Ideas on a survival rifle&pistol,for the Alaskan wilderness

[Sergeant Sabre]

For survival, think food and water. I think the odds of dehydrating or starving to death if stranded are much higher than being killed by a bear.

Get a .22.

For bear-defense specifically, I don't have a ton of experience. None, actually. However, the Alaska State Troopers to. I admit I only see them on the National Geographic Channel. What is there choice for bear-defense? An 870. Loaded with what, I do not know.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Generally Bernanke slugs for the first few
then alternating the last 4 slug 000buck slug 000buck

 

[T Bran]

Henry SR7 survival rifle and a good pump shotgun full of slugs. The Henry breaks down and stores in it's own watertight stock it also floats a very nice little game getter (I keep one on the boat).
T

 

[jnoble87]

If I was out in big bear country, I'd pack a Marlin 45-70 lever action, with some spare ammo in my pockets and the bear attack survival pack from S&W, in .500 of course. I figure if I can't hit the bear from a distance, or he pops out on me in a flash, I'll be able to make him pee down his leg. If the bullet don't get him, the muzzle blast will FOR SURE!

 

[caribou]

If your boat has capsized or your plane has crashed, defending yourself against Bears is the least of your problems.
Getting food , if you intend on getting out yerself, will be the main use of any gun you bring.

Like Sayak said, The 12 gauge and various loads is the best way to go.(a .22lr is a close second)but the 12 gauge can be used with Slugs/Buck for Large animals, shot for small game, your most likely and easily available foods, Flares and Noise makers to get you found can be has in 12 gauge as well.
#2 ,3" magnum will secure alotta small game and as a self defense round, #2 at 5 feet is still fairly a slug, for your close in the willows protection. A friend of mine was jumped in his Goose Blind a couple springs ago by an 8 foot Brown Bear who lost his brains with one shot at 5 feet, with one big hole just infront of his ear......the Bear was dead before it hit the ground.

We have all three , Polar, Brown and Black walking about here, so were always putting thought into such.....The BEST defense against all three is a Dog, or even better, Dogs.......If you find yourself in any Bear country, like here, we live with them by using a tea pot......or coffee, plain water, whatevers there to drink...
We pee a "fence" around the camp, especially when I have hundreds of pounds of meat, and not one Bear has ever crossed it, ever. Its the way they communicate and they, indeed, know we humans are a problem. That way, there is no confrontation.


Good luck.

 

[jakescott586]

I've spent a good deal of time in the bush on the west side of Kodiak Island. In my experience, a shotgun has absolutely no place in the Alaskan bush. If I were stranded, I would want a large bore wheel gun, .44 caliber at a minimum, for the sole purpose of bear protection. For food gathering a mini 14. Two of those thirty round mags taped together takes up very little space in an emergency kit, and will last a long while if need be. The .223, while certainly not an ideal deer cartridge, will do the job nicely with proper shot placement, and is also sufficient for knocking over small game with minimal meat damage. The mini 14, while certainly not a tack driver, is accurate enough with the standard peep sight to provide killing shots at 100 plus yards, and they're tough as nails and function even under the ravages of mud, sand and saltwater.

 

[jmr40]

None of the lever guns are reliable enough to allow me to sleep well at night where there are animals that could eat me. I'd probably take a stainless synthetic Ruger in plain old 30-06 with good loads. Bulletproof gun that will work and if you learn how to shoot just as fast as a leveraction.

I'd actually prefer 338-06 or 35 Whelen, but would probably stick with 30-06 simply because of the ease of getting ammo in remote places.

 

[rcmodel]

None of the lever guns are reliable enough

Say What?
Have you ever actually owned a lever-gun?

I have several Winchesters, Marlins, and one Browning and have never ever had a malfunction with any of them in over 40 years.

I would trust any of them much further in a survival situation then many of todays plastic fantistic bolt-actions.

rc

 

[kfgk14]

I'd say a lightweight, pump-action shotgun is the best choice, given bear danger. Perhaps augmented with a Henry AR7 or a .22 LR revolver.
For bear, 12 gauge, 3" magnums, hard-cast Brenekes with a lot of powder behind them. Shoot for the shoulders, then, once it's down, the head to put it out of its misery.
Add bird-shot for hunting small game. The Brenekes should be adequate for defense against two-legged threats (in terms of making them disappear, anyway).

 

[35 Whelen]

I have no experience in Alaska or with bears, but I like the idea of a 45-70. One of the neat things about the 45-70 that is usually overlooked is the fact that when it's handloaded, it's extremely versatile.

Somewhere I have an article written by John Wooters in 1970 or '71 over handloads for the 45-70. It's an invaluable article for anyone who owns one. He put together and tested loads that range from shot loads (think it held 5/8 oz. of shot) and single round ball loads for small game, all the way up to 350 and 400 gr. bullets for animals that bite back.

Seems to me a Marlin with loads such as these would be very viable for a survival situation and the ammunition doens't take up nearly as space a 12 ga. ammo.

35W

 

[sayak]

I've spent a good deal of time in the bush on the west side of Kodiak Island. In my experience, a shotgun has absolutely no place in the Alaskan bush. If I were stranded, I would want a large bore wheel gun, .44 caliber at a minimum, for the sole purpose of bear protection. For food gathering a mini 14. Two of those thirty round mags taped together takes up very little space in an emergency kit, and will last a long while if need be. The .223, while certainly not an ideal deer cartridge, will do the job nicely with proper shot placement, and is also sufficient for knocking over small game with minimal meat damage. The mini 14, while certainly not a tack driver, is accurate enough with the standard peep sight to provide killing shots at 100 plus yards, and they're tough as nails and function even under the ravages of mud, sand and saltwater.

Thousands of native Alaskans who make their living from the land would smile at that statement. When I lived in the bush my most commonly used firearms were the 12 ga, .22 and .30.06, all of which I took on many years worth of hunting trips. If I had been limited to just one of them, it would have been the shotgun.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I've lived on Kodiak for most of 25 years and hiked, hunted and fished all over Alaska.

In a pure survival situation, I'd want a shotgun. Period. If prompted to take a 2nd weapon, I'd choose an accurate .22 handgun.

A shotgun will sort out a bear issue. Most of the suggestions for a heavy rifle probably envision a typical sporting scope which means you are largely helpless in a bear situation, considering that your are blind at close range.

But, bears aren't going to be your main problem. Your main problem is going to be stuffing enough calories into your face to survive sub-arctic conditions for an unknown length of time. A shotgun and .22 will get you rabbits, ptarmigan, grouse, or even songbirds and seagulls if that's all you can find.

People get lost here all the time. It's not like the lower 48 where you're going to run into a road or power line to lead you to safety eventually. Many of those people are never found, and most of them that are found are disoriented, starving and dehydrated, not mauled by a bear. Yet, those same people probably walked by tons of meat in the form of small game and birds, but couldn't convert them into protein because they didn't have a firearm, or didn't have the right firearm.

 

[ArtP]

Many of those people are never found, and most of them that are found are disoriented, starving and dehydrated, not mauled by a bear.

It's those that were never found that were eaten by bears.

 

[KodiakBeer]

It's those that were never found that were eaten by bears.

I doubt it. Without calories, you eventually curl up some place and die of exposure. It's a well known phenomena that rescuers can walk right past such people while calling their names and get no response. I don't know if that is some form of auditory exclusion or simple disorientation, but I do know that if you can stuff a few thousand calories in your face every day you can live for a long time in very adverse conditions and maintain both your physical strength and your mental acuity.

 

[ArtP]

I was kidding.

 

[Shadow 7D]

It's those that were never found that were eaten by bears.

After the died of EXPOSURE or starvation
bears are VERY opportunistic and remember, spring is like defrosting the freezer for them, anything the wolves haven't gotten is right there for the ravens and bears.

point is, a gun isn't going to do anything that smarts won't
every missing person I've heard of was recovered due to being 'over due' or having an emergency radio/ locator beacon.

If no body knows to look for you, and you don't have a beacon, well, somebody like Caribou will find you some day, as a scattering of bones for the state ME to try to figure out.

 

[d2wing]

I wonder why you would choose a 45-70 over a .44 mag pistol The pistol makes more sense to me with birdshot as well as normal rounds. Can be carried in a holster and same power. I would avoid bears and carry a .22lr pistol on my person. If you crash a float plane or tip a boat it's going to be in cold water. I think more guys have died from the weight of shotgun ammo as in duck hunting than have been saved from bear attacks with a shotgun. At least that I know of. 19th century hunters went with the 30-30 over the 45-70 in lever guns for a good reason. A good rifle would be a 7600 Carbine in 30-06 open sights or red dot. But being prudent enough to have any firearm is good. I think hunting bear would be a real low priority if you are in a crash in Alaska. They aren't likely to hunt you unless you carry raw meat around.

 

[d2wing]

In addition I agree that panic and depair and illogical thinking would be bigger dangers.

 

[rcmodel]

Can be carried in a holster and same power.

There is no comparison in power or penetration between the .44 Mag handgun and a 45-70 rifle.

It's not even close.

I also have to question how good a shot the average handgunner would be when being charged by a bear?

I'd guess they would stand a much better chance of hitting something vital or breaking down some running gear with a big bore rifle or shotgun slugs!

rc

 

[35 Whelen]

I think the main reason to avoid a pistol, other than they don't have the power of your typical rifle, is the fact that most people can't hit with them as well as they think they can. I consider myself a fair pistol shot, but cringe at the thought of trying to maintain my nerve well enough to keep 3 lbs. of short-barreled steel trained on a charging bear.

35W

 

[d2wing]

Between a pistol and rifle you are correct, I looked at the wrong chart. They are closer in rifles. Sorry. I also agree with both of you 35 and RC about the point of hitting with a long arm over a pistol in that situation.

 

[ArtP]

Between a pistol and rifle you are correct, I looked at the wrong chart. They are closer in rifles. Sorry. I also agree with both of you 35 and RC about the point of hitting with a long arm over a pistol in that situation.

Even that's not true.

I own a rifle and revolver in 44 mag for woods protection. In reality they're fine for where I live, but there are plenty of other times I wish I had chosen the Marlin in .444, 45-70 or .450. They are significantly more powerful than a rifle fired 44 mag.

I get 1700fps out of my marlin firing a .270g bullet. In a modern 45-70 rifle, you can achieve 2150 fps with a 350g projectile.

 

[dprice3844444]

magnum research bfr 45/70 pistol

 

[ArtP]

Parks lists a 12 ga. as a top choice. Plus a high SD is the main reason slugs are a good choice.

Most 12g slugs have a SD of .150 or less, which is extremely poor. Several posts up, I mentioned this as to why I'd rather have a large bore, high-powered rifle.

Edited to add:

Which one do you think will penetrate better:

12 gauge -- (.729 diameter) 1oz (437 grain) slug at 1500fps, .150 SD
45-70 -- .456 diameter 405 grains at 1800fps, .276 SD (lever gun load)
45-70 -- .456 diameter 500 grains at 1880fps, .341 SD (Ruger #1 load)

 

[sayak]

12 gauge -- (.729 diameter) 1oz (437 grain) slug at 1500fps, .150 SD
45-70 -- .456 diameter 405 grains at 1800fps, .276 SD (lever gun load)
45-70 -- .456 diameter 500 grains at 1880fps, .341 SD (Ruger #1 load)

Which of those will take birds, small game, beaver, fox, wolf, deer and even big game to an acceptable degree?

In Alaska you may run into bear 6-7 months out of the year. There is no area exclusive of them, and you have to come to terms with that if you end up stranded. Yet there is not a bear behind every tree, and the bigger concern is feeding yourself. People from the lower 48 have a very limited understanding of how big this country is and what the conditions are like. Do not use reality TV as your educational instrument.

If you crash or get washed up between point A and B and are in a survivable condition, you may have a long walk or wait and you'd better be able to put away some calories or you WILL be bear food. Anyone who has a gun capable of taking a variety of animals and defending themselves to boot has a real ace in the hole. Yes, it would be nice to have several weapons, and as float pilot said, in a Beaver or larger airplane you might, but that is probably not the case for most people.