Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

If you need a gun, you need it badly

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Deaf Smith, Jan 6, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    Hunter shoots, kills bear attacking friend on Southeast Alaska island

    http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Hu...land-in-Southeast-395545031.html?sf49835621=1

    "was able to get his rifle out of his pack and fatally shoot the bear".... DON'T KEEP YOUR GUN IN THE PACK. WEAR THE THING WHERE YOU CAN GET TO IT.

    BTW, I don't care about the gun .vs. bear spray in this thread. It's about keeping your protection were you can get to it FAST.

    Deaf
     
    marksg, horsey300 and scaatylobo like this.
  2. Slotback

    Slotback Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    Texas
    Yep. If you need a gun it probably already needs to be in your hands.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  3. Big7

    Big7 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Monroe, Georgia USA
    What is "bear spray"?
    If you go into bear country without a firearm, that makes you a FOOL!.

    Mine is a .338. :what:
     
  4. Cooldill

    Cooldill Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    7,182
    Location:
    Kansas
    Unless they're water bears. :)

    [​IMG]
     
    horsey300, scaatylobo and psyopspec like this.
  5. Dog Soldier
    • Contributing Member

    Dog Soldier Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    S.W. Wyoming
    I have had friends badly mauled and one killed in the 1970s. The Game & Fish folks always blame the mangled and half dead humans for startling the Grizz. I think these Policy Wongs would blame a down stream flood on some one peeing in a dry gulch.
    Bear spray on a windy mountain is not going to stop a charge. You will likely lose your rifle during the first charge. A powerful handgun in a chest holster could be your best last chance at surviving. :eek:
     
  6. Tirod

    Tirod Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,636
    Location:
    SW MO
    Bears view other beings as either competitor or prey, for our intents and purposes the difference is moot. Not IF, but WHEN attacked we need to have lethal force at hand. I certainly don't disagree with the chest carry position, but after viewing the remains of a hiker wearing a bear bell I could suggest appendix carry. It could have resulted in a contact discharge into the bears skull.

    Examination of the stomach contents later showed the bear consumed the right leg in a more leisurely fashion after exanguination. If you travel where larger animals inhabit the environment, then travel armed or be breakfast.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  7. AZAndy
    • Contributing Member

    AZAndy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,193
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ, USA
    Tardigrades are dangerous because any caliber is too big.
     
    scaatylobo and psyopspec like this.
  8. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    10,444
    Location:
    Georgia
    The 2nd hunter retrieved his rifle from his pack and killed the bear. The 1st hunter received minor, non life threatening injuries from the attack. Sounds like having the rifle in the pack was less of a problem. They were deer hunting, not bear hunting and depending on the terrain and distance traveled it would be perfectly normal to have rifles unloaded and attached to a pack or slung. If you are a paying client hunting in Alaska with a guide that is how you will travel or you won't hunt.

    With no knowledge of the area and the probability of a bear attack it is impossible to 2nd guess their strategy. People walk hike, camp, hunt, and fish in the presence of bear quite often without incident. I do think that bear spray or a handgun that can be easily carried is a good idea even when hunting with a rifle. These things sometimes happen at such close ranges that a rifle is a handicap.
     
    JohnhenrySTL likes this.
  9. Coyote3855

    Coyote3855 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,044
    Location:
    Wyoming
    Well, maybe. There are studies that indicate bear spray is more likely to result in termination of the encounter than is a firearm. Not everyone in bear country can carry a .338 or a 12 gage with slugs which would be my preference. Multiple instances when the individual was unable to hit a charging bear with a large caliber handgun or rifle. And one instance where a helpful friend shot his buddy instead of the bear. Fool here, but fly fishing in bear country, I carry spray.
     
    OC-Trainer and bearcreek like this.
  10. Fiv3r

    Fiv3r Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,617
    I'm of the mindset that if I'm carrying a defensive measure outdoors, then it is within reach.

    This past summer we hiked the very populated trails of the Smoky Mountains. I did not anticipate any issues with black bears, but I did affix a small bell to my hiking vest. I didn't carry any spray, but I did have my revolver slung under my shoulder.

    I totally understand keeping your hunting rifles slung or not at the ready if you are traversing to your hunting grounds. If I were a golfer, I would hold my club in my hand on the drive to the course.

    That said, if I were traveling anywhere that allowed it (and maybe even places that didn't), I'd keep some form of weapon (handgun or spray) at the ready. At least in a rigi that didn't take more steps than opening my coat and pulling it out of a flap holster.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  11. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    Exactly! When I was in Alaska the guide to the glacier had bear spray on the BACK of their pack just swinging like a canteen. Bears can run as fast as a horse and sometimes they give very little warning. I don't know how that guide would have gotten to the spray in time.

    Deaf
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  12. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,700
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    I've heard the sourdoughs say you can tell where in the 48 a person is from on whether they use it like Off or not . . .
     
  13. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    Well I hear hard core Alaskans consider their AKs as 'bear spray'. And canned 'bear spray' to them is an AK with a suppressor on it.

    Yuppies and snowflakes, on the other hand, are the ones that used the aerosol versions. They are to upset if something gets hurt.

    Deaf
     
  14. bearcreek

    bearcreek Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    801
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    I'm a big appendix carry proponent, I carry a Glock 19 daily that way. It seems though, that that would be rather tough to do with a bear appropriate sized handgun.
     
  15. scaatylobo

    scaatylobo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Location:
    Western NYS
    This should end here,as anything else will be a total waste and a place for the "spray" people to pass wind.
     
  16. Leanwolf

    Leanwolf Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,115
    Location:
    Idaho
    The discussions or arguments about what is best to carry in Grizzly country (or Black bear country), firearm or bear spray, are interminable and the adherents for each has multiple supporters on both sides of the debate. Lots of anecdotes out there about "bear charges and attacks" and what worked best, plus some verifiable stories of actual Griz encounters of the "worst kind."

    Seems to me people who recreate out in Griz country, should just carry whatever suits them and with which they are most comfortable. If one is a really good shot under stress, a powerful firearm, at hand, might be more suitable. If not, a can of good, top rated bear spray might be more appropriate for that person. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations." Same goes out in Griz country, in my opinion.

    That said, I always have a firearm with me out in bear country but if others choose to carry bear spray, that's their choice and is just fine with me. One way or another, a smart person is prepared when bustin' around out in the boonies. :confused:

    L.W.
     
    adcoch1 and OC-Trainer like this.
  17. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
    Big7 and scaatylobo like this.
  18. Ks5shooter

    Ks5shooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    708
    Location:
    Communist state of nj
    My bear spray is .375H&H:thumbup:
     
    Dog Soldier likes this.
  19. Dog Soldier
    • Contributing Member

    Dog Soldier Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    S.W. Wyoming
    In the movies a man emptys his weapon into a charging Grizz. That rarely happens. The Bear is a very fast deadly stalker. Your weapon if you have one will be used with the muzzle burning hair. If you think Bear Spray will stop an attack? :oops:
     
    Merle1 likes this.
  20. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    9,832
    My BIL has sprayed a bear before, the wind was wrong and he got it too.

    He was glad he was just trying to get it out of his trash and not attacking him.
     
    scaatylobo likes this.
  21. bearcreek

    bearcreek Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    801
    Location:
    NE Ohio

    Pretty wild story there. Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about getting rid of my Glock. I assume you're not suggesting that carrying a 9mm for Grizzly protection is a good idea. I know several old mountaineers who regularly kill black bears with .22s. Just because something has been done doesn't mean it should be.
     
  22. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    Guy named Todd Orr was attacked twice by a Grizzly bear. Pepper spray failed in the first charge and he played dead in the second one. Mauled twice. Yes he had a gun.... he said it was holstered and strapped to his pack (which was ripped off the pack during the second attack.)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/grizzly-bear-attack-todd-orr-montana-twice-bloody-facebook-video/

    http://mtstandard.com/news/local/su...cle_c8a7c60b-596f-5deb-a970-127e07dc7a37.html

    So maybe a second thing to learn is to have a very secure holster!

    Deaf
     
  23. OC-Trainer

    OC-Trainer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    567
    It is incredibly sad that your insecurities and willful ignorance on this subject cause you to continuously say things like this. Do I have to remind you what happened the last time you went down this road?

    Post #55
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/the-10-mm-as-a-bear-gun.806109/page-3#post-10420995

    Maybe you should leave the advice about what to use and not to use against a charging bear to the bear biologist and other experts in the field.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
  24. OC-Trainer

    OC-Trainer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    567
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
  25. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,708
    Location:
    TEXAS!
    Well here are the facts with OC's bear spray fantasy:

    Dr. Smith made two studies. One for firearms, one for bear spray.

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf

    Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska

    He says on the research:
    "Although bear spray was 92% effective by our definition of success**, it is important to note that 98 % of persons carrying it were uninjured after a close encounter with bears."

    And looking farther I could NOT find any of his research showing any 'failures'. Failures like in his efficacy of firearms research below.

    He says on the research:
    "Nonetheless, only one of the 3 reported that the spray had failed to protect them. No mechanical failures of spray canisters were reported in the 71 cases."

    Strangely none had lack of time to respond, none had any mechanical issues, none had any problem with the 'safety', none tripped and fell, and they all seemed to use it.. Yet in his next research on firearms all kinds of 'failures' happened.

    Note total number of incidences was 72 for basically 1985 thru 2006.

    http://www.polarbearsinternational....errence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf

    Human Dimensions Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska

    TOM S. SMITH... as above.

    "Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country.
    Success rates** by firearm type were similar with 84% of handgun users (31 of 37) and 76% of long gun users (134 of 176) successfully defending themselves from aggressive bears."

    No kidding.

    "Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including:
    1. lack of time to respond to the bear (27%), <--- gee gosh! And how many didn't have time to respond to the bear with bear spray?
    2. did not use the firearm (21%), <--- well duh, that ain't the firearms fault. That is the dummies fault.
    3. mechanical issues (i.e., jamming;14%),
    4. the proximity to bear was too close for deployment(9%), <--- And how many didn't have time to respond to the bear with bear spray?
    5. the shooter missed the bear (9%), the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded (8%),
    6. the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to
    unlock it in time to use the gun (8%), <--- gun or shooter's fault???
    7. people tripped and fell while trying to shoot the bear (3%), <--- so how is this the gun's fault? And how many didn't have time to respond to the bear with bear spray?
    8. and the firearm’s discharge reportedly trig-gered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun(1%)"

    Where is the same kind of stats on bear spray? Does he really think those handling bear spray were infallible?

    "We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents."

    "With respect to efforts to model firearm efficacy, we classified 156 incidents as successful."

    "We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a
    variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms."

    So how can one compare the firearms, which his own research showed some failures due to many reasons but his magical bear spray never failed. Something is wrong with his research. One item cannot be 100 percent perfect but the other item has all kinds of failures.

    **"We defined successful outcomes as bear spray having stopped the undesirable behavior of the bear. A bear that no longer pursues a person, breaks off an attack, abandons attempts to acquire food or garbage, or turns and leaves the area are examples of successful outcomes."

    Later Dr. Smith says:
    "Once a bear charged, odds of firearm success decreased nearly 7-fold"
    See when he gave that '7-fold' he pointed to Table 4:

    It says.. table 4:
    "Logistic regression coefficients, standard errors (SE), odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals from the highest ranked model (Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AIC c) weight ¼ 0.96) of firearm success as a function of bear, firearm, human, and spatio-temporal influences in Alaska, USA during 1883–2009"

    Note it says, function of ' bear, firearm, human, and spatio-temporal influences in Alaska'. So it's human and, uh, 'spatio-temporal'?

    So this relates to space and time? As in 'time to get the gun/bear spray' or 'time to not use the firearm' or time to trip and fall?

    Sounds like he was just adding fancy language to impress. But yes again, tripping and falling or not having the gun or not using it is NOT THE FAULT OF THE WEAPON NOR AN INDICATION THEY WEAPON FAILED.

    NOTE... In the OTHER study, about OC spray, there is NO table 4. Where is the function of 'bear, bear spray, human, and spatio-temporal influences in Alaska'??? Nothing about any reduction of effectiveness if the charge. Strange isn't it? Kind of like the researcher had an agenda.. like Bear Spray.

    Just like the omission of any failures in the Bear Spray study yet gives bunches of FIREARMS FAILURES.

    Why?

    See that '7 fold' thing becomes suspect when there is no 'Bear Spray' failures at all. Kind of like the author cherry picked the incidences to make the Bear Spray look good and firearms look bad.

    BTW, might want to check this to:
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...hy-he-didnt-shoot.812429/page-4#post-10394385

    Post #65

    Deaf
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page