|
Post by Curtis_Louis on Dec 19, 2018 4:17:47 GMT
Mmmm... The last time I was rushed by a grizz, I simply held out my autographed picture of Chuck Norris and the brute hauled butt all the way back to Canada. (I was in Chicago at the time). Not that the bacon/vegan dog trick is a bad idea, it just doesn't have the stopping power of a well aimed Norris.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 19, 2018 12:00:14 GMT
I doubt anyone is going to get four or five hits per second on a bear with anything (anything worth shooting a bear with, that is), not even a BAR, which has a cyclic rate of only slightly higher than 4 or 5 rounds per second. However, it's a rifle we're talking about, a semi-auto wouldn't be a bad idea, except that hits are still necessary or it's all for nothing.
I don't know that a shotgun carries easier than a handgun. A 4" S&W .44 magnum is handy enough to carry all the time and it would always be there, never just out of reach. In all these discussions, however, we seem to be assuming away the difficulty of actually hitting the target where it will do any good. A black bear, for example, has a skull no bigger than a football. I haven't seen or examined the skull of a brown bear, though, but all bears have a lot of fur and (usually) fat, so hitting a vital spot will take some knowledge of a bear's anatomy, not to mention luck.
And then there are polar bears. I understand the Alaska National Guard has a few .300 magnum rifles on hand to deal with bear issues.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Dec 19, 2018 16:20:28 GMT
The Canadian Artic Rangers just got a new bear rifle issued to them. It was surprised that of all the choices they have, they went with a bolt action .308 Winchester. Here's an article: ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/new-rifles-for-the-canadian-rangers-now-being-deliveredThey'd been using .303 Enfield's. Up until now. Keep's on tickin'!!! I came across this info while looking in Polar Bear rifles. After watching Fortitude I wanted to know what caliber you really needed for Polar Bear. The results were surprising. I would have thought you'd need some giant, crazy huge thing like a .450 Rigby or a minimum of a .375 H&H Mag. But, the good old .308 is more than enough. I saw a video and read the accompanying article about taking down a large bear with an AR. My take away is this: you don't need an .88 Magnum to take down a bear. You need a normal, high powered rile, a magnum handgun, or, the #1 thing to deter a bear from what I read, is Bear Spray. Bear spray just isn't as sexy as my stainless Redhawk .44, though....
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Dec 19, 2018 19:19:58 GMT
Bacon grease spray on a scared dog...I'm telling ya.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Dec 19, 2018 19:37:47 GMT
Dear god, stop molesting the poor bears! (and the dogs!!)
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 19, 2018 20:30:48 GMT
The Canadian Rangers are something like, but not exactly like, our National Guard. The new rifles are not bear rifles but their only weapons. They wear an identifying uniform but not a Canadian Army uniform. Nor are they a law-enforcement organization but more in the nature of a local defense force for the northern frontier of Canada. We have no equivalent nor does any other country, I think.
Not to be confused with the "Rocky Mountain Rangers," a Canadian Army reserve unit.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Dec 20, 2018 14:45:06 GMT
I'm aware of cattle on farms and ranches killing many farmhands and ranchers, I grew up on ranches and have been told many tales of people having their hands broken or ears ripped off by accidents. I would like to know how many of those deaths are from cattle being aggressive though, as while it's very easy to get crushed by stampeded cattle or in a chute, it's comparatively harder to not get away from a cow by running up a fence from my experience. Thing is, they're so much larger and sturdier than us that they really don't even need to get aggressive, as such, to hurt you. Just like horses - if it really wants to go somewhere, nothing personal but you'd better get out of the way, you know? Ah, but we're talking about a wild one, here! And now I'm imagining a heifer with slicked back horns in a leather jacket, casually flicking a switchblade open and shut as it idles menacingly in the coolest corner of the pasture. Like an all-cow remake of Cry-Baby. ...It's been a weird day.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Dec 20, 2018 16:20:36 GMT
This is the article I read that specifically called it out as a polar bear defense rifle:
www.guns.com/news/2015/06/26/canadian-arctic-rangers-get-new-rifle-for-polar-bear-defense
Granted, this is just an article, but I would hope that "guns.com" would have decent info.
ETA:
Just found this. The Governor of Svalbard's guidelines on Polar Defense weaponry:
If you don't know, and really, why would you? Svalbard is a Norwegian archipelago between mainland Norway and the North Pole. One of the world’s northernmost inhabited areas, it's known for its rugged, remote terrain of glaciers and frozen tundra sheltering polar bears, Svalbard reindeer and Arctic foxes. The Northern Lights are visible during winter, and summer brings the “midnight sun”—sunlight 24 hours a day. It is the real world home of the fictional "Fortitude."
Anyhoo, 2. Types of firearms 2.1. Rifles The acquisition, use, trade and import of rifles for use as protection against polar bears is permitted in Svalbard, pursuant to the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations. Rifles used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of .308W or 30-06 (7.62 mm). Rifle bullets shall be expanding, with a minimum bullet weight of 11.5 g. The required impact energy shall be 2,700 J, measured at a distance of 100 m. For reasons of precision, range, functionality in cold conditions and stopping power, the Governor of Svalbard recommends the use of rifles as the primary means of protection against polar bears, rather than other types of firearms. Hiring out rifles is permitted. For more detailed conditions regarding this, please refer to Section 4.
2.2. Shotguns The acquisition, use, trade and import of shotguns for use as protection against polar bears is permitted in Svalbard, pursuant to the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations. 2 Shotguns used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of 12, and should have a magazine permitting a minimum of four shots (automatic or pump-action shotgun). The use of slugs (shotgun ammunition comprised of one projectile) is recommended for protection against polar bears. However, the Governor of Svalbard warns that most magazine-fed shotguns tend to have problems with icing and condensation, and require more preventive maintenance work if they are to function in difficult conditions. Because of this, combined with the fact that shotguns have less precise sights and a limited range, the Governor of Svalbard recommends the use of rifles as the primary means of protection against polar bears. The Governor of Svalbard advises against the use of double-barrelled shotguns for protection against polar bears, because of the number of available shots. It is prohibited to hire out shotguns for protection against polar bears.
2.3. Handguns/revolvers Handguns for competition and practice can legally be used in the field for protection against polar bears, provided that the Governor of Svalbard has granted a special permit for this. This combination of usage purposes shall be stated explicitly on the firearm permit and may only be granted upon application to the Governor of Svalbard. This permit may only be granted if the applicant meets the requirements for documented activity in an approved shooting association. Handguns for which an applicant is seeking a permit for use as protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of 44. Ammunition to be used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum weight of 15.5 g and a minimum muzzle energy of 1,200 J.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 20, 2018 19:36:06 GMT
Thing is, they're so much larger and sturdier than us that they really don't even need to get aggressive, as such, to hurt you. Just like horses - if it really wants to go somewhere, nothing personal but you'd better get out of the way, you know? As I said, i grew up on ranches and am perfectly aware of how unintentionally dangerous cattle can be. My comment on "how many of these were due to aggression" is referring not to cattle needing to be aggressive to kill people, but to the fact that they don't need to be aggressive to kill people and my disbelief that wild cattle killing people is at all common, because of how not - aggressive cattle are. They can be aggressive, but it's extremely rare to happen compared to how often they just flee. They aren't naturally aggressive animals, and I assume it's not different for a "wild cow". Side note - I have never seen a cow that doesn't belong to a ranching or farming outfit, and according to wildcattleconservation.com they are an extremely rare part of the species to see anyways, so I'm not sure why wild cattle was brought into the thread anyways. MoK, I think you misunderstood why I said that, and maybe I misunderstood the part of your comment where you being by talking about domestic cattle, and then say I took this for some reason to mean the cattle are horned. My mistake, although I have seen many cattle hooves and never thought them to be dangerous in the way of them being pointy. In the way of them being attached to giant animals yes, in the way of them being weapons to poke with no. Hooves by the way are made of keratin, which is not actually tougher than bone. A human getting skull stomped by a cow doesn't die by virtue of his skull being softer than the cows hoof, but by virtue of having a 1500 - 2300 pound animal stepping on him with a hoof with a small surface area. Maybe that's where being pointy makes them dangerous? Regardless, My comment on horns was made because of that misunderstanding that you were saying another reason domestic cattle were more dangerous and killing more people due to them having horns, which I felt perhaps inaccurate due to most cattle being deformed during brandings or processing. Also, your stat that says It's way easier to get killed accidentally or not by a horse than a cow. They can be real jerks. In fact, I myself have been bucked into fence, bucked onto the horn, and had them press me against a fence all whilst riding them, all whilst young. They know who's riding them, and know if they can take advantage of them. Training is super important with horses. The site theconservation.com has a good article on cattle killing people, and according to it not only are mothers more likely to attack people (which was my only experience in getting chased by a cow, although I will say that 99% of the time I was around cattle with calves they didn't care about me and were more interested in the hay I was feeding them, which could also be a reason for them "chasing" people. They see people, and know people give them food. They "chase" The people, which is taken as a sign of aggression by the people. Nothing confirming this, but just my experience. So leave it as you will. Here's some stats on how many people actually got killed by cattle A .22 will kill a cow by the way of you wait for it to be close enough to actually maybe hurt you if you don't move. Just in case anyone in the thread needs a small rifle for defending themselves against wild cattle. A .223 is better though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2019 18:10:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 18, 2019 21:23:40 GMT
That G 10mm is a great semi choice, particularly with a 6" hunting barrel.
|
|