Tag Archives: Survival Guns

Survival Sunday – 3/29/2015

Survival Sunday

This week was a continuation of my streak of busy weeks. Although not leaving a lot of time for leisure activities, I always find something to enjoy about my day. One of the most enjoyable experiences I had this week was hearing that Bowe Bergdahl would be charged with desertion and endangering troops. I think he is lucky. He should be charged with murder for those who lost their lives looking for Bergdahl and terrorism related crimes for all that I am sure he told the Taliban as well as the fact that at least one of the prisoners that was released from Guantanamo has tried to reconnect with the Taliban.

As a veteran of the Iraq War, with three combat tours under my belt, it frustrates me that Bergdahl, identified early on as a probable deserter, was given a hero’s welcome while many service members have done far more and not received the recognition that they deserve. I guess we’ll see what happens over the next few months.

I would also like to make sure to say thank you all for taking the time to read what I write here. If you are interested in reading more of my writing, you can check out my work over at the Personal Liberty Digest as well as the Ghillie’s Corner blog on Black River Outpost.


Here are this weeks finds:

Keep Monsanto And GMO Out Of Your Home – Most anyone who is familiar with Monsanto gets chills when they hear the name. This is a good summary of some of the dangers of our modern food supply as a result of GMO’s and Monsanto’s work.

World Health Organization: Monsanto’s Roundup “Probably” Causes Cancer – Speaking of Monsanto, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced that one of Monsanto’s products, the very popular Roundup, is as most of us suspected and is probably capable of causing cancer.

A Practical Look At The Economy And What You Can Do To Prepare – There is a lot of concern about the economy and there are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the economy. When it comes to preparedness, finances play a big part of how prepared you are. The information contained here is valuable and will help you have a better grasp on finance and the economy and how you can prepare.

Revolvers In A Grid-Down Collapse Scenario – I am a big fan of revolvers. I have one and if my wife didn’t mind me buying guns all the time, I would actually have more. Unfortunately, my wife actually thinks that there is such a thing as too many guns. Regardless, this is a good article that makes some valuable points about the advantages of revolvers in a survival situation.

It wasn’t a ton that I found this week but I hope that you get some value out of these articles.

If you found something that you would like to share with the group or have any questions, email me at tom@thepreparedninja.com.

Come back next week for another edition of Survival Sunday.

If you appreciate the content here on The Prepared Ninja, I would love it if you left a comment or shared a post with your friends or loved ones! We are all in this together after all, right? With that being said, it does cost me money every month to keep The Prepared Ninja up and running. If the site does help you and you would like to help support it, you can provide monetary support to help keep things going via PayPal here. Thank you!

The Ultimate Survival Gun!

There is an never-ending debate in the preparedness world about whether or not the ultimate survival gun exists and what it may be. Of the many theories, there seems to be a bit of a lean towards the 12 Gauge Shotgun or .22 Caliber Rifle but I think I found the ultimate survival gun!

The X-Caliber by Chiappa Firearms is a two barrel, double trigger rifle in an over/under configuration which is chambered as a smooth bore 12 Gauge shotgun on top and a rifled .22 Long Rifle on bottom. The true “magic” (if you will) comes from the set of included adapters that make it the most flexible firearm available for almost any survival scenario. The 8 adapters included allow .380, 9 mm, .357 Mag/.38 Special, .40 S&W, .44 Mag, .45 ACP, .410 Gauge/.45 Colt and 20 Gauge to be fired out of the X-Caliber in addition to the primary offering of 12 Gauge and .22 Long Rifle. With a total availability of 12 different calibers, it very well could handle just about anything.

Not only is the X-Caliber capable of firing a myriad of cartridges, it is designed to be used as a survival rifle by integrating the ability to fold down to only 18.5 inches and the weight has been reduced by replacing the normal stock material with  polypropylene foam. This makes it capable of easily being transported in a backpack as part of a Bug Out Bag, Get Home Bag or other survival kit.

In addition to these features, the X-Caliber includes:

  • A space to hold 12 Gauge, .22 LR shells and cleaning kit inside of the stock.
  • Fixed optical fiber front sight and a rear sight that is adjustable for both windage and elevation to compensate for the caliber being used.
  • Three integrated picatinny rails to facilitate the mounting of optics, lights, etc.

What if you already have a 12 Gauge shotgun? No problem! The X-Caliber adapter set is available for purchase separately for use with a smooth bore 12 Gauge shotgun. I do feel that the use of these adapters will likely impact accuracy, especially at farther distances. The manufacturer’s suggested retail price for the X-Caliber rifle with complete insert set is $750 while the X-Caliber insert set alone is $450. There are cheaper firearms out there but not another one that I know of that can shoot such a variety of calibers.

What would your ultimate survival gun be?

.22LR: Truth & Myth

.22LR: Truth & Myth

It’s easy for the prepper survivalist to get lost in the endless confusion, attempting to discern between wants and needs. Is it a small knife or big blade? Do you carry a handgun or a rifle? However, it is even more important to determine the difference between what is a trend…and what will actually work in the field. In most cases, the right answer is: it depends on the situation.

The .22 Long Rifle rim-fire cartridge has had an excellent run, and built a legendary reputation, since its inception in 1887. The cartridge itself has been enveloped in tales of unfathomable deeds in the backwoods, taking everything from grizzlies (usually shot in the eye) and field mice (usually shot from the hip). Though, these are stories often repeated by old frontiersmen and armchair online forum dwellers alike. Anecdotal ‘evidence’ might suggest that the .22LR is the ‘do-all’ round, but is this actually true? Is it the perfect survivalist cartridge, providing enough kill power on small game while limiting damage to the meat, yet delivering just enough punishment in a ‘tactical situation’?

It is important to explore what the round can do, and more importantly, what it cannot do. All too often, we envision our own survival situations, handling our trusty Ruger 10/22, dispatching small game by the bundles and carrying home a sack of deceased critters as the sun begins to set, right on time for dinner. We even imagine ourselves bagging a whitetail, because we got a ‘lucky shot between the eyes’. If this is truth, then the .22LR should be the only rifle for the survivalist, but my gut tells me, this is probably not a reasonable expectation of the old cartridge – and you might want to pack other ways of procuring meat sources.

The Two-Fold Achilles Heel of the .22 Long Rifle

I’ve often heard it said, “If you poke enough holes in something, it’ll go down.” Usually, this is said by avid .22LR advocates, defending their ancient heritage or new purchase. While this statement does carry some obvious truth, many experienced outdoorsmen, and especially those who study ballistics might disagree on grounds of practicality.

One of the most crucial aspects of a round’s utility has to do with the hydrostatic shock factor.  ‘Hydrostatic shock’ is defined as…

The observation that a penetrating projectile can produce remote wounding and incapacitating effects in living targets, in addition to local effects in tissue caused by direct impact, through a hydraulic effect in liquid-filled tissues.

Referencing an article written by Dave Henderson, it takes a velocity of at least 2,000fps in order to deliver the death-dealing power necessary for an incapacitating strike on the shooter’s target. Essentially, you want the round to hit the target (four-legged critter or two-legged crazy) and make them cease whatever activity they were previously doing, whether grazing, climbing, or pointing a weapon in your direction.

The hottest of hunting .22LR loads are cruising along at 1,280fps at the muzzle. If the shooter wants to reach out to 100 yards, that velocity drops to 1,015fps, about half of what’s needed to achieve the same hydrostatic shock factor that most center-fire hunting rounds can deliver. Simply put, there’s just not enough ‘punch’ to bag that whitetail with a .22LR, likely causing either an agonizing drawn out death by hours of bleeding, or months of injury and subsequent starvation to the noble beast (hence, the legality issue in almost every state).

Also, a slower round is going to have accuracy issues. Of course, we’ve heard of Bob Munden-types lobbing a .22LR, 400 yards into a bowling pin – but let’s face it, 99% of us aren’t that good from a bench, much less in the field. Even with those 1,280fps zingers, you’ve still got a drop of 3.5” at 100 yards, and that’s without having to compensate for wind. With only 37 grains, moving at that velocity, a slight breeze would ruin the shot.

Either way, the survivalist does not harvest the deer, coyote, or raccoon, wastes a round, and in certain scenarios, risked identifying his or her position from the report of the shot.

Also, one more fatal flaw commonly associated with the .22LR has to do with it’s questionable reliability. Indeed, no backwoodsman would ever consider a Savage bolt-action or a Ruger 10/22 as an unreliable rifle. These rifles have offered astounding performance for decades; however, reliability is also heavily dependent on the quality of the rounds being fed. Unfortunately, rim-fire cartridges are disproportionately handicapped in this respect, compared to their center-fire counterparts. Primers, insufficient pressure, and quality control are usually the culprits.

If you’re shooting a rim-fire cartridge and the bad guy in your sights is shooting a center-fire cartridge, pray you didn’t get a rough batch from the factory.

Why You Still Need a .22LR

Nevertheless, while the .22LR might have its drawbacks, it’s important for us to remind ourselves that we are mistaken if we attempt to identify a ‘do-all’ round. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, especially in terms of firearms. All cartridges have their strengths and weaknesses, and the .22LR is no exception.

And, the .22LR does have strengths…lots and lots of strengths.

Talk to any .22LR owner and they will laugh at you after telling them how much you spent on ammunition for your centerfire. This is perhaps one of the most obvious strengths of the old cartridge. Being able to spend less than $20 on a 500-round ‘brick’ of ammo is what has .22LR lovers shooting, while everyone else on the firing line has shot their budget and gone home.

Of course, from the survivalist’s perspective, being able to carry 1,000 rounds of any kind of ammo is a lovely proposition. A fifth of that in .308 is still tediously heavy but in .22LR, carrying that amount of ammunition is a breeze. The .22LR is a tiny round without much brass, lead, or powder.

Do you remember how I said that the .22LR is inferior to most hunting cartridges because of it’s low velocity? The interesting part is the fact that the .22LR is superior to other hunting cartridges…because of its low velocity. Without the presence of hydrostatic shock, meat does not get obliterated upon penetration. Thus, you can take rabbit all day long, preserving the meet with a .22LR, whereas a .223 would leave nothing but a mangled attempt at acquiring a meal.

Simply put, the .22LR is the best selling ammunition on the globe for good reason. Brad Zozak, from TruthAboutGuns, calls the Ruger 10/22, “the single most popular firearm of all time.” In a SHTF scenario, you might not be able to replace the stock on your Springfield M1A – but check any abandoned farmhouse, and you’ll most likely find replacement parts for your 10/22 (and probably .22LR rounds to go with it).

The Purpose of the .22LR

Overall, the .22LR should not be expected to perform the functions of other, better-suited rifles. At the same time, one should also not expect a .30-06 to effectively take and preserve the meat off small game – arguably the type of game you’d want to harvest in the first place.

However, the survivalist that hopes to sling a Ruger 10/22, trek through the woods, and be sustained on that alone is unfortunately mistaken. It takes the ability to hunt big game to survive (both for the nutritional value and also for the other resources that can be procured from the beast), meaning that a centerfire-hunting rifle is absolutely crucial over the long haul.

If the survivalist hopes to remain true to the craft (and not kick the bucket in the backwoods), it takes more than just the possession of a .22LR rifle. It takes the ability to trap and forage for wild edibles in order to live in somewhat of a comfortable state of self-reliance. One needs to intelligently pack for survival scenarios. From carrying knives to packing a fire starter, everything needs to be picked thoughtfully. The legendary frontiersmen of the 19th and 20th centuries relied more on their survival kits than they did on their rifles, and for good reason.

The .22LR is a fantastic survival cartridge, but it shouldn’t be your only option for filling your game bag and your gut. Stay safe, keep your guns ready, knives sharp, and never forget to memorize the basics of preparedness.

About the Author – Usman is a writer, outdoor enthusiast, technology lover, and knife collector.

.223 vs. 5.56 – What Is The Difference?

.223 vs. 5.56 – What Is The Difference?

The .223 and 5.56×45 NATO cartridges are nearly identical rounds that have led shooters toward countless debates, confusion, and frustration. But understanding the differences between these two rounds isn’t all that difficult when you cut you through the misinformation. In fact, with just a little background information about each cartridge and an understanding of how you plan to use your firearm, you’ll find yourself better prepared to make a decision between the two calibers. You’ll also know the risks, if any, of shooting a 5.56 round in a .223 chamber.

The History of .223 & 5.56

Remington submitted the .223 Remington round to SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) in 1962 as a sporting round generally considered a varmint cartridge. Since then, .223 Rem ammunition really hasn’t changed in terms of cartridge dimensions or the pressure that it is loaded to, according to Gun Digest 2013. That makes sense, as SAAMI is pretty rigid with their testing and once a standard is set, it tends to remain that way for the life of a given caliber. While variances on the .223 Remington round have popped up, such as the .223 Wylde, which is a round many feel is a good compromise between the pressures and performance of .223 and 5.56, .223 Remington is far and away the most popular of the .223 calibers.

On the other hand, 5.56×45 NATO has never been submitted to SAAMI because it’s a military round, loaded to a military standard that is quite different from SAAMI’s standards. As you can imagine, military standards are very exact and quite rigid all over the world. That’s not to say military standards are better than SAAMI, it’s simply that the way they each measure different attributes of a round are different so you can’t truly stack the rounds side-by-side and understand the differences between them. This variance in standards plays a huge role in the confusion that surrounds the .223 vs. 5.56 debate today.

In summary, the military measures pressure one way and SAAMI measures pressure in a different manner so the two calculations can’t be compared side-by-side, helping spur more discussion, confusion, and even misinformation about these two calibers.

Are 5.56 and .223 Rounds Interchangeable?

In terms of the exterior dimensions, 5.56×45 and .223 cartridges are just about identical so there are not really any concerns about fitting each round in your chamber, it doesn’t matter if you’re chambered for .223 or 5.56, the round will likely load. However, pressure varies between the two rounds and that pressure change can be significant depending upon your firearm. Generally, 5.56×45 ammunition fires at a higher pressure than .223 Remington ammunition. A typical range round of 5.56×45 will hit a peak pressure of around 60,000 pounds per square inch while a comparable .223 cartridge’s peak pressure will be about 20-percent less.

To help function under those increased pressures, many 5.56 chambers are larger in critical areas than .223 chambers. Specifically, the area of the chamber known as the leade or throat of the barrel will be different. This throat or leade portion is the area of the barrel in front of the chamber just before the rifling begins. So, if you load the same exact round in both a .223 chambered firearm and a 5.56 firearm, the extra area in the 5.56 chamber will help safely handle the pressure loaded cartridge and potentially lead to less potential wear and tear than if you  fired the 5.56 NATO round in a .223 Rem firearm.

Also of note, odds are you’re going to get slightly faster muzzle velocities using 5.56×45 ammunition than you would if firing .223 Remington.

So what does it mean? For most shooters, the general rule of thumb as it relates to each round is that you should not fire 5.56 in a firearm chambered for .223 while you can safely fire .223 in a 5.56-chambered firearm.  But it’s not that cut and dried.

There are several cases where shooters have documented firing 5.56 in their .223 firearms with no major problems and while a major malfunction, such as an explosion is possible, it is extremely unlikely to happen. You see part of what led to this way of thinking is because of the SAAMI standards for testing. Given a highly pressurized barrel, 5.56 rounds in a .223-chambered firearm are not a great idea. Most civilian .223 rifles on the market today, however, are much more forgiving than the barrels used for SAAMI standard testing so you’re likely to not only avoid major malfunctions but you’ll likely not even be able to tell the difference when firing 5.56 in a .223 Remington chambered AR-15.

Keeping that in mind, if you are relying on an AR-15 in a survival situation, you will likely want to invest in ammunition that is ideally suited for your specific chamber. Because of the pressure each round is loaded and the tolerances accepted by most modern sporting rifle barrels, even if not ideal in terms of wear-and-tear, you will likely be able to effectively neutralize a target using either caliber.

How to Tell .223 Remington and 5.56×45 Cartridges Apart

So you’re stuck in a place where ammo is scare and you come across rounds that appear to be appropriate for your firearm. Since .223 and 5.56 are nearly identical in physical appearance, how do you know if it’s .223 Remington or 5.56×45 ammo? The quickest and easiest way is to examine the head of the cartridge. If it’s 5.56, it’ll be stamped be stamped with a NATO insignia, which looks like a circle with a plus sign (+) inside of it. If it’s .223 Remington, it’ll say .223 Rem.

Photo Credit: TheFiringLine.com
Photo Credit: TheFiringLine.com

So Which Caliber AR-15 is Better?

The short answer about which caliber is best for you depends on your particular needs. The .223 Remington is the mostly widely produced caliber and while you likely won’t want to fire 5.56 in your firearm often, in an emergency you could easily get away with firing a few hundred rounds if necessary. The bottom line is this: if you want to be as safe as possible, always shoot .223 Remington ammunition. The .223 Rem cartridges will safely fit and fire in any rifle chambered for either .223 or 5.56.

In terms of pricing, .223 ammunition and 5.56 ammo cost about the same amount per round and both are readily available most of the time on the U.S. civilian market. If you’re not sure what you’ll be using the firearm for, most shooters find 5.56 chambered firearms more appealing because of the flexibility they offer when it comes to firing either .223 or 5.56×45 rounds.

About the Author:

Mark Ollendale is a life-long shooter and firearms enthusiast obsessed with ammunition. Passionate about helping protect the 2nd Amendment while spreading the benefits of firearm ownership to new shooters young and old, Mark works for online ammo retailer AmmoForSale.com.

5 Common Survival Myths

I located these five common survival myths on the SurvivalState.com and felt that they should be passed along. While there are a great many myths that circulate the survival and prepping communities, these five will hopefully at least invoke thought and cause everyone to consider their survival plans. I could not identify who had written this piece and I am not sure if it is an original work by the folks at SurvivalState. If you are a gun nut, definitely make sure to check out survivalstate.com. They have a ton of gun reviews on their home page!

Survival Myth #1 – Weapons Are The Most Important Thing

Firearms should be treated just like catastrophic health insurance.  You should own them hoping that you never need them, but just like insurance, if you need them, you need them badly.   And, just like with hypochondriacs, there is a certain segment of society that can’t seem to look beyond the terrible events that would necessitate using a firearm in self-defense at more likely occurrences.  To make matters even worse, popular culture and the media both suggest that violence during survival situations is normal, and that hardship always brings out the worst in others.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The most common survival situations are brought on by diseases, accidents, and various kinds of disasters.   With the exception of civil unrest, none of these situations require being armed. Yes, we can all be mugged walking down the street or we can wake up in the middle of the night to a home invasion, but these events are fairly rare.  The average, reasonable person is much more likely to fall down a flight of stairs or get hit by a car than they are to be the victim of a random life threatening attack.  No gun, however large, is going to help you relocate a dislocated shoulder or keep your house from burning down.

There are exceptions, of course. People who live in dangerous areas are, in fact, more likely to become victims than others in more peaceful areas.  But that’s a given and people have the ability to make their own choices as to where they choose to live.  Indeed, if the FBI statistics are to be believed (and most of the time they aren’t), we will all likely fall victim to fairly serious crime at one time or another. However, despite these somewhat sobering numbers, a possible violent crime occurring once in a person’s life is a far cry from the guaranteed eventualities of illness and financial burden, both of which can greatly impact survival and quality of life.

So, from a survival perspective, while firearms are useful tools and can prove to be vitally important, they should take a definite backseat to almost all other preparations, especially if one has no indicators to the contrary.

Survival Myth #2 – It Will Be Every Man For Himself

Most of the people responsible for giving everyone in the survival community a bad name are the same folks who focus on the self-defense aspects of survivalism.  It doesn’t help that these same people are also the primary focus of the media, and together these strange bedfellows have led the rest of the world to believe that survivalists are all unwashed white folks with mangy beards who live out in the woods in rotten cabins with their even mangier dogs.

The media loves to focus on these people because they represent danger and radicalism.  They did the same thing when they focused on looting after Hurricane Katrina, and in doing so implicated entire neighborhoods in criminality.  Neither representation is accurate and certainly should not be used to classify large segments of society.  The problem is that the participants in either group, and the populace at large, don’t recognize that they are anomalies. In other words, the handful of gun toting survivalists who live out in the wilderness lprobably really believe that they are making reasonable preparations for a world ending calamity and the looters in New Orleans probably believed that they were entitled to what they were taking, while the media does what it can to make either group seem larger and more dangerous than they really are in order to gain viewership.

Neither group represents how the vast majority of society functions.  Despite frequent and well-publicized occurrences of self-centered behavior, humans are intrinsically group animals and we rely on each other to survive.  Even though the media takes great efforts to obscure this fact, America’s communities function fairly well and are essentially peaceful.  Our communities work and we need them to survive.

Except for a few historical examples, I can’t think of a single person (and certainly nobody I personally know), that does not rely on other human beings in their daily life.  Whether we like it or not, in order to be competent, healthy, and happy, we need a high degree of tolerance and civility towards others, something that certain members of the survivalist community (and, indeed, any community), seem to be lacking.

Survival Myth #3 – You Will Rise To The Occasion

Surviving a genuine, full-fledged large scale crisis is, by its very nature, a difficult undertaking and there is a significant difference between just surviving a situation and being a hero. Too many folks are caught up in the glamorized militaristic and self-defense fantasies which represent idealized heroism in our culture.  This type of heroism, as most people understand it, is nothing but a Hollywood myth.  No matter how brave a or careless a person might be, nobody, and I mean nobody, goes into a life or death situation with any degree of enthusiasm.  Sure there are those people who are so moved by adrenaline or even sheer mania, that they can accomplish impossible feats, but that’s reaction, not bravery.  Bravery occurs only when someone is scared out of their wits and still takes action, regardless of personal consequences.  Such individuals are to be honored, but they also tend to have short lifespans.

I’ve never spoken to a single person that had been involved with heroic action (and I’ve spoken to a lot of them) that was proud of what they had accomplished.  In fact, some of them seemed downright embarrassed.  Not too long ago, for instance, I was speaking with a former military officer who had risked his life to save that of a child.  When I asked him if he would do it again, he answered:  “Sure, it was a kid.”

When I asked him if he would have done the same for an adult, the response was accompanied by a cocked eyebrow: “No.  They made their own bed.  Let them lie in it.”  In other words, even a known hero has his personal limits.  Which brings up another point — everyone, and I mean everyone, has their limits.

Socrates pointed out that men might be brave in battle one day and less than brave the next.  Discipline and dedication can help calm quaking hearts, but even the best trained men and women will still break when their limit is reached.  It happens to everyone.  More to the point, survivalists aren’t taking parts in organized battles…their goal is to stay alive.  Whether or not they are brave should be a non-issue.  When it comes to reality bravery has much more to do with ego than it has to do with staying alive.  Leave the heroics for the movies.

Survival Myth #4 – You Can Live Off Of The Land

This is one of my favorites. So many people think that they can live off of the land in the event of a catastrophe.  Let me tell you, I’ve tried it, and it just isn’t possible for any length of time.  The knowledge and skill necessary to live “naturally” is extremely difficult to obtain and even more difficult to put into action.  Living off the land should only occur out of dire necessity and never by design.

At this point I would like to remind everyone that none of the first settlers in the United States would have survived without the provisions they had brought with them or help from the local natives.  And that was during a period when the land was barely inhabited yet full of fish, game, and edible plants.  Since that time we have essentially denuded our landscape (just about every tree has been chopped down and replanted more than once).  There are hardly any bears left, turkeys were only recently reintroduced to large segments of the country, and overall fish stocks are at their lowest points ever. To think that a person could survive off of these paltry pickings alongside another 300 million famished Americans is ridiculous.  Anyone that suggests otherwise is fooling themselves.

Survival Myth #5 – You Can Hold Off Multiple Armed Marauders

Fighting multiple, dedicated opponents is difficult, regardless of your training and prowess. Successful, unarmed fights against multiple attackers generally take the guise of running street battles where the victim uses the environment to limit their opponent’s numeric advantage, getting in the occasional blow at the opportune moment.  Such a strategy can’t be relied upon and should be viewed as a last ditch, neck saving effort.

The only way to take on multiple opponents with a reasonable chance of success is to bring along an equalizer.  A man with a solid understanding of how to use a knife or a stick can hold off a number of unarmed opponents.  However, if you’ve got a weapon then the other guy probably does too.  We live in a nation where 70% of men carry pocket knives and there are probably 400 million firearms in civilian possession.  To imagine that a serious fight will occur without someone resorting to a dangerous implement is a fantasy.

As humans we have limited senses and abilities.  Studies have shown that in an ambush situation even the best shooters are generally only capable of hitting two aggressors before they are eliminated by a third, and this is with the aggressors in the line of vision.  To imagine that a poorly trained shooter could do any better against multiple, dedicated assailants that are not directly in front of them is simply not reasonable.  Defending a static position without support is nothing short of a death wish unless one is better equipped, trained, and more dedicated than their opponents, and even then the odds of success are extremely slim.

Do you know another survival myth? Add it to the comments section!