Another Bear attack... aother bear thread

hdwrlover said:
iBear,

Commiefornia is run by politicians who would abolish the 2nd Amendment in a second - if they could. After the 2nd Amendment rights go, then other rights would follow.

Anyway, since the present federal government would stop them from doing this, they constantly work on new laws to weaken the 2nd Amendment and make it more costly for citizens to buy and own guns. Several years ago they passed a law under the guise of controlling unsafe "Saturday night specials"s without really defining what those guns really are. Under this law all handgun models that would be sold as new(no previous owner) have to undergo testing in one of several approved independent testing labs to make sure that they were not unsafe. For example the Ruger Redhawk has been around a long time before this law was passed but each variation of Redhawk has to pass the test. What is a variation? Well the Communists say if it has a different barrel length, a different metal(SS, chrome moly, scandium, aluminum, titanium, etc.), different cylinder capacity, etc. etc. it is a different variation and must be tested separately. Of course this must be paid for by the manufacturer who must pass this cost along to maintain a decent profit margin. Furthermore, the test on a model variation is only good for a limited time(year or two I believe) so the manufacturer must have that model retested periodically - just like car registration.

Needless to say this process is expensive and many makes and models are not approved in Commiefornia because the manufacturers cannot afford to test models they deem will not have sufficient sales volume.

Furthermore, guess what? Law enforcement guns do not have to pass this Saturday night special safety law. Go figure. They told the public that "unsafe" guns should not be sold, but then said law enforcement is exempted. LIE, LIE, LIE, HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRITES, HYPOCRITES!:mad::mad::mad:
The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:

"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

And You Thought She Was Just San Francisco's Problem!
As San Francisco's mayor, she was vehemently anti-gun and drew the wrath of many honest citizens.

She demonstrated enormous hypocrisy when it was revealed that she possessed the ONLY concealed firearm permit in the city of San Francisco.

Can you say "Elitist"? :( :( :(

iBear
 
hdwrlover,

"The Second Amendment is not, and never has been, about shooting ducks, deer, clay targets or tin cans." "It's about personal freedom, self defense, homeland security, and resisting tyranny. Perhaps, most importantly, the Second Amendment is about a balance of power between the people and our Government!

When you remove the right of the people to provide for their self defense and allow only the Government to retain the right to weild deadly force, you have just established a very dangerous precedent that pre-supposes that the Government is more fair and responsible than ordinary citizens!

Many situations of Government injustices have adequately demonstrated that the people are far more responsible than our Government.

America's 85 million gun owners are not about to be patronized and suckered by politicians whose national party still retains gun control as one of its central planks.

The million dollar question that Kalifornia Gun Control apparently never bothers to consider.... is: Gun Control is the answer to what? It sure does NOT make Dianne Feinstein any safer.... WHY else would she carry a gun? Of course Barbara Boxer also carries a gun and the same logic follows her..... Gun Control is the answer for what?

iBear
 
It may have occurred to some people, that have taken the time to realize, that Kalifornia Gun Control has no other alternative, no other solution, to take the place of guns for self defense. By their own actions, because their leaders carry a gun, they prove that they have no other solution for self defense..... except a gun! That is apparent!

"We won't forget, that a politician willing to ban one type of firearm is likely willing to ban another type, perhaps and likely because he doesn't like its looks. The 1994 Clinton UGLY Gun Ban did exactly that, with no regard for functionability, caliber, probability of criminal ownership, ballistics or even impact effectiveness...... yes, this is true of every banned weapon.

Now, Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer and a few others, would replace the old Clinton Gun Ban with a new, stricter Assault Weapons Ban. And like the old Clinton gun Ban, this new Gun Ban will not outlaw any assault weapons either.

Semi-automatic weapons (one trigger pull equals one bullet) do not suddenly become assault weapons just because Dianne Feinstein intentionally mislabels them as assault weapons. The new proposed gun bans will address only semi-automatic weapons! :footinmou :footinmou :footinmou

We won't forget, that every member of Congress knows, from a study conducted by the Centers for Disease and Control, that gun control laws have not reduced crime. In direct violation of our 2nd Amendment rights, it has been this liberal agenda, that has been pushing to renew, and expand, this stupid Draconian Kalifornia Gun Ban.

That's a legacy their party will carry for the foreseeable future.
 
munk said:
Nearly every account I've read of supports Shane in that faced with an animal of such power and size all weapons feel inadequate.

There was a link in a Gun forum to an account of a Grizz taken with the new massive Smith 500. My memory is fuzzy; I can't recall if it took a cylinder from one Smith 500, whether it was a 500 along with a rifle, or two Smith 500's: But it was not reassuring. The Wonder Handgun needed every shot.

The Smith 500 is not quite what a handloaded Marlin 45/70 is and that is on the margin for me.

After reading about Grizzlys for years, from encounters and hunters, my take is that most times if you wound a grizzly you have a determined killer on your hands, but sometimes they run off. People follow them into Alder thickets to finish them off. Not my idea of fun.

Maybe the Barrett Fifty is enough. Have that mounted to your RV and someone at station while you camp. You can do shifts.


munk


Personally, I'd feel pretty secure buttoned up in an M1 tank if this critter

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

was lurking around.

Warning: some graphic material
 
ibear,

We are on the same pages. Someday the HI forumites living in CA need to get together just as they are doing in AZ next weekend. I would drive down but have previous commitments on weekends thru May.
 
time to repeat my stock story,

i was stationed in Kodiak for a year, got there the week they turned the naval base over to the coast guard, arriving at the airport in kodiak, they had a small 10 foot+ bear stuffed & on display in the lobby. impressive.

met some of the marine staff, they told me about the guard shack that was between the base & the local town on the edge of the base's land. one nite the 2 marine guards did not report in, so the OOD went out to see what went wrong - arrived at the shack & no guards - about 20 empty .45acp casings on the floor. lotsa blood. found the 2 guards about 50 yds from the shack where the bear had drug them (both dead) found the young bear dead about 100 yds. away with 15 std issue .45 steel jacketed slugs in it. the hair acts a bit like armour plate (or a kevlar jacket) & can seriously slow a bullet down. the local's sometimes hunt them with .22 magnums as the rounds are cheap, tho they sneak up on 'em & shoot them in the ear from a distance & from a VERY secure hidy-hole. the guides there wouldn't let the mainlanders hunt with anything less than a .458 weatherby.

most of us carried a .44mag or .357mag when we were out in the woods, but more for moral support than anything else. i never went out without my S&W model 19, figured i'd be better off hitting them in the skull with it than missing it with a .44. sometimes carried a .45/70 lever action with hot handloads, or my .300 winchester mag. as the whim struck me.

when i bought the .300 magnum rifle i took it out to the range to site in, the range is on the other side of the bay where my ship docked, just past the table mountain (where we frequently saw bear roaming) and about a mile inland from the bay up a steep valley. had to park up & walk in. sighted in rifle OK & was walking out back to car about dusk, and saw that over each of my footprints in the snow where i had come in was a bear print where one had followed me in. i did reload my rifle & walked VERY observantly back to the car. never saw the bear, guess he'd heard me firing on the range & decided to hunt something a bit less prickly.

anyway, moral is, if it don't know you are there, a .22mag will do, if they do know, & get the adrenaline up, i'd rather have (& be inside) a Bradley.
the chain gun might stop it before it dented the armour plate.
 
I'd move! ;)So,most likely a .45 would bounce off the bear :eek: .Then a .357 would do the same??????? :confused: .22 mag if caught by surprise.
 
Just wanted to jump back in...

I used to be a process server in California. I served folks all over Northern California, Oakland, and the South Bay. I had to go into some interesting places. Rich places, poor places...and some places that nobody would believe existed. Anyway...I did it. I never carried a gun...and I never was rude to anybody...just did my job...when I could and tried to be polite. I never got hurt...threatened yes...but never hurt...and I was damn lucky. Point is what is came down to was I was walking in somebody elses street...somebody elses world. I had only the vaguest of ideas of what rules they play by...so I walked quietly and kept my eyes open.

Walking in the woods is no different. Just another kind of neighborhood...with a whole different set of rules. This is just another place where I and mine are not necessarily the top of the food chain. So...learn the rules...be polite...and keep your eyes open...Survival is survival.

No I don't beleive you shouldn't fight back. Quite the opposite. I do not believe you should shoot an animal in the face with a small caliber firearm hoping the pain will scare him off. Can't remeber who said it...if you hafta shoot...do it well...with the biggest firearm you can shoot...and do it until the threat is gone...

If you got no gun...then get a stick...if you got no stick then use a rock..if you got no rock...then find something...Root Hog or Die with the biggest carnivore you are going to meet...you might as well try to kick ass.

Know your world...know the rules...no matter what jungle you live in or visit.

As far as my world goes..recently read Tom Brown's Case Files of the Tracker...good book...if any of you get a chance...read about cougar canyon...

Ok, so most of these critters are gonna avoid us. In my town...we have had reports of lions in the city limits the last three years running. I have deer in my front yard eating green grass nearly every morning...and I live in town!

Have a good one fellas...

Shane
 
Not too many people are going to draw/shoot any firearm and stop Mr. Claws. No matter what kinda bazooka he's carrying.

I would probably be too busy with a sudden bowel movement. But, having said that, there are real advantages to going armed. Whomever gets the initiative is likely to win. The gun at your side, or the one in your ankle hoster are going to be useless against a mugging or bear attack. But, if you notice the bear before he charges, or the mugger as he tries to get into position; then you have that many more tools available to help you.

For one thing, you can pull your party into some kind of shelter, whether a cabin, or a rock ledge and take up a position to block the approach; giving yourself a little time and positioning to plan your next move. If nothing else, it is a psycological anchor and rallying point, which is much better then having everyone in the group running off screaming in so many directions. Also, keep in mind that even if you are the one who is busy entertaining the bear; others within the group may have that much more time to collect themselves and open fire.

n2s
 
You know,I'v been mugged in N.Y. AND FLA and it's not fun.But hearing these stories about these animals.I 'd rahter deal with being mugged.At least when there shot in the face there going down.Shane ur right,Mind ur business, be polite too others and repect their world.U make sense...... frank c. :)
 
Wow...lotsa interesting (and very chilling stuff) Plenty of food for thought, and nightmares. Reminds me of why I've been considering adding a 375 to the arsenal.

At least we still ain' got no snakes though! :D
 
Speaking of the large calibers...

Hunter S. Thompson liked the .357 for shooting lizards out in the desert and rats in South American dumps, so it must be a good caliber, right?

Hunter and some guy decided they were going to go out and shoot rats in the dump in Rio. Hunter had a .357 magnum. So they were out shooting rats and somebody called the cops, and eventually Hunter was arrested and taken to jail. But Hunter, of course, with his considerable charm, began to make friends with the police. Naturally he had gotten rid of the gun. The other guy had taken it away. So there was some doubt whether it was really Hunter shooting, and he said it wasn't him. "I wasn't shooting the rats. It must have been those other guys." And eventually he and the cops were having coffee together and so forth, and then Hunter put his feet up on the desk and leaned back on the chair and the .357 magnum bullets rolled out of his pocket.

They threw him back in jail and the embassy was called. --- ROBERT BONE


Does effectiveness on rats translate to effectiveness on bears?
 
And I think this has been posted on here before, but it definately fits in with the charging dangerous animals theme:

http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=lionhunt.wmv

And those were probably some very large caliber rifles they were firing. Its not really clear to me if the shots were hitting the lion or not. It goes to show, no matter how big your gun is, you can miss in the excitement, or the animal could function enough to hurt you even if you do hit it.
 
hdwrlover said:
ibear,

We are on the same pages. Someday the HI forumites living in CA need to get together just as they are doing in AZ next weekend. I would drive down but have previous commitments on weekends thru May.
I agree. Getting anything off the ground in Kalifornia seems to take a lot of effort. Yes, I would support that! Maybe it takes more effort out here, because we have so many kooks that prefer to be against anything that entails any change or any action!
Seems like they want to stop everything!
Thanks,

iBear
 
Jebadiah_Smith said:
And I think this has been posted on here before, but it definately fits in with the charging dangerous animals theme:

http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=lionhunt.wmv

And those were probably some very large caliber rifles they were firing. Its not really clear to me if the shots were hitting the lion or not. It goes to show, no matter how big your gun is, you can miss in the excitement, or the animal could function enough to hurt you even if you do hit it.

A large bear is the size of 10 lions combined. From what bear guides have told me, you need a high power rifle and a good shot in the brain pan or spinal cord to stop a charging bear in it's tracks. There are many accounts of bears taking a .458 in the chest that go on to kill the shooter. I wouldn't trust anything but a tank to stop a large, charging brown, but if a handgun's all I had, I'd probably shoot anyways...
 
The guy that got mauled is a biologist. He wouldn't use a weapon if you gave him one. He knew the risk from previous experience, so you just have to call him 'lucky'.
 
Eric_425 said:
A large bear is the size of 10 lions combined. From what bear guides have told me, you need a high power rifle and a good shot in the brain pan or spinal cord to stop a charging bear in it's tracks. There are many accounts of bears taking a .458 in the chest that go on to kill the shooter. I wouldn't trust anything but a tank to stop a large, charging brown, but if a handgun's all I had, I'd probably shoot anyways...
LOL... Yes, mountain lions! OF COURSE! Stopping a charging bear is difficult at best, even with a .44 magnum. A fast running bear, coming straight at me at 30 to 40 miles an hour, is a pretty difficult shot, at best! Not sure I could make that shot on a semi-regular basis. Even once... it is a good idea to be lucky and fortunate enough to place the shot exactly in the right place to stop the bear. NOT LIKELY!
However... since we are all friends here and just throwing balooooney anyway, take the .44 magnum with you, just in case you run into any engine blocks that need killing. Sure, the .44 magnum will penetrate an engine block!
Thanks,

iBear
 
Back
Top