Wouldn’t an AR be a much better backpack rifle than a 10/22?

I carry 150 rounds of 5.56.

God glock 40s are nice, I just finished a hike with mine

>Why would you carry 325 rounds of ammunition hiking? you could probably get away with one mag in the rifle and two in a pouch for most situations.
Sure, and you could probably get away with not carrying a gun at all. Millions of people go hiking without one every year. Statistically speaking, basically all of them come back just fine.

But if you are going to carry one, carry one that's practical. A lot of ammo is practical if it weighs next to nothing because more shooty is better than less shooty.

Being able to defend yourself against large game is also practical

yes, and for small game hunting (the real reason why you have a backpack rifle), the 10/22 is more practical than your AR.

If you're going into areas with more dangerous fauna, you aren't going for recreation, unless that recreation is big game hunting. Hiking you do in areas with less than dangerous game, where your biggest threat is 2 legged fauna.

That’s just your opinion though. Some of the most beutiful hiking trails are in areas with dangerous game.

okay, so in that case, you don't want an AR, you'd want a 12ga slug, or if you want to keep both your hands free, a magnum revolver or a 10mm auto.

>Being able to defend yourself against large game is also practical
Spoiler: 5.56 isn't going to do that, either. If that's what you think you may be facing, .44 Magnum is the absolute bare minimum you want to bring with you.

A 12 gauge shotgun would make a better backpack gun than a 10/22. It can take small and large game just by changing the shell.

I think bringing an AR while hiking is retarded, but this is fuddlore. .223 has greater kinetic energy than .44 Mag at all distances.

30 rounds of 5.56 will do that

I don't want to take large game when I'm hiking though, because then you have to haul it out. When I'm hiking, I only want small game because I can process it right then and there and consume it all in one sitting.

I’m not talking about hiking and hunting. I’m talking about encountering a larger predatory animal. 12 gauge will reliably stop animal threats, .22 can but not reliably

>g40
Hey now, you don't need to obliterate half a forest just to kill a bear

but not all barrel-lengths.

I think pistol AR is a shit hiking gun.
If it's in your bag lmao it'll still be there after everything gets done popping off.
A 44 in a holster would be easier to carry with quicker draw.

If you're moving with an AR pistol and prepared to use it, it'll be in your hands.
If it's in your hands, why not do what stoner told you and carry a 20 inch barrel?

The problem being having the time to get 30 aimed shots off before Yogi and Boo Boo make lunch out of your entrails.

Listen, the AR is a fine rifle, but the idea that it's the One True Rifle that's the best choice for every single scenario is just retarded. It's designed to take down two-legged varmints at under 500 yards. It does that really well. But there are other things that it doesn't do really well.

If you're expecting to have to face down big game, your best choices are 12 gauge slugs or a .45-70 levergun, and you could *maybe* get away with a .44 Magnum revolver or a 10mm autoloader with a really hot loading. Anything else in that scenario is LARPing and useless weight.

a backpack rifle is a concept used by those who do small game hunting while hiking. They like nice takedown rifles that can be put away when you're not hunting. If you're worried about dangerous game, you aren't going to keep your defense weapon broken down in your backpack, you'd either have it holstered or slung.

an M1 would work in a pinch for bear defense desu, and people in the arctic use bolt guns in .30-06 or even .308 Win for polar bear defense

.223 deflects on large bone masses. it's not an option for defense against large predators.

I wouldn't go much lower than .30-06 or a pretty hot .308 round though.

no of course not, if you're worried about Yogi coming for your pickanick basket, you want a full bore rifle. And the few times I've gone into Yogi's territory, I had a full bore slung at low ready. Not a fucking backpack rifle like what I'd do if going hiking.

>your best choices are 12 gauge slugs or a .45-70 levergun

Bears are not unstoppable killing machines. .308 or 7.62x39 will kill most bears (polar bears might take all 30 rounds)

pic related is a model 99 in .308

Attached: Cnv0220.jpg (700x525, 343K)

this: Leafs issue .308 rifles for bear defense to their arctic patrols, and the Slædepatruljen Sirius use the M1917 in .30-06 for polar bear and moose defense (though they also use the Glock 20 as well)

something tells me that was a broadside from 100+ yards away, not him running them out of the bushes from 25 yards

getting more than one shot off with a lever or pump action when the bear is charging at 25 yards is improbable. Ill stick to my semi autos.

10/22 is fun because I can throw a meh 4X or red dot on it and bring along a baby gong for fun innawoods plinking with a 500 box I bought for $15. If I plan on defending myself I'll bring the CZ with spicey bois in it or a Ruger with .357s.

and I'll stick to 300-500 grain solids that don't deflect or break into pieces, and penetrate into vitals if I miss the brain stem

>Go fuck yourself

Wow, this is a great argument.

>you don't even need a gun
>but if you have a gun you should carry 300+ rounds for it because you never know when you'll be jumped by a gang of vampire bears

the m16 was designed to miss

>Misses first shot
>Dies

Lol have fun with yogi

>Weight of 1000rds of .22lr: 7lbs
>Weight of 1000rds of M193 5.56x45: 26lbs
I can literally put 250rds of .22lr in the stock compartment of my 10/22TD and not even notice it's there, dipshit.

Attached: ass.gif (500x382, 125K)

>Millions of people go hiking without one every year. Statistically speaking, basically all of them come back just fine.
there were 2 fatal mountain lion attacks in the last 6 months, and some guy got mauled by a bear in Alaska recently, because bear spray is a shit.
statistics don't save me from shit when teeth and claws are coming at me.

playing dead doesn't work when you piss him off by putting 3 ineffectual wounds in him that will only kill him a week later.

desu the only time any pistol failed was when one dude with a .357 Mag who never ever practiced missed. Even a friggin' 9mm will work against a bear. ammoland.com/2018/02/defense-against-bears-with-pistols-97-success-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5UiFOD26U

>Weighs too much and hits too hard to use to hunt small game while backpacking/surviving in an emergency
>Bullet doesn't have sufficient mass to reliable kill large game
Literally nobody carries an AR for innawoods in Grizzly country. Literally nobody.

It's a shit woods rifle.

>getting more than one shot off with a lever or pump action when the bear is charging at 25 yards is improbable. Ill stick to my semi autos.
Imagine being so spastic you can't operate a pump or lever fast enough to be effective against wildlife.

>rapid fire hits anything

Even a light AR is significantly bigger and heavier than a 10/22. I'm not saying they can't be good backpack weapons, but a 10/22 they ain't.

if you want to play the statistics game with your life, you're still better off with a rifle

Now compare those numbers to successful bear kills with full-powered rifles or 12ga slugs.

Attached: Smugasfuck.jpg (300x350, 22K)

Unpopular opinion time: unless you're hiking Alaska you don't need a gun at all. And carrying a rifle while not hunting is autistic as hell and dumb. Just be aware of your surroundings and stop clutching a gun like a life preserver.

Cold dead hands indeed.

>I can totally operate my action fast in a high stress situation where milliseconds count.
Stick to Cabelas video games

>not knowing about forest methheads
>not knowing about wolves
>not knowing about bears that have been desensitized to humans because of chinklitter
>not knowing about lions

Better to have something and never use it than need something and not have it.

Attached: emi-dimitrova-008.jpg (1920x1433, 512K)

I'm gonna go further, you don't need a gun at all, ever anywhere, if you are aware of your surroundings.

tell it to that dead mountain biker in WA back in May, or that dead that dead hiker in OR back in September. that's just people killed. enjoy your ER visit and rabies shots.

I've been driving for 24 years. I've never been in a car accident. I still wear a seat belt.

Fruity Rudy does.

Attached: Ep204_007_UltimateSurvivorAlaskaII.jpg (550x413, 62K)

Attached: gkillrudy.gif (500x278, 2.58M)

You can kill any North american game with 556 ouut of an Ar15

you can kill anything in north america with a 2.5" barrel .22lr. it will probably die eventually.
neither that nor a 22lr pocket gun helps me much when it comes charging out of the bushes.

Tbh seatbelts aren't really a safety thing, they're more so that you don't flop around and lose your position when you go around a corner. If a velcro seat existed to do just that, I'd buy it in an instant because a seatbelt won't do shit in a real crash. Sure it might prevent you from bonking your head during a fender bender, but if you're actually going to get injured, your seatbelt will just cut into your chest, you'll get squished by the car crumpling around you, and you'll just die anyways. If I'm just driving my mom to the store, I don't wear a seatbelt because I don't need it to hold me in place like I do when I'm driving normally. Seatbelts are about as necessary as good leather seats.

imagine being this retarded

Just imagine being this stupid
>Velcro seat
>get stuck in car and die

Imagine falling for decade old pasta