I have been thinking about purchasing a survival rifle. I have a decent level amount of firearms knowledge but not enough to really know what would be the best choice. I also don't have alot of experience with firearms in the wilderness. Below are all the characteristics that I would like in my survival rifle. Please note that I realize that I might not be able to get all of these characteristics in one gun. If you think that 2 guns could satisfy these requirements and still be reasonable and fairly lightweight, then by all means. 1. Capable of killing small and medium sized game. 2. Can keep me alive in moderate attacks/shootouts against..... cannibles/zombies/predators/chinese. I realize that I would get my ass handed to me in a shootout against anybody with experience or better equipement. I just want enough firepower to defeat or deter a mild to moderate attack. I plan on hiding most of this time and minding my own business. 3. Can carry at least 1000 rounds in my survival pack. Note: I am a large experienced hiker that can go 5-8 miles a day with a 90lb pack. 4. Can carry all required maintenance tools/products to keep the gun running for at least 20 years in wilderness. ***** increadibly important to me ***** 5. If the action or other moving parts fail, I would like the gun to be able to still operate in single shot mode. i.e.... still be able to open the chamber and load manually and shoot single shots for hunting or defense. Basically, what kind of action fails the best...and doesn't leave the gun totally useless. 6. Would like killing ability out to AT LEAST 100yards. For hunting and protection. 7. Reasonably lightweight. So far I'm leaning towards getting an AR15 with stainless 18" barrel. I'm just not sure if that is a simple enough weapon to fit my low-maintenance qualification. Will the action fail gracefully in an AR? Or will it become a paperweight. I'm also leaning toward the Marlin Papoose 22lr in combination with an all stainless Ruger Single Six 7.5" barrel .357mag. Overall this is the lighter, cheaper option. The papoose will give me semi auto ability. What do you think is more likely to stand up to 20 years of low maintenance wilderness abuse. The AR or the "papoose with single six combo"? Or would a bolt action be better? I have heard that the milspec AR's are designed to never fail even with little maintenance and care. that makes me think that the AR is the smarter choice. Also the AR gives me more firepower and range. I wonder if the papoose would fail gracefully so that I could still operate it in single shot mode? Also, if my single six failed somehow, I'm pretty sure it would become a paperweight. If the cylinder wouldn't rotate or something? Anyway, maybe I'm over analyzing the whole "failing gracefully" thing. But I have just always wondered if certain guns would fail better than others and still give you the option for single shot. I suppose there is no gun that is immune to becomming a paper weight eventually. I know there are alot of questions here. Sorry this is so long. Please give me any input you can think of. Thanks.