Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
which was all aluminum.

The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
yourself.

There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)

A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
condemning the idea.

With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.

There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.

Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.

Just a thot. Outside the box.

-R.S.Hoover

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:59:28 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
>yourself....last night I stumbled upon what
>may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)

There are some pretty significant disadvantages as well. Reloading
takes time, bad weather can be a problem (the old expression "keep
your powder dry" isn't just an expression), and the knockdown/stopping
power is considerably less than a modern weapon. Then there's the
risk of chain fires if you don't slob grease over the loads.

If I'm in a survival situation, I want a gun that I can reload in a
driving rain, and KNOW that it will fire.

There are other handguns that can fire shot shells. Shot shells are
available in various pistol caliber sizes, and there are revolvers and
derringers that chamber both .45 Colt and .410 shotgun shells.

I still hold to a .22 as probably the best survival rifle. Not much
stopping power for large game (though the world record black bear was
taken with a .22!), but it's great for the small game that's more
likely to keep you fed, and _lots_ of ammo doesn't weigh much.

-Dana

--
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
> which was all aluminum.
>
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.
>
> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>
> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-)

Some of them can be pretty accurate, at least in pistol terms, not rifle
or shotgun.

The Ruger Old Army cap and ball revolver, for example, can do pretty
well. (One of our local blackpowder club members more than once shot a
50-5x at 25yds on the pistol course. He may have been a mutant, was the
local consensus.)

Well, in someone else's hands, not mine. I could hit a squirrel (size
target) fairly consistently with an Uberti replica Colt 1861 Army. Why
I'd want to is another question, given the local ground squirrels.

> ...but hear me out before condemning the idea.
>
> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>
> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>
> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.

It might be worth trying a trade pistol with bird shot. Probably good
for grouse, or a rabbit if you're a bit lucky. They were smoothbore
pistols that were sometimes made to match a (smoothbore) tradegun,
usually a basic flintlock musket for hunting.

You can find them (or build your own) in 28, 24, or 20-gauge, and you
can also fire a patched ball (.54, .58, and .62 calibers, respectively).
They do tend to be flintlock, but there are some converted to caplock.

Those old smoothbore tradeguns must have worked pretty well, since they
were sold on the Colonial frontier from the late 1600s on, and the
Hudson's Bay company didn't quit offering them until just before WW1.

> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Dana M. Hague wrote:

> I still hold to a .22 as probably the best survival rifle. Not much
> stopping power for large game (though the world record black bear was
> taken with a .22!), but it's great for the small game that's more
> likely to keep you fed, and _lots_ of ammo doesn't weigh much.
>
> -Dana

Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
for NEF single shot rifles. These rifles are light and way more
accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest. Having
another barrel fitted (in most calibers) is under a hundred bucks.

The one caveat is no rim-fire calibers on a center-fire frames. I have
one in .223 Rem, and I'm planning to get a .22 Hornet and a .45 Colt
barrels for it. I could shoot .410 shot shells in the .45 Colt barrel
and the shot cup would keep the rifling from chewing up the shot.

This rifle with the 2 barrels and 50 rounds of ammo for each would
easily pack away behind the seat of your plane if you're flying out in
an off the grid area. Or perhaps just the .45 Colt barrel but then
you'd have to rely on .410 shotgun rounds to take squirrel sized game if
you are to stay fed until help finds you.

WWII German Luftwaffe pilots had drilling rifle/shotguns. These usually
had 2 shotgun barrels and a rifle barrel either under or over the
shotgun barrels and centered between the two. Drilling is the German
word for triple so they always had 3 barrels. The US pilots had a an
over under .22 hornet over a .410 gage shotgun. A couple companies
reproduce these but I don't think they're worth the money. Savage has
made over under rifle/shotgun combos for many years but again I think
they sell for more than they're worth.

Tony

On Nov 26, 7:51*pm, Anthony W > wrote:
> Dana M. Hague wrote:
> > I still hold to a .22 as probably the best survival rifle. *Not much
> > stopping power for large game (though the world record black bear was
> > taken with a .22!), but it's great for the small game that's more
> > likely to keep you fed, and _lots_ of ammo doesn't weigh much.
>
> > -Dana
>
> Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
> for NEF single shot rifles. *These rifles are light and way more
> accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest. *Having
> another barrel fitted (in most calibers) is under a hundred bucks.
>
> The one caveat is no rim-fire calibers on a center-fire frames. *I have
> one in .223 Rem, and I'm planning to get a .22 Hornet and a .45 Colt
> barrels for it. *I could shoot .410 shot shells in the .45 Colt barrel
> and the shot cup would keep the rifling from chewing up the shot.
>
> This rifle with the 2 barrels and 50 rounds of ammo for each would
> easily pack away behind the seat of your plane if you're flying out in
> an off the grid area. *Or perhaps just the .45 Colt barrel but then
> you'd have to rely on .410 shotgun rounds to take squirrel sized game if
> you are to stay fed until help finds you.
>
> WWII German Luftwaffe pilots had drilling rifle/shotguns. *These usually
> had 2 shotgun barrels and a rifle barrel either under or over the
> shotgun barrels and centered between the two. *Drilling is the German
> word for triple so they always had 3 barrels. *The US pilots had a an
> over under .22 hornet over a .410 gage shotgun. *A couple companies
> reproduce these but I don't think they're worth the money. *Savage has
> made over under rifle/shotgun combos for many years but again I think
> they sell for more than they're worth.
>
> Tony

Once while still young and stupid, I came into the possession of a
single action .22 revolver that was very old and rusty. When I
cleaned it up, I saw there was no rifling in the barrel. The rifling
may have just rusted away or I polished it away while cleaning it up
or it was never there in the first place - whatever.

Well, what to do with a smoothbore .22 but fire birdshot rounds with
it? I found at about 10 feet it had about a 12" pattern - not bad for
a 8" barrel. It would drive the tiny birdshot pellets about an 1/8"
into pine boards at that distance. About the only thing it was good
for was shooting desert sparrows and such. (Remember, I confessed to
young and stupid.)

I worked with the pistol until I could reliably fast-draw, cock and
fire the single action while dropping to a gunfighter stance. (At
least I sensibly kept the hammer down on an empty cylinder while in
its holster)

I had a fairly good eye and could down a flushed sparrow with better
than 50/50 odds. This got me the reputation of "El Pistolero" with
school chums who were never told it was loaded with birdshot. (Many
years later it was used to rid hangars of pigeons without blowing
holes in the roof - or in parked airplanes with ricochets.)

Survival gun? No way. This thing would have been useless for that.

On Nov 26, 8:13*pm, Dana M. Hague > wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:59:28 -0800 (PST), "
>
> > wrote:
> >The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> >yourself....last night I stumbled upon what
> >may be a suitable substitute: *A black-powder pistol. *(!??)
>
> There are some pretty significant disadvantages as well. *Reloading
> takes time, bad weather can be a problem (the old expression "keep
> your powder dry" isn't just an expression), and the knockdown/stopping
> power is considerably less than a modern weapon. *Then there's the
> risk of chain fires if you don't slob grease over the loads.
>
> If I'm in a survival situation, I want a gun that I can reload in a
> driving rain, and KNOW that it will fire.
>
> There are other handguns that can fire shot shells. *Shot shells are
> available in various pistol caliber sizes, and there are revolvers and
> derringers that chamber both .45 Colt and .410 shotgun shells.
>
> I still hold to a .22 as probably the best survival rifle. *Not much
> stopping power for large game (though the world record black bear was
> taken with a .22!), but it's great for the small game that's more
> likely to keep you fed, and _lots_ of ammo doesn't weigh much.
>
> -Dana
>
> --
> Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Pietenpol AirCamper

wrote:
> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack.

My personal favorite for this sort of duty is the Camp Carbine...

On Nov 26, 6:59*pm, " > wrote:
> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. *And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack. *As best I can recall this was a .22 *Hornet rifle / .
> 410 shotgun that folded up. *Ammunition was carried in the stock,
> which was all aluminum.
>
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.
>
> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
> heavy and tend to be expensive. *But last night I stumbled upon what
> may be a suitable substitute: *A black-powder pistol. *(!??)
>
> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
> heavy. *It's also not very accurate :-) *...but hear me out before
> condemning the idea.
>
> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. *A percussion
> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>
> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball *...that
> makes this idea worthy of thought. *One is that when we do away with
> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
> cube of our ammunition. *Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. *And since the ammo
> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. *This allows you
> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
> convenient. *Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
> chambers charged with ball. *This presents no problem. *The other four
> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>
> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>
> Just a thot. *Outside the box.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Great write up again Bob.

Monk

On Nov 26, 9:51*pm, Anthony W > wrote:
> Dana M. Hague wrote:
> > I still hold to a .22 as probably the best survival rifle. *Not much
> > stopping power for large game (though the world record black bear was
> > taken with a .22!), but it's great for the small game that's more
> > likely to keep you fed, and _lots_ of ammo doesn't weigh much.
>
> > -Dana
>
> Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
> for NEF single shot rifles. *These rifles are light and way more
> accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest. *Having
> another barrel fitted (in most calibers) is under a hundred bucks.
>
> The one caveat is no rim-fire calibers on a center-fire frames. *I have
> one in .223 Rem, and I'm planning to get a .22 Hornet and a .45 Colt
> barrels for it. *I could shoot .410 shot shells in the .45 Colt barrel
> and the shot cup would keep the rifling from chewing up the shot.
>
> This rifle with the 2 barrels and 50 rounds of ammo for each would
> easily pack away behind the seat of your plane if you're flying out in
> an off the grid area. *Or perhaps just the .45 Colt barrel but then
> you'd have to rely on .410 shotgun rounds to take squirrel sized game if
> you are to stay fed until help finds you.
>
> WWII German Luftwaffe pilots had drilling rifle/shotguns. *These usually
> had 2 shotgun barrels and a rifle barrel either under or over the
> shotgun barrels and centered between the two. *Drilling is the German
> word for triple so they always had 3 barrels. *The US pilots had a an
> over under .22 hornet over a .410 gage shotgun. *A couple companies
> reproduce these but I don't think they're worth the money. *Savage has
> made over under rifle/shotgun combos for many years but again I think
> they sell for more than they're worth.
>
> Tony

I was just in Dick's Sporting goods the other day and they are having
a special on a youth break action single shot .22 with an additional .
410 or 20ga. barrel for only $89.

I'm getting one for my little daughter for Christmas.

Monk

> wrote in message
...
> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
> which was all aluminum.
>
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.
>
> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>
> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
> condemning the idea.
>
> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>
> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>
> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>
> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
And you can put a stock on it to increase practical accuracy without running
afoul of the Feds.

Bob (another one)

Dana M. Hague wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:59:28 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
>> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
>> yourself....last night I stumbled upon what
>> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>
> There are some pretty significant disadvantages as well. Reloading
> takes time, bad weather can be a problem (the old expression "keep
> your powder dry" isn't just an expression), and the knockdown/stopping
> power is considerably less than a modern weapon. Then there's the
> risk of chain fires if you don't slob grease over the loads.

That only holds for revolvers, not single shots. One thing many
people miss is that moisture can get into the chamber(s) from
condensation. For best reliability the firearm needs to be reloaded
every day. Gunfighters did this for that reason.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Monk wrote:
> I was just in Dick's Sporting goods the other day and they are having
> a special on a youth break action single shot .22 with an additional .
> 410 or 20ga. barrel for only $89.
>
> I'm getting one for my little daughter for Christmas.
>
> Monk

That's a killer deal. It's too bad there isn't a Dick's Sporting goods
here in the Portland, Or area. With a .22 rim fire and a 20 gage you
could hunt all sized game you would run across when stuck out in the
middle of nowhere.

Tony

On Nov 26, 5:59*pm, " > wrote:
> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. *And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack. *As best I can recall this was a .22 *Hornet rifle / .
> 410 shotgun that folded up. *Ammunition was carried in the stock,
> which was all aluminum.
>
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.
>
> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
> heavy and tend to be expensive. *But last night I stumbled upon what
> may be a suitable substitute: *A black-powder pistol. *(!??)
>
> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
> heavy. *It's also not very accurate :-) *...but hear me out before
> condemning the idea.
>
> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. *A percussion
> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>
> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball *...that
> makes this idea worthy of thought. *One is that when we do away with
> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
> cube of our ammunition. *Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. *And since the ammo
> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. *This allows you
> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
> convenient. *Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
> chambers charged with ball. *This presents no problem. *The other four
> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>
> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>
> Just a thot. *Outside the box.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
Just as a practical exercise in creative thinking Bob’s posting is
novel. However, it is also correct when taken in the context of using
a replica Army/Navy Colt or Remington black powder revolver as a
“foraging gun”. Either a .36 or .44 caliber will do that as well as
shoot a shot load. Means of “keeping your powder dry” as well as
substitutes for black powder are commonly used so such a revolver in a
full flap holster is doable to my thinking. Beside’s few forms of
shooting are more fun then cap ‘n ball, especially when you see how
accurate they are. Enjoy.

wrote:
> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
> which was all aluminum.
>
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.
>
> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>
> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
> condemning the idea.
>
> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>
> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>
> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>
> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>

The old AR-7 in .22 LR, now made by Henry, is a good choice. Mine is
a Carter Arms. It disassembled and stores in its own stock, will float
and is inexpensive by today's standards.

This is one of those "my Ford is better than your Chevy" eternal
arguments as to the best single firearm. I suggest a little research
into what you are likely to use it for in the area in which you will be
flying. You never know, maybe a .410 with an assortment of shot and slug
shells may be the best bet.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

While I have great admiration for black-powder arms, there's another
factor that has to be considered regarding carrying a weapon in an
aircraft for use in a survival situation: You may have injuries to an
arm or hand.

The black-powder arm will require that the survivor manipulate canned
powder, loose balls/shot, patches, percussion caps, grease, ramrods,
etc. to prepare the weapon for ONE shot. A complex job, much more
difficult if the user is crippled.

I just pulled my Grandma's 1906 Winchester pump-action 22LR rifle down
from the wall. I jammed the stock between my legs, twisted the magazine
tube open, slid the pushrod partially out, simulated loading five rounds
into the slot, slid the tube down, locked it, and pumped the slide to
load it.

All one-handed, in little more time than it takes to describe it. I'm
certainly no expert, either...I haven't fired a weapon in twenty years,
and I've never as much as worked the action on Grandma's rifle in the 15
years I've owned it. I had to look it over...one handed... to figure
out how to load it in the first place!

I seriously respect those who hunt with muzzle-loading weapons, but a
survival situation isn't the same as a sporting one.

Ron Wanttaja

Copperhead wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:59 pm, " > wrote:
>> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
>> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
>> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
>> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
>> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
>> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
>> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
>> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
>> which was all aluminum.
>>
>> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
>> yourself.
>>
>> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
>> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
>> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>>
>> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
>> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
>> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
>> condemning the idea.
>>
>> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
>> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
>> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
>> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
>> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
>> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>>
>> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
>> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
>> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
>> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
>> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
>> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
>> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
>> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
>> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
>> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
>> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
>> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
>> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
>> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
>> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>>
>> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
>> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
>> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>>
>> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
> Just as a practical exercise in creative thinking Bob’s posting is
> novel. However, it is also correct when taken in the context of using
> a replica Army/Navy Colt or Remington black powder revolver as a
> “foraging gun”. Either a .36 or .44 caliber will do that as well as
> shoot a shot load. Means of “keeping your powder dry” as well as
> substitutes for black powder are commonly used so such a revolver in a
> full flap holster is doable to my thinking. Beside’s few forms of
> shooting are more fun then cap ‘n ball, especially when you see how
> accurate they are. Enjoy.
>

One rainy day I was shooting a 6 shot cap and ball revolver at a
range. There was no wind and the smoke obscured the target by the sixth
shot. 30 minutes later I still couldn't see the target. The smoke
declined my request to vacate the area. Not a good thing in a survival
situation.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

" > wrote:
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.

Just make sure the weapon is edible. If it isn't, can't see the value.
Substitute some cans of beans or spam and now you've got both food _and_
weapons. :-)

Before the rifle, before the spam, even before the first aid kit, Water.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:59:28 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
>articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
>those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
>But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
>coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
>in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
>survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
>410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
>which was all aluminum.
>
>The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
>yourself.
>
my personal choice for such a survival rifle would be the Marlin 925R
..22 long rifle and winchester hollow point bullets.

the microgroove rifle is *very* accurate and repeatable.
the resin stock cant be affected by rain.
the winchesters hit with a thump and stop rabbits dead.

all in all an almost totally weather proof style of rifle.
Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> my personal choice for such a survival rifle would be the Marlin 925R
> .22 long rifle and winchester hollow point bullets.
>
> the microgroove rifle is *very* accurate and repeatable.
> the resin stock cant be affected by rain.
> the winchesters hit with a thump and stop rabbits dead.

Good for stopping angry jack-alopes, too, right?

<http://users.stargate.net/~mnovak/jackalopes/pics/lope19.gif>

:-))
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:51:30 GMT, Anthony W >
wrote:

>Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
>for NEF single shot rifles. These rifles are light and way more
>accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest...

I'll second that; I bought a NEF 20 gauge with a slug barrel for my
daughter when she was 14. It's beautifully finished, the action is
very solid, and it's a tack driver out to 100 yards with sabot slugs.
Not what I'd pick for a survival gun, but then again it might not be
such a bad choice.

I also have one of the FMJ 2 barrel .45LC/.410 derringers. It's a
piece of junk in a way, but it does what it's supposed to do,
reliably, and the under $100 price can't be beat. I bought it mainly
for backpacking. It can also shoot .410 slugs as well as the ,45's,
but though I tried it on the one occasion I found a box of .410 slugs
in a store (why do they even make such a thing?) I don't know offhand
which would be better ballisticly.

The AR-7 breakdown .22 is very popular in Alaska, where I understand
(perhaps somebody can confirm?) by law you must carry a firearm in
your aircraft. People that think the law is silly go for the cheapest
solution, and the AR-7 is cheap. The Marlin Papoose, though, is
similar but a _much_ higher quality gun. I use mine for squirrel
hunting on occasion. It breaks down in a similar manner and although
it doesn't store inside the stock, its stock isn't so big and clunky
as the AR-7; the Papoose comes with a nice little case. Like the
AR-7, it floats _IF_ it's in the case and IF you don't throw away the
styrofoam insert that comes with it.

-Dana
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the *******s.

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
>
> Before the rifle, before the spam, even before the first aid kit, Water.

Not very entertaining, but I've always heard that's true.

Dana M. Hague wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:51:30 GMT, Anthony W >
> wrote:
>
>> Additional barrels in various calibers and shotgun gages can be bought
>> for NEF single shot rifles. These rifles are light and way more
>> accurate than the under $200 new price tag would suggest...
>
> I'll second that; I bought a NEF 20 gauge with a slug barrel for my
> daughter when she was 14. It's beautifully finished, the action is
> very solid, and it's a tack driver out to 100 yards with sabot slugs.
> Not what I'd pick for a survival gun, but then again it might not be
> such a bad choice.
>
> I also have one of the FMJ 2 barrel .45LC/.410 derringers. It's a
> piece of junk in a way, but it does what it's supposed to do,
> reliably, and the under $100 price can't be beat. I bought it mainly
> for backpacking. It can also shoot .410 slugs as well as the ,45's,
> but though I tried it on the one occasion I found a box of .410 slugs
> in a store (why do they even make such a thing?) I don't know offhand
> which would be better ballisticly.
>
> The AR-7 breakdown .22 is very popular in Alaska, where I understand
> (perhaps somebody can confirm?) by law you must carry a firearm in
> your aircraft. People that think the law is silly go for the cheapest
> solution, and the AR-7 is cheap. The Marlin Papoose, though, is
> similar but a _much_ higher quality gun. I use mine for squirrel
> hunting on occasion. It breaks down in a similar manner and although
> it doesn't store inside the stock, its stock isn't so big and clunky
> as the AR-7; the Papoose comes with a nice little case. Like the
> AR-7, it floats _IF_ it's in the case and IF you don't throw away the
> styrofoam insert that comes with it.
>
> -Dana
> --

AR-7 will float on its own whether assembled or not. For us lefties
the stock can be a handful while shooting.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan" > wrote

> AR-7 will float on its own whether assembled or not. For us lefties
> the stock can be a handful while shooting.

What makes a difference, left vs. right? Is the stock not symmetrical?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Dan" > wrote
>> AR-7 will float on its own whether assembled or not. For us lefties
>> the stock can be a handful while shooting.
>
> What makes a difference, left vs. right? Is the stock not symmetrical?

No, it's not. The left side near the receiver is wider (deeper?) to
allow the muzzle of the barrel to fit when stored.

I have large hands so it's not a big deal, but someone with small
hands could have problems. I actually prefer shooting it over my Marlin
and Ruger 10-22. For longer range accuracy I'd go with the Ruger, but
for shorter ranges the AR-7 is more than adequate.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
> wrote:
>> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
>> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
>> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
>> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
>> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
>> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
>> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
>> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
>> which was all aluminum.
>>
>> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
>> yourself.
>>
>> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
>> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
>> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>>
>> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
>> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
>> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
>> condemning the idea.
>>
>> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
>> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
>> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
>> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
>> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
>> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>>
>> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
>> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
>> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
>> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
>> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
>> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
>> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
>> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
>> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
>> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
>> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
>> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
>> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
>> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
>> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>>
>> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
>> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
>> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>>
>> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>>
>> -R.S.Hoover
>>
>
> The old AR-7 in .22 LR, now made by Henry, is a good choice. Mine is a
> Carter Arms. It disassembled and stores in its own stock, will float and
> is inexpensive by today's standards.
>
> This is one of those "my Ford is better than your Chevy" eternal
> arguments as to the best single firearm. I suggest a little research
> into what you are likely to use it for in the area in which you will be
> flying. You never know, maybe a .410 with an assortment of shot and slug
> shells may be the best bet.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

was that Carter Jimmy or billy ?? I gots one & mine sez Charter
arms....Jerry

Jerry Wass wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
>>> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
>>> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
>>> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
>>> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
>>> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
>>> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
>>> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
>>> which was all aluminum.
>>>
>>> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
>>> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
>>> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>>>
>>> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
>>> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
>>> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
>>> condemning the idea.
>>>
>>> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
>>> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
>>> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
>>> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
>>> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
>>> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>>>
>>> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
>>> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
>>> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
>>> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
>>> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
>>> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
>>> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
>>> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
>>> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
>>> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
>>> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
>>> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
>>> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
>>> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
>>> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>>>
>>> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
>>> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
>>> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>>>
>>> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>>>
>>> -R.S.Hoover
>>>
>>
>> The old AR-7 in .22 LR, now made by Henry, is a good choice. Mine is
>> a Carter Arms. It disassembled and stores in its own stock, will float
>> and is inexpensive by today's standards.
>>
>> This is one of those "my Ford is better than your Chevy" eternal
>> arguments as to the best single firearm. I suggest a little research
>> into what you are likely to use it for in the area in which you will
>> be flying. You never know, maybe a .410 with an assortment of shot and
>> slug shells may be the best bet.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> was that Carter Jimmy or billy ?? I gots one & mine sez Charter
> arms....Jerry

OK, so I'm lysdexic, mine says Charter Arms also.

The only thing I don't like about it is the bolt handle will drop out
if one rolls the rifle right side down and installs or removes the
barrel. I have been meaning to install a detent. I'm going to
procrastinate a bit more, it's only been 25 years.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Jerry Wass" > wrote
>
> was that Carter Jimmy or billy ?? I gots one & mine sez Charter arms

I'll bet it was gotten in a time of gun restrictions, and they just got the
"H" out of there! <g>
--
Jim in NC

On Nov 27, 7:16*am, Dana M. Hague > wrote:

> The AR-7 breakdown .22 is very popular in Alaska, where I understand
> (perhaps somebody can confirm?) by law you must carry a firearm in
> your aircraft.

A quick web search turned up this site:

http://www.equipped.com/ak_cnda.htm

Seems at one time it was required to carry a firearm - but no longer.
Also I won't be flying up there any time between October 15 and April
1. I haven't enough room to carry the required items................
===================
Leon McAtee

wrote:
> Those of you familiar with my Blog have probably read the several
> articles therein about survival. And yes, I've poked a bit of fun at
> those who think survival can be measured by the size of your knife.
> But an on-going thread, bounced around amongst a few of use keeps
> coming back to the little survival rifle/shotgun (called a 'drilling'
> in gunsmith-speak) the Air Force included in their comprehensive
> survival pack. As best I can recall this was a .22 Hornet rifle / .
> 410 shotgun that folded up. Ammunition was carried in the stock,
> which was all aluminum.
>
> The purpose of such a weapon was not defense but a means of feeding
> yourself.
>
> There are civilian versions of such over & under weapons but they are
> heavy and tend to be expensive. But last night I stumbled upon what
> may be a suitable substitute: A black-powder pistol. (!??)
>
> A cap & ball pistol, typically a replica (the real thing, in good
> condition, is worth thousands of dollars) is inexpensive and not very
> heavy. It's also not very accurate :-) ...but hear me out before
> condemning the idea.
>
> With black-powder you pour a measured amount of powder into one of the
> six chambers then insert a wad of some sort, atop which you place a
> round ball, a cone shaped bullet OR A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BIRDSHOT.
> Another wad is installed atop the bullet and the charge is compressed
> using the lever built-in to the underside of the barrel. A percussion
> cap is then installed on the nipple and you go on to the next chamber.
>
> There are a couple of features not generally known to those who do NOT
> regularly fire black-powder weapons... especially cap & ball ...that
> makes this idea worthy of thought. One is that when we do away with
> the cartridge case -- the brass part of the 'bullet' -- the weight &
> cube of our ammunition. Fifty rounds for a black-powder weapon weighs
> but a fraction of 50 rounds for a regular pistol. And since the ammo
> is not made-up it does not have a prescribed shape. This allows you
> to store the bullets, powder and caps in whatever space is most
> convenient. Another factor is that you'll probably find shot to be
> more useful than ball... yet you'll still want to keep one or two
> chambers charged with ball. This presents no problem. The other four
> chambers may be charged with shot, fired, then charged again, leaving
> the chambers charged with ball (or with a conical bullet) undisturbed,
> giving you one or two 'insurance' shots to protect yourself from the
> ravages of an enraged porcupine or ptarmigan.
>
> Firing shotgun pellets through a rifled bore does neither the bore nor
> the pellets any good but given the purpose of this weapon the
> traditional arguments against this kind of use have no basis.
>
> Just a thot. Outside the box.
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
Yup, just love theidea of carrying black powder in my airplane... for
survival after a crash of course.

" > wrote in message
...
>
>snip<
>
> Yup, just love theidea of carrying black powder in my airplane... for
> survival after a crash of course.
>
>

Well, it makes for a really quick starting fire that puts out a LOT of
smoke so it can be seen from the air. When you hear that airplane
go over your crash site you can "light a shuck" and put up a quick
smoke signal! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

>
> > Yup, just love theidea of carrying black powder in my airplane... for
> > survival after a crash of course.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I think he was trying to say that carrying black powder would
contribute to the seriousness of the crash. Which I'm sure it would,
if this were a Hollywood Crash Scene, where a single hand grenade
produces grouts of flame, flips cars in the air and so forth :-)

For those who are interested, those marvelous effects are produced
with gasoline and common FLOUR, plus a couple of squibs (ie,
electrically actuated detonators). The sound is added during
editing.

My original post was to point-out the inherent BENEFITS of a cap &
ball pistol in a survival situation. The idea that the quarter-pound
or so of powder would somehow manage to go off on impact, thereby
contributing to the severity of the crash simply tells us the fellow
isn't familiar with blackpowder... which means he wouldn't be
carrying it to begin with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're familiar with commercially-built aircraft you may have seen
the attachment points for ballast weight, typically on the firewall
and stern-post, or up inside the nose-wheel well... The point here is
that try as they might, each airframe is a little bit different, and
that ballast weight is often needed to satisfy the certified weight &
balance. Homebuilders tend to be somewhat casual when it comes to
Weight & Balance but I've always thought the ballast points were the
ideal spot to attach an equal weight of TOOLS to the forward point and
SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT to the aft point. (You would not have both, of
course :-) Putting the survival gear in the aft ballast point simply
reflects the fact that the aft fuselage often survives a crash
virtually unscathed, making it an ideal place to stow a few ounces of
blackpowder, which is relatively insensitive to shock. Unless you're
in Hollywood, of course :-)

-R.S.Hoover