Bug out gun

[Will0369]

Weight is probably the biggest problem that must be addressed here. For that reason, most would say, .22 or .223, but remember the advances in modern battle gear, rifle weight, ammunition storage, and the much more accomidating and amazingly comforatable packs that are available now. In the Marine corps, we switched from Alice to Molle and never looked back. That being said, I would have an 16" barreled Rock River L.A.R. 308, with a 4x32 trijicon with a doc sight. I would carry a p-14 Para ordnance with about three back up mags while cocked and locked. The rifle would be set up for medium distance shooting, or out to 500 meters, and if I had to go to the pistol I would have 14+1 of .45 stopping power, preferably powerball ammo. The choice to go with 7.62 over 5.56 is two fold, one: The 7.62 is devastating from 0 to about 800 meters giving you an effective kill ratio per squeeze. two, when thinking long term, larger game such as deer would definately drop from the 7.62 and in indiana we would not make many long range deer shots, so 7.62 will be more than adequate. If at all possible, have about five mre's packed, that can sustain one man for about ten days if you know what you are doing.

 

[Sailor]

That's Funny

OK, you guys have convinced me. I am taking a 22 pistol.

First I will fill my cart and BOB with liquor. When all of that is gone, I will use the 22 on myself.

Kidding of course.

 

[cosermann]

The issue of weight is a good one that folks have brought up, and one that many people often underestimate I think. I you don't keep an eye on those ounces, pretty soon they turn into pounds, you start to lose mobility, and things can go downhill pretty fast. Remember, you're only human and only have so much physical capacity. Backpackers know this all too well.

Let's say we can ignore the actual firearms themselves for the moment because there are fairly light guns available these days in most of the calibers we've been talking about.

This brings us to the cartridge itself. The .22 LR is obviously the lightest of the bunch we've been discussing (by a very significant amount). As such, one can carry a generous supply. It's certainly adequate for food procurement. We might debate its usefulness for other tasks, like defense, but the need for defense will vary a lot depending on the circumstances of the situation at hand and how one chooses to operate.

What's next if one wants to "step up" in power a bit? Just to stimulate some thinking I've listed the weights of some cartridges below, and the total carry weight 100, 200, and 500 rounds.

Weights* of some representative cartridges:

.22 LR/M24, cartridge weight – 0.12 oz.
9mm NATO ball/M882, cartridge weight 0.41 oz
5.56NATO/M193, cartridge weight 0.42 oz
5.56 NATO/M855, cartridge weight 0.42 oz.
38 spl/M41 cartridge weight 0.46 oz
7.62x39, 123 gr, cartridge weight 0.64 oz **
45 acp/M1911, cartridge weight 0.76 oz
7.62 NATO/M59, cartridge weight 0.90 oz.
30-06/M2, cartridge weight – 0.97 oz
12 ga/M162, cartridge weight – 1.68 oz

Carry weights of 100/200/500 rounds respectively in pounds:

.22 – 0.76 / 1.51 / 3.79
9mm – 2.56 / 5.11 / 12.79
5.56/M193 – 2.6 / 5.2 / 13
5.56/M855 – 2.71 / 5.43 / 13.57
38 spl – 2.9 / 5.8 / 14.5
7.62x39 – 4.01 / 8.03 / 20.07
45acp – 4.73 / 9.46 / 23.64
7.62/M59 – 5.61 / 11.23 / 28.07
30-06/M2 – 6.09 / 12.17 / 30.43
12 ga/M162 – 10.51 / 21.03 / 52.57

As the list shows, ammunition bulk and weight can be significant factors.

One can see from this list that the 9mm/5.56 NATO are quite size/weight efficient cartridges when compared with other centerfire cartridges. So, they're at least worth a look. Although this has to be "weighed" against only being able to carry about 1/3 as many rounds of ammunition for a given weight (compared to 22lr).

One can also see from this list, that there's a significant weight jump at the 7.62x39 cartridge. That suggests, to me, that I'd want to have a good reason so select something as heavy as 7.62x39 or heavier. And, there's another weight jump at 12 ga.

So, in looking at this list, I see 4 tiers. 22lr is alone in the lightest tier, and I think has a lot going for it. You can easily carry a lot. It'll keep you in food, and it may be adequate for defensive needs depending on the circumstances and how you approach them.

Next, there's the 9mm/5.56/.38 tier (not sure how .357 mag might fit in). This might be a good balance if one wants to hedge their bet a little more toward defense/larger game/longer distance shooting.

Then there's the 7.62x39 to 30-06 tier. This is heavy enough that one should expect a significant need for heavy defense, because frankly, one can't realistically expect to carry that much on foot.

The 12 ga is by itself at the top of the weights. Due to its weight and the physical bulk/size of the shells, it can be difficult to carry in sufficient quantity for any but the briefest operations. Best suited to specific circumstances perhaps.

Again, much depends on these circumstances. Humping around on foot is a lot different than having access to a vehicle (where weight may not be as much of a concern) for example.

Nonetheless, it's something to think about.

* Weights taken from Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition FSC 1305 TM 43-0001-27
** Weight from Wikipedia

 

[Sailor]

Well if the sample here is indicative of the population, then I am feeling pretty good.

Battle rifle, check.
Kevlar, check.
Group of guys that train together check.
Everyone in the group has a battle rifle check.
Plans and supplies preplanned, check.
Wagon to pick up a field full of .22 rifles, check.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Well if the sample here is indicative of the population, then I am feeling pretty good.

Battle rifle, check.
Kevlar, check.
Group of guys that train together check.
Everyone in the group has a battle rifle check.
Plans and supplies preplanned, check.
Wagon to pick up a field full of .22 rifles, check.

100% agree.

 

[WETSU]

Corsermann, thanks for doing the legwork on the ammo weights. So , my chosen loadout is 6 AK mags and one in the rifle, for a total of 210 rounds. That is a little over 8 pounds in ammo. I will take that all day long.

If a person can't run and fight for days on end with 8 pounds of of ammo and 9 pounds of rifle, then they have a serious problem. Somewhere, their priorities got screwed up. Somewhere, they decided that the all-you-can-eat buffet was worth more than living a warrior life style. Somewhere, they decided that smoking cigarettes was more important than maintaining one's weapon's platform. Somewhere, they decided to give up, and take the easy route, preferring surfing the net over getting out and humping a ruck in the snow.

This gentlemen, is what it comes down to. You know it and I know it, Its the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

Get in fighting shape and you won't give a rip about the weight of .223 vs 7.62x39 v. .308.

 

[CopperWires]

I don't think I have seen anyone mention taking an AR-15 with a .22lr conversion kit. Seems plausible and efficient. 2 guns in one. Small game hunting with .22lr. Larger (to a certain extent) hunting or defense with the 5.56.

 

[cosermann]

Here's a scenario of sorts: Let's say you’re an Air Force pilot and you've been involuntarily "bugged out" because you've been shot down behind enemy lines in a war zone. This situation represents a relatively short-term situation, where the goal is to get to (or back to) a location (or get picked up) while having to deal with the enemy. All by yourself.

It’s somewhat analogous to the assumptions some in this thread seem to be making when "bugging out", i.e. short term, getting to retreat location, and dealing with hostiles, although some people plan to be part of a group rather than alone.

You even get to use a vehicle (like the pilot’s airplane), until you’re deprived of its use and must reach your goal on foot (let's say 3 days of walking).

What is/are the weapon(s) of choice if alone? With a group?
What has the military solution been for airmen/aircrews?

The military’s answer to this question, places heavy emphasis on evasion and escape, and history is full of people who have done this successfully, behind enemy lines, in situations where the enemy could be heard (and smelled) all around them. History is not so full of small groups who have taken on the enemy and gotten very far. Any engagement under such circumstances is extremely risky (and compounded by lack of medical care). After one or two such confrontations, you may not have many buddies left. Advantage – evade and escape. Keep a low profile.

Nowadays, most of the service survival manuals say something silly like, “include a weapon only if the situation so dictates.” Huh?

However, in the days before the debilitating effects of political correctness various, firearms were issued for this purpose such as the M4 Survival Rifle (.22 Hornet bolt action), M6 (.22 Hornet or .22lr/.410), AR5/MA-1 (.22 Hornet/.410, bolt action), The AR7 (.22LR) being a civilian evolution of the AR5. The .22 firearms suggested by some in this thread (both LR and 5.56) would be superior in terms of accuracy, capacity, and rate of fire to the old military examples.

The SRU-21P(SRFU-31/P) survival vest also includes(ed) provisions for .38 ammunition and a revolver (also suitable for 9mm), including pockets for the ammunition and a holster for the handgun.

So, the military solution to this puzzle seems to be evasion and escape with a small caliber carbine in combination with a moderate caliber sidearm.

Again, not criticizing anyone’s choices here. Just pointing out that there are a number of ways to think through problems like this, and the validity of the solution depends on the assumptions and circumstances.

It’s the thought process that’s important because when the balloon goes up, you’ll have to make context specific decisions that work.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

AR with a conversion is junk. The problem is twofold:

1. Conversions just don't load reliably. I've got a CMMG that will FTL at least once every 50 rounds. It's getting worse as my magazines are getting more use. Great on the range where I can clear it; Bad in real world application.

2. More importantly, the .223 and 22 require different barrel twists. A 40 grain 22 requires a 1:14 or 1:16 twist; a 55 or 60 grain .223 (good for defense and hunting medium to large game at short distance) requires a 1:8 to 1:12 twist; a 75 or 80 grain .223 (capable of taking large game at long distance with proper shot placement) takes a 1:7 or 1:8 twist. I've got a 24" BB 1:7 config that shoots MOA or better past 600 yards with 80 grain handloads. There's no way I could run 22 though that rifle. The rounds would never stabilize.

What would be interesting would be a 60 grain cartridge based on the 22 WMR. That round would be able to stabilize in a 1:9 or 1:10 twist barrel which would also be usable with 55 or 60 grain .223 bullets.

I don't think I have seen anyone mention taking an AR-15 with a .22lr conversion kit. Seems plausible and efficient. 2 guns in one. Small game hunting with .22lr. Larger (to a certain extent) hunting or defense with the 5.56.

 

[Hoosier8]

Here's a scenario of sorts: Let's say you’re an Air Force pilot and you've been involuntarily "bugged out" because you've been shot down behind enemy lines in a war zone. This situation represents a relatively short-term situation, where the goal is to get to (or back to) a location (or get picked up) while having to deal with the enemy. All by yourself.

It’s somewhat analogous to the assumptions some in this thread seem to be making when "bugging out", i.e. short term, getting to retreat location, and dealing with hostiles, although some people plan to be part of a group rather than alone.

You even get to use a vehicle (like the pilot’s airplane), until you’re deprived of its use and must reach your goal on foot (let's say 3 days of walking).

What is/are the weapon(s) of choice if alone? With a group?
What has the military solution been for airmen/aircrews?

The military’s answer to this question, places heavy emphasis on evasion and escape, and history is full of people who have done this successfully, behind enemy lines, in situations where the enemy could be heard (and smelled) all around them. History is not so full of small groups who have taken on the enemy and gotten very far. Any engagement under such circumstances is extremely risky (and compounded by lack of medical care). After one or two such confrontations, you may not have many buddies left. Advantage – evade and escape. Keep a low profile.

Nowadays, most of the service survival manuals say something silly like, “include a weapon only if the situation so dictates.” Huh?

However, in the days before the debilitating effects of political correctness various, firearms were issued for this purpose such as the M4 Survival Rifle (.22 Hornet bolt action), M6 (.22 Hornet or .22lr/.410), AR5/MA-1 (.22 Hornet/.410, bolt action), The AR7 (.22LR) being a civilian evolution of the AR5. The .22 firearms suggested by some in this thread (both LR and 5.56) would be superior in terms of accuracy, capacity, and rate of fire to the old military examples.

The SRU-21P(SRFU-31/P) survival vest also includes(ed) provisions for .38 ammunition and a revolver (also suitable for 9mm), including pockets for the ammunition and a holster for the handgun.

So, the military solution to this puzzle seems to be evasion and escape with a small caliber carbine in combination with a moderate caliber sidearm.

Again, not criticizing anyone’s choices here. Just pointing out that there are a number of ways to think through problems like this, and the validity of the solution depends on the assumptions and circumstances.

It’s the thought process that’s important because when the balloon goes up, you’ll have to make context specific decisions that work.

Aviator's Survival Vest.

 

[cosermann]

Aviator's Survival Vest.

That's the one. Here's a pic of the layout of the vest, FWIW.

http://www.aviationtrainer.com/Resouces/Individual Survival Vest SRU.pdf

 

[CopperWires]

I understand that this is the general consensus about conversions but I have seen range reports that suggest otherwise. I have read all kinds of people saying that its not as good as a dedicated .22 upper or rifle. However, I have not seen any evidence of this. I'm just going on what facts I have seen. I could still be wrong as the facts were in no way a large enough sample to make a blanket statement.

Also, as a general guidline, I'm not going to be needing a 1:7 twist with 75-80 grain bullets in a bug out situation. My rifle shoots fine up to 200 meters with regular 62 grain or 55 grain ball ammo. I'm not taking a hunting shot from any further than that because ammo will be in conservation mode and I better be sure I hit. That is of course unless I'm starving and haven't been able to get any closer to a good meal.

I'll try to find the link to the range report. Maybe someone else can find it before me.

Not saying you're wrong. You probably have more real life experience than I do. I just have a scientific mind and have to be proved otherwise with cited facts and evidence.

AR with a conversion is junk. The problem is twofold:

1. Conversions just don't load reliably. I've got a CMMG that will FTL at least once every 50 rounds. It's getting worse as my magazines are getting more use. Great on the range where I can clear it; Bad in real world application.

2. More importantly, the .223 and 22 require different barrel twists. A 40 grain 22 requires a 1:14 or 1:16 twist; a 55 or 60 grain .223 (good for defense and hunting medium to large game at short distance) requires a 1:8 to 1:12 twist; a 75 or 80 grain .223 (capable of taking large game at long distance with proper shot placement) takes a 1:7 or 1:8 twist. I've got a 24" BB 1:7 config that shoots MOA or better past 600 yards with 80 grain handloads. There's no way I could run 22 though that rifle. The rounds would never stabilize.

What would be interesting would be a 60 grain cartridge based on the 22 WMR. That round would be able to stabilize in a 1:9 or 1:10 twist barrel which would also be usable with 55 or 60 grain .223 bullets.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

All you have to do is take a 1:10 twist or better AR15 to the range and give it a shot. At 50 yards I'll cover 25 shots out of my Ruger 10/22 (40 grain) with a dime. I'll cover 25 rounds from my AR (1:9) firing 60 grain handloads with half a dime. Firing the same 22LR ammo from my 10/22 through my AR15 w/conversion, I'll shoot 2" groups. 40 grain 22LR won't stabilize in a 1:9 twist barrel. It's pure physics.

You can use the Greenhill Formula to calculate optimal twist rates as follows:


t = c x (d / (l / d))

where:

c = 150 if fps < 2800, 180 if fps > 2800
d = caliber
l = bullet length

plug in the length of your .22 and 5.56 ammo into the above formula to get the optimal twist rate. You'll see that you're 2 - 4 twists per inch off, if not more. A 22LR bullet simply can't stabilize in a barrel made for a .223, unless you have optimized the barrel for both rounds assuming the bullets will be the same length.

I understand that this is the general consensus about conversions but I have seen range reports that suggest otherwise. I have read all kinds of people saying that its not as good as a dedicated .22 upper or rifle. However, I have not seen any evidence of this. I'm just going on what facts I have seen. I could still be wrong as the facts were in no way a large enough sample to make a blanket statement.

Also, as a general guidline, I'm not going to be needing a 1:7 twist with 75-80 grain bullets in a bug out situation. My rifle shoots fine up to 200 meters with regular 62 grain or 55 grain ball ammo. I'm not taking a hunting shot from any further than that because ammo will be in conservation mode and I better be sure I hit. That is of course unless I'm starving and haven't been able to get any closer to a good meal.

I'll try to find the link to the range report. Maybe someone else can find it before me.

Not saying you're wrong. You probably have more real life experience than I do. I just have a scientific mind and have to be proved otherwise with cited facts and evidence.

 

[Sailor]

My CMMG conversion is a great training tool. Not reliable enough for me to count on though. It does better with American Eagle ammo though FWIW.

 

[chraland51]

After much careful thought, I would probably grab a scoped M1A or a scoped FN FAL with all the mags and ammo that I could carry in a shoulder bag. I would also look for a scoped Ruger Mark II, also hopefully with a scope for hunting small game. I did not select a larger caliber handgun because I do not think that I would want to get close to anyone that might be on the prowl. My semi .308 or 7.62 NATO would be sufficient to keep a few prowlers at bay. (Make sure that you pick up the correct ammo for your weapon) I would also grab a large knife, LED flashlight, water purifier and two way communications device. If I had time, I would probably leave an IOU to the store owner with a promise to repay him for what I had taken when times got better. I probably would not, however, provide my name, address or telephone number for someone to track me down with.

 

[Lex Concord]

Here's a scenario of sorts: Let's say you’re an Air Force pilot and you've been involuntarily "bugged out" because you've been shot down behind enemy lines in a war zone. This situation represents a relatively short-term situation, where the goal is to get to (or back to) a location (or get picked up) while having to deal with the enemy. All by yourself.

It’s somewhat analogous to the assumptions some in this thread seem to be making when "bugging out", i.e. short term, getting to retreat location, and dealing with hostiles, although some people plan to be part of a group rather than alone.

You even get to use a vehicle (like the pilot’s airplane), until you’re deprived of its use and must reach your goal on foot (let's say 3 days of walking).

What is/are the weapon(s) of choice if alone? With a group?
What has the military solution been for airmen/aircrews?

The military’s answer to this question, places heavy emphasis on evasion and escape, and history is full of people who have done this successfully, behind enemy lines, in situations where the enemy could be heard (and smelled) all around them. History is not so full of small groups who have taken on the enemy and gotten very far. Any engagement under such circumstances is extremely risky (and compounded by lack of medical care). After one or two such confrontations, you may not have many buddies left. Advantage – evade and escape. Keep a low profile.

Nowadays, most of the service survival manuals say something silly like, “include a weapon only if the situation so dictates.” Huh?

However, in the days before the debilitating effects of political correctness various, firearms were issued for this purpose such as the M4 Survival Rifle (.22 Hornet bolt action), M6 (.22 Hornet or .22lr/.410), AR5/MA-1 (.22 Hornet/.410, bolt action), The AR7 (.22LR) being a civilian evolution of the AR5. The .22 firearms suggested by some in this thread (both LR and 5.56) would be superior in terms of accuracy, capacity, and rate of fire to the old military examples.

The SRU-21P(SRFU-31/P) survival vest also includes(ed) provisions for .38 ammunition and a revolver (also suitable for 9mm), including pockets for the ammunition and a holster for the handgun.

So, the military solution to this puzzle seems to be evasion and escape with a small caliber carbine in combination with a moderate caliber sidearm.

Again, not criticizing anyone’s choices here. Just pointing out that there are a number of ways to think through problems like this, and the validity of the solution depends on the assumptions and circumstances.

It’s the thought process that’s important because when the balloon goes up, you’ll have to make context specific decisions that work.

You make a good point; what is appropriate is situational.

My thoughts on the whole scenario idea...

The USAF pilot can count on a large number of resources (whether measured in dollars, personnel, or hardware) of what is by far the world's largest military force being expended to get him out of his SHTF situation after he makes it to a relatively safe location and lights his beacon.

I don't think most of us envision having such skilled or (at least) numerous allies in our personal SHTF. While the military certainly chooses gear based on much thought, planning, and experience, the tactical gear is led by the overall strategy, which cannot be ignored in the analysis of their choic(es).

While I get the point of evade and escape, but I don't know if that is sustainable long term. You have a home, BOL, or a camp (for the really hard corps who want to strike and run) that can be found and overtaken or destroyed.

Since I feel the need to factor in defense of that location (no matter how long the odds of success) as attack against such could occur with no flight option, or at least where the fight option is preferable to leaving your ability to survive (food, water, etc.) behind. While you can more easily get more food or water than another life, as stated, this decision will be highly situational based on the nature of SHTF.

Therefore, since I envision finding a permanent or semi-permanent place to hole up, I would want something to lob an intermediate-level round or larger at any such threats.

Whatever you think could happen, you should be sure to have at least thought through as many contingencies as possible (car/no car, BOL/secondary BOL, etc.) and give yourself a time limit to bug out.

 

[cosermann]

After much careful thought, I would probably grab a scoped M1A or a scoped FN FAL with all the mags and ammo that I could carry in a shoulder bag. I would also look for a scoped Ruger Mark II, also hopefully with a scope for hunting small game.

The strategy of carrying a real rifle (although I'd be more inclined in the 5.56 NATO direction), and a .22 pistol has a lot going for it assuming complete breakdown of social order and authority. Here's an interesting link that develops the pistol side of this.

United States Rescue & Special Operations Group Survival Website & Forum