Live the reality, NOT the fantasy! It is better to have and not need than need and NOT have.
ONE small critter a day is all the meat
your body can use. u should of course be using traps, nets, trotlines, snares, to take at least HALF of your flesh food. So 200 rds a year of .22 ammo suffices, even if you DONT sometimes score a dog, deer, hog, cow, horse, sheep, goat, etc. with the .22. Do the latter on a planned, serious basis, and 200 rds of .22 will last you 20 years.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
U r the one fantasizing, twit, about
how you can get by without getting your 4wd shot to shreds on the WAY to your "retreat". You are going to be outnumbered 100 to 1, and you are so slow-inept that you are a joke.
how you can get by without getting your 4wd shot to shreds on the WAY to your "retreat". You are going to be outnumbered 100 to 1, and you are so slow-inept that you are a joke.
I though you claimed that within a month all the game and animals would be gone?223 fan said:your body can use. u should of course be using traps, nets, trotlines, snares, to take at least HALF of your flesh food. So 200 rds a year of .22 ammo suffices, even if you DONT sometimes score a dog, deer, hog, cow, horse, sheep, goat, etc. with the .22. Do the latter on a planned, serious basis, and 200 rds of .22 will last you 20 years.
Oh yeah, this is where you hurl insults because you can't really debate anything.
:devil:
that's right. so 200 rds of .22 WILL last
20years, wont it, dummy?
Cause all you'll be shooting is people, and 50 lbs or more of meat will last a couple of months.
20years, wont it, dummy?
Cause all you'll be shooting is people, and 50 lbs or more of meat will last a couple of months.All of the game won't be gone, but areas around towns and cities will probably be hunted out. A great number of people will still be in and around the urban areas, dead or alive. Most will not get far.
You try living off of a diet of human flesh and you won't live a year.
You try living off of a diet of human flesh and you won't live a year.
Humans are downright nasty critters. There's a LOT of animals that won't eat human, even if they find human road kill and don't have to fight for it. Hell, roaches BATHE after coming in contact with humans (roaches!). Humans carry diseases and parasites that animals never thought of. A human bite on an animal is almost always fatal. Think about this, a human's bite on a rattlesnake is deadlier than the rattlesnake's venom is to the human.mrostov said:You try living off of a diet of human flesh and you won't live a year.
And he's going to EAT humans? I'd eat bugs first.
You know, there's plenty of countries whose standard of living is about what we'd expect for SHTF on a wide scale. Yet what happens? The game is NOT hunted out. The vast majority of people do NOT leave their homes or the cities. There IS government control and rationing of food, water and medical supplies, and most people are willing to put up with their meager lots to stay alive. No 99% of the people dead in a month. No "all game hunted out" in a month. That's just wishful thinking of an inept criminal who hopes it's so, so that no one will interrupt his criminal binges.
There's also a linear thinking evident where there should be a bell curve.
For example, say there's a shortage of food. As the people die off or leave, the population pressure decreases and the rate of die-off decreases as the proportional amount of food increases.
During the Irish Potato Famine, there was a local apocalypse, but the population didn't eat each other or totally die off. It hit a bell curve reduction rate due to death and emigration and then stabilized as the curve flattened out.
Even though it was a huge disaster that lasted through several years, and it was a 3 year crop failure, they only suffered about a 20% overall drop in population.
The USA could suffer a 60% loss of it's population and still have the same population that it had during WWII.
The fact is that as a species, humans are more resilient than cockroaches and extremely adaptive. They are very hard to totally exterminate, no matter how hard you try or how much you want to.
The more people you kill, the harder it becomes to kill them all. It's like punching sand.
For example, say there's a shortage of food. As the people die off or leave, the population pressure decreases and the rate of die-off decreases as the proportional amount of food increases.
During the Irish Potato Famine, there was a local apocalypse, but the population didn't eat each other or totally die off. It hit a bell curve reduction rate due to death and emigration and then stabilized as the curve flattened out.
Even though it was a huge disaster that lasted through several years, and it was a 3 year crop failure, they only suffered about a 20% overall drop in population.
The USA could suffer a 60% loss of it's population and still have the same population that it had during WWII.
The fact is that as a species, humans are more resilient than cockroaches and extremely adaptive. They are very hard to totally exterminate, no matter how hard you try or how much you want to.
The more people you kill, the harder it becomes to kill them all. It's like punching sand.
populations reach equilibriums during crisis, whether you're talking about critters or people.
there will be a huge initial die off, then a series of growths and crashes in population until the carrying capacity of the environment is established.
society will emerge again, in one form or another, just like it always has, since the beginning of time.
:devil:
there will be a huge initial die off, then a series of growths and crashes in population until the carrying capacity of the environment is established.
society will emerge again, in one form or another, just like it always has, since the beginning of time.
:devil:
How many game animals have any of you killed within a few years? How many rounds were expended killing them?
Theres no reason to haul around 1000 rounds of .22lr on foot.
The ammo is a whole lot quieter than a full power center fire round, and alot more suited to killing small game than even the .223 "varmit round". Plus one .22 is a heck of alot lighter than the .223 or .308.
How are you guys gonna eat a squirrel or simialr small game after its been obliterated by a high power rifle round? Do you think that deer are easier to hunt and more common than all the various types of small critters out there?
Are you gonna haul around 20lbs of meat that you just got from that deer?
Theres no reason to haul around 1000 rounds of .22lr on foot.
The ammo is a whole lot quieter than a full power center fire round, and alot more suited to killing small game than even the .223 "varmit round". Plus one .22 is a heck of alot lighter than the .223 or .308.
How are you guys gonna eat a squirrel or simialr small game after its been obliterated by a high power rifle round? Do you think that deer are easier to hunt and more common than all the various types of small critters out there?
Are you gonna haul around 20lbs of meat that you just got from that deer?
I don't recall anyone here, other than maybe one person, stating we were planning on shooting small critters with high power rounds.
A .22 works very well for little beasts.
Carry around 20lbs of meat?
Most of us aren't planning to be wandering around, but have selected places to bug out to, if bugging out becomes a necessity.
having a place to be, means having the ability to store and preserve things like food.
Bugging out and going nomad is always still an option from our retreats.
going nomad is a final option, not a first choice for most.
:devil:
A .22 works very well for little beasts.
Carry around 20lbs of meat?
Most of us aren't planning to be wandering around, but have selected places to bug out to, if bugging out becomes a necessity.
having a place to be, means having the ability to store and preserve things like food.
Bugging out and going nomad is always still an option from our retreats.
going nomad is a final option, not a first choice for most.
:devil:
well, let's see...b0B_ said:How many game animals have any of you killed within a few years? How many rounds were expended killing them?
Theres no reason to haul around 1000 rounds of .22lr on foot.
The ammo is a whole lot quieter than a full power center fire round, and alot more suited to killing small game than even the .223 "varmit round". Plus one .22 is a heck of alot lighter than the .223 or .308.
How are you guys gonna eat a squirrel or simialr small game after its been obliterated by a high power rifle round? Do you think that deer are easier to hunt and more common than all the various types of small critters out there?
Are you gonna haul around 20lbs of meat that you just got from that deer?
last night's dinner was spaghetti with elk italian sausage. I have venison in the freezer.
a couple weeks ago, we harvested 4 coyotes (called them in.) I suspect that most of the people here have harvested their share of small and large critters...
:devil:
The point is, no one carried thousands of rounds because of animals. Some people just can't seem to understand ANYTHIGN you tell them, including the author of this thread.Unregistered said:and how many rounds did it take you to kill them?
The point of this thread had something to do with not needed thousands of rounds of ammo to merely hunt animals with.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Firearm Forums - Arms Locker
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
