Gear List for surviving indefinitely, 75 Pound limit

[slim9300]

AR-15 with LOTS of ammo and probably a 9mm with LOTS of ammo. If this is truly a post apocalyptic state. You will have to fight to keep what you have and kill to get what you need!

Unless you have a reliable team of men that are heavily armed, adequate supplies to survive and a defensible location. In that case, life will be a large improvement over wandering around as a lone target.

 

[Ironman]

I think the overall idea is a poor strategy for dealing with the situation unless you have no other option but...

Fighting with a .22 is pretty funny. Good luck with that. The posed question is not just a typical survival situation if you have done any research on the subject. I will be choosing my scoped AR-15 for this 'job' and taking as much ammo as possible. At least 500 rounds but probably more. That's about 25-30 lbs. of rifle and ammo that will pay for itself very quickly.

Killing small game for food with an AR is even funnier. And as far as your 30lbs of ammo, that's about 3500 rounds of .22.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Unless you have a reliable team of men that are heavily armed, adequate supplies to survive and a defensible location. In that case, life will be a large improvement over wandering around as a lone target.

You will still need to fight for what you have and kill for what you need! Simple as that!

 

[slim9300]

Killing small game for food with an AR is even funnier. And as far as your 30lbs of ammo, that's about 3500 rounds of .22.

You are an idiot for even making this argument. I have killed a ton of small game (and medium sized game) with my .223 and the difference is that I can shoot effectively out to 500 yards while you are lucky to shoot 100-150 yards accurately. The meat was not damaged if that is what you are trying to argue. Regardless, the abundance of any game animal will be so scarce that you had better have a back up plan. Either way, you will be dead very quickly trying to fight with a .22 anyways, so it's a moot point. I'll bring some of my 12k rounds of .22 ammo though... for barter purposes. Lol.

 

[slim9300]

You will still need to fight for what you have and kill for what you need! Simple as that!

Agreed. You also said, "kill for what you need." I am saying the risk of having a fixed location and trained partners is much lower, along with the need to be offensive.

 

[sab]

Surviving indefinitely with man-portable gear is not something I would attempt. I'd much rather hunker down...

 

[Ironman]

So I'm an idiot? So classy of you. Truth is, you should educate yourself as to what most all survival professionals would take, as far as weapons. Hint: it's not an AR!

 

[slim9300]

So I'm an idiot? So classy of you. Truth is, you should educate yourself as to what most all survival professionals would take, as far as weapons. Hint: it's not an AR!

Lol. Which "survival professionals" are you referring to?

 

[Ironman]

Any that make a living teaching survival. Isn't that what "professional" means?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Slim first off calling people idiots, not constructive, explain your points, no name calling.. Second we could argue this to death. The OP said no wife no kids so you probably don't have your buddies either. Even if you do you will run out of supplies. So you will have to get more.

 

[slim9300]

Any that make a living teaching survival. Isn't that what "professional" means?

What kind of experience to they have in an environment where a good portion of the population is trying to kill them and take everything they have? I would say that most soldiers with combat experience are 1000% more prepared for this scenario than your typical survivalist.

Do you have any resources for the strategies used by the professional survivalists you are referring to?

 

[Ironman]

I would say most survival professionals ARE ex military. Some where even survival instructors in the military. I disagree with you. Get over it and move along.

 

[slim9300]

Second we could argue this to death. The OP said no wife no kids so you probably don't have your buddies either. Even if you do you will run out of supplies. So you will have to get more.

Unless you have a reliable team of men that are heavily armed, adequate supplies to survive and a defensible location. In that case, life will be a large improvement over wandering around as a lone target.

You will still need to fight for what you have and kill for what you need! Simple as that!

You said (^^^) in response to my post, where I said that I won't be running out solo. I was just referring to that situation.

 

[slim9300]

I would say most survival professionals ARE ex military. Some where even survival instructors in the military. I disagree with you. Get over it and move along.

Show me one that says if SHTF and they had to survive and fight, that they would choose a .22 over a more effective weapon.

 

[Ironman]

No one mentioned warfare but you. SHTF/survival was the OP. Get over your Rambo self already.

 

[Ozz08]

Why are we talking about taking game for food? Do animals survive an apocalypse? I think a weapon that is more equipped for fighting is what you would want (like an AR). I think you would be fighting a lot more than you would be shooting wabbits after an apacolypse.

 

[Nick Muche]

NO NAME CALLING! This is Rokslide, not the playground!

 

[Ryan Avery]

Gotcha, like I said we could argue this to death. More people more supplies bigger target. You will still have to venture out for a resupply. I am with you on the AR. I would also want a suppressor But that might be 76 pounds with all the ammo I am going to bring. It's a good thing it will all be in a Kifaru!

 

[Ironman]

If animals don't survive it, we da*n sure wont!

 

[slim9300]

No one mentioned warfare but you. SHTF/survival was the OP. Get over your Rambo self already.

LOL. Get a clue. SHTF IS large scale civil unrest. There is no other option due to human nature! Have you ever read any history?

Regardless, you have proven this is a pointless discussion between you and I. I realize I am being a dick but it's only because I can't believe how naïve you are.