Jeff Cooper On An Ideal Survivalist Rifle

Just the other day I happened across a piece at Badlands Fieldcraft entitled "Choosing a 'Survival Rifle' by Jeff Cooper" which reproduced an article by Cooper that the Badlands's poster believed had been published in the late 1970s. (One of the comments to the post indicated that the article had been published in Mel Tappan’s Personal Survival Letter, Issue 11 – AUG 1978). Cutting to the chase, Cooper argues that the best rifle for the survivalist, including for self defense, is a scoped bolt action sporting rifle in .308 or similar caliber. I am not sure that Cooper’s conclusion was valid when he penned his article—certainly many other survivalist authors of that time believed the civilian versions of battle rifles and assault rifles to be the best primary rifle for the survivalist—but advances in manufacturing, bullets, and optics render some of his concerns about such weapons as moot. Nevertheless I found his article interesting not only for the historical perspective, but because Cooper’s opinions are worthy of consideration even if you ultimately disagree with him.

    In his article, Cooper outlines the general challenges he believes would face a survivalist living on a rural retreat, farm, or homestead; and then focuses on what features he believes important in a rifle. I would note that Cooper takes a radically different position from Mel Tappan, one of the survivalist gurus of that time. Whereas Tappan recommended a rather large battery of firearms each intended for very specific tasks or uses, Cooper focuses on a generalist weapon. In fact, if you are familiar with Cooper's later "scout rifle" concept, you will probably find many similarities between his recommendations for a survival rifle and the later "scout rifle" concept. 

    Cooper begins:

The proper selection of firearms for a hideaway or retreat must be influenced by considerations which are as much subjective as otherwise. Many who feel that they can avoid a problem by moving away from it will not be inclined to think about weapons at all. On the other hand, reality would indicate that a person living apart from others ought to have some means of making his will effective in the face of superior numbers of intruders, should they happen upon him. This means firearms. In earlier ages three men had the measure of one, regardless of equipment, but today a good man –well-instructed and well-equipped- can cast a much larger shadow than formerly. Firearms, once thought to be the essential equalizer, are now felt to be “elitist” by those who do not wish to take the trouble to understand them. However that may be, a man alone is justified in feeling safer if he is properly armed.

With his argument for the necessity of a firearm out of the way, Cooper then goes on to dispense with the shotgun as an ideal survival weapon because of its limited range. Although Cooper notes that self-defense is generally a close in proposition, "we can postulate situations in which an isolated homeowner might have legal and moral reason to keep his visitors quite some distance away from his household. If the situation is really serious, his answer to this will have to be a rifle." 

    But not a specialist rifle. Cooper reasons:

... However, the “survivalist” is presumed not to be a hobbyist or a specialist. He is not expected to be a target competitor nor a sport hunter. We think of him as a person who is not predominantly interested in weaponry, but feels that he should have the right equipment for a generalized problem. If this is true we can avoid a certain amount of esoterica and get to fundamentals.

Cooper quickly discounts the .22 rimfire rifles and focuses on centerfire rifles which he splits into four general categories: "(a) sporting rifles, (b) battle rifles, (c) assault rifles (Sturmgewehre), and (d) carbines." He also lands on the .308 as the best all-around cartridge (although the .30-06 or .270 will also do). The "miniature cartridges," as he describes the .222 and .223, apparently are not worthy of consideration except in a weapon intended for use by a woman. 

    He also discounts the military assault rifles for various reasons such as poor triggers, poor sights, poor accuracy, and the like, but the ultimate reason is that he views both the circumstances and the mission of the survivalist to be so different from the modern soldier that a soldier's weapon is not well suited:

In modern armies, the major element of force is supplied by supporting weapons such as artillery, air, armor, and the like. The individual soldier is no longer expected to do a great deal of killing, but rather to locate the enemy and call for support. This means that, in general, modern military rifles are not perhaps as suitable for the individual householder defending himself against intruders as they are for armies, whose main power is the result of electronic communications. The soldier, when beset, can call for an air strike, mortars, tanks, or shellfire. The householder has no such reserve, but must handle his problem himself. Therefore, the instrument best suited for him is very likely not the standard issue weapon of the modern soldier. 

     Instead, and although he recognizes the ammunition capacity issues, Cooper believes a modern bolt action sporting rifle based on the Mauser action to be the best survivalist weapon, even for purposes of self-defense, writing:

    The sporting rifle is the queen of weapons- in its best examples. A sporter is conceived as a hunting instrument, intended to bring down game animals of various sizes, at various ranges, in the hands of a sportsman who is sufficiently instructed to use it properly. A good sporting rifle is a lovely thing, and those of us who have used one for long tend to regard it as the ultimate personal weapon. It is handy, convenient, accurate, and powerful. Its intended quarry is the deer, the moose, the antelope, or the lion. However, in the face of human enemies it does not lose its value. “Sporting rifle” and “hunting rifle” are terms which are generally interchangeable. Whatever the designation, however, such a piece is not intended as a defense instrument, but rather something a man picks up when his intention is to initiate hostilities. On the other hand, one can envision situations in which strategic defense may best be implemented by tactical offense. This might be especially true in a case of a rural individual who found himself beset by a group of intruders. Obviously no one man nor his family can stand against a large, well-armed, and determined military force. If big brother is coming after you with the army, it hardly matters what sort of defense weapon you choose. But, if a small group of hoods -sufficient, say, to occupy one automobile or pick-up truck- offers aggression to a rancher, he may very well be able to put a stop to their activities all by himself. For this reason, my choice tends to drift back to the sporting rifle when I think of a proper weapon with which to maintain order in a rural setting. Its ease of handling and “practical accuracy” surpass most of the battle rifles or assault guns that we might otherwise choose.

    About the only shortcoming of the sporting rifle as a ranch defense piece is its limited continuity of fire. The trend toward very large cartridges has brought with it a corresponding decrease in the average capacity of sporting rifle magazines. Many are now limited to four rounds, and some to three. This is not an overwhelming drawback, but it is annoying to realize that one may have to keep stuffing new rounds into the breech if a multiple target problem presents itself. Here at Gunsite we are currently experimenting with the adaptation of the 20-round M-14 magazine to the Argentine Mauser action. If this marriage can be consummated, the result may be a very attractive item. Quickly replaceable 10- or 20-round magazines turn the bolt-action sporting rifle into a more powerful instrument for the personal solution of long-distance problems.

After discussion of carbines (by which I presume he means a weapon with a barrel between 18 and 22 inches), Cooper sums up:

    I conclude that probably the best choice for the individual protecting himself alone in a remote area remains a fairly conservative bolt-action rifle in .308 or similar caliber mounted with a proper optical sight and tuned and sighted to the taste of the individual owner. A man armed with such a piece and determined to assert his rights cannot be approached without his permission- except by a tank. And the penalty for ignoring his instructions may very well be terminal.

    The rapid-fire, high capacity, semi-automatic rifle will also serve, but it will ordinarily be the second choice of a man who understands weaponry. If several people are involved in the problem, a diversification might improve matters by providing volume of fire in one defensive zone and precision fire in another. I do not think that the semi-automatic rifle offers decisive tactical superiority over the bolt-action if the marksman knows how to operate the bolt. I do however feel that a large magazine capacity might be a great comfort. Few bolt-action rifles of today afford such a luxury. A man well-trained on a military bolt-action rifle is delighted to be issued a self-loader, not because of the rapidity of fire it affords, but because of its continuity of fire. 

You can probably see that it was short step from this to Cooper's "scout rifle" concept of a light weight bolt-action carbine with a 10-round magazine and a low power, forward mounted optic and backup iron sights. 

    I have my doubts about using a bolt action rifle to defend against a group of marauders, even if the group is small enough to fit into one vehicle. Someone highly skilled might be able to do so. In a biography of Carlos Hathcock, the premier sniper of the Vietnam War, it recounted how he and his spotter held off a company of NVA making good work of the bolt action sniper rifle (really just a better quality sporting rifle) he carried and the spotters' M-14. But for "a person who is not predominantly interested in weaponry, but feels that he should have the right equipment for a generalized problem"? Probably not.