AK-47 against a BEAR
Mix
Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
Thank you.
Sydney Boyle IV
I don't know but I'm sure it's big enough to kill ignorant scum like
yourself.
J.A. James
Paul Stevens wrote in message <3498BC...@nashville.com>...
>Mix wrote:
>>
>> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>> Thank you.
>
>
>Teddy - yes
>Paddington - yes
>Koala - yes, but I think they might be protected
>
>Black,
>Brown,
>Kodiak,
>Polar - It's just enough to really piss them off
>
>Grizzly - If you are stupid enough to actually shoot at one with
> such a low powered rifle, save at least one bullet for
> yourself. You don't want to be alive when he gets hold
> of you and starts turning you into hamburger.
>
>Now if you happen to run across a purple dinosaur singing really
>annoying kid's songs, an AK-47 should be powerful enough. I
>would prefer something in the HEAT (high explosive anti-tank)
>category myself.
If it's an actual AK, i.e.. select-fire, then same loaded with the
7.62x39 AP-T (ACK!!! Can't remember the actual nomenclature of the round)
combined with good fire discipline, would be a fairly adequate defensive
weapon against bears of most varieties. This is primarily because bears tend
to attack in a fairly linear fashion and present their head and frontal
torso during the charge.
An important caveat, however, if you're not dead certain that you're in
an environment where you're going to get ten to twenty seconds lead time as
well as have the personal skill and cool to deliver repeated bursts to a
target that seems to be primarily teeth, go for the AT-4 and a good will.
Of course, an acquaintance of mine has the job of sitting in a heated
tower overlooking a garbage dump at an oil site on the North Slope of
Alaska. The company issues him a Barett M-80 .50BMG and actually pays the
federal tax to purchase Raufoss cartridges for it. The Kodiak's come to dine
and decide that if rotting/frozen human food is good, getting it straight
from the camp kitchen would be better. Apparently, he's had to use several
torso shots on a regular basis to take a big male down. He also recounts one
case of requiring two COM head shots with the Raufoss cartridges. Apparently
the bear was either stupid enough or pissed enough not to notice he'd just
been killed.
As for purple dinosaurs? My choice, if the species is Barnicus
Violeticus Pedophilicus, would involve some duct tape, a claymore mine and a
white phosphorous grenade. Bye, Bye, Barney.
J.A. James
CEO/Owner/Boss
Fianna Consultation
Paul Stevens
Mix wrote:
>
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
Depends on the type of bear:
Teddy - yes
Paddington - yes
Koala - yes, but I think they might be protected
Black,
Brown,
Kodiak,
Polar - It's just enough to really piss them off
Grizzly - If you are stupid enough to actually shoot at one with
such a low powered rifle, save at least one bullet for
yourself. You don't want to be alive when he gets hold
of you and starts turning you into hamburger.
Now if you happen to run across a purple dinosaur singing really
annoying kid's songs, an AK-47 should be powerful enough. I
would prefer something in the HEAT (high explosive anti-tank)
category myself.
P.S.
Marek
AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong)) This
is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
calibers are very versatile - in particular .30-06 and have been used for
everything from hares (light loaded 30grain 5.8g bullets -full metal
jacket) to elephants in 250grain loads. .308 has however poorer balistics
than its bigger brother and this will show on the weapons performance in
this caliber over longer and varied ranges. Im not so sure about the
precision you get from an AK-47.
If by AK-47 "type" rifles you mean SLRs or semi/full automatic weapons -
and intend on using it as a "machine gun" then yes, you could wipe out
prietty much anything - but now, why on earth would you want to do that?
In article <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
--
Dulce et ducorum est pro patria vitae
Remove "t" in .not for email. Thanks.
Christopher Morton
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:13:19 -0800 (PST), Mix
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>Thank you.
It depends upon what kind and size of bear.
It wouldn't be my first choice.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://super.zippo.com/~cmorton/home.htm
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
m...@myself.i
Sydney Boyle IV wrote:
> I don't know but I'm sure it's big enough to kill ignorant scum like
> yourself.
Sydney Boyle IV (!!) You sound mighty sensitive!
Marek
Just for the record - to Polish geologists working in Longyearbyen,
Svalbard (Spitsbergen) were attacked by a polarbear(1992/93?). They had
one .22 pistol (a CZ I believe) whith which they attempted to defend
themselves. One of the geologists was I believe fataly wounded but the
other actually manage to kill the bear after emptying two magasines (and
reloading! whilst his collegue was being mawled) when he finaly placed a
shot in the animals brain. None of the other bullets were fatal.
The placement of the shot is far more imporatant than the caliber/bullet weight.
Marek
Beauwolfe
Mix wrote:
>
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
Not really. The round is small (7.62x39), and range and accuracy are
diminished when compared against the target. It may well be adequate
against black bears, but that would be about the only bear I'd be
inclined to consider. Go up in power and you would be better served.
Paul Stevens
Marek wrote:
>
> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong)) This
> is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
> with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
> this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
> calibers are very versatile - in particular .30-06 and have been used for
> everything from hares (light loaded 30grain 5.8g bullets -full metal
> jacket) to elephants in 250grain loads. .308 has however poorer balistics
> than its bigger brother and this will show on the weapons performance in
> this caliber over longer and varied ranges. Im not so sure about the
> precision you get from an AK-47.
> If by AK-47 "type" rifles you mean SLRs or semi/full automatic weapons -
> and intend on using it as a "machine gun" then yes, you could wipe out
> prietty much anything - but now, why on earth would you want to do that?
>
> In article <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix
>
> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> > Thank you.
>
> Dulce et ducorum est pro patria vitae
> Remove "t" in .not for email. Thanks.
The AK-47 uses a 7.62X39mm cartridge. Definitely less powerful than
the US .308 caliber. I think the balistics on the 7.62X39 is about
the same as .30-30 Winchester. It is enough for deer, but not enough
for larger animals.
Yes, shot placement is everything. I have made comments in rec.guns
about encountering "sportsmen" who could not manage any better than
wounding (followed by slow death) a deer, with a 12 gauge slug. A
shot to the brain will stop just about anything, but more powerful
weapons make other fatal shots possible. Low power weapons may not
have enough penetration to reach vital organs in the chest area, or
the death may be slow enough that the bear will still kill you first.
P.S.
Don Staples
Marek wrote:
>
> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong))
Close enough, but the performance is very nearly that of the .30-30
--
Don Staples
UIN 4653335
My Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
cyli
I have a friend who carries one occasionally in the north woods. And
he sees bear sometimes. Once in his own campsite. But he's never
tried it out on one. Just not adventurous, I guress.
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:13:19 -0800 (PST), Mix
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>Thank you.
>
-------
"If I die of curiosity, who will entertain you with naive questions?"
I only answer my mail on an average of once every two months. Be patient.
jmarch
>Marek wrote:
>>
>> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong))
>
>Close enough, but the performance is very nearly that of the .30-30
>--
>Don Staples
Let's assume the bear is a "serious" type like a Grizzly or Polar (Blacks
are usually timid) and that you've got a semi-auto.
An AK-47 is 7.62x39, and as Don says it's roughly equal to a .30-30.
NEITHER will reliably penetrate a bear's skull, and if the bear is on all
fours neither will reliably go all the way into the heart on a shot hitting
it head-on and missing the head, where you're trying to get into the chest
cavity. If it's standing up, yes, it's possible to do a heart shot and you
better not miss because your round doesn't have enough knock-down power to
stop it *now* any other way with one or two shots.
If you're good with the trigger and you have a big clip, you can *try* and
just spray Teddy into oblivion which will *eventually* work by hydraulic
failure if nothing else but the trick is to do it before he eats your ass
for lunch.
Me, I'd prefer a big double-barrel rifle to anything else, in one of the
serious African game calibers. Failing that, anything that can penetrate
the skull such as .30-06, 7.62x54 Dragunov Sniper, .500Linebaugh Long or
above would be bearly adequate...I know, I know, that pun was pretty grizzly
but I could bear to restrain myself...note: .500LL is the ultimate *handgun*
wildcat with over 6 times the power of a .44Mag...and in a five-shot
revolver!
Jim March
------------------
For a wild true story of crooked cops, stolen guns, perjury, fraud
and false criminal charges, see http://www.infinex.com/~jmarch
James Vilakis
An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but only
with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
<1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
Bryan Hinkle
Marek (ma...@sisteskrik.not) wrote:
: AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong)) This
You're mistaken ,.308 is 7.62 X 52 (case length) or 59 (loaded length)
and is often refered to as 7.62 NATO the AK47 is 7.62 X 39.
The other basic difference being that the AK round is NOT .308 but
instead .311.
: is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
: with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
load I've ever seen in 'em are built around a 139 grain and by that time
it's behind .30-30 ballistics with a 170 grain.
: this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
A .22 is sufficent with a precise careful shot ,however I wouldn't
deliberately face a bear with either a .22 or an AK.
: calibers are very versatile - in particular .30-06 and have been used for
: everything from hares (light loaded 30grain 5.8g bullets -full metal
: jacket) to elephants in 250grain loads. .308 has however poorer balistics
would have to be saboted anyway. A ,22 slug is well over 30 grains remember
are you sure you didn't mean 130 grains?
As for 250s ,none of the .30 cals carry much above the 200-220 range
with any degree of efficency ,at 200 grains the best of them ( .300
H and H and .300 weatherby mags) are down to the 2800-2900 level loaded
at peak pressures ,this mean when backed off a bit for optimum accuracy
they are down around 2600 .
A .340 Weatherby drives a 250 grain at 2700 with ease and a 275 2600
while a.338 Winchester is about a 100 fps faster ,much better bear medicine.
If you are talking about Alaskan bear a much better choice is one of
the .375 mags or the .416 reminton mag.
:.308 has poorer ballistics
: than its bigger brother and this will show on the weapons performance in
: this caliber over longer and varied ranges. Im not so sure about the
: precision you get from an AK-47.
at long range which translates to a marginally worse trajectory.
Precision and the AK are mutually exclusive ,they were stamped out
by the millions as a reliable battle rifle ,that they accomplished but
overall the caliber is weak ad the firearm is a rattly piece of junk.
: If by AK-47 "type" rifles you mean SLRs or semi/full automatic weapons -
: and intend on using it as a "machine gun" then yes, you could wipe out
: prietty much anything - but now, why on earth would you want to do that?
I agree. Myself I'm not much into overtly military firearms ,but to each
their own 'eh.
B.
Dean Riggs
A 7.62 X 39 cartridge would not be my first choice for a larger bear.
If you had it running full auto then maybe... but why?
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:13:19 -0800 (PST), Mix
<mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
Clay Maugans
jmarch wrote:
> Me, I'd prefer a big double-barrel rifle to anything else, in one of the
> serious African game calibers. Failing that, anything that can penetrate
> the skull such as .30-06, 7.62x54 Dragunov Sniper, .500Linebaugh Long or
> above would be bearly adequate...I know, I know, that pun was pretty
> ***[grizzly]***
> but I could ***[bear]*** to restrain myself...
A double pun there, very nice!
David
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
<1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
I'd try a mortar if I were you. Much more fun, especially if the bear is
between Winniebagos at the time.
Hope this helps,
David.
Dave Parker
Depends on if it is dead already......
David <da...@spamfree.softnet.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bd0bec$c7b29980$LocalHost@staksystem1>...
Woody Williams
James Vilakis wrote:
>
> An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but only
> with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
Are you saying a woman shouldn't try it? ;^)
Woody Williams
If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.
Lynn & Mike Key
Woody Williams wrote:
>
> James Vilakis wrote:
> >
> > An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but only
> > with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
Woody responds:
>
> Are you saying a woman shouldn't try it? ;^)
Not most wimmen, but my wife.... :-D Seriously, we got some wimmen
gator rasslers here in the Florida swamps who were genetically altered
by an East German sports doctor and who could do mega bear damage using
their high-perfomance bras and river stones! (Shades of David & The Big
Guy.) Ya gotta see these wimmen. Not only do they have stout hearts but
the rest of their equipment is...well...stout.
But for the rest of us testosterone-challenged males a short-barreled 12
ga. pump shotgun loaded with "hard" slugs seems to be the weapon of
choice in Alaska's backcountry. This was the consensus of an EXTENSIVE
rec. hunting thread some months ago (check out rec.hunting archives in
Deja News for the details).
My hunting buddy uses an AK-47 when hunting hogs in the Florida swamps.
I think he's nuts. It just doesn't have the knock down power.
BTW Woody, I always enjoy your postings in rec. hunting.
--
Cordially, Michael Key
"Extremism in the pursuit of prudence is no vice"--
Greasy Fingers, Chicago Gangsters
Bryan Hinkle
Igor (ig...@algebra.com) wrote:
: *
: * Precision and the AK are mutually exclusive ,they were stamped out
: * by the millions as a reliable battle rifle ,that they accomplished but
: * overall the caliber is weak ad the firearm is a rattly piece of junk.
: Well, precision is completely irrelevant if we are talking about *defense*
: against a big animal.
: --
: - Igor.
On the contrary Igor. Precision is *extremely* important ,to be
able to *precisely* place the shot where it will do the most possible
good might just save your life.
You might take note of what people who actually face Alaskan
bears frequently carry. Note the amount of .375s and .378 Weatherbys
and .416 Rem. mags and the occasional .458 Win Mag and ..460 Weatherby mag.
Never seen a guide or a fishermans guard with an AK ,or any other
combat type rifle. Don't even bother talking about full-auto either
'cause it's illegal in ALL 50 states and a federal felony to boot.
B.
Steve Andison
Igor wrote:
> In rec.backcountry, Bryan Hinkle <blue...@netcom.com> wrote:
> * Marek (ma...@sisteskrik.not) wrote:
> * .308 has much less case capacity ,less velocity which degrades faster
> * at long range which translates to a marginally worse trajectory.
> *
> * Precision and the AK are mutually exclusive ,they were stamped out
> * by the millions as a reliable battle rifle ,that they accomplished but
> * overall the caliber is weak ad the firearm is a rattly piece of junk.
>
> Well, precision is completely irrelevant if we are talking about *defense*
> against a big animal.
>
> --
> - Igor.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Sorry to disagree, Igor, but precision is VERY relevant in the context of
defense against a big animal.
Sometimes precision/accuracy is not possible, but that does not make desiring
it irrelevant. When a large bear is charging you, you may only have time to
pull the trigger a couple of times. If the bullet is NOT well placed, you can
make things worse. If it IS well placed you could end the whole bad business
right then and there. To make things even worse, if you were under-gunned (as
you would be in the case of an AK-47, a poorly placed small but painful bullet
will only anger the bear more and charge its adrenaline up even more. A poorly
placed large and effective bullet may still take a foot off, or break a leg, or
otherwise deliver the type of shock and energy that may swing the odds slightly
in your favor. The AK delivers neither the accuracy nor the energy required to
even be considered in the category of a good bear defensive weapon.
Regards-
Steve
--
*************************************************
If you wish to contact me via e-mail...antispam removal is required.
Steve Andison
9346 Parkview Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 790-4467 Phone
(907) 789-2914 FAX
(907) 789-2964 Work
*************************************************
Woody Williams
Bryan Hinkle wrote:
>
> Igor (ig...@algebra.com) wrote:
> : *
> : * Precision and the AK are mutually exclusive ,they were stamped out
> : * by the millions as a reliable battle rifle ,that they accomplished but
> : * overall the caliber is weak ad the firearm is a rattly piece of junk.
>
> : Well, precision is completely irrelevant if we are talking about *defense*
> : against a big animal.
>
> : --
> : - Igor.
>
>
> able to *precisely* place the shot where it will do the most possible
> good might just save your life.
>
> You might take note of what people who actually face Alaskan
> bears frequently carry. Note the amount of .375s and .378 Weatherbys
> and .416 Rem. mags and the occasional .458 Win Mag and ..460 Weatherby mag.
>
> Never seen a guide or a fishermans guard with an AK ,or any other
> combat type rifle. Don't even bother talking about full-auto either
> 'cause it's illegal in ALL 50 states and a federal felony to boot.
Not really. You can have a permit for full auto. There are lots of them
out there. The AK is a poor choice for just about any kind of hunting.
We had this same discussion on rec.huntting and the general consensus
was if you were going to be in close proximity of a big bear (like being
attacked)the best bet would be to have a 12 guage shot gun loaded with
slugs.It staretd out with a question as to what would be the best
handgun for bear defense. The general consensus on that one is there
isn't any, unless you were going to use it to put yourself out of misery
while the bear was chewing on you.
DsrtTravlr
>Are you saying a woman shouldn't try it? ;^)
>
>
TRUE STORY:
I watched a PBS (or similar) thing about six months ago. It was about bear
attacks, and they had interviews with survivors ( and their next of kin, or
witnesses.)
One lady and her husband were hiking, surprised a bear, and the bear attacked
the husband. The lady only had a large pair of binoculars, and she proceeded
to pound the bear with them. The bear ran off, and the husband survived.
Don't underestimate women. Anyone who does, probably thinks a human can
outrun a bear.
Steve, the DsrtTravlr
Pride is when l know what l can do.
Ego is when l have to tell someone.
Cat in Alaska
>James Vilakis wrote:
>>
>> An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but only
>> with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
>
>Are you saying a woman shouldn't try it? ;^)
>
>Woody Williams
>
>If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.
naw, Woody, a woman would have more sense.
<BEG>
Cat in Alaska
dhe...@stone-soup.com
On 18 Dec 1997 19:38:51 GMT, "David" <da...@spamfree.softnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
><1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
>> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>> Thank you.
>
>I'd try a mortar if I were you. Much more fun, especially if the bear is
>between Winniebagos at the time.
Better use an under water mortar. I guess that rules out those big
black power morters. and can I put it between submarine
Winniebagos.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>David.
>
===========================================================
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
====================================
Bill Rhodes
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear Union.
Bryan Hinkle
Woody Williams (cwi...@evansville.net) wrote:
: Not really. You can have a permit for full auto. There are lots of them
Sure you can have apermit. Fairly hard to get one though and I
believe full auto is illegal for hunting purposes though i'd have to
look that one up ( never really had the question come up)
: out there. The AK is a poor choice for just about any kind of hunting.
Boy Howdy on that (8-).........
: We had this same discussion on rec.huntting and the general consensus
: was if you were going to be in close proximity of a big bear (like being
: attacked)the best bet would be to have a 12 guage shot gun loaded with
: slugs.It staretd out with a question as to what would be the best
: handgun for bear defense. The general consensus on that one is there
: isn't any, unless you were going to use it to put yourself out of misery
: while the bear was chewing on you.
I missed that discussion but ( with all due respect) having lived
in the far north for a time I'd no more face a bear with a 12 gauge
with slugs than I'd face it with a .243. I'll stick to my .338 mag
Bar with a big clip.
Typically many carry a handgun for emergency bear medicine up there
with of course .44 mags predominating and a goodly smattering of Casulls.
In the lower 48 I still go with a five inch Redhawk with handloads
for larger bear areas and a .44 special or .45 long colt in smaller
black bear areas ,all three are backpackable fairly easily. They'll
all do the job with handloads as will the .45acp in a pinch.
When I still hunted bear I shot a couple of small black bear with handguns
both time I used a 300 JHp stacked over 21 grains of WW 296 in .44 mag
and it worked just fine but then neither one was over 200 lbs.
B.
Steve Andison
jmarch wrote:
> >Marek wrote:
> >>
> >> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong))
> >
> >Close enough, but the performance is very nearly that of the .30-30
> >--
> >Don Staples
>
> Let's assume the bear is a "serious" type like a Grizzly or Polar (Blacks
> are usually timid) and that you've got a semi-auto.
>
> An AK-47 is 7.62x39, and as Don says it's roughly equal to a .30-30.
> NEITHER will reliably penetrate a bear's skull, and if the bear is on all
> fours neither will reliably go all the way into the heart on a shot hitting
> it head-on and missing the head, where you're trying to get into the chest
> cavity. If it's standing up, yes, it's possible to do a heart shot and you
> better not miss because your round doesn't have enough knock-down power to
> stop it *now* any other way with one or two shots.
>
> If you're good with the trigger and you have a big clip, you can *try* and
> just spray Teddy into oblivion which will *eventually* work by hydraulic
> failure if nothing else but the trick is to do it before he eats your ass
> for lunch.
>
> Me, I'd prefer a big double-barrel rifle to anything else, in one of the
> serious African game calibers. Failing that, anything that can penetrate
> the skull such as .30-06, 7.62x54 Dragunov Sniper, .500Linebaugh Long or
> above would be bearly adequate...I know, I know, that pun was pretty grizzly
> but I could bear to restrain myself...note: .500LL is the ultimate *handgun*
> wildcat with over 6 times the power of a .44Mag...and in a five-shot
> revolver!
>
> Jim March
>
> ------------------
> For a wild true story of crooked cops, stolen guns, perjury, fraud
> and false criminal charges, see http://www.infinex.com/~jmarch
Good accurate & well stated Jim-
There is some pretty darn good research that suggests that the minimum caliber
rifle to be used as a bear defense is the 338 Win Mag. The research found that
the 375 H&H was even better if the individual had the ability to shoot it well.
The 416 Rigby was also recommended for its single round effectiveness, but if
you have more time to get a few rounds off, the 2 round magazine may be a
draw-back.
As far as pistols go, the 375 Mag was judged woefully inadequate. The SMALLEST
suggested was the 44 mag. Yes the 500LL, although it was not specifically
mentioned in the literature I read, would be a good choice if you are
comfortable shooting large caliber handguns. I think that a 454 Casull is my
personal choice for this use, but a 50 AE should not be overlooked.
A couple of interesting notes-- a pistol will never come close in
effectiveness to a rifle for bear protection. I say, for instance, that a 30-30
is an inadequate weapon against a bear, as is, in my opinion, a 30-06. Yet when
we talk about pistols, I say that the 44 mag is the minimum. But for those of
you who are not familiar with these weapons; the 30-06 that I suggested is
inadequate for bear protection is FAR more effective than a 44 mag pistol.
First decision you must make is the likelihood that you will really need to
defend yourself from bears. If it is possible, but not at all likely, then you
should equip yourself with a 44 mag or better pistol. The next choice will be
auto, single action, or double action. Look at lots of makes for the 44 mag
option. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Taurus, Colt and others. My favorite caliber, is
the 454 Casull (by Casull) or Taurus now has a nice affordable Model 454 in
this caliber. Autos?, try a Magnum Research Desert Eagle in 44 mag or 50 AE.
But if you've determined that it is LIKELY, that you will be cohabitating,
communing, or otherwise sharing the environment with bears, you should be
considering only rifles or shotguns. I've selected a 375 H&H with a custom load
of slow burning powder which is designed to knock an 800 pound animal on its
can...and nothing more. That is to say, I could use a "hotter" load, but it
becomes more difficult to fire quickly and accurately on follow-up shots. I use
the minimum effective load for my purposes.
I've rambled on enough about effective defensive weapon choices. Hope it is a
useful conversation for somebody.
Enjoyed your post, Jim, thanks-
Steve
remove the * to reply Greg Phillips
>Marek wrote:
>>
>> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong))
>
>Gentlemen it's 7.62x39, I know cause I've got one :).
Bang
Mix wrote:
>
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
Bang Says: Hardly. The 7.62x39 round is pretty wimpy. For bear, a
30-06 would probably be a good place to start with a .458 Win Mag
probably being the ideal round. But, rifled slugs might tickle ursa in
a major way.
--
HCI - The organization that would rather see a woman lifeless in an
alley with her pantyhose knotted around her neck than to see her with a
gun in her hand.
Bang
Marek wrote:
>
> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong))]
Bang Says: You're wrong. 7.62x39 is the proper caliber.
This
> is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
> with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
> this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
> calibers are very versatile - in particular .30-06 and have been used for
> everything from hares (light loaded 30grain 5.8g bullets -full metal
> jacket) to elephants in 250grain loads. .308 has however poorer balistics
> than its bigger brother and this will show on the weapons performance in
> this caliber over longer and varied ranges. Im not so sure about the
> precision you get from an AK-47.
> If by AK-47 "type" rifles you mean SLRs or semi/full automatic weapons -
> and intend on using it as a "machine gun" then yes, you could wipe out
> prietty much anything - but now, why on earth would you want to do that?
>
> In article <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix
> <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> > Thank you.
>
> --
> Dulce et ducorum est pro patria vitae
> Remove "t" in .not for email. Thanks.
--
Patrick Larkin Jr
Bang wrote:
>
> Mix wrote:
> >
> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> > Thank you.
>
> 30-06 would probably be a good place to start with a .458 Win Mag
> probably being the ideal round. But, rifled slugs might tickle ursa in
> a major way.
I think the original poster (Mix?) is falling for the anti-gun propaganda.
AKs are not magical "death-ray" guns they'd have you believe. The idea that
"hip shooting for maximum killing effect" is made up. Remember, this is
a military arm, and as military scientists agree, wounding a soldier
is better as it ties up 2 more soldiers. In hunting, a KILL is the object.
So a more powerful hunting weapon is preferable against bear (or a person
if you are a murderer) than any "military style assault weapon".
--
[~]========================================================================[~]
| Patrick Larkin Jr. <pla...@iphase.com> Systems Administrator |
| Ah, but Unix IS a User Friendly OS! It's just picky about its friends! |
[_]========================================================================[_]
Zelmer Zootinhiemer
James Vilakis wrote:
> An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but only
> with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
>
> Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
> <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> > Thank you.
i don't know, rapid fire could do wonders to bear, at the same time bears
are big and have much blood, if you hit him in the wrong spot his is gunna
get ya.
-Z
Rick Etter
remove the * to reply Greg Phillips wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:35:48 -0600, Don Staples
> <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong))
> >
only one?
--
CANOE NORTH!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Everyone must believe in something.
I believe I'll go canoeing. H.D. Thoreau
Bill Bailey
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, jmarch wrote:
First of all, I think shooting a bear with an AK47 would be a pretty
sleazy thing to do. I know Karamojo Bell used to shoot elephants with a
6.5, but he was virtually sticking the muzzle in their ears. The AK47
round is an military anti-personnel weapon, and I think it is unsuitable
for anything larger than small white tail dear.
Second of all, my mouth is still open at reading the following concerning
the 500LL.
> Me, I'd prefer a big double-barrel rifle to anything else, in one of the
> serious African game calibers. Failing that, anything that can penetrate
> the skull such as .30-06, 7.62x54 Dragunov Sniper, .500Linebaugh Long or
> above would be bearly adequate...I know, I know, that pun was pretty grizzly
> but I could bear to restrain myself...note: .500LL is the ultimate *handgun*
> wildcat with over 6 times the power of a .44Mag...and in a five-shot
> revolver!
I don't know what the index of power is, but you can load a 44 Mag. up to
about 1150 fp of energy. Six times that is what . . . 6900 fp? I recall
the .458 Winchester as being about 5000 fp. I've fired a 45.70 handgun,
and the other ones that bring tears to your eyes. They were not pleasant.
I can't imagine what firing an elephant caliber handgun must be like--but
I know I never want to do it. Are you sure about that power comparison?
I've known some number of people who have hunted with .458s, and none
enjoyed sighting them in. You have to do a lot of shooting to stay
competent with a handgun, and I can't imagine doing it with a handgun
approaching 7000 foot pounds of energy.
Bill Bailey
"A kinder, gentler freedom of speech? Get tough or die!"
George Olive
James Vilakis wrote in message <67cg6k$n...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
>Absolutely and under no circumstances should a women attempt to engage a
>bear with a bayonet mounted on an AK-47 except that she be Janet Reno.
>
I'm confused - Does the bear carry the bayonet and the AK-47, or is Janet
Reno the bear? Please advise.
J.A. James
Marek wrote in message ...
> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong)) This
>is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
>with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
>this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
The AK is chambered for either the 7.62x39 (M-1949) in the AK and the
AKM variants. Later, the AKS was chambered for the 5.45x39. Memory is being
taken up by a case of death dealing influenza, but I believe the M-1949
bullet weight is right around 130gr.
This is why I advocated the use of the 7.62x39 AP/AP-T as issued for the
RPK.
In any event, if you don't have both a select fire weapon and a great
deal of fire discipline, the AK is going to be very marginal for any type
of bear. It's only when you start delving into the real of cranial
penetration shots and multiple impacts does it even begin to become
practical.
J.A. James
CEO/Owner/Boss
Fianna Consultation
Vogt Family
Mix wrote:
>
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
Take a look at the shell and decide for yuourself. If you can't judge
this way then I think you would be well off boning up on your
calibers...
The 7.62x39mm shell used in the AK-47 and SKS is barely bigger than a
.44 mag. This would not be my first choice. I would go with at least a
.30-06 or one of the more powerful .300 calibers such as the Savage,
Winchester Mag, Weatherby Mag, or .308. If I had enough money to hunt
bear then it would probably be a .458 Win Mag. These can be loaded
light, too, as the energy from a 500+ grain bullet travelling at more
than 2500 fps is likely to make you never want to shoot again.
Hunting bears is something I will probably not do until I am a lot older
and am very confident in moving target shot placement.
Birken T. Vogt - KE6DLT
BAvictim
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:55:36 +0200, ma...@sisteskrik.not (Marek)
wrote:
>Just for the record - to Polish geologists working in Longyearbyen,
>Svalbard (Spitsbergen) were attacked by a polarbear(1992/93?). They had
>one .22 pistol (a CZ I believe) whith which they attempted to defend
>themselves. One of the geologists was I believe fataly wounded but the
>other actually manage to kill the bear after emptying two magasines (and
>reloading! whilst his collegue was being mawled) when he finaly placed a
>shot in the animals brain. None of the other bullets were fatal.
>
>The placement of the shot is far more imporatant than the caliber/bullet weight.
>
>Marek
Its just a shame one guy got eaten while the other plinked the bear to
death trying to get "shot placement".
I would prefer a 12 guage pump with slugs, its .73 caliber would give
you an extra 1/2 inch margin of error for those critical shot
placements.
James Vilakis
Absolutely and under no circumstances should a women attempt to engage a
bear with a bayonet mounted on an AK-47 except that she be Janet Reno.
> >James Vilakis wrote:
> >> An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but
only
> >> with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
> >Are you saying a woman shouldn't try it? ;^)
> >Woody Williams
John Mianowski
AK-47 is 7.62x39 - contrary to what Sarah Brady, et. al. might have
you belive, it's not very powerful.
As far as full-auto goes, without some serious training & practice,
you'll probably hit everything BUT the bear!
JM
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:30:59 +0200, ma...@sisteskrik.not (Marek)
wrote:
> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong)) This
>is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
>with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
>this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
>calibers are very versatile - in particular .30-06 and have been used for
>everything from hares (light loaded 30grain 5.8g bullets -full metal
>jacket) to elephants in 250grain loads. .308 has however poorer balistics
>than its bigger brother and this will show on the weapons performance in
>this caliber over longer and varied ranges. Im not so sure about the
>precision you get from an AK-47.
>If by AK-47 "type" rifles you mean SLRs or semi/full automatic weapons -
>and intend on using it as a "machine gun" then yes, you could wipe out
>prietty much anything - but now, why on earth would you want to do that?
>
>In article <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
>> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>> Thank you.
>
>--
>Dulce et ducorum est pro patria vitae
>Remove "t" in .not for email. Thanks.
Attention, would-be SPAMmers:
I refuse to do business with SPAMmers, and actively encourage others to do the same. SPAMs directed to me, therefore, will result in LOSS of business to the SPAMmer. If you want somebody to SPAM, try:
postmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
My address has been altered to foil SPAMmers. To send legitimate e-mail to me, prefix the 10th letter to my TO: address.
a001...@deletethisairmail.net
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:05:35 -0600, Patrick Larkin Jr
<PLa...@iphase.com> wrote:
>Bang wrote:
>>
>> Mix wrote:
>> >
>> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>> > Thank you.
>>
>> Bang Says: Hardly. The 7.62x39 round is pretty wimpy. For bear, a
>> 30-06 would probably be a good place to start with a .458 Win Mag
>> probably being the ideal round. But, rifled slugs might tickle ursa in
>> a major way.
>
>I think the original poster (Mix?) is falling for the anti-gun propaganda.
>AKs are not magical "death-ray" guns they'd have you believe. The idea that
>"hip shooting for maximum killing effect" is made up. Remember, this is
>a military arm, and as military scientists agree, wounding a soldier
>is better as it ties up 2 more soldiers. In hunting, a KILL is the object.
>So a more powerful hunting weapon is preferable against bear (or a person
>if you are a murderer) than any "military style assault weapon".
Exactly, military rounds aren't designed to kill, just to wound.
These aren't the kind of rounds you want to be shooting when a bear
charges you.
--------------------
The Rustler
a001...@airmail.net
Dallas, TX
First God created fools, that was for practice, Then he created Vegetarians. - Mark Twain
-------------------
Mark Stephenson
An AK-47 would not have any problem against a bear. Poachers in Africa
routinely use AK-47 to kill elephants for their tusks( granted theirs are
fully automatic).
Mark
David <da...@spamfree.softnet.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bd0bec$c7b29980$LocalHost@staksystem1>...
>
>
> Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
> <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> > Thank you.
>
> I'd try a mortar if I were you. Much more fun, especially if the bear is
> between Winniebagos at the time.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> David.
>
>
grennels
Jesus! You're gonna backback with an AK47?? But yes it is a .30 class high
powered
rifle. I guess it ought to take down a bear. Please pardon me if I run
away when I see
you coming in the woods.
Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
<1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
>
>
This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.
Dave Parker
I think the only thing that could shoot a handgun of this nature, would be
Arnold, and only when in his terminator outfit, I think 7000 ft pound of
energy is just stretching a little, I have never heard of a 500LL, and I
think I would run if I ever seen one............
Help me spock.....help me.....
Dave Parker
Bill Bailey <bai...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.96.971218...@aruba.u.arizona.edu>...
Exiled Ones
Bryan Hinkle wrote:
> Never seen a guide or a fishermans guard with an AK ,or any other
> combat type rifle. Don't even bother talking about full-auto either
> 'cause it's illegal in ALL 50 states and a federal felony to boot.
>
>
>
>
>
> B.
Not to pick nits but fully auto rifles are not illegal they are controled and as
such one must have a permit to own one (damn near impossible to get ) however it
is possible to purchase a F.A. weapon in the U.S.A. if you paperwork is in order
(hohohoho)
Peace
Tony
--
We've got a full tank of gas,
half a pack of cigarettes,
it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. (Blues Brothers)
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILER(S): Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5,
Subchapter II, 227, any and all unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to
this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount
of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. Consult
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html> for details.
Michael Martin
Mix wrote:
>
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
The AK-47 is a legal weapon for hunting black bear in the State of
Arkansas. A well placed shot with an AK-47 would certainly kill a bear.
Mike Miller
Kodiaks on the North Slope huh? You sure do know your bears
Ron Cain
Bill Rhodes wrote:
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid.
> The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear Union.
Do you suppose they support the right to keep and arm bears?
Ron Cain
Patrick Larkin Jr
J.A. James wrote:
>
> This is why I advocated the use of the 7.62x39 AP/AP-T as issued for the
> RPK.
> In any event, if you don't have both a select fire weapon and a great
> deal of fire discipline, the AK is going to be very marginal for any type
> of bear. It's only when you start delving into the real of cranial
> penetration shots and multiple impacts does it even begin to become
> practical.
>
Right.... In otherwords:
AK-47's (and variants) are of little practical use against bear.
Beauwolfe
Patrick Larkin Jr wrote:
>
> Dunno what RPK is, but Armor Piercing is illegal to purchase....
Naw, see it at the gun shows all the time. Got several hundred rounds
of armor piercing ammo in several calibers myself.
m...@myself.i
James Vilakis wrote:
> Absolutely and under no circumstances should a women attempt to engage a
> bear with a bayonet mounted on an AK-47 except that she be Janet Reno.
>
That is absurd. NO bear could *ever* be that hungry. Ick.
hammer
Woody Williams
That you definetly wouldn't want to use on a bear, unless the bear is
driving a tank. All it would do is punch nice little neat holes in him
and flat P--- him off.
Woody Williams
If you're too busy to hunt you're too busy.
James Knox
I now have three coworkers in my cube trying to figure out what all the
groaning is about. ;-)
Nice one, James Knox
BAvictim
On 18 Dec 1997 19:38:51 GMT, "David" <da...@spamfree.softnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote in article
><1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>...
>> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
>> Thank you.
>
>I'd try a mortar if I were you. Much more fun, especially if the bear is
>between Winniebagos at the time.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>David.
>
actually, an RPG would be easier to score a hit with, as it is direct
fire, compared to a mortar's indirect fire.
actually, the answer to the question "Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient
against bears?" is, only if you kill it before it reaches you. I would
only try it against chicago bears, though, as a grizzly would probably
eat you first.
George Boggs
In article <3499B2...@panix.com>, Bill Rhodes <brhodes!@panix.com>
wrote:
>
> Be afraid. Be very afraid.
> The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear Union.
Shouldn't matter with all those "cop-killer bullets" around. ;-)
G. Boggs In theory, there is no difference between
gjb...@indra.com theory and practice. In practice, there is.
[remove "j" for e-mail] Y. Berra
When, in reference to the Clinton fundraising debacle, Judge Freeh
(Director of the FBI) was asked whether he had previously experienced as
large a number of witnesses who "declined" to speak to investigators, he
replied: "Actually, I have. I spent 16 years doing organized-crime cases in
New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable."
Robert in Missouri
In article <67bs0n$d...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
"James Vilakis" <j.vi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin but only
> with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
Enlarged testicles, eh? Those must be one of the things removed by the
manufacturer in order to get around the assault weapon restrictions.
Bon chasse,
Robert (or maybe they are an accessory?) in Missouri
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
wis...@azstar.net.com
Anybody hunt with the 400 Cor Bon??
> We had this same discussion on rec.huntting and the general consensus
> : was if you were going to be in close proximity of a big bear (like being
> : attacked)the best bet would be to have a 12 guage shot gun loaded with
> : slugs.It staretd out with a question as to what would be the best
> : handgun for bear defense. The general consensus on that one is there
> : isn't any, unless you were going to use it to put yourself out of misery
> : while the bear was chewing on you.
>
>
> I missed that discussion but ( with all due respect) having lived
> in the far north for a time I'd no more face a bear with a 12 gauge
> with slugs than I'd face it with a .243. I'll stick to my .338 mag
> Bar with a big clip.
>
> Typically many carry a handgun for emergency bear medicine up there
> with of course .44 mags predominating and a goodly smattering of Casulls.
>
> In the lower 48 I still go with a five inch Redhawk with handloads
> for larger bear areas and a .44 special or .45 long colt in smaller
> black bear areas ,all three are backpackable fairly easily. They'll
> all do the job with handloads as will the .45acp in a pinch.
>
> When I still hunted bear I shot a couple of small black bear with handguns
> both time I used a 300 JHp stacked over 21 grains of WW 296 in .44 mag
> and it worked just fine but then neither one was over 200 lbs.
>
>
>
>
> B.
BAvictim
>Dunno what RPK is, but Armor Piercing is illegal to purchase....
Only for pistols, not for rifle ammo
>Not many hikers or fisherman (or even hunters) have good fire discipline...
Are you speaking from experience?
Bang
Patrick Larkin Jr wrote:
>
> J.A. James wrote:
> >
> > This is why I advocated the use of the 7.62x39 AP/AP-T as issued for the
> > RPK.
Bang Says: RPK = LMG version of the AK.
--
HCI - The organization that would rather see a woman lifeless in an
alley with her pantyhose knotted around her neck than to see her with a
gun in her hand.
Beauwolfe
Michael Martin wrote:
>
> The AK-47 is a legal weapon for hunting black bear in the State of
> Arkansas. A well placed shot with an AK-47 would certainly kill a bear.
It is also legal to hunt bear with a .22 rimfire cb cap. That doesn't
make it a good choice though.
William Sprague
AK-47 would be sufficeint against any
bear,as long as you hit a vital area,
mainly the head,or chest area just below
neck,and between shoulders.
I'd prefer a 44mag myself,or 308.........
...
Lifes A Journey>>Enjoy The Ride
Patrick Larkin Jr
Bryan Hinkle wrote:
> Don't even bother talking about full-auto either
> 'cause it's illegal in ALL 50 states and a federal felony to boot.
Bzzt! *Misconception Alert*
It is NOT a federal crime to own a "full-auto" weapon! The National
Firearms Act (passed in the 30's in response to the gangs use of
machine guns in the illicit alcohol trade [hmm, sounds strangely
familiar today]) did not make "machine guns" illegal. This would
have clearly been a violation of the 2nd Ammendment [That sounds
UNFAMILIAR today]. Therefore, the NFA merely placed additional
hoops the citizen must pass in order to LEGALLY own a machine gun.
If you want a LEGAL full-auto weapon, all you need to do is:
pass a background check, get "registered", pay a $200 tax on the gun.
That is why these laws are enforced by the BATF which is a branch
of the Treasury Department.... thus, ownership of an unregistered
"machine gun" is actually "tax evasion".
Now, back to "Killing Bears"....
Edward L. Patrick
BAvictim wrote:
> actually, an RPG would be easier to score a hit with, as it is direct
> fire, compared to a mortar's indirect fire.
An M113 is a lot easier to dust with an RPG-7V than a grizzly.
> actually, the answer to the question "Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient
> against bears?" is, only if you kill it before it reaches you. I would
> only try it against chicago bears, though, as a grizzly would probably
> eat you first.
I agree. On one occasion, my brother-in-law and I startled a black bear
near Spence Field in the Smokies. Out of over a dozen hiking trips in
which we had seen bears, this was the first time we had seen one RUN.
AND I MEAN RUN!
We came around a corner of the trail, and there was a loud CRASH that
originated about 100 yards away that grabbed our attention. This bear
bolted the length of a fallen tree, covering 30 feet in TWO (2) bounds,
and was out of sight in a matter of seconds. We were fortunate that a
hollow and a switchback separated us from him/her.
Afterward we just stood there dumbfounded, looking at each other,
stunned by the awesome power we had just witnessed.
There is no question that, under similar circumstances, this bear or
any other, could overtake you in a heartbeat. They are as fast, if
not faster, than any greyhound, at least in the short run.
Your cyclic rate may kill the bear, but he won't know he's dead until
you lie mortally wounded beside him.
I would say, about 8000 ft.-lbs. at the muzzle ought to do it.
My money's on the .460 Weatherby Magnum.
3+1, just to be sure.
Ed
--
Largest U.S. Cities Without Murder in 1996:
http://www.access.digex.net/~45acp/1996zero.html
Ed Patrick "...obey all LAWFUL orders..." 45...@access.digex.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything your federal government does IS a constitutional issue."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The SKS Web Site: http://www.access.digex.net/~45acp/sks.html
jmarch
Bill Bailey wrote in message ...
-snip-
>Second of all, my mouth is still open at reading the following concerning
>the 500LL.
(Quote from me about .500LL being "six times the power of a .44Mag")
-snip-
>I don't know what the index of power is, but you can load a 44 Mag. up to
>about 1150 fp of energy. Six times that is what . . . 6900 fp? I recall
>the .458 Winchester as being about 5000 fp. I've fired a 45.70 handgun,
>and the other ones that bring tears to your eyes. They were not pleasant.
>I can't imagine what firing an elephant caliber handgun must be like--but
>I know I never want to do it. Are you sure about that power comparison?
>I've known some number of people who have hunted with .458s, and none
>enjoyed sighting them in. You have to do a lot of shooting to stay
>competent with a handgun, and I can't imagine doing it with a handgun
>approaching 7000 foot pounds of energy.
>
>Bill Bailey
The reviewer of the .500Linebaugh Long was comparing near-maximum .500LL
handloads to the best *factory* ammo you can score for the .44Mag, for one
thing, and I believe he was comparing both calibers in 6" barrels.
Wish to hell I could recall the issue...or find it, I've been looking.
Anyways, some of the loads described pushed a 450 - 500 grain "Elmer Keith"
style monster at around 1,500fps or more, which by any rational standards is
off-scale. BATF tried to declare it a "Destructive Device" until they were
told in no uncertain terms that the only rational use for this sort of
critter was when you loaded up for bear defense when not actually hunting
bear, such as a surveyor, fishing guide, etc. They actually got a clue and
relented.
The reviewer wrote a follow-up in the next issue of the same rag, describing
the actual damage to his wrist test-firing it had done...the doctor had
never seen an X-Ray of a wrist fucked-up in quite such a weird, "compacted"
fashion before. There just *might* be such a critter as "too much of a good
thing" here...
Jim March
------------------
For a wild true story of crooked cops, stolen guns, perjury, fraud
and false criminal charges, see http://www.infinex.com/~jmarch
diderot books
J.A. James wrote:
<< An important caveat, however, if you're not dead certain that you're
in an environment where you're going to get ten to twenty seconds lead
time as well as have the personal skill and cool to deliver repeated
bursts to a target that seems to be primarily teeth,...>>
you made 2 excellent points i think many folk will either overlook or
minimise:
a) you have to be ready,
b) you have to know what you are doing
i have never been in northern bear country. however, i have killed nine
lion. the first one i killed was with a 7,62x39 (i traded a 15 year-old
"soldier" out of his for 20 kilos of mealie-meal and 10 of rice). the
lioness was feeding on a cow she had killed on a friend's ranch. she
was a few feet off the road. my friend asked if i would dispose of
her. i rolled down the window of his mercedes 600 limo, shot her in the
right eye, rolled up the window and we drove on.
i suggest the perfect accoutrement to hunting dangerous game with a
7,62x39 is a large, comfortable limo with a good sound system.
i sorted the other eight with a .416 rigby. three were coming. you are
absolutely correct about 'primarily teeth.' with lion, however, it is
the eyes - you never, never forget the eyes.
nor do you - *can* you - ignore how fast they are.
ten seconds is three lifetimes when an acre of teeth are launched from
brush or grass 20m away. what very few people realise who have never
been there is you *never* see the whole animal. all you can see - and
hopefully tap the centre of mass, is one-forth to m-a-y-b-e half a lion.
lion are supposed to be able to cover 100m in 4 seconds or so. i doubt
a griz is much slower.
if one has an ak-47 slung - particularly unloaded, without a magazine,
and with the safety on - and is ambushed from a few meters, they MAY get
*better* but they surely won't get *well.*
enjoy life in large gulps - moderation ... is for monks.
bob sikes
____________________________________________________
Diderot Books
2-1/2 North Washington • El Campo, Texas, USA 77437
+1.409.543.2824; 409.543.3371 fax; tam...@wcnet.net
____________________________________________________
Big Game Hunting & African Exploration books.
Dave Parker
as far as the question goes, I do have a nice 6.5 foot bear skin hanging on
my wall that I took with a bow at 12 yrds, skull measured out at 18.3
inches, just goes to show you shot placement is critical, and no I did not
take over bait or from a stand, or with dogs, I was hunting deer when he
and I chanced upon each other.
Dave Parker
WSAA Board Member
Bang <peat...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<349B08...@concentric.net>...
David Hardy
In article <349ABB...@nospam.com>
Beauwolfe <Beau...@nospam.com> writes:
> Patrick Larkin Jr wrote:
> >
> > Dunno what RPK is, but Armor Piercing is illegal to purchase....
>
> Naw, see it at the gun shows all the time. Got several hundred rounds
> of armor piercing ammo in several calibers myself.
As I recollect, it's illegal to manufacture in pistol calibers. Now,
lots rifle calibers are pistol calibers--legally, anything which *can
be* shot in factory pistol is pistol, even if its main use is rifle. So
30-30, .35 Remington, etc. are legally "pistol" chamberings.
Not sure if it really includes military AP anyway--I have some dim
memory the entire core had to be composed of the harder metal, and
military AP has a steel core with lead filling around it. Not sure
there, tho....
__________________________________________________
"I don't think of myself ] dha...@goodnet.com
as an attorney; I think of ] http://www.indirect
myself as morally challenged"] .com/www/dhardy
Cat in Alaska
On 19 Dec 1997 14:21:42 GMT, "Mike Miller"
<mich...@cnr.colostate.edu> wrote:
>Kodiaks on the North Slope huh? You sure do know your bears
>
>
Wheeeee.... I must have missed that one! Where are there "Kodiaks"
on the North Slope?
Cat in Alaska
<chuckling>
Rob Maybach
I hope whoever started this discussion pisses of a bear with his AK and
gets a tastes of those bear necessities. It's his fault for having that
pea-shooter, and messing with the bear.
Rob Maybach
Cat in Alaska wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:07:50 +0000, Woody Williams
> <cwi...@evansville.net> wrote:
>
> >James Vilakis wrote:
> >>
> >> An AK-47 rifle could be very effective against an attacking bruin
> but only
> >> with a fixed bayonet, a stout heart, enlarged testicles and luck.
> >
> >Are you saying a woman shouldn't try it? ;^)
> >
> >Woody Williams
> >
> >If you're too busy to hunt, you're too busy.
>
> naw, Woody, a woman would have more sense.
> <BEG>
> Cat in Alaska
Let's not piss off the damn feminists, you guys.
jz
> Be afraid. Be very afraid.
> The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear Union.
Still, I think that old vests might be so worn that they would only be bearly
adequate to stop 7.62...
JS
Bryan Hinkle
Patrick Larkin Jr (PLa...@iphase.com) wrote:
: Bzzt! *Misconception Alert*
: It is NOT a federal crime to own a "full-auto" weapon! The National
: Firearms Act (passed in the 30's in response to the gangs use of
: machine guns in the illicit alcohol trade [hmm, sounds strangely
: familiar today]) did not make "machine guns" illegal. This would
: have clearly been a violation of the 2nd Ammendment [That sounds
: UNFAMILIAR today]. Therefore, the NFA merely placed additional
: hoops the citizen must pass in order to LEGALLY own a machine gun.
Hey it IS illegal if you don't jump through said hoops. And it IS
Federal if you get caught ,additionally I believe it's specifically
proscribed to hunt with full auto in some places ,though I'd have to
research it and could be mistaken. If you could shed light on that
aspect it would be appreciated.
: If you want a LEGAL full-auto weapon, all you need to do is:
: pass a background check, get "registered", pay a $200 tax on the gun.
I suggest you do this *TRY* and do the above in certain areas
an municipalities. A friend of mine spent months and finally gave
up. Of course it's impossible to get CCWs in a lot of municipalities
too.
: That is why these laws are enforced by the BATF which is a branch
: of the Treasury Department.... thus, ownership of an unregistered
: "machine gun" is actually "tax evasion".
Hhmmmm "tactical evasion"? (chuckle) ,maybe airmailing the
"taxes" at 2500 fps ?
B.
Bryan Hinkle
jz (j...@nospam.com) wrote:
: > Be afraid. Be very afraid.
: > The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear Union.
: Still, I think that old vests might be so worn that they would only be bearly
: adequate to stop 7.62...
: JS
Man but that sounds like trouble Bruin ,the results could
be really Grizzly.
B.
BILLNTULSA
In article <jz-191297...@cust21.max3.seattle-k56.aa.net>, j...@nospam.com
(jz) writes:
>> Be afraid. Be very afraid.
> The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear
>Union.
>Still, I think that old vests might be so worn that they would only
>be bearly adequate to stop 7.62...
They should still be better for the bear than being bare.
Cat in Alaska
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997 00:20:39 -0500, Rob Maybach <rmay...@ibm.net>
wrote:
BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAHAA!!!!!
<wiping tears>
Cat in Alaska
Robert J. Christman
jmarch wrote:
> Bill Bailey wrote in message ...
> -snip-
> >Second of all, my mouth is still open at reading the following concerning
> >the 500LL.
> -snip-
> (Quote from me about .500LL being "six times the power of a .44Mag")
> -snip-
> >I don't know what the index of power is, but you can load a 44 Mag. up to
> >about 1150 fp of energy. Six times that is what . . . 6900 fp? I recall
> >the .458 Winchester as being about 5000 fp. I've fired a 45.70 handgun,
> >and the other ones that bring tears to your eyes. They were not pleasant.
> >I can't imagine what firing an elephant caliber handgun must be like--but
> >I know I never want to do it. Are you sure about that power comparison?
> >I've known some number of people who have hunted with .458s, and none
> >enjoyed sighting them in. You have to do a lot of shooting to stay
> >competent with a handgun, and I can't imagine doing it with a handgun
> >approaching 7000 foot pounds of energy.
> >
> >Bill Bailey
>
> The reviewer of the .500Linebaugh Long was comparing near-maximum .500LL
> handloads to the best *factory* ammo you can score for the .44Mag, for one
> thing, and I believe he was comparing both calibers in 6" barrels.
Still doesn't work out to six times. The lightest commercial load listed for
the .44 Mag (a .44 "medium velocity" target load) still produces over 500 ft/lbs
of ME. Six times that is something over 3000 ft/lbs. which is putting you into
Magnum rifle ranges (and those are produced in longer barrels than practical for
a handgun.) I strongly suspect that their is either a misremembered quote, or
an exaggeration by a writer in here somewhere.
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
Edward L. Patrick
> > The LAPD just sold 100 old vests to the Bear Union.
>
> Still, I think that old vests might be so worn that they would only be bearly
> adequate to stop 7.62...
Kevlar will not stop rifle rounds unless they are well spent. That was the
problem with the L.A. bank robbery - all of those rounds that won't kill
Bambi being aimlessly tossed at a thug in a vest.
That's why they needed one or two people WHO COULD SHOOT and/or one or two
of those evil, vest-pentrating, baby-and-cop-in-one-shot, rifle rounds like
the NATO 5.56. 7.62x39mm would have helped. Heck, even a single round
from an old Mosin-Nagant in 7.62x54mm would have worked.
Hollywood got to see just how easy it is to drop a determined thug. With
no respect to Hollywood, it ain't as easy as their shoot-'em-ups would
suggest.
Bryan Hinkle
Edward L. Patrick (45...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: Hollywood got to see just how easy it is to drop a determined thug. With
: no respect to Hollywood, it ain't as easy as their shoot-'em-ups would
: suggest.
In reality once they place bullets in the proper place the guy dropped
like a rock. And they evidently had to go out and get proper firearms
from a gun emporium nearby. The issue handguns weren't making it because
they quite clearly kept shooting for the torso.
B.
Harry Bechtel
AK47 IS ALL YOU NEED FOR ANY BEAR
Edward L. Patrick
I once had an argument with a guy at work about the fact that I couldn't
believe New York cops were still using .38 Specials (in this day and age).
He went off the handle about how never needed them before!
This was right after the black female officer stopped two thugs in a
beauty parlor after wrestling one of the offenders guns from his hand
(her own gun was empty at the time). She had unloaded all five rounds
at point-blank range in the store and three of the rounds were in the
ceiling. Later they pinned a metal on her and started issuing large-
capacity semi-autos.
Not that that is much of an improvement if you put them all in the
ceiling.
Anyway, I told the guy at work that there was a reason why the cops
used Thompson submachineguns when they broke into beer warehouses
during the '20s. You know, back before we had crime. :)
Lone_Wolf
In <67cqib$krt$1...@usenet87.supernews.com> "George Olive" <GeoO...@pnx.com> writes:
#James Vilakis wrote in message <67cg6k$n...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
#>Absolutely and under no circumstances should a women attempt to engage a
#>bear with a bayonet mounted on an AK-47 except that she be Janet Reno.
#>
#I'm confused - Does the bear carry the bayonet and the AK-47, or is Janet
#Reno the bear? Please advise.
Try it both ways and see which gets more satisfactory results ;-)
James
Charles R. Lyttle
> --
> Largest U.S. Cities Without Murder in 1996:
> http://www.access.digex.net/~45acp/1996zero.html
>
> Ed Patrick "...obey all LAWFUL orders..." 45...@access.digex.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Everything your federal government does IS a constitutional issue."
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The SKS Web Site: http://www.access.digex.net/~45acp/sks.html
the middle, and broad acros't the rump, goin' 30 miles an hour, takin'
40 foot a jump". Pretty good description. Sometime I'll have to tell the
story about tripping over a bear at a campsite near Spence Field. Or the
one about a neighbors ratdog who thought he had treed a sow in my
mother-in-laws yard.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
no one of consequence
Dave Parker <dpa...@pacifier.com> wrote:
]Depends on if it is dead already......
Well, what if it's just resting? Or pining even?
(Bears can be tricky you know...)
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"So from now on I guess the operational phrase is 'trust no one.'" "No. |
| Trust Ivanova, trust yourself, anybody else: Shoot 'em." -NSNR, Bab5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
edyk...@vol.net
Mix wrote:
>
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
I would rather prefer a shotgun using rifled slug.
Edward L. Patrick
Charles R. Lyttle wrote:
> There is an old song about a bear that goes 9I think) : He's big around
> the middle, and broad acros't the rump, goin' 30 miles an hour, takin'
> 40 foot a jump". Pretty good description. Sometime I'll have to tell the
> story about tripping over a bear at a campsite near Spence Field. Or the
> one about a neighbors ratdog who thought he had treed a sow in my
> mother-in-laws yard.
A kindred spirit!
My brother-in-law and I were taking the trail to the fire road to come
down from Spence Field to Cades Cove (our Base). Earlier that day,
a different bear had been seen with no less than four cubs (extraordinary
size for a litter). We saw the cubs from Rocky Top when we were looking
back toward Spence Field earlier. As we watched to girls hike that
way after coming down from Thunderhead, I could see the four black dots
in my binoculars scatter ahead of the girls as they approached. There
was no sign of them on the trail as we went by.
At Spence Field shelter, there was a small crowd taking a break, and
there was a ranger with a 12-gauge slug gun with a huge spotlight
mounted on it. He had a young trapper with him and they were doing
the all-night, 4-day-a-week, boar-hunting thing.
Before we got a mile off of the AT toward Cades Cove, we ran into the
sow that we had photographed and videotaped on our way up to Rocky Top
(she had been eating serviceberries on the bald). She was sitting
on her rump, in the middle of the trail, and facing a tree on the
downhill side. We were still some 200 yards away. It was more than
seven additional miles to take the other trail, not to include back-
tracking up to the AT, so we just stood there and waited and wondered
what she was going to do.
She finally started up the trail, so we started up the trail. We
had the camcorder going most of the time. You'll recall, however,
that there is a sharp switchback near the top of the trail before
you reach the AT. We were a good 100 yards ahead of her and moving
slowly and deliberately, but she was closing, and at one point on the
switchback, we were separated by less than 30 feet, even though we
were 100 yards by trail.
We had already figured that we would just lead the bear right back
to the shelter at Spence Field, so that's what we did. The bear
circled the crowd of about 15 that had accumulated at the shelter,
and did 2 laps around it. We joked that the ranger was the one
with the gun, but he was backing up.
Later she ambled off, and we made our way back down toward Cades
Cove Campground. That's where we inadvertently spooked a different
bear on a switchback much further down the mountain, and stood there
stunned. It was then that we realized, after many bear encounters
in the Smokies, just how quickly one of them could overtake you.
Michael J Edelman
Mix wrote:
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
Depends what the bear is armed with. It would certainly annoy him.
WVanhou237
In article <67htmu$vk$1...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>, gt6...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu
(Lone_Wolf) writes:
>
In <67cqib$krt$1...@usenet87.supernews.com> "George Olive" <GeoO...@pnx.com>
>writes:
#James Vilakis wrote in message
><67cg6k$n...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
#>Absolutely and under no
>circumstances should a women attempt to engage a
#>bear with a bayonet
>mounted on an AK-47 except that she be Janet Reno.
#>
#I'm confused - Does
>the bear carry the bayonet and the AK-47, or is Janet
#Reno the bear? Please
>advise.
A woman riding an AK-47 proposed to a bear named Janet Reno with
a bayonet. Isn't that sexual harassment ?
W F VAN HOUTEN
Just call me Bill
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (Oxymoron)
DsrtTravlr
>#>Absolutely and under no
>>circumstances should a women attempt to engage a
>#>bear with a bayonet
>>mounted on an AK-47 except that she be Janet Reno.
>#>
Are you kidding? Janet Reno could go bear hunting armed with a self portrait
and a flyswatter. I pity those poor bears.
Steve
Patrick Larkin Jr
David Hardy wrote:
>
> In article <349ABB...@nospam.com>
> Beauwolfe <Beau...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> > Patrick Larkin Jr wrote:
> > >
> > > Dunno what RPK is, but Armor Piercing is illegal to purchase....
> >
> > Naw, see it at the gun shows all the time. Got several hundred rounds
> > of armor piercing ammo in several calibers myself.
>
> As I recollect, it's illegal to manufacture in pistol calibers. Now,
> lots rifle calibers are pistol calibers--legally, anything which *can
> be* shot in factory pistol is pistol, even if its main use is rifle. So
> 30-30, .35 Remington, etc. are legally "pistol" chamberings.
> Not sure if it really includes military AP anyway--I have some dim
> memory the entire core had to be composed of the harder metal, and
> military AP has a steel core with lead filling around it. Not sure
> there, tho....
I raised the question in one of these groups before, so I know....
The question was "why can't I buy 7.62x39 AP when I can buy .30-06 or .223".
The answer was: Only AP handgun is illegal to sell... Someone makes
a pistol chambered in 7.62x39 and one in .223 but not in .30-06, thus the
latter IS legal to sell. The so called "Armor Piercing" .223 you are seeing
is technically NATO 5.56 "SS109" (aka Penetrator). The LEGAL test for
"Armor Piercing" is a core made of over 50% steel. The SS109 is less than
50% steel core.....
Now, if someone made 7.62x39 in such a legal configuration, I'd buy some. :)
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Patrick Larkin Jr <pla...@iphase.com> Unix Evangelist and Administrator
Is the cure worse than the symptom?? http://www.isil.org/drugs.htm
Garandm1
In article <marek-18129...@192.168.10.14>, ma...@sisteskrik.not
(Marek) wrote:
> Just for the record - to Polish geologists working in Longyearbyen,
> Svalbard (Spitsbergen) were attacked by a polarbear(1992/93?). They had
> one .22 pistol (a CZ I believe) whith which they attempted to defend
> themselves. One of the geologists was I believe fataly wounded but the
> other actually manage to kill the bear after emptying two magasines (and
> reloading! whilst his collegue was being mawled) when he finaly placed a
> shot in the animals brain. None of the other bullets were fatal.
>
> The placement of the shot is far more imporatant than the caliber/bullet
weight.
>
> Marek
>
While accurate shooting is important, one cannot ignore bullet weight.
Although it is possible, from the story above, to kill a polar bear with a
.22 rimfire, I would certainly not go hunting polar bears with anything less
than a .338 Win. Mag. (I'm not in the mood to be eaten).
The reason? In the heat of the moment, your shots might not hit the brain/
heart/lungs and kill or mortally wound the animal. Therefore, you need
something that will break bones, tear substantial flesh and sever arteries
or nerves. Heavy bullets, having greater mass and momentum, have less of
a tendency to deflect or break apart in an animal.
As for the 7.62X39 cartridge, I have seen it kill a small deer with one shot.
Given the fact that virtually all rifles chambered for this round are semi-
automatic, lightweight carbines, they are pretty good for hunting deer in
heavy timber, where the shots will be 100 yards or less. For black bear, I
wouldn't use anything less than a .270 Win or a 30-06.
MM
--
"Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges" -- "The worst governments have the most laws." - Roman historian Tacitus
Since I paid good money for this account, I can have any opinion
I want.
Brett Naquin
The bear in my area of the country (Western Texas/Big Bend Basin) are the smaller
brown bear typically weighing only 150-250lbs. However, the Mexican Brown Bear is
know to use a wide variety of weaponry. I was once hiking the Lost Mine Trail in
the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National Park and was ambushed my a group of
Brown Bear. You never forget the sound of the AK-47 when it is being fired by a
Brown Bear. The Mountain Lions are considerably more dangerous in this region.
They tend to be a bit more organized and have been known to lay "booby traps"
across switch backs. I once saw a hiker taken out by a antipersonnel mine left by
a Mountain Lion. It's not a pretty sight. You could hear it laughing and taunting
us from the cliffs above.
We were able to surround the platoon of Mountain Lions and overtake them with our
banned assault rifles (AR-15, SKS) which we typically carry in this region of the
country.
I'm really glad they didn't call in their air support last time. Bears and
Mountain Lions are a bitch to shoot down.
brett
wis...@azstar.net.com wrote:
> Anybody hunt with the 400 Cor Bon??
>
> > We had this same discussion on rec.huntting and the general consensus
> > : was if you were going to be in close proximity of a big bear (like being
> > : attacked)the best bet would be to have a 12 guage shot gun loaded with
> > : slugs.It staretd out with a question as to what would be the best
> > : handgun for bear defense. The general consensus on that one is there
> > : isn't any, unless you were going to use it to put yourself out of misery
> > : while the bear was chewing on you.
> >
> >
> > I missed that discussion but ( with all due respect) having lived
> > in the far north for a time I'd no more face a bear with a 12 gauge
> > with slugs than I'd face it with a .243. I'll stick to my .338 mag
> > Bar with a big clip.
> >
> > Typically many carry a handgun for emergency bear medicine up there
> > with of course .44 mags predominating and a goodly smattering of Casulls.
> >
> > In the lower 48 I still go with a five inch Redhawk with handloads
> > for larger bear areas and a .44 special or .45 long colt in smaller
> > black bear areas ,all three are backpackable fairly easily. They'll
> > all do the job with handloads as will the .45acp in a pinch.
> >
> > When I still hunted bear I shot a couple of small black bear with handguns
> > both time I used a 300 JHp stacked over 21 grains of WW 296 in .44 mag
> > and it worked just fine but then neither one was over 200 lbs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > B.
BILLNTULSA
>The bear in my area of the country (Western Texas/Big Bend Basin) are the
>smaller brown bear typically weighing only 150-250lbs.
I think you are speaking of Black Bears which happen to be brown (or yellow
or even black). Brown Bears are normally found in Alaska and small adults are
in the 500+ pound range, bigger than a Griz.
kmsimmons
Brown Bears, Kodiak, Grizzly--They're all the same species, or at most,
subspecies of the same species.
Lynn & Mike Key
Janet Reno, tired of pissing off Congress, girded her loins and with a
strong wind behind her, stood up and pissed on some charging
Kevlar-clad, AK-47-armed Grizzlies. Fortunately for Herr Bears they were
wearing their chemical warfare suits. Herr Bears told astonished
reporters that an AK-47 is ineffective against a Janet Reno. "The skull
is too thick," said one worried Ruby Ridge Bruin. "Next time I encounter
a Reno I'll be ready with a short barreled 12 gauge shotgun loaded with
'hard' slugs."
--
Cordially, Michael Key
"Extremism in the pursuit of prudence is no vice"--
Greasy Fingers, Chicago Gangsters
Mark McGilvray
Mix wrote:
> Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> Thank you.
Absolutely not. If this is a serious post, consider a 12 ga shotgun with
slugs, or a 30-06, minimum artillery for a bear.
Mark McGilvray
I am truly amazed that some of the so called gun experts are
recommending the AK round for bear. It's cartridge, the 7.62 x 39 is
utterly inadequate. It is the height of iresponsibility for some asshole
to recommend this, particularly to people who know little or nothing
about firearms. You can kill a bear with a .22 rimfire, if you have the
time and inclination to shoot it 50 times and wait half a day for it to
die. Are there any great white hunters out there who want to try this?
There probably are, given the quality of some of the firearms advice
dispensed in this thread.
Mark McGilvray
Well, you believe wrong. It is a 7.62 x 39.
Marek wrote:
> AK-47 is I believe a 7.5x56 (.308)caliber ((Correct me if Im wrong)) This
> is at the bottom end of the caliber weights for a bear (IMO) - allthough
> with a 180grain + bullet in the Norma Oryx, Trophy Bonded segment - yes
> this should be sufficiant to kill a bear, with a precise shot. The .30
> calibers are very versatile - in particular .30-06 and have been used for
> everything from hares (light loaded 30grain 5.8g bullets -full metal
> jacket) to elephants in 250grain loads. .308 has however poorer balistics
> than its bigger brother and this will show on the weapons performance in
> this caliber over longer and varied ranges. Im not so sure about the
> precision you get from an AK-47.
> If by AK-47 "type" rifles you mean SLRs or semi/full automatic weapons -
> and intend on using it as a "machine gun" then yes, you could wipe out
> prietty much anything - but now, why on earth would you want to do that?
>
> In article <1997121805...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix
> <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>
> > Are AK-47 type rifles sufficient against bears?
> > Thank you.
>
> --
> Dulce et ducorum est pro patria vitae
> Remove "t" in .not for email. Thanks.