Rifle for a small woman?

[mustanger98]

I think the statisticians among us here need to figure this... a bear or cat attack happens and the victim is found half eaten, they find the bear or cat and kill it... a lot of good it did the victim. What are the chances of it happening? When it happens to you, regardless of what the chances had been, it just became a 100% chance. It's better to be prepared to deal with it when it happens than not. Armed for such an occassion as bear or cat attack is no different to being armed for the self defense against human predators we usually discuss on this board.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

I'm not saying folks shouldn't be prepared, just saying that if X assaults and murders are committed in your county by humans, and .00001X by cougars, and .00000001X by bears, it sounds a little odd to say "what gun for cougars and bears?"

I'm honestly asking if the critters are anywhere near as much a problem as other humans (especially for folks not immediately engaged in hiking in forests). If human attacks outweigh animal attacks by the margin I assume they do, then it says interesting things about us culturally that lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) spring to mind rather than the mundane dangers of our fellow man.

Okay, googling up stats from CA Fish 'n' Game. California averages (1) cougar attack per year (counting injuries and fatalities), and less than (1) black bear attack per year.

In contrast, CA has 2,500 murders in 2005, and 114,000 aggravated assaults, presumably by OTL/B (other than lions/bears). ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm ) Before anyone says "that's just L.A. gangbangers", I'll note that the hippie paradise of Mendocino county had 5 murders and 257 aggravated assaults in 2000. ( http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/crime/county/06045.html )

You're 1,250 times more likely to be killed by a human than a critter in CA. Not saying you should go ahead and pet the pointy kitty, just saying.

Does it matter to the one person a year who gets schwacked by a fuzzy? Dang betcha. Does it outweigh the dangers faced from other humans, traffic accidents, and heart disease? I vote no.


Sticking w/ my original recommendation of an 1892-type levergun. If I couldn't have an AR-15, I'd have one of those.

-MV

 

[nobody_special]

I'm not saying folks shouldn't be prepared, just saying that if X assaults and murders are committed in your county by humans, and .00001X by cougars, and .00000001X by bears, it sounds a little odd to say "what gun for cougars and bears?"

Not really. Bear or cougar attacks on people are rare. It is more common for bears to get into trouble looking for food... ripping doors off cars or homes, going after domestic animals or livestock, and it is legal and acceptable in CA to shoot a bear that is causing property damage or threatening a person, pet, or livestock (so long as you report it to fish & wildlife the next day).

 

[Libertyteeth]

Having an appropriate rifle or shotgun would be great.

But in addition, she should consider whether she is always going to want to be carrying one. If she gets a .357 mag lever action, for instance, a .357 revolver would also be a good thing to have. Often, I find that when I'm out where cougars or bears (or moose or wild dog packs or range bulls or humanoid predators) could be trouble, I'm doing something that renders a long gun kind of impractical, such as fly fishing. A handgun option is nice to have.

 

[rangerruck]

m1's are too wussy, aks are no no's, and you need a bullet with some pop.
a lever gun in 357 or 44 would be nice, but it's gonna kick. I think cali accepts Saigas, that are marked eaa or raa, not Isevsk, ( too russian, oohhh). that in a nice 762.39 or better yet, a 308, would pull a nice job, with much less recoil.

 

[mustanger98]

a lever gun in 357 or 44 would be nice, but it's gonna kick.

Whether the gun kicks or not depends on how well it fits the user. Length of pull can be shortened if necessary. Ammo's the other consideration; some's harsher or milder than others. If people'd come off of that "little lady" kick and let her figure out what she likes...

I looked over a Saiga once... didn't think much of it.

Editted to add:

If people'd come off of that "little lady" kick and let her figure out what she likes...

Wait a minute... this is the internet. She's still out there in real life. She'll figure out what she likes regardless of what the keyboard commandoes say.

 

[mustanger98]

If she gets a .357 mag lever action, for instance, a .357 revolver would also be a good thing to have.

I consider that a real good idea too. So you get a levergun and revolver in the same cartridge, you only have to have one kind of ammo. It cuts out a lot of confusion for a beginner. Some folks consider a combination like that to be all they'll ever need.

 

[pete f]

I would wonder why the semi part?

frankly I would suggest the Ruger 77/22 and the ultra compact or ultra light, Ruger 77 in a modest deer cartridge. The 77/22 for her to learn on and to keep practicing with. A .22 of the same pattern as the main gun means she is going to shoot and it will cost her 10 bucks for a month or summers worth of shooting. adding in the larger rifle like the 77 UL, you get a light weight, compact, easy to use because it feels the same as her little .22 and it will handly what ever she fairly hits.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=7984&return=Y

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=7874&return=Y

Just my two cents my daughter used a slightly shortened 6.5 x 55 for a lot of deer and never once winced from recoil

 

[nobody_special]

I would wonder why the semi part?

She's learning on a 10/22, so a semi will be familiar territory. Also for a defensive firearm, I think the ability to make quick follow-up shots is important.

If she gets a .357 mag lever action, for instance, a .357 revolver would also be a good thing to have.

First she would need to learn to not flinch when firing a 9mm pistol. Hey, I expect a .357 revolver would be a bit much for me. I love my 9mm, but the one time I tried a Glock in .40S&W, well, I flinched a lot...

 

[rangerruck]

not much about saigas? many dudes here will tell you , that for overall quality, accuracy, upgradeability, and price, they are double tough to beat. For under 300 bucks, you can get them in 223 or 762.39, with 16 or 20 inch bbls, syth or wood furniture. then go over to tapco or some other folks, and put in a buffer, and the small ak stock for smaller people. You will then have a small type ak, that is accurate, and runs very smooth. 308 is about 100 bucks more.

 

[rangerruck]

also you could get an old remmy in 642 or 742, they are semi's , that are small and lightweight, and i think you can get ten round mags for them at gunshows, maybe even Academy. they come with 4 or 5 rounders.

 

[MRGAMBOA]

Bears, Cougars, most of these animals would run away if they heard a gun shot. Would you guys fire a round say up in the air to warn the animal? Or is killing it the bottom line?

 

[nobody_special]

Bears, Cougars, most of these animals would run away if they heard a gun shot. Would you guys fire a round say up in the air to warn the animal? Or is killing it the bottom line?

Your third post on THR and you're asking how blood-thirsty people are?

First: never shoot into the air. You must know where the bullet is going to end up.

To answer the question, it depends on circumstance. Any normal bear or mountain lion wouldn't even need a warning shot - either you'd never see them in the first place (likely in the case of a mountain lion) or they'd leave pretty quickly as soon as you make some noise and are noticed.

If they don't leave, but don't seem to pay you much attention... then they're probably habituated, and that can be dangerous; a warning shot might be appropriate (into the ground, not the air). If they're coming after you, then a warning shot is foolish.

 

[JShirley]

Most folks here would say shooting a round into the air is pretty irresponsible. Also, it sounded like this woman would be defending herself on her property, probably in her home.

Personally, I'd want all rounds to go into the large, furry, toothy object instead of my walls, furniture, or appliances.

If she's getting a Ruger 10/22, and you want commonality of action, a Ruger 99/44 Deerfield would seem to be indicated. 4+1, .44 Mag is common, and it looks like a 10/22...and it's semiauto. Works fine on humans, with appropriate ammo, too.

John

 

[MRGAMBOA]

Is the quote function disabled for some people?


As to the blood thirst comment, maybe that's why it took me three years to actually post here. Nah j/k .

I just wanted some input as to what other people would do. I try not to think that everybody here is "blood thirst".

If an animal is charging you, you are pretty much screwed anyways. You wouldn't see him till it's too late. In most cases that wouldn't be enough time to draw a weapon. If the animal is minding his own business, then you might take him down. That was pretty much the question. I feel like most of these big game animals who attack people, (rare) would only be hunted down if the shooter had enough time. Do you really have time to defend your self in an actual attack? Or do many people just shoot these animals just for the simple reason cause they are there. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack thread.

 

[rangerruck]

hey, that is a good idea, the ruger in 44 semi auto. Also there is the marlin camp carbine, wow !!! I forgot all about those two. very light and small and handy.

 

[JShirley]

Mr. G,

Welcome to THR. Actually, many people have successfully fought off black bears even without firearms (though usually suffering injuries).

Considering the way the original post was phrased- not a dedicated shooter, and looking for a rifle- seems that the lady in question wants something to defend her house. Kinda hard to consider folks bloodthirsty when they shoot a dangerous animal at close quarters in their house, wouldn't you think?

Anyway, feel free to start a new thread re this in the hunting forum.

John

 

[mustanger98]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertyteeth
If she gets a .357 mag lever action, for instance, a .357 revolver would also be a good thing to have.

First she would need to learn to not flinch when firing a 9mm pistol. Hey, I expect a .357 revolver would be a bit much for me. I love my 9mm, but the one time I tried a Glock in .40S&W, well, I flinched a lot...

Not really. Just start shooting the .357 revolver with light .38spl target loads and work her way up according to her comfort level. People hear ".357" and think it's some big loud hard-kicking deal, but it's really not as far as shootability. It depends on the fit between the shooter and the gun. If she's never fired a handgun, she can start out without any fear-induced bad habits. .40S&W is not .357mag. If she can get a heavier revolver... K-frame or N-frame... the weight soaks up recoil... and as I said, start with light ammo and she can work her way into the hotter loads as she feels like it. Just because you flinched with a .40 don't mean she will with a .357.

 

[Brian Williams]

5' 6" bit o' lady

My daughter
My Marlin 1894C

Yes, I know Eye Protection



application to date my daughter

 

[____hoot____]

If she is new and starting with a Ruger 10/22 the Ruger 44 carbine is the way to go. Bought one new in about 1969, hardly any kick and a shorter length of pull that I liked. Solid gun but only about six pounds. About the only thing that turned me off was the coarse sights.
Get Real! Shooting in the air past an animal's head in a real life dangerous situation is the only option. You have to use the shock of the blast wave of the warning shot to maximum benifit and keep your sights close to being on target. Save that shooting in the ground stuff for the movies, cause you are much more likely to hit accidentally somebody or the animal with a ricochette of a rock pavement etc.etc.etc.etc. than shooting in the air.

 

[mustanger98]

Warning shots are a load of crap. The first thing you learn about defensive use of a firearm is if you're not prepared to shoot 'em, don't bother to get the gun out. We're talking about a matter of stopping them, regardless of how many legs they have, before they kill you.