels while hunting (non-hunters can get pretty irritable if they hear a 30-30 go off and make your life quite annoying), etc.

In addition, we don't (usually) live in the area we hunt/trek, so we lack the indigenous knowledge of the land, animal migrations patterns, etc, and we don't have 'the elders' to help school us as we wander around.

-mox

Mike, unless you are an expert on terminal ballistics and can show me the figures I seriously doubt your contentions. You MAY want to run them by the guys on the forums at RIMFIRE CENTRAL.com and listen to their expert opinions – or not.

I can say from experience that the difference in killing power between a hollow point .22 long rifle and a hollow point jacketed .22 Winchester magnum cartridge is fairly large. BUT the weight difference is small. My statement is backed by over 50 years of hunting small game.

Using .22 shorts for survival is laughable and not sportsmanlike considering their low terminal ballistics.

When a rabbit appears at 75 yards you DO want the ballistics of a .22 magnum for a good chance at killing it.

'Nuf sed.

I once carried a blowgun with me on a five day hike. It had a stopper for the end of the barrel so it could double as a hiking stick – granted it's five feet long.

The blowgun I carried:
http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=708943&destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct.jsp%3FproductId%3D708944&WTz_l=YMAL%3BIK-229653

I personally don't try and hike with a blowgun anymore, but maybe someone else might want to. There are immense MYOG opportunities for both darts and blowguns, but here are a few things to consider if you're interested:

Several Cons:
– It probably isn't legal in most places (this is why I've only carried it once)
– It scares people when they see it on the trail
– You are limited to an effective range of about twenty yards
– It's like miniature bowhunting – shot placement is everything (you must practice)

Several Pros:
– It's light
– Squirrels are tasty
– It's multipurpose
– It's a unique challenge, which can be rewarding

I'm not an expert by any means. These guys are: http://blowgun.lefora.com/

It seems to me that if the original goal is to save weight, then carrying a three-pound rifle doesn't make any sense.

I've found that snares are likely the best lightweight way to hunt – if at all.

Cheers.

*edited for a typo

You can hunt just fine with a pellet rifle, and you can hunt just fine with a .22 short or LR.

If you cannot get closer than 75 yards to a rabbit, and you need to take that shot, fine, use the higher powered round with a scope and whatever.

You're talking 75 yards … I'm talking 20-30 yards. At 20-30 yards a .22 jacketed magnum will work, sure. But then so will a .22 short … or a pellet rifle…or a slingshot. Been there, done that.

Sorry, I bowhunt so I think like a bowhunter and that means close range. Maybe you're right and a survival situation would require that longer range and punch (and the decreased hit-chance inherent in long-range shooting) but that's not where I happen to be coming from.

A non-jacketed head will expand and fragment better at 20 yards than a jacketed round will. Jacketed rounds tend to "keep" too much of their KE and go through targets which is sub-optimal as you want that KE transmitted into the target.

/shrug

Hunt your own hunt.

-mox

Does anyone have experience hunting with a pistol? I am thinking about getting a .22 revolver as a woods gun. I have never hunted with a pistol. It would sure be light.

I haven't hunted with a pistol but pistols in general are tricky to shoot accurately. Course you can do some things hunting you would not do in a "combat" type situation. I've seen some pistol hunters using crossed sticks as a rest to steady their shot.

I've hunted deer with a .44 magnum before. There were special circumstances which made a pistol the best option to hunt with at that time (I wouldn't normally chose one.) To prepare, I practiced shooting at fifty yards – granted the .44 had a long-relief scope (a scope meant for pistols so that when one holds the pistol away from his body he can see through it.)

Are pistols trickier? Yes, but good shooting techniques for rifles carry over into the world of pistols (i.e. breathing, trigger squeeze, timing…)

I imagine shooting a .22 pistol at a squirrel (without a scope – which really only magnifies the target anyways and adds weight) would be manageable within a reasonable distance. It depends on one's skill and practice with shooting. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable shooting at a squirrel with a .22 pistol from farther than thirty yards. I would want to shoot within twenty yards if possible. Then again, I'm not the greatest shot you'll ever come across.

@Justin
Most states have laws pertaining to the hunting of small game, and the law varies from state to state. So you need to read and understand your state's laws and license requirements. Looking through the California Fish and Game website, it appears there are specific seasons for both cottontail and branch chicken. It looks like you will need a hunting license, which in turn requires completion of a hunter safety course.

Anybody can take a hunter safety course and everybody probably should take one. There are no prerequisites nor is any intent to even hunt necessary. It's mostly about developing good gun safety habits.

So- if you are even remotely interested in hunting, take a hunter education course.

Here's the link to class schedule from the CFG site:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/huntered/classes.aspx

Go forth, kill stuff, eat it, have fun.

David

David, I took a hunter safety course a long time ago. But thank you for the links/info.

No slight intended. Personally, I've been kind of jonesing for a Ruger 10/45 lite semi-auto for some reason. At 22 oz it's not ultra light but not much out there is.

oops, the model is 22/45 not 10/45.

When it all boils down to that 10 seconds of "aim and pull the trigger" hunting with a pistol is no different than a shooting range.

The difference is in the time leading up to that 10 seconds, finding, stalking, getting into position.

If you can hit a target at a range at 20 yards, you can do it in the field (buck fever et al notwithstanding. :)

California has very strict carry laws, so you'll have to be wary of that. In National Forests you can open-carry, but on County/State property the rules change. And you cannot hunt on almost any County/State property, even in-season, except for BLM land.

National Forests are different, as mentioned, and private property you're good to go (within CA game laws and seasons.)

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457

-mox