Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I belong to a survival group on Facebook, & it drives me nuts! I really hope this does not offend anyone here, but for the life of me I simply can not understand why people contemplating long term wilderness survival are so fixated with modern gadgets. I get the impression that their interest is not genuine, that what they want is to go camping & pretend they are surviving.
Torches, fuel cook stoves, other battery operated equipment, nothing that is sustainable over a long period of time. It is my belief that when this modern gear fails to function, that these people will be thrown back into the stone age.

I fully admit that most of the gear that I carry is for comfort. I can survive without anything if I have to, making what I need as I go along. But that is a pretty hard life & it gets no easier with time. So, I start off with 18th century technology, that way I will never drop below that level of comfort.
So, what do you think? Am I right? Or am I missing something?




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,295 Posts
Well your kinda right, we need to be able to fall back to a level of tec that can be sustainable in the long term, BUT I cant see much wrong in using some of the modern high tec gear to get you over the massive sheeple die off.

If you cant actually make saltpetre in useful quantities and find a sauce of suffer a flintlock probably isn't as sustainable as a 22lr because 22lr are cheap and compact and can be stacked deep. I know plenty of people have made black powder but if its from store bought ingredients its not really applicable to the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,315 Posts
seen the Revenant?

would Glass have been mauled if he had a Springfield Armory M1A with a 20 round mag?

I think the team would have eaten Bear that night
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Sustainable Reply

Well your kinda right, we need to be able to fall back to a level of tec that can be sustainable in the long term, BUT I cant see much wrong in using some of the modern high tec gear to get you over the massive sheeple die off.

If you cant actually make saltpetre in useful quantities and find a sauce of suffer a flintlock probably isn't as sustainable as a 22lr because 22lr are cheap and compact and can be stacked deep. I know plenty of people have made black powder but if its from store bought ingredients its not really applicable to the OP.
Well I do not exclude modern firearms dillin, I have some myself, but if I have to leave my retreat I can only carry one gun, & I choose the muzzle-loader. Someone else can carry the modern rifle & the weight of ammo.
With a muzzle-loader I do not have to carry a lot of lead, & it is for hunting, not getting into a firefight. The weight I save in lead, is taken up with extra lighter gunpowder.
Regards, Keith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Sustainable Reply.

seen the Revenant?

would Glass have been mauled if he had a Springfield Armory M1A with a 20 round mag?

I think the team would have eaten Bear that night
Not too many bears in the Australian bush Baddogg, & I would not want to be prioritising the weight of modern ammo over other more important items in my pack.
Regards, Keith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,295 Posts
Keith, I really get were your comeing from, I have done a little muzeloading myself(just signed your portion). I'm a big fan of wool cloths over synthetics for example. I'm just not convinced muzel loaders are the right path
 

·
It could always be worse
Joined
·
155 Posts
I agree with you in part.

Many people do seem to think that its the new fancy gadgets/modern high tech gear is what allows them to survive out in the bush. I think that this is a mixed blessing. On one hand it gives them false confidence in their gear, which can get them in trouble if/when they actually need to rely on it. Alternatively however, it can give many people the confidence to go out, try living in the bush, and therefore learn the skills that will keep them alive.

Personally, most of my gear reflects that of the early 19th century technology. If shtf I will be relying on one of my rimfires, or a 12g shotgun.

The shotgun shares many of the advantages of a larger bore muzzleloader (although with less accuracy) while being able to reload faster if another shot was to present itself.

As to the rimfires, a .22lr with 40gr projectile has a loaded carryweight of around 50-55gr (3.2-3.5 grams) while a 22wmr with 40gr projectile is only 60-65gr (3.9-4.2 grams). This means that overall, the projectile alone of nearly anything else is heavier then one of my loaded cartridges. For me, this is enough to justify using a rimfire if I ever needed to survive out of a pack. It also means that unlike a muzzleloader, if I was with my family, I could easily teach them how to use and reload my rifle without running the risk of a double charge/ double load.

Finally, as to the electronics, I think that they have their place in most scenarios. In most events, if you had a simple device like a radio, you could find out when it was safe to emerge from the wilderness. A torch could help if you ever had to move around on a moon-less night or signal to a rescue party in a 'survival scenario'. A more complex gadget such as smart-phone or tablet could contain ebooks on essential skills such as plant identification or medicine. These days all of these can be kept running for a long time using inexpensive and lightweight solar charges. While someone might know alot on these subject, odds are you won't end up alone in the wilderness and the other group members could use the material to get up to speed.

Finally, in the long term, we will need to be able to manufacture our own equipment. If and when it gets to this point, it will likely be long enough past the event that hostile people are no longer the issue. As such I will likely be focusing my efforts on hunting tools such as archery and gaining as much food as possible from agriculture and trapping for meat
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top