Chiappa is another big player in the .22 replica market. I have one of its replica M1 Carbines. A dead ringer for later production M1s, it features a faux plastic bayonet lug (I tried to fit a real bayonet on it and it didn’t work), adjustable rear sight, a rotating lever safety that replaced the original push-button type, and a plastic 10-round magazine that mimics the appearance of a real carbine mag, with the exception that there’s no slit to reveal the round count. The first edition I tested had some functionality issues. Chiappa sent out a second one, and although I haven’t had time to work with it much, it doesn’t seem to have the same issues as the first pre-production carbine did. I am sure that, with Chiappa’s fine reputation, you can count on the reliability of its weapons, and for survival, reliability is everything.
The replica .22 concept has a lot going for it in terms of survival weapon use, both as a sub-caliber trainer and, of course, as a weapon for the recoil-shy. The .22 will acquit itself well against human targets out to 150 yards, at the very least getting the attention of anyone struck with it, and there are a lot of great modern loads out there for this round. I would favor any high-velocity loading that has a solid bullet. As you may have to shoot at targets behind cover or who may be wearing heavy clothing, it is imperative to get as much penetration from the .22 as possible, particularly if penetration of bone is called for. If it will function in your gun, the Remington Viper truncated-cone solid-point is one of my favorites. In any event, you want to make sure your .22 will function with anything and everything you can run through it, as you may be scrounging for ammo if the calamity is extended, which brings me to the other type of rimfire, the traditional .22.
When I say “traditional” .22, I mean the basic semi-autos like the Ruger 10/22 with its 10-shot rotary magazine (though, from what I’ve observed, the 10/22 may not like aftermarket extended magazines), Marlin’s line of semi-autos, which I have found to be reliable, and other common manually operated repeaters.
I favor the lever-action rifles. The lever-action Marlin 39, for instance, was the first gun I ever shot. Over the years it proved to be a very accurate and highly reliable firearm. I don’t remember an occasion where it ever jammed. One of the Marlin’s best features is the tubular magazine. With the tube design, there’s usually a capacity of somewhere around 15 rounds of .22 LR, but there is an even higher capacity for .22 Short or Long rounds, usually around 20. If you want a quieter round, primer-driven CB rounds are available, as well. These make excellent pest-control or ultra-quiet target rounds. These lesser rounds won’t function in an autoloader or any gun with a fixed magazine, but will in the few tube-fed bolt-action guns you might find out there. Beyond this, I think the very best advantage that a tubular magazine offers over a box design is that you can’t lose it or leave it behind. It stays with the gun.
Henry Repeating Arms makes some of the best modern .22 lever-action rifles out there at a reasonable price. More compact and less expensive than the Marlin 39, the blued steel, round-barrel H001 Henry Carbines is my top choice for a survival .22. Light and easily handled in tight spaces, the H001 holds 15 rounds of. 22 LR and 21 rounds of .22 Short. The manual operation eliminates the reliability issues encountered with any semi-auto shooting standard velocity ammunition. Henry also markets the old AR-7 .22 Air Force survival rifle that can be stowed in its own buttstock for travel, but I find it a very clunky gun to handle. If you find one, try it out for yourself. You may be less finicky and it may fit in your survival plans better, but for me I will stay old school and go with the tube-fed lever-action .22
Centerfire Ammo—This is Self-Defense, Not Hunting
To emphasize, you are not choosing calibers for varmint, deer, or duck hunting, when we’re talking about centerfire ammunition. You are choosing calibers for weapons that will help you and your family survive in dire circumstances. The calibers you select must be in common use by police and military personnel, as well in common sporting use for civilians. There are tons of great calibers and weapons out there, but only a handful will or should make it to your survival must-have list.
But picking the right caliber for your survival weapon is not enough. You also need to pick the right bullet type. For many of the highly touted brands out there, a lot of thought and calculation has gone into the projectiles that sit atop the case awaiting your launch command. Make no mistake, these are excellent loads and will likely perform well or very well, but they are all expensive. Few of us can afford to stockpile rounds like the 5.56mm TAP round by Hornady (heck, not many police departments that use TAP as a duty round can either). Check any police armory and you’ll find that, by far, most rifle or pistol loads will be of the FMJ (full metal jacket) or ball variety. Unless you have all kinds of extra funds available, this is the ammo type you would want to stockpile for long-term survival—and there’s not a thing wrong with that choice.
Every army in every major war from the start of the twentieth century until now has used ball ammo in their battle rifles and service pistols, with little complaint concerning lack of effectiveness. (The few exceptions may be the .30 Carbine, but only when used against the North Koreans and Chinese at extended range when they were wearing their winter coats. Even that’s in dispute, as most of our troops were, by then, using the full-auto M2 carbine—some have surmised that many of the rounds thought to have struck home actually missed, thus skewing the impression of effectiveness). In any event there was no question of stopping power with ball ammo of the .45 ACP, .30-06, 7.62mm NATO (.308), and the 5.56mm NATO when it was first introduced. It has only been since Mogadishu and the Blackhawk incident that the stopping power of the 5.56 has been called into question. There are several reasons for that impression I think are worth examining.
During the early years of the Vietnam War, the barrel twist rate of the original 20-inch M16 barrel was 1:14 inches, which caused the 55-grain 5.56mm round to be on the edge of instability in flight. When it struck a soft target (read that as “people”), it would tumble, thus causing the bullet to travel through flesh either sideways, blunt base first, or some combination thereof, thus causing a more severe wound. Not content with “if it works don’t fix it,” the Army claimed that cold arctic weather caused the bullet to become unstable in flight and then mandated a change to a 1:11 twist rate for the M16A1, which reduced the instability in arctic air and improved accuracy, but apparently didn’t totally do away with all the tumbling propensity, although most wounds were not nearly as devastating.