Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
FNH Five Seven 1.6lb gun
Display Avatars Sort By:
David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
The lowly .22 on 09/05/2012 10:16:13 MDT Print View

My fishing buddy - ex-cop, ex-military - points out that, domestically, more people are killed with a .22 than anything else.

I know it is because .22s are widespread, cheap, and concealable rather than because it is an ideal defensive (or offensive) round but that doesn't make those thousands of people any less dead.

Devon Cloud
(devoncloud)

Locale: Southwest
concealed carry and backpack carry on 09/05/2012 10:56:29 MDT Print View

For use for backpacking, I would imagine that the percentage of times a gun is used while backpacking is to scare animals away or kill them if they are attacking you rather than a drug induced human attack. For this reason, I would say that gun would do the trick for most everything but a bear (and even then if they are not that serious and hear the noise of the gun). I wholehardedly support getting out of an animal's way rather than shooting them however.. after all we are in their back yard not the other way around.

I have taken gun safety courses in my attempt to get a concealed weapon license. I got to the second to last course and was told of the extra complications would arise if I ever had to use the weapon in terms of proving I had no choice but to use deadly force. The burden of proof is much harder for a person with a conceal license... so much so that even though I paid for the course, I did not attain my license as their seemed to be too many ways a prosecutor could imprison me if for whatever reason they decided what I did was somehow illegal vs someone that did not have the conceal permit.

Edited by devoncloud on 09/05/2012 10:58:54 MDT.

Roger Dodger
(RogerDodger) - F

Locale: Wess Siide
Re: concealed carry and backpack carry, probability of field use. on 09/05/2012 15:37:19 MDT Print View

In the last 15+ years, when I started carrying a first aid kit, heavy duty and UL kit, I have never had a situation where I needed to use it in the field.

but you know how this life irony thing works. I get confident, I leave it at home. Nothing bad happens for the next couple of adventures, then... I critically need it, don't have it, wish I packed it.

No one would ever suggest ditching a first aid kit, regardless of how much non-usage it gets. For some people, risk assessment for their specific region, wildlife or bad humans, carrying in the wilderness equates to a security kit, you hope never to have to use, however feel necessary to have in certain terrain. Whether real or imaginary threat, it's a piece-of-mind security item. Like my lonely unused First Aid kit.

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Re: Re: concealed carry and backpack carry, probability of field use. on 09/05/2012 15:56:44 MDT Print View

"No one would ever suggest ditching a first aid kit."

Roger: I would. While we were "packed for bear", medically, for a 16-day Colorado River trip (serious drugs, trauma supplies, two MDs), the raft floats however much stuff you put in it.

But for backpacking: I'd much rather a companion had first-aid knowledge than gear, creativity than every size of bandaid (e.g. they could be creative with how to use thermarests, tent poles and pack struts as a split rather than have every possible split packed with them).

For bandaids/dressings/splits, I look to whether I have the knife, scissors, needle/thread to create that from other gear. Drugs are another issue and those I DO bring a careful selection of.

Back to guns: Someone with extensive knowledge of local plants, and how to snare/fish could gather more calories more easily than the most skilled marksmen so in that realm I also go for knowledge over gear. But I'll grant that for stopping a human with criminal intent, a firearm can do things that a psych degree can't. I know it is only partial true, but I like to think I've left those people behind when I've left the pavement.

Mike M
(mtwarden) - MLife

Locale: Montana
5.7 on 09/05/2012 17:18:03 MDT Print View

the FN 5.7 was designed around NATO's need for a light, high capacity round sidearm that was capable of longer distance shooting than the current NATO 9mm, also high on the list was the ability for it to penetrate body armor and have a long gun that would utilize the same cartridge

this is a battlefield designed weapon, I don't see much use for it in the civilian world to be honest

I do have a somewhat scary story about this weapon/cartridge- I was working a night shift heading out w/ another warden to look for spotlighters, we made it about 3 miles out when the radio lit up about a shooting in town w/ the suspect still at large. the individual had shot (and ultimately killed) his ex-girlfriend and severely wounded her companion. the suspect had riddled their vehicle as they departed, the penetration of the vehicle by this round was scary!

we helped the local PD for a couple of hours, first securing the scene and then looking for the suspect in town (w/ no luck)

we then left for our spotlight patrol and after awhile letting the shooting incident fade and concentrating on the task at hand I was driving and could see a vehicle pulled off the side of a county gravel road facing us, nothing highly unusual, but this about midnight so not normal

as we neared the vehicle, I had a bad feeling and it was confirmed when I could see the truck and part of the plate that matched the suspects- I floored it and ducked down, wincing as the image of the vehicle he shot came into my mind

we got clear of the vehicle and radioed in that we found the suspects vehicle, as it was two deputies from a neighboring county were just down the road- we made a quick plan and headed back towards the suspect. he must of knew something was up and took off, what we didn't know is that he used to live in this rural area and knew the back roads very well- not a comforting thought

we spent the entire night searching for the vehicle (it was very spooky every time we saw another vehicle that night), at morning light we found his vehicle, advanced on the vehicle to find him dead from a self inflicted wound

probably not very germane to the discussion, but that night/morning still is very vivid in my mind

carry on :)

S. L.
(slolord)
Re: That's light! on 03/14/2013 15:19:47 MDT Print View

just checked on the Henry survival rifle; it's listed as 3.5 lbs, not 2.5... lists for $350 ($100 / lb).

Seems a little heavy for backpacking light.

Looks interesting for carrying in a car/truck/plane/boat.

Andy Anderson
(ianders) - F

Locale: Southeast
Re: Re: That's light! on 03/14/2013 16:57:21 MDT Print View

As far as I know, the Kel Tec p32is the lightest in its class. I have one and it is small.


http://www.campsaver.com/ul-titanium-stove?trk_msg=0URHUMKI8RKK91434EF643H2TG&trk_contact=MC0OIHIMJRMDGBGJI63THI67SK&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fwww.campsaver.com%2ful-titanium-stove&utm_campaign=Mar-14

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Gun Talk! Sweet! on 03/14/2013 17:10:06 MDT Print View

Old thread but what the hay! The Henry AR-7 also has a spotty track record but I'd still like to buy one. My son and I are planning on converting his Cricket to a pack rifle once we acquire a PRK Skeletonized Stock. It advertises that the rifle will hit the 19oz mark with the conversion. Hopefully they will start selling them again as they've been out of stock (pun intended) for a while.

Dan Yeruski
(zelph) - MLife

Locale: www.bplite.com
Easy Carry on 03/17/2013 20:51:24 MDT Print View

I'm ok with this lightweight modified close range shirt pocket carry.

<center>
</center>

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re Easy Carry on 03/17/2013 21:05:49 MDT Print View

Making one of those is technically illegal (there are rules about "manufacturing" firearms). Range and stopping power is so bad here I think you'd have a better chance with mace.
I wish there was a "pocket rocket" that could fit in a hikers pocket and stop any potential threat (human, Mtn. Lion, bear) but I haven't seen it yet. The two lightest options that could reliably stop most threats would be a 5 shot .357 magnum (13 oz) or bear spray (9-13oz). Neither is really pocket sized. There is a new pocket sized 9mm out there called the Diamondback that would fit in a cargo pocket nicely. Kinda small for a black bear but maybe with +P ammo (safe but not recommended as its hard on such a light weapon).

Edited by Cameron on 03/17/2013 21:10:38 MDT.

Rob St. John
(robstjohn) - F

Locale: American Intermountain West
Heiser Double Tap on 03/17/2013 21:42:37 MDT Print View

I had given some thought to the Heiser Double Tap 45acp. It weighs in at 12oz. I thought it might make a good choice for self defence as a back up to pepper spray. Having spent most of my career working in big bear country, I am seldom without pepper spray. I still carry it twice a day on my fanny pack when walking my dogs...for other dogs. The Double tap only has two cartridges, but in pinch you should be able to make do...slow em' down with pepper spray before capping them with the double tap, eh? The 45acp is a decent round for stopping or deterring most critters at close range. Wouldn't work on bears or moose, but most critters, dogs, and people it should get the job done. Having spent most my career around the continental divide I don't worry too much about kooks, but when I think of hiking the AT or PCT I think kooks just might abound?

Edward Jursek
(nedjursek@gmail.com) - M

Locale: Pacific Northwest
old debate on 03/17/2013 23:19:52 MDT Print View

There has always been a debate between the large caliber/slow round and the smaller caliber/ fast round. There is the Marshall and Sanow school, of which I loosely belong, that finds a correlation between the muzzle velocity of a round and its effectiveness is more important then the grain weight. M&S concluded, for example, that a 125 grain .357 round traveling at about 1450 fps was much more effective then, say, a 230 grain .45 cal round traveling at about 900 fps. It is a matter of how many foot pounds of energy a bullet of a certain weight traveling at a certain speed will generate when it impacts. Now M&S had a loose grasp of science and statistics, but the idea that muzzle energy matters more then the grain weight or caliber makes sense to me. Of course there is a point of diminishing return when going too light, and there is the practicality of the amount of recoil in a handgun a shooter can manage. The 5.56mm/.223 round, at only 55 grains, but with a muzzle velocity of over 3000 fps, is very effective, both in the foot pounds of energy on impact and the wound channel that it generates. The 5.7mm round is using that basic formula: A relatively light round traveling at a high speed will be as, or more effective, then a slower, heavier round. I have yet to shoot a 5.7, but I hear the recoil is very light and the round is super accurate. There will always be those folks, often older men in hats, who say the size of the bullet is all that matters. Looking at the havoc smaller, lighter, high velocity rounds cause, I am not so sure they are right.

Erik Basil
(EBasil)

Locale: Atzlan
Re: Re: That's light! on 03/18/2013 07:12:49 MDT Print View

It looks like the modern AR-7 / Survival Rifle has gotten fat. Maybe these newer, Henry versions are using an all-steel barrel instead of the steel-lined aluminum on all the 2.5# units out there (?). I think they come with more magazines that also fit in the stock, so maybe it's a combination of factors.

Either way, these aren't designed for "defense", but rather bird and varmint hunting for survival purposes. With some readily-available knowledge (wahoo, internet!) and some bench & range time, the AR-7 can be nicely accurized for its purpose. Of course, it's not going to be a bench shooter, nor a dialy-driver like the 10/22 TD can be, but it floats...

I think the 14-ounce, beryllium Desert Eagle .50 is the one y'all want. Hang on tight!

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
"Survival" Rifle? on 03/18/2013 09:23:15 MDT Print View

I'm don't understand what people plan on "surviving" by carrying something like an AR-7.

If you're not climbing out of a downed aircraft, wrecked ship, or tangled parachute with one of these, isn't it just hunting? For which there are much better rifles for small game?

Seems like a piece of gear that gets sold primarily for entertaining man vs. nature Hollywoodesque fantasies of being suddenly and inexplicably stranded in the wild with no food or supplies.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
FNH Five Seven 1.6lb gun on 03/18/2013 14:32:51 MDT Print View

I carry a duo-mid/parachute in a harness i wear 24/7, just in case the opportunity to survive being tangled in it presents itself. Might as well bring a weapon that enhances the thrill of surviving the situation too.

Edited by redmonk on 03/18/2013 14:35:10 MDT.

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re Survival Rifle on 03/18/2013 15:36:32 MDT Print View

Personally rifles as a survival tool don't make much sense except maybe for an Alaskan bush pilot. Even then I think a stove and a couple Mtn. House Meals might be better. Really how long are you likely to be stranded?

Guns for hunting/self defense are a different matter. Unfortunately the requirements tend to be somewhat different. Shooting grouse with a 44 magnum seems kind impractical to me.

Here's my dream gun if anyone wants to make it.
-snubnosed revolver in .357
-4 shot cylinder so its smaller fits in my pocket
-Removable titanium stock so I can shoot it almost as accurately as a rifle (you need a SBR stamp for this).

I'd carry this like 4 shot pocket rocket in my hiking pants cargo pocket loaded with cast .357 loads. It would have plenty of power for anything smaller then a grizzly. If I wanted to shoot a grouse I'd attach the removable stock and load very light 38 Special rounds. This idea would give me a reasonably effective self defense system light and small enough that I'd actually carry it. Add a couple extra ounces for ammo and a ti stock and I could take supplement my diet with small game occasionally.

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: "Survival" Rifle? on 03/18/2013 15:51:48 MDT Print View

The AR-7 is a military survival rifle for pilots stuck behind enemy lines.
The terms "survival rifle" and "pack rifle" are often interchangeable. They are just lightweight hunting tools that you can pack around.

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re Re Survival Rifle on 03/18/2013 16:05:43 MDT Print View

"The AR-7 is a military survival rifle for pilots stuck behind enemy lines"

Yeah I never understood how shooting behind enemy lines was a great idea. However I guess in Siberia starving might actually be a bigger risk then getting caught.

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Re Re Survival Rifle on 03/18/2013 16:08:41 MDT Print View

Yeah, but maybe they issued them with silencers?

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re Re Re Re Survival Rifle on 03/18/2013 16:20:33 MDT Print View

Funny you should mention that silencers. I just shot a silenced .22 a friend has. With subsonic ammo his .22 was quieter then a Red Rider BB gun. Funny thing is we regulate silencers. Other countries encourage them because they make shooting quieter for any neighbors.