This may depend on the skill of the shooter.

20-guage pump actions w/22" barrel aren't too heavy.
Would be able to carry more ammo than with a 12 guage.

Honestly don't know where this would fall in the meat/ammo ratio.
Suppose it may also depend on the type of game available.

Really step one of "hunting for survival" is knowing how to hunt and also preparing game to eat. I would learn how to hunt, field dress and prepare all manor of critter before your in survival mode.

The added benefit to learning how to hunt now is it will really help you in your survival gun selections and preferences.

Hey, to each their own. I would just prefer, if living out of my ruck, to get as much bang for the bulk as I can.

It takes more than 15 .22LR rounds to come close to the weight of a 12 gauge.

I haven't measured, but there are probably 10-12 .22LR rounds to a 20 gauge.

You should be able to get at least 50% hits with either, or you should not be hunting.

The advantage of the shotgun is in rapidly moving/flying targets. The rimfire is nearly as good on stationary/ground targets, and has a lot lower sound signature.

I will take the shots with the rimfire on grounded small game and IMHO, eat a lot more often than the shotgunner, unless he is bringing down bear or moose with slugs.

TR

The poachers around here often use .22 long rifle to kill whitetail deer, usually one shot between the eyes(often with aid of a spotlight).

The only concern I would have with a .22 as a survivial arm would be if I were stuck in an area with the possibility of dangerous animals(the alaska/africa scenario).

A few years ago, I was reading one of the "Lonesome Dove" books. Characters Gus and Call happened upon a family that had been killed on the plains. Gus noticed that the settler had only had a shotgun, and asked "what's he doing this far afield with only a fowling piece?".

Craig:

Good one. I was referring to the .22LR for food gathering, and counseled something more potent for defense from dangerous game.

The Alaksa situation would be a good one for the takedown gun, if you needed to hide/transport it. Not sure I would be wanting to be slapping that thing together with a grizzly charging, but if it was to be assembled upon landing, and made ready, that makes sense. Can't imagine anything in Virginia needing that much power, but to each their own.

I would personally prefer a powerful rifle and a rimfire pistol, to a rimfire rifle and a small caliber pistol, but that is not my call.

I have no experience with the Papoose. Looks like an interesting concept. I do have an AR-7, I do not use it much anymore, and I have a Savage 24, which seemed like a good idea at the time. Might still be for mixed small game hunting.

TR

IMO, the choice of a firearm in a survival situation is much based on the scenario in question. If one does not anticipate confrontation with large animals such as bear, moose, cougar, etc then the better option would appear to be a lightweight, .22 cal survival rifle such as a Popoose. If there is a good chance one is going to have to deal with large game animals, or if they are equiping an aircraft for survival then it seems prudent to carry a heavier caliber long-gun (12ga with slugs, .30-06, Bushwhacker, etc). I agree with TR in getting the most "bang for the bulk", and that the .22LR has the capability of supporting food on the table. Sten's right, too, in that one had better know how to hunt before going survival hunting. The advantage in the SHTF scenario is that at least you wouldn't have to tag your game.

Our survival seminar presenter is seriously thinking about The Taurus Judge rather than a rifle. In his view, the variety of shells available let him deal with several important issues of survival. Eating, defense and rescue. His main concern is the problem of carrying this into Canada.

I have the AR-7. It easily fits my non-flying go-bag. I've not yet applied myself to deciding if I like The Judge as a better solution as I prepare to return to flying.

Brainstorm, I rcommend you give careful consideration to the Bushwhacker expressed/described by JJ in post #8 above, comensurate with weight considerations. Situations whereby you could end up behind enemy lines in grizzly country shuld call for something heavier than the .22LR. For that matter, if you consider the weight if you carry both weapons you are adding about 12lbs, or around 2 gallons of aviation fuel. Is that a big deal?

(Edit note: I wouldn't recommend a Judge for your application. Poor control for either hunting or protection aganist griz.

This immediately red flags your presenter as an idiot, IMHO.

TR