Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again

Posted by: Chris Kavanaugh

Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/20/04 09:24 PM

The recent thread involving wolves brings up the old nightmare of something out there, quietly tipy toeing behind us on the trail or staring from just beyond the fire with unblinking yellow eyes. It's an old part of our consciousness, one that even extends itself to fellow humans who don't happen to dress in Saville Road suits or blanche at the shaman's threat of LAWSUIT. There are two schools of response; the Marlin guide gun ( a dedicated close range defense rifle for bears) which excludes any other scenario besides BLAM! BLAM! take my photo for OUTDOORS Magazine, and the late Timothy Treadwell's naive hubris that Ursus horriblus is really Winnie the Pooh with bad P.R. Learning about potentially dangerous animals is reasonable. Placing them in context with our common world wise. I must wonder if the recently deceased biker in Arizona worried about rattlesnakes while dying of thirst?
Posted by: indoorsman

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/20/04 11:22 PM

In a survival situation, unless our primary needs are attended to first (shelter, fire, water, food, etc.), a hungry bear is going to be little more than a merciful end to an otherwise agonizing demise. Having said that - and being a certified gun nut - I must admit to being rather partial to your first scenario!
Posted by: MartinFocazio

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/21/04 03:58 AM

Will a .410 slug have any effect on a bear? I know it will drop a deer, but I wonder if anything short of a head shot would really matter to a thing as big as a bear? How about a 30-30?

I know someone who killed a charging girizzly with a .243, but he was a great shot, and made a head shot that time.

Enquiring minds want to know what to pack for a long hike in the deep wilderness.
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/21/04 04:37 AM

Martinfocazio:

I have said it before and I will say it again; my personal general all round preference is a semi-auto .22 caliber rifle unless I was hunting for the bear. Because of accuracy and reliability concerns, I would chose a Marlin papoose over an AR7 for a compact take down unit because I have heard the Marlin is better on both counts. Not too long ago I purchased a new Savage .22, 10 shot, clip fed, with extra clip primarly because it is made the old fashioned way of being milled from a solid block of steel. I should have bought the heavy barreled version, but I think I will be happy with the Savage. I have yet to try it out and have attached a 4 X 20 scope to it which has better eye relief than the 4 X 15 scopes most .22's come with.

In Alaska, I understand that a lot of people carry .44 magnums in case of a chance encounter and most of the shots are to scare the bears off. If the shots do not scare the bear away, they must feel confident that the .44 magnum will put the bear away. (CORRECTION: DID A WEB SEARCH AND FOUND FT. LBS. OF FORCE AT THE MUZZLE OF A .44 MAGNUM IS 1037 AND FOR A .410 SLUG ONLY 654, A 20 GAUGE SLUG WOULD BE 1240 FT. LBS. OF FORCE AT THE MUZZLE.) You do however want to have a pump and not a single shot. People I have talked to who are good with guns tell me the new .50 caliber pistols are almost as bad to the shooter as they are to the target.

Of more concern is where you are going. If you go with a gun where guns aren't allowed, they will take it away from you and maybe even your vehicle if they decide to charge you with hunting without a license or out of season. With a .22, there is less likelyhood of that happening as long as there is something in season or a "pest" that can be shot at any time of the year so long as you have a small game license on you.

Good luck!

Bountyhunter
Posted by: Chris Kavanaugh

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/21/04 05:31 AM

Ballistics are like statistics, and can be used for any armchair argument. In the real world the number of human fatalities attributed to bears in North America at best numbers perhaps 100 + since 1900. The number of bears slain is in the thousands. So, I support the right to arm bears. People need to read and learn about bears before even considering a firearm. The behavior of a grizz is completely different than the black. Attacks are RARE, and carrying a firearm as a placebo for woods savvy is no different than a cellphone for rescue. I saw a polar bear dropped with a single .303 military ball round in arctic Canada. I also witnessed the post mortem of a 'rogue' Kodiak with a nasty reputation. The poor animal had 14 recovered bullets, ranging from 220 grain .30s to the big .375 H & H. Any one of these rounds could have, should have killed this individual. That said, common wisdom says a 12 guage at close range, or a bullet with good sectional density, ie. 140 grain 6.5s, 200 grain .30s 250 grain .35s. UNCOMMON wisdom says keep food secured and avoid each other. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: KenK

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/21/04 02:52 PM

I recall reading a magazine as a kid (maybe Field and Stream) that discussed a bet between two hunters who frequent Africa as to whether a 12 guage slug could take down a Water Buffalo (same as a Cape Buffalo??).

The hunter who said it could apparently when hunting with the 12 guage and indeed did take down the buffalo in 2 or three shots - one of them breaking the buffalo's spine. The article emphasized that only a hunter who knew exactly where to shoot could expect that kind of success.

While I'm not against hunting, nor at all into it, it is seemed to me at the time that the buffalo was the one who lost the bet.

Back to the bears - there was a PBS program on the other night about remote Canadian lodges. One of the owners pointed out that they have NEVER had a problem with bears in their 80+ year history of leading hikes. He said that during Grizzly mating season they tend to stay in open areas or near the lodge in order to avoid trouble, but other than that they just make sure hiking groups made enough noise to give the bears time to stay away.
Posted by: NAro

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/21/04 05:14 PM

Randy Garrett seems to know what he's talking about with regard to handgun defense from an attacking bear:
http://www.garrettcartridges.com/031000.asp
His hard cast cartridges are nasty to shoot in .44mag. I've tried similar hardness/meplat cast bullets in .454 Casull and I think they are pretty nasty too. HOWEVER, you'll probably never notice in a real bear attack scenario.

To everyone who actually doubts they'd be able to make a killing shot or instantly incapacating shot on a Griz. with a firearm... in a bear attack (and frankly, that should include all of us!) why not consider Bearspray (or Wolf spray, or Cougar spray, etc.). Look at the data:
http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%20spray.pdf

Forget the "head shot" by the way. What you're after is the "up the nose to the brain" shot. When I told my guide "That's a pretty small target to hit on a charging Griz." he told me: "If you'll just wait a moment, the target will be a lot bigger".
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 12:10 AM

I haven't killed many bear, but I wouldn't want to face one down without a full tube of 12 gauge slugs. If you're going to carry, you might as well carry enough to KNOW you can get the job done. A Remington 870 with a full magazine tube, especially a "shorty" riot gun, isn't that heavy, and they're not too hard to move around with either, especially on a sling.

Troy
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 12:16 AM

For the most part, I agree with ya Chris, but I can't help askin', "wudja wanna be onea them hunderd?" <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: aardwolfe

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 09:52 AM

Just out of curiosity, do you ask yourself when you get into a taxicab "do I want to be one of the four hundred people a year killed in taxicab accidents?" (I believe that's just in Canada; the number for the USA is probably ten times that.)

You are at least 400 times (maybe even 4000 times) more likely to be killed by the simple act of getting into a taxi than you are to be killed by a bear. Yet how many people lie awake worrying about having to take a taxi to the airport in the morning? If they do, they're more worried about missing their flight than they are about being involved in a fatal traffic accident.

Statistics doesn't work the way you seem to think. Nobody has handed out lottery tickets to everyone saying "If your ticket has this number on it you are going to be eaten by a bear." It's just a way of assessing the relative probabilities of different events - for example, the probability of being eaten by a bear, versus the probability of shooting yourself in the head with your own gun.

If you walk through the woods with a loaded gun that's primed and ready to fire, I consider you irresponsible. (Disclaimer: I'm a Canadian, have never owned a firearm, and have only once fired a weapon outside of my military training.) Carrying a firearm that could go off if you trip over a tree root or step in a gopher hole is, IMO, a recipe for an accidental shooting.

Otoh, an unloaded gun is of very limited value for self-defense against a charging bear; you're likely to be far better off using it like a club (in which case, I'd personally prefer to have a club <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) From what (little) I've read on the subject, most bear attacks are the result of (a) blatant stupidity (e.g the woman I once saw getting out of her car to take a close-up photograph of the cute little bear cub); (b) mutual surprise; or (c) photographers (and possible hunters) who are deliberately trying to conceal their presence in order to avoid scaring off photographic subjects/game. In none of these cases is an unloaded weapon likely to be of any use. (I've read that a disproportionate number of bear attack victims are nature photographers, who are deliberately trying to make as little noise as possible; few, if any, of these victims even manage to get a picture of their attacker, indicating that the attacks happen with devastating suddenness.)
Posted by: NAro

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 01:34 PM

You might be unpleasantly disappointed, wildcard, if you just settle for 12ga. slugs off the shelf. Breneke shotgun slugs are the best choice for dangerous game:
http://www.african-hunter.com/Rifle_Choice_4_Dangerous_Game.htm

I know.. we're not in Africa hunting with the shotgun. We're just trying not to be eaten by the bear. But these guys have been there.. done that.. I think they make sense.

I'm still sticking with my bearspray.
Posted by: norad45

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 02:15 PM

In the woods I carry a Smith and Wesson Mtn. Gun in .44 Mag. I load the first chamber with a Speer shot capsule containing about a million #9 shot.The remainder I alternate between 240 grain hard cast lead and hollowpoint.
I worry about a bear attack about as much as I worry about "tripping over a tree root or a gopher hole" and shooting myself in the head: ZERO.
What I do want to be prepared for is encounters with human criminals and the occasional squirrel (hence the shot capsule.)
I do not consider myself "irresponsible" for that.
Regards, Vince
Posted by: Chris Kavanaugh

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 03:43 PM

My first grand hunting expedition was with a group of half drunk coasties. I took exception to one shooting a raven, a big no-no with the law and native belief systems. So, I had to walk back to base. I encountered a very large brownie. I decided to fire awarning shot. Unfortunately, ignorance and overzealousness resulted in copious amounts of oil freezing the action solid. Bear looked at me with contempt, woofed something about california coasties and ambled off. I got an after duty hours job cleaning the base exchange. I'm stripping the deck and swabbing a new coat of wax. In the perpetual twilight of winter, I backed full force into a mounted, upright bear, claws raised, fangs exposed in a perpetual Sylvester Stallone saliva dripping lip curl. It's rocking on the pedestal, shadow flickering over me like some Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. I scream, run, hit the wax and slide across the room and into the wall. I see the stuffed bear, look around to see if anyone was looking in at this moment of my humiliation and feel like an idiot. years later I make friends with a canadian snowbird here in sunny California. Everyone is staring at his chest, thinking he went through a plains indian sundance. Somebody finally asked about the scars. Seems he was hiking in B.C. and encountered a momma blackbear. Bear reared up and clawed him. He punched her in the nose with 3 rapid hooks and uppercut. Bear fled. My friend was a provincial boxing champion. Later I managed to meet the late,great Bart the Bear. His table manners were better than mine. I'm no Timothy Treadwell. I tried to tell him ( along with countless others) that he was doing the bears as great a disservice as gun magazines with lurid graphics and logos about choosing the right gun and load for rapist bears. Meanwhile, theres a mosquito in my room and West Nile virus is in Southern California. Where did I put that SMLE? <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 05:36 PM

Norad:

I think Aardwolfe meant a handgun loaded, cocked, and in your hand.

Also remember his disclaimer of weapons use. He may not know how much time, cartridges, and money some Americans spend on gun sports and you know the news media in Canada is going to give more press to dumb gun (especially handgun.) handling than even the US press does.

I have fallen once with a loaded M1 carbine while deer hunting. It was a tree limb that shifted under my foot. I went down backwards, and as my arms went out and back to break the fall, I threw my carbine away, with the chamber loaded and the safety on as always. The carbine landed on leaves and low growth, I landed on my well padded butt, and when we got back to the car, I found that I had lost my spare magazine in the fall. Only injury, the ego; the carbine was never in danger of going off.

I still like my .22's for Wisconsin, all power considerations aside.

Bountyhunter
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 05:42 PM

You might want to use a CO2 glass frosting cartridge against that misquito and freeze her as the SMLE will vaporize the bugger and send the West Nile contaminated blood into mist form. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: aardwolfe

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/22/04 09:28 PM

Well, I wasn't addressing the issue of two-legged predators so if you have to worry about them, the rules change.

Nevertheless, even if human predators are a concern, I would look at the following:

1. A human predator, unlike a bear, is going to appreciate the significance of a firearm. A bear is probably far more frightened of the sound of my voice than of any firearm I might be carrying. A human is not going to be frightened by the sound of me reciting bawdy limericks, but is likely to think twice about attacking me if I'm carrying a rifle.

2. A human predator is either going to be deterred by the fact that you're carrying a firearm, or is going to try to take you by surprise. Either way, whether the gun has a live round in the chamber is likely to be irrelevant, unless you're aware of the predator's presence and have taken precautions. (Cops don't usually patrol with a loaded gun in their hands; they only draw their weapons when responding to a call, and not always even then.)

3. I'm personally far more worried about some colour-blind yahoo who thinks I'm a bright pink moose wearing eyeglasses than I am about someone who wants to steal my wallet and backpack. (I realise that in the US and parts of British Columbia, there is a higher probability of blundering into some back-country marijuana-growing operation owned by some trigger-happy paranoiac. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> ) I've known many responsible hunters, and at least one incredibly irresponsible one (a guy I knew in the army, who bragged about shooting rabbits from a moving car on a public highway). I have no control over whether someone else is an idiot or not; the best I can hope to do is avoid being in the woods with them. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

As far as shooting the squirrel goes, I would question whether the .5 or so seconds saved by having a live round in the chamber would counterbalance the inconvenience of picking #9 shot out of my kneecap should something go wrong ..... <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Polar bears, of course, would be a different matter again, as they apparently do consider humans to be a legitimate food source <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Perhaps the greatest irony is that the most dangerous bears of all, the ones who have been hand-fed by European and Japanese tourists (apologies to any European or Japanese tourists reading this), are most likely to be encountered in National Parks, where of course carrying a loaded firearm is not a legitimate option. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/23/04 01:03 AM

Sad to say Tim Treadwell was American born and not Europeon or Asian. Now his status is "The late departed", who unfortunately took the woman he loved with him to the belly of the beast.

I recall a little item a while back about some dimly lit bulb who set up his video camera to take pictures of a pride of lions while he approached them for some unknown reason. Somewhere there is supposed to be pictures of what the lions did to him. Anyone know if those pictures can be viewed on line somewhere? I want to see his face to see if I can tell what in blazes he was thinking when he did that.

Bountyhunter
Posted by: norad45

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/23/04 03:06 PM

"Well, I wasn't addressing the issue of two-legged predators so if you have to worry about them, the rules change.”

No, actually the rules do not change, because there are no rules. There is simply the fact that I do not go into the woods without a visible firearm. (Let me point out I’m not talking about the local state campground here.)

“A human predator is either going to be deterred by the fact that you're carrying a firearm, or is going to try to take you by surprise.”

I think it is far more likely that a human predator will pass on an armed potential victim in favor of someone…..well, to be blunt, someone like you ( i.e.: not visibly armed).

“Either way, whether the gun has a live round in the chamber is likely to be irrelevant, unless you're aware of the predator's presence and have taken precautions. (Cops don't usually patrol with a loaded gun in their hands; they only draw their weapons when responding to a call, and not always even then…)”
“As far as shooting the squirrel goes, I would question whether the .5 or so seconds saved by having a live round in the chamber would counterbalance the inconvenience of picking #9 shot out of my kneecap should something go wrong .....”

I appreciate the fact that you do not hunt, and you have honestly and courageously admitted your lack of knowledge about firearms. I have grown up around guns and have hunted all my life, and I still consider myself very much an amateur. But your remark about a “live round in the chamber” being irrelevant is simply wrong; Revolver, semi-auto, bolt action, or pump—all can be brought into action MUCH faster with one in the pipe, and, at least in the case of a modern double-action revolver, just as safely.
And cops in Israel DO patrol with loaded guns in their hands; I guess it all depends on the general threat level, doesn’t it?

“I'm personally far more worried about some colour-blind yahoo who thinks I'm a bright pink moose wearing eyeglasses than I am about someone who wants to steal my wallet and backpack.”
"I have no control over whether someone else is an idiot or not; the best I can hope to do is avoid being in the woods with them. "

Stereotypes aside, I’m personally far more worried about the gent who mistakes his gas pedal for his brake when I am in the crosswalk. Idiots, yahoos, morons, and thugs are all more likely to get you in the city than in the woods. The threat is there, I know, but the fact remains that hunting is statistically far safer than most other forms of recreation. I respect the fact that you do not hunt but I would urge you not to let your fear stop you from enjoying a beautiful fall day in the woods.

“Polar bears, of course, would be a different matter again, as they apparently do consider humans to be a legitimate food source.”

As do, apparently, some black bears around here (Utah). A few years back one came into a campground at night and dragged a five-year old girl out of her family’s camper. IIRC, her grandfather chased it down beating it with a maglite until it released her. She lived but was terribly scarred. I still consider bears to be at most a minor threat.

Regards, Vince
Posted by: aardwolfe

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/23/04 06:59 PM

norad;

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about here - if we ARE arguing, that is.

We both seem to be furiously agreeing that there are a lot of far more dangerous things to worry about than being eaten by a bear. My original response was to state that, if being eaten by a bear is your primary concern, then taking "precautions" which significantly increase the danger to you and your travelling companions is IMO a disproportionate response. If you're concerned about critters other than a black bear, especially Bigfoot's hairless cousins <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, then you're into a completely different threat scenario and those comments may not apply.

I agree that one's response should be modified to deal with the threat level. Obviously, I would not expect a police officer investigating an armed robbery in progress to react the same as if he/she were directing traffic.

Your point about an armed criminal preferring an unarmed victim like me to an armed victim like you is obvious, but irrelevant. I never suggested otherwise; what I did say was that a criminal is as likely to be deterred by an unloaded firearm as he/she is by a loaded one, as there's (normally) no easy way for them to tell at a glance which one you have. (Obviously, if there's no magazine in the chamber, this may not apply, but if there's an empty magazine, or a full magazine with no round loaded in the chamber, and/or the safety is on, it would.) Thus, having a live round in the chamber and the safety off is not likely to act as a greater deterrent than having the chamber empty and the safety engaged.

A bear, on the other hand, is not going to know the difference between a human carrying a rifle and one carrying a trekking pole or a camera tripod. Thus, my point being that if you want to avoid a confrontation with a bear, you're far better off yodelling "The Hills are Alive" than you are carrying a rifle. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What exactly do you mean by "Much faster"? It's been over 10 years since I served in the military, but I've fired FNC-1 semi-automatic rifles, FNC-3 fully automatic rifles, Browning 9mm semi-automatic pistols, and 9mm SMGs; very limited experience, I admit, but in none of those cases can I see it taking more than a second to load the magazine and cock the weapon. I suppose if you're into black powder or muzzle loaders, it would take longer; but I've never gone beyond what I did in the military.

I've heard that, in some locations, Black bears have been observed stalking humans for prey and it's not unheard of for them to attack campers in tents. I suspect these are almost always bears that have been fed by humans and have learned to associate us with their din-dins. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: norad45

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/23/04 08:44 PM

What I objected to was your statement: “If you walk through the woods with a loaded gun that's primed and ready to fire, I consider you irresponsible.” I understand now that you were speaking about another type of firearm: the semi-automatics and automatics that you used in the service. At least I think that's what you meant.

My aforementioned Mountain Gun is a double action revolver. I carry it exactly as you describe: I can either thumb the hammer back and then pull the trigger (very light pull), or I can simply pull the trigger and it will fire (much heavier pull and my preferred way of shooting it.) I do not believe it can go off even if dropped as long as the hammer is not cocked, but of course I act as though it can and will. In the old days of single action Colt Peacemakers and such it was considered prudent to carry your pistol with an empty chamber under the hammer to prevent a scenario just as you describe: tripping, dropping the gun, and having it go off accidentally. These days guns are manufactured with internal safety devices to prevent that sort of thing, but there is still no substitute for safe gun handling.

What I meant by “much faster” is just that. Take your example of the Browning 9mm pistol. If it’s a Hi-Power and I’m understanding your technique in the service correctly, then you would draw the weapon, rack the slide to chamber a round, aim the weapon, and then fire. With the Mountain Gun you simply draw the weapon, aim, and fire. If you first have to load the magazine then the revolver would be “much, much faster”. (FWIW, if the Hi-Power was carried “cocked and locked” it might be a hair faster even than the revolver.)

Using your .5 second difference as an example, in a confrontation with a bad guy that might mean the difference between making it to cover or not. And don’t forget that, at 30 MPH, a charging bear covers 25 feet in .5 of a second. No, if I’m going to carry a gun in the woods, it’s going to be loaded and if it’s a revolver at least, it’s going to have a full cylinder.

I just thought of another threat which is probably more serious than a bear: the rabid fox (or coyote or porcupine.) Anybody ever encounter one of those? I’ve got to admit, rabies makes me a bit nervous.

Regards, Vince
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 01:30 AM

I don't know about bears and if they can understand the difference between a stick and a rifle, but I can tell you about crows.

You can whittle a detailed rifle out of wood, color it gunmetal blue, slop RIG gun grease and bore cleaner on it so that it smells like a real rifle, put it in a gun case, go to the woods near a stand of trees and pull it out of its case, and they won't so much as blink, let alone fly away. You can park the car a football field away from a stand of trees that have a large group of crows in it, start to pull a real rifle out of its case, and before the barrel clears the case, they are all gone far away. I truly believe that if I could find a hunting area where I could park the car a mile or more from crows in a tree & start walking toward them, they would fly off just before I got into shooting range and not a step further.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 01:48 AM

That's what that little button on the trigger guard (on the 870 I mentioned) called a safety is for, but as a consession, if you don't know your firearm or anything about firearm safety, I agree, I wouldn't want you to be walking around with a loaded gun either.

Troy

P.S. By the way, I've only been in a cab once, it stunk so bad, that since then, I've always made other arrangements.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 01:54 AM

To each, his own <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 01:57 AM

Good for you, yet another member I need to meet up with some day and buy a beverage for <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Nomad

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 02:44 PM

Crows...
Many years ago, in Florida, I was shooting at a large sand pit. I had a 22 cal rifle and was on the rim of the pit shooting down. It was unique in that the sand was absolutly uniform in texture and I could actually see the bullet as it traveled.

There was a crow sitting on a pole... which was just toooo tempting a target for this young lad. I drew a bead on it and fired. As the bullet approached, the crow flew up a few feet, the bullet passed harmlessly below, and the crow returned to the post. I discovered that if the shot was a miss, the crow would not bother to move. The bullet could go within inches of the crow and it would just sit there. Each time I targeted it exactly the crow would jump up and return to the pole. Otherwise it ignored me.

We played around with this for about 15 minutes and we both seems to enjoy the little game.

Since then I have been studying crows. Truly a remarkable bird. Very complex social structure. Watching them over the years has been worth the time to occupy an othewise idle mind.

Probably should be a campfire post..
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 06:49 PM

At about 1200 feet per second for a 40 grain .22 long rifle bullet, that post must have been pretty far away.

If you are correct in your recollection, that is a pretty scary thought that the crow could preceive the bullet path.

Bountyhunter
Posted by: aardwolfe

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 07:41 PM

Geez, if I didn't know better, I might think I'd offended you <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I suspect neither of us, by mutual agreement, are likely to become hunting partners.

Other than that, all I can say is that in the military, as far as I can recall, it was drummed into us that you never chambered a round unless you intended to fire the weapon, and that the safety on a gun was a device for lulling the unwary. (In particular, the 9mm SMG used by the Canadian Army in those days was notorious for its ability to squeeze off a round with the safety engaged; in fact, I believe it would actually chamber a round AND fire with the safety engaged if you dropped it butt-first on the ground.)

Of course, this was sometimes taken to extremes, such as the time the Penitentiary Guards went on strike and the army was called in to patrol the maximum security institution in Kingston, and the officer in charge refused to allow his men to load magazines in their rifles - until a Mountie NCO caught on and tore a strip off him in front of his men. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In deference to norad, I've never fired a revolver (in fact, I don't think I've even held one) and I'm not familiar with the built-in safety precautions on them, so my comments were not intended to apply to them. (As an aside, hunting with handguns is illegal in Canada.)

Perhaps "irresponsible" was too strong a word. On the other hand, as a matter of personal preference, I won't go into the woods with anyone who feels it necessary to shave milliseconds off their quickdraw reaction time, and I prefer not to vacation in locales where such attitudes are deemed necessary.

Your Mileage May Vary, as they say <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/24/04 08:22 PM

To each, his own, and no offence taken (at least not held on to, life's to short). When you've (meaning me) grown up around firearms, been taught safe handling, and had more than one occasion where you (meaning me) were glad that one (or more) were close at hand, you (meaning me) can sometimes be a little touchy about the subject (especially when there are so many folks that want to take them all away). Sweeping comments sometimes tend to put me on the defensive, but I usually bark pretty loud before I bite. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/25/04 02:18 AM

October 23, 1983, 241 American Marines were killed by a truck bomb which went through the perimeter because guards were told to keep their rifle magazines in their pouches unless necessary. I understand that .30 caliber machine gun emplacements did not have their ammo belts locked and loaded by virtue of that same order. One of the men manning a machine gun emplacement said he saw the driver look out the truck window after hitting the building the Marines were sleeping in and the driver had a very happy smile on his face before he pulled the bomb trigger.

241 DEAD AMERICAN MARINES because of a politically correct buracrats orders. This is why some grunts approve of "Fragging" their own officers.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/31/04 02:13 AM

Agreed.

Having carried a loaded sidearm most of my adult life, and having been trained and licensed and such by several U.S. States to do so, both personally and professionally, I find it somewhat offensive for someone with neither experience nor qualification to label me "irresponsible."

Whatever your preferences may be, you don't have to venture into the woods or the urban jungle or what have you, with me. But I do. And my wife does. And we both carry guns. Because predators come in all forms, both four- and two-legged, and I am NOT repeat NOT going to rely on what I THINK they will do as a guarantee of my safety.

What I WILL rely upon is my own sense, my own judgment, and my own marksmanship to ensure that my wife and I come through whatever confrontation unscathed.

Anything else is idle speculation at best, wishful thinking at worst. This attitude is not location-specific. It is a mindset bred from experience in the real world dealing with real bad guys. I've had far fewer dangerous experiences in the woods, but in my book the rules of engagement are exactly the same for predators, only the equipment changes.

It may make you uncomfortable, but my wife and I find it perfectly acceptable to be responsible for our own safety.

On a slightly different note, I was looking to purchase a Mountain Revolver a while back, shying away from the full-house .44 Mag loadings but instead going with the .44 Special loadings that have ballistics similar to the .45acp. But I've never actually carried/fired one. How does the Mountain Revolver handle with full house 240-grain JHP's? Do you use Hogue or Pachy's with recoil reducing features or do you take the recoil straight in the wrist?

The other advantage to using the .44 Magnum as your basis round is that you can get a decent lever-action rifle in the same caliber. Having never traveled in BIG bear country (The US Forest in Northern California with their Grizzlys is about the closest I've come), and my choice at the time was (I realize how ignorant this sounds but it's all I had at the time) a Colt 1911 with warmly-loaded 230-grain JHP's, I often wondered what the choice would be of the Alaskan guides who are up where the bears are truly dangerous as their preference in a rifle/pistol combo.

Will the 1911 do the theoretical job of stopping a full-grown bear attack? Has anyone seen any documentation on it? Or was I deluding myself into believing the .45acp adequate for bear duty?

Panz
Posted by: norad45

Re: Mountain revolver - 07/31/04 12:20 PM

My Mountain Gun is the blued Model 29-8. I believe it weighs in at around 39 ounces. The .45 Colt version, the model 25, can be seen here:

http://www.swfirearms.vista.com/store/in...;sw_activeTab=1

I replaced the (very nice) Ahrends cocobolo grips it came with with some finger groove combat cocobolos from Smith and Wesson. They cut the felt recoil a great deal and in my opinion look better. I keep the 240 grain loads in the 1200 fps range and it's quite comfortable.

Nothing wrong with your idea of mainly shooting .44 specials and having the .44 Mags to fall back on; you might also consider the Model 25 in .45 Colt mentioned above. Since the bullet starts out with a greater diameter (.451 vs. .429 for the .44 Mag) pressures, and thus recoil should be less. You would need less velocity to achieve comparable expansion.(You might have to handload to realize any benefit --there are many more loadings on the shelf for 44 mag/special than .45 Colt. Gives you another hobby though!)

Regards, Vince

Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/31/04 07:11 PM

Panzerboy:

I can guarantee you a .45 ACP is better than hitting the bear with your hands or a frying pan (See Tim Treadwell obit.) and yelling "NO!,STOP!".

Most bears schooled in proper English will just think you are a foriegner who means "Don't stop", as in, continue to attack me.

I still like my .22's in Wisconsin, because even though I have never been attacked by 4-legged creatures, I believe that no animal would like 1,200 feet per second, 40 grain hollowpoint .22's hitting its nose, mouth, teeth, throat, tongue, face, and eyes, and I would think it would turn away from the source of those impacts.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Mountain revolver - 07/31/04 07:25 PM

I don't really care for handguns in the .44 magnum and larger calibers.

Yes, they are great for people in Alaska and other parts of the world where large animals of a dangerous nature may be encountered in close quarters, but I would rather see those large calibers in short carbines for my personal use.

I have shot two .44 magnum pistols that belonged to friends, and they were both very punishing guns and quick follow up shots were a joke.

I used to think that maybe I am just being a wuss about the recoil, until a biker friend of mine with forearms as big as my thighs, an ability to take serious baton hits on his body, and almost able to hold a Harley in the air for repairs, bought a Ruger 8+" barreled .44 magnum and sold it 2 weeks later because he didn't like the recoil.

If I wanted a center fire wheelgun and rifle combo, it would probably be a .357 magnum caliber.

Bountyhunter
Posted by: Chris Kavanaugh

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/31/04 08:07 PM

The Rangers who arrive at the Treadwell camp destroyed two bears with their service issue .40s. They also emptied the hi capacity magazines to do it. The 1911, 230 grain ball cartridge is a direct descendant of the same cartridge used in Scofield and Colt SAA revolvers. It's criteria was the ability to 'founder' a horse with body shots. A 850- 1200 lb soft bodied horse hardwired to flee is different from a 200 lb bear. Any animal is going to suffer potentially fatal wounds from just about any cartridge. Remember the poor elephant in Hawaii? That animal finally said enough to mistreatment and was eventually killed in a hail of small arms fire. The first and foremost quality of any defensive firearm is to stop the assault NOW. Once again, I think avoiding potential ecounters to begin with makes more sense. Thats why I boycott circuses <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 07/31/04 10:30 PM

This isn't really an answer, just a comment on Mr. Browning's hogleg, actually a quote..."It won't punch a hole in a beer can, but it'll push a refrigerator into the next county!" All jokes aside, while I'd rather have a Ruger .50 in grizzly country, I'd sooner pack a 1911 than any spray can on the market.

Just one man's opinion <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Troy
Posted by: bountyhunter

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/01/04 12:36 AM

No, no!

Colt made the hogleg.

Browning made "THE" Handgun in "THE" cartridge, "U.S. CALIBER .45 AUTO".

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: norad45

Re: Mountain revolver - 08/01/04 02:30 AM

"I have shot two .44 magnum pistols that belonged to friends, and they were both very punishing guns and quick follow up shots were a joke."

That's not surprising to me; the first 44 mag I ever shot was a friends 629 that kicked the h**l out of me. But its all in the grips. If they fit they fit--if they don't they hurt.

The gun that intrigues me--frightens me--is the S&W model 329PD. It's a scandium frame(?) model 29 in 44 mag that weighs 26 oz. I hefted one at the gunstore and believe me, I think firing a full-powered 44 mag load in that thing would be like touching off a greanade in your hand.

It might hurt but boy would it be fun!! And it would be a true joy to pack!!

Check it out, it's beautiful overkill:
http://www.swfirearms.vista.com/store/index.php3?cat=293482&sw_activeTab=1

Regards, Vince














Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/01/04 06:52 PM

John M. designed the 1911, but Colt manufactered it.
Posted by: aardwolfe

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/01/04 08:12 PM

In the interests of forum harmony, I was prepared to let this particular sub-thread die quietly, but since you insisted on resurrecting it, I figure ? wotthe?ell?

1. My apologies for having offended anyone; I simply made a statement based on my military training that I naively assumed everyone else already took for granted. I was wrong.

2. I never made any statements that indicated I felt people should not be allowed to own or carry firearms - I simply stated my opinion that those who choose to exercise that right should also accept the responsibility of doing so in a safe and prudent manner. The fact that some people interpret this as an "anti-gun" stance is something I find a little disturbing. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

3. In the interest of total disclosure, I did state my experience and training level wrt firearms, but I'm not totally clueless about them; I just never had any burning desire to own one in civilian life. I spent 12 years in the military and was trained to use semi-automatic small arms. All the training I received emphasised that you never put a round in the chamber unless you intended to fire the weapon. When you picked it up in the morning, you checked to see that the chamber was empty; when you put the weapon down you checked it again; when you picked it up again, you checked it again; when you handed it to someone else you checked it; when you received it from someone else you checked it; when you went inside a building you checked it, and you never left the range until the range officer had checked it. Until this thread started, I assumed that was standard procedure for any responsible gun owner. Apparently I was wrong; sorry for offending you.

3. The argument that "I've been doing this since I was in short pants, therefore I know what I'm doing and I don't make mistakes" simply does not impress me. I have no way of knowing who trained you, what their qualifications were, or whether they passed on any bad habits.

To quote from Laurence Gonzales's book "Deep Survival", "The word 'experience' often refers to someone who's gotten away with doing the wrong thing more frequently than you have." I know far too many people who've been driving for 30 years who still routinely change lanes without doing a shoulder check, run yellow (or red) lights, and tailgate on the freeway (or the Canadian equivalent). This doesn't (IMO) make them safe drivers, it just means they've gotten away with it for 30 years.

In some cases, they haven?t even done that; one driver, who came within inches of rear-ending me when I had to make an emergency stop, pulled up alongside, rolled down his window, and gave me the finger <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Shortly thereafter, when we were both stopped at a red light, he opened his door, leaned out, and repeated the gesture - just in case I'd missed it the first time, presumably. Obviously, he didn?t think he?d done anything wrong, so I guess it was my fault for trying not to hit that jaywalker.

Firearms are extremely dangerous and deadly - they're designed to be. It's not like boxing or snow-boarding, where a mistake results in you getting a whack in the head that makes your teeth rattle and encourages you not to do it again. Your first mistake with a rifle or a pistol could easily be the last mistake you ever make. Those who forget or ignore that do so at their own peril and the peril of others around them. So yes, I do expect people who handle firearms to do so responsibly. My definition of ?responsible? is based on my military training; I didn?t realise that it wouldn?t be shared by others.

4. The notion that someone who has "neither experience nor qualification" is not entitled to an opinion doesn?t cut it either. A young woman of my acquaintance died in a plane crash last year because she failed to question the pilot's decision to take off. The fact that she was not a pilot and had never before flown in a light plane did not mean that she had no business questioning his decision. I am a pilot - though not a very experienced or highly qualified one - but I would never have taken off sandwiched between two weather fronts on a flight through a mountain pass, as this moron did. As a pilot, I would expect and encourage a non-flying passenger to question my decisions if they felt uncomfortable, and to consult others with more experience; and I would not take offense if they elected to catch the bus home instead. I would expect a rifle, shotgun, or pistol owner to show the same attitude to someone who was unfamiliar with firearms.

5. I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. We have a bigger country, a smaller population, a lower crime rate, and better National Parks than you do, so there! <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> So I have no real incentive to come south of the border to get my hiking jollies. That means the chances of me going into the woods with you, teddy bears? picnic or no teddy bears? picnic, is pretty much nil. So the whole darned discussion is moot and I personally have nothing more to say on the topic.

Again, my apologies for offending anyone. I thought I was merely stating the obvious, and it turns out I wasn't. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/01/04 11:35 PM

Well stated!

Your analogy brings to mind a comment I once heard.
The statement was made about a third party after a rather bad display of effort; "He doesn't have 10 year's of experience, he has 6 months, repeated 20 times."

Posted by: bmisf

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/01/04 11:46 PM

Hear hear!

I agree with everything you say, Aardwolfe.

I don't fear the bears, mountain lions and other natural beasties when I backpack (though I do respect them).

I do fear people with guns, especially those who are intoxicated on alcohol or other substances. And I have run into far more of those than I have any of the natural "dangers" out there.

I can understand people carrying rifles and shotguns for hunting - it's our right in this country and that's a legitimate use. Handguns and automatic weapons, on the other hand, are primarily for killing people. Carrying one may make you feel safer, but my opinion is that, statistically and psychologically, it does not.

Anyway, I'd much rather share the trail with a bear than with anyone carrying a handgun.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/02/04 12:02 AM

Not many people in the US have automatic weapons; special licensing and such.
I think you mean semi automatic weapons.
I wouldn't want people to think we are total gun nuts.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lions and tigers and bears oh my! again - 08/02/04 12:11 AM

Quote:
Handguns and automatic weapons, on the other hand, are primarily for killing people.

Carrying one may make you feel safer, but my opinion is that, statistically and psychologically, it does not.

Anyway, I'd much rather share the trail with a bear than with anyone carrying a handgun.


Hmmm, where to start....or to start at all.

Out of resect for both Doug and Chris, I'll just bite my tongue and leave you to your fantasy. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />