speak softly, carry a big stick.
shoot first, ask questions later.
Fuck yeah! Go Team America!
by kevin trieu » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:50 pm
by dskoon » Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:02 pm
mrchad9 wrote:Would have to agree with Dow the handle is probably not an asset to your POV.
And I was also wondering, if guns were so effective why still a reluctance to enter grizzly territory? Or perhaps your position is not the same as gwave47 and Bomchaser, and there is some acknowledgement that they are not the solution to everything nor creators of invincibility.
by mrchad9 » Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:12 pm
dskoon wrote:I think Redneck already answered that on the last page or so. If I may paraphrase, he believes that most handguns would not be very effective against a bear attack.
by Tanngrisnir3 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:37 am
redneck wrote:knoback wrote:Bear spray goes out to about 30 ft., depending on wind. The recommendation to shoot at a given range rather than based on bear behavior points out the limitations of firearms for self defense against bears or anything else: at long range they are unbeatable, at close range they are somewhat unreliable. It frequently takes more than one shot to drop a large animal, and if a bear is charging you, that's probably all you're going to get.
[color=olive]If I may pardoned for a lapse in my usual humility here, if I am an expert at anything it is knowledge and use of firearms. I believe I can declare with confidence that there is no repeating handgun on earth that can be used reliably against a bear weighing between 500 and 1,000 lbs. You will simply not get the penetration required to damage vital organs.
So the idea of carrying a handgun to defend against grizzlies is rather a quaint one. And terribly naive. And perhaps dangerous.
by chugach mtn boy » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:21 am
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:redneck wrote:So the idea of carrying a handgun to defend against grizzlies is rather a quaint one. And terribly naive. And perhaps dangerous.
Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands of fisherman, hikers and guides who do so w/regularity up in AK.
by simonov » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:58 am
mrchad9 wrote:Would have to agree with Dow the handle is probably not an asset to your POV.
mrchad9 wrote:And I was also wondering, if guns were so effective why still a reluctance to enter grizzly territory? Or perhaps your position is not the same as gwave47 and Bomchaser, and there is some acknowledgement that they are not the solution to everything nor creators of invincibility.
by simonov » Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:19 am
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:redneck wrote: there is no repeating handgun on earth that can be used reliably against a bear weighing between 500 and 1,000 lbs. You will simply not get the penetration required to damage vital organs.
No, I'm sorry, they exist, but they're a relative pain in the ass and unwieldy. Revolvers spec'd for .450 Marlin, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, etc....
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:redneck wrote: So the idea of carrying a handgun to defend against grizzlies is rather a quaint one. And terribly naive. And perhaps dangerous.
Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands of fisherman, hikers and guides who do so w/regularity up in AK.
by Tanngrisnir3 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:37 am
redneck wrote:Tanngrisnir3 wrote:redneck wrote: there is no repeating handgun on earth that can be used reliably against a bear weighing between 500 and 1,000 lbs. You will simply not get the penetration required to damage vital organs.
No, I'm sorry, they exist, but they're a relative pain in the ass and unwieldy. Revolvers spec'd for .450 Marlin, .454 Casull, .460 S&W, etc....
Yes, those are powerful handguns, but I'm not convinced. A .454 Casull has a two thirds or a half (or less) the energy of a .308 or a .30-'06. There can be 12 inches or more of bearflesh between the surface of a grizzly's skin and his vital organs. That's a LOT of penetration.
Again, I am talking about being able to reliably bring down an animal. I suppose a big-ass handgun is better than nothing, but they are damned heavy.
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:redneck wrote: So the idea of carrying a handgun to defend against grizzlies is rather a quaint one. And terribly naive. And perhaps dangerous.
Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands of fisherman, hikers and guides who do so w/regularity up in AK.
I am.
How often do they bring down grizzlies with their sidearms?
I have no doubt plenty of people carry handguns in grizzly country. Plenty of people right here in Summitpost have been defending the practice. For those who don't mind the weight, I'm sure it makes them feel much more comfortable. But how many of them have actually managed to bring down a bear with a handgun?
Among gun nuts, there is a widespread belief that a gun will solve most of the problems in the world. I've never bough into that.
I am especially leery of handguns, due to their relative lack of power and the difficulty of actually hitting anything in the heat of the moment, without a heck of a lot of practice.
by Arthur Digbee » Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:28 am
MikeTX wrote:i think if a grizzly charged me in the wild, i would probably just shit myself. maybe he would be turned off by the odor and leave me alone.
by Bob Sihler » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:00 am
Arthur Digbee wrote:MikeTX wrote:i think if a grizzly charged me in the wild, i would probably just shit myself. maybe he would be turned off by the odor and leave me alone.
A friend of a friend successfully scared a black bear away by vomiting on it. So your plan would probably work too.
by gwave47 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:04 am
[/quote]Bob Sihler wrote:
Pepper spray issued to police officers is not the same stuff as canisters
of bear spray. I'm guessing if the PD used bear spray on people it would
be a lot more reliable.
by desainme » Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:14 am
by gwave47 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:28 am
by chugach mtn boy » Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:44 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests