[LarryW]

Excellent comments, TR. Making several revisions now (esp re: MREs, ground pad, edged tools, etc). Each comment is critical and very much appreciated.

Some of my thought processes:

Re: decision to evacuate (abandon) the security of the known: The risks associated with remaining during a calamity such as civil anarchy (IMHO) could require organizing a more complex resistance effort (enlisting the support of neighbors, etc) to mount some form of organized defense. This takes time and tends one to be committed to a course of action that may be unsustainable without additional resources. Forming interdependencies with others makes the issue of indiividual survival more complex. Granted, lots of pros/cons to be (and are being)considered.

Re: firearms: The .22 revolver is a simple design. Had a .22 Ruger auto once but had brass fouling problems after a couple of magazines. Probably that individual weapon. Valid point re: .25 and have since in the plan replaced with .380 Bersa for backup (other brands you cite would be much better, but the Bersa is a bird in the hand). Re: Survival/ Papoose .22 rifle vs deer: The notion is that if I can hit a deer from a tree stand with a bow I should be able to hit a small deer from a sim distance (< 35 yds) with the Papoose. Head shot the only option, certainly. The primary virtue of the .22 is weight of ammo, compact configuration, and commonality of ammo domestically. Also, sometimes it's better to appear to be unarmed.

Goal is to survive. Evacuation in this plan is "advancement to the rear" when the only other option is surrender (a non-option).