View From The Porch: Sometimes I tickle myself...

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Sometimes I tickle myself...

From here:

Anybody who thinks that 9 .32" caliber pellets are the proper dose for a 3/4-ton carnivore is just asking to be reincarnated as a steaming pile of scat on an ice floe.

42 comments:

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...: But, but, but... I thought the 12 gauge was a Death-Stick. It is what I was gonna use on T-Rex if I ever got to Jurassic Park for a vacation. You only have to point it in a big carnivore's general direction and they fall down dead out of fear.

Now I'm gonna have to rethink the whole thing.; 12:05 PM, February 27, 2010
Tam said...: To read internet gun forums, you'd think that buckshot would create a Cone Of Death, whose apex actually formed a tear in the spacetime continuum and blew your target away in the past!; 12:15 PM, February 27, 2010
New Jovian Thunderbolt said...: "This 12 gauge is so powerful, your dead great great grandpa, that died of consumption on the boat ride TO this country, is gonna feel it!"; 12:45 PM, February 27, 2010
Unknown said...: The 12 gauge with 00 buck is effective against a polar bear -- provided you shoot from inside the polar bear.; 12:54 PM, February 27, 2010
mostly cajun said...: Beats the living daylights out of tactical rape whistle, though.

MC; 1:30 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm no "voice of experience" at all when it comes to bears, but I have shot a number of deer with buckshot when it was all I could use at the time. For deer hunting, buckshot is not very reliable, IMHO. I once killed a standing buck at max range with only one pellet hitting him, but that was to the heart, and he collapsed right there(I'm older and wiser now and would not take that shot). I have also shot and hit running deer multiple times (using a Browning Auto-5),and they ran several dozen yards before dropping; this was using #1 Buck or 00 Buck. Hunting companions have had similar experiences with shooting deer. I read where some folks carry buckshot while fishing in grizzly country, but I would prefer something else.
NCDave; 1:42 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Those gun board guys must bow to their educated superiors...I just don't think you can hype the twelve any better than this:

"armed with an automatic 12 or 10 guage shotgun loaded with OO buck (a horror weapon that will stop anything at 20 feet, excluding possibly elephant--and even then I would not want to be the elephant)."

See this is a scattermachinegun, and no mere assault weapon but a HORROR weapon. In fairness there probably would be some horror involved if one is twenty feet from a 1200 lb. mass of charging fur, claws, and teeth and popping off a few miniature musket balls at him to really piss him off.

We'll probably see the (remaining) trainers at Seaworld patrolling those whale tanks with Mossies now.; 2:17 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Sign that last one AT.; 2:21 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Oh, I forgot the Seinfeld reference:

Jerry and George are looking for Kramer in L.A. and climb in the back of a black and white. They ask to try the siren, and the rejects from Reno 911 let them, leading to a whole discussion of the old vs. new siren wails. Then George notices the shotgun in the rack and asks, "so whaddaya got there, a 12 gauge?" Cop says "Yeah". Jerry says to George "that seems to be the most popular gauge" and George answers "yeah, makes the 8 gauge look like a cap pistol".

Larry David, probably the most liberal New York Jewish producer-type you could find, gets the hilarity of that, but the good Doctor quoted in that story is dead (heh) serious. David would probably know better than to face a polar bear with anything less than a battle tank too.

AT; 2:36 PM, February 27, 2010
Will Brown said...: All the fore-going notwithstanding, I do think it fair to say that a Mossberg 500 loaded with rifled slugs is certainly not the worst possible weapon choice for the stipulated application at that purchase price point either.

The more I learn about the actual performance of buckshot, the less impressed I become with it for any non-human application. Not being a bird hunter either, that may explain why mine spends so much of it's existence inside a case in the closet.; 2:40 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: And lets not even gets started onthe "cone of death" shot pattern.

Hint: Even on a trumpet shaped blunderbuss the cone is VERY narrow for all useful purposes. I always get a giggle out of a shot pattern that's 4 ft wide when the shot gun was "fired from 10ft away", thanks, hollywood.

(Nevermind the victims being blown through doors etc... dude, Momentum is conserved...if shootee goes flying, so does the shooter.); 2:45 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Lockstep everyone.; 2:54 PM, February 27, 2010
Tam said...: Cryptic, anyone?; 2:55 PM, February 27, 2010
Tam said...: AT,

"See this is a scattermachinegun, and no mere assault weapon but a HORROR weapon."

I think the scientists have read Blain's posts at THR... :D; 3:03 PM, February 27, 2010
Overload in Colorado said...: I'll bite: why IS it called Buckshot?; 3:08 PM, February 27, 2010
Revolver Rob said...: But to be fair, don't they often arm researchers and students with shotguns loaded with buckshot in Greenland, for polar bear defense?

I imagine two or three people shooting into Mr. Bears face with a load of buckshot would do ~something~.; 3:45 PM, February 27, 2010
Ed Foster said...: I saw this really crappy Geena Davis movie once, directed by some wierd European director or another. I think Samuel L.Jackson was in it too, which is an embarrasment, since the poor man can actually act when given the chance.

A 12 gauge gets fired, and a piece of wall big enough for two men to jump through gets vaporized clean through to the outside yard. Not even a trace of two by fours or sheathing. You could have hung a bay window in it.

So I figure all I have to do if burglars ever break in is have a loaded shougun by the bed.

When they kick the door in, I carefully avoid the responsibility-challenged individuals, pop a hole in the wall, and run through it. I'll bet they really feel embarrased then, and probably mend their ways as a result.

Or I could just cap the bastards. Is that simplistic?; 5:13 PM, February 27, 2010
Matthew said...: Tam,

While all shotgun ammo can violate the laws of physics, per a thread on THR of years ago http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127525&highlight=extreme
it is solely the nitrillium-tungstun composite "Extreme Shock!" 12 ga. round that has the potential to actually cause a rift in the space-time continuum.; 5:31 PM, February 27, 2010
T.Stahl said...: From what I read, authorities on Spitsbergen/Svalbard require rifles .308Win and up with at least 2900J and a five round capacity.

Carrying shotguns as polar bear protection is ok but slugs are recommended in favour of OO or OOO.; 6:38 PM, February 27, 2010
Ted said...: Probably if one waited until your unexpected guest was card table distance, or less, from you. Then let it have it in the forward lobes, it might work.

Capstick wrote about using a 20g on a rather irritated lioness in that fashion to good effect. There is however a small difference in size between your average lioness and polar bear.

I'll watch from a distance while someone tries it. Preferably via closed circuit TV from a different time zone.

Ted; 8:27 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: I saw this comment by Will Brown earlier and am apparently incapable of letting it pass.

"...certainly not the worst possible weapon choice for the stipulated application at that purchase price point..."

Yes, that .458 Win. Mag. will set you back a few large, and you can pick up a tactiblack Mossie Cruiser for 300 out the door at WallyWorld including a whole box of 00...I'm sure it'll be fine, and hey, you saved a bundle!

AT; 8:51 PM, February 27, 2010
Will Brown said...: @ AT:

Liked the snark all fine and good there Hoss, right up to the point you slipped in the 00 in place of the rifled slug that I specifically stipulated!

For the apparently necessary benefit of the mentally deficient self-identified as here present, my point was that a shotgun wasn't necesarily an inappropriate weapon choice for bear with the proper ammunition selection (since that is the part of the combination that's supposed to actually hit yon beastie don't you know). To be fully honest, I should acknowledge that I did fail to stipulate any particular caliber of weapon. My bad.

Furthermore, I also elected not to bring up the (as I understand it) fairly common belief among Alaskans that a load of birdshot into the ground (so as to throw dirt and/or snow and ice chips up into the bear's face) is reputed to be an effective method for discouraging a bear from approaching prior to a charge beginning; after which occurance, see my previous reference to rifled shotgun slugs that you so blithely failed to take note of previously.

As ever, YMMV; I live in Texas - other than Smokey, bears of any description are comfortably thin on the ground 'round here.

If you're gonna take shots pardnah, at least try to aim in the same general direction of the target provided for your convience.

Also, a ration of fundamental honesty makes the snark come across so much smoother too, ya'know? Or don't, apparently.

My contribution to this most recent episode of Commentary Display of Bad Form (ie: entertainment) is hereby concluded. Goodnight, y'all.; 9:43 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Sorry, Will, I didn't mean to be blithe, no personal criticism was intended, and I did miss the slug bit.

Not that it would matter much "for the stipulated application", to wit: a twelve-hundred pound polar bear with one of the densest, most repellent coats in animaldom and a three-inch layer of blubber to match its three-inch claws and fangs, bearing down on you at speed and with mal intent from twenty feet away.

I guess the idea of outfitting a polar bear expedition with the latest and greatest equipment and carbon-fiber gear, and then grabbing a pump fucking shotgun (with rifled slugs!) as the weapon of choice to save money is just too funny to my warped senses.

Of course so is your Continental umbrage laced with some Texas outrage.

No, really, my apologies for not noting the specified load. As to that story of the Aleut (or was it Inuit?), you realize why those stories are always told as folklore, by those who haven't tried it...

AT; 10:37 PM, February 27, 2010
Tam said...: In all fairness, you could do a lot worse than a Brenneke slug in those circumstances.

'Course, my preferred polar bear defense works a lot better: 2000 miles.; 10:53 PM, February 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: "...you could do a lot worse than a Brenneke slug..." You could, or a lot better, I guess. Key being, you've probably got one shot. Is it really going to be from a twelve gauge? The juxtaposition of the stated conditions and a "price point" when asked "What gun for (polar!) bear?" just kicked over my tickle box, I reckon.

I like your weapon of choice, though..."2000 miles". Or a really thick glass on that fish tank.

AT; 11:21 PM, February 27, 2010
Miguel said...: FWIW: Alaska State Troopers must carry a 12 gauge Shotgun loaded with slugs if they are in an area where the chances of bumping into a bear are high.; 11:46 PM, February 27, 2010
Tam said...: AT,

It's been my observation that the slug-loaded shotgun's main popularity in bear country seems to be with those who aren't necessarily going there after bear. Fishing guides, the aforementioned science types, et al.

As to the actual reasons for the popularity? Your guess is as good as mine, although if forced to guess, I'd reckon that it's some nexus between price and the fact that a short 500 or 870 is seen (rightly or wrongly) as reasonably light, compact, and easy to operate for non gunnie types vis a vis a more appropriate magnum rifle with a bore size starting with "4".

Regardless, I'm sticking with my "2000 mile" plan... ;); 11:59 PM, February 27, 2010
Will said...: 20 feet? I'm thinking, does Benelli make a select-fire version of the M1-s90? 11 rounds of 12ga Brenneke might make an impression on the white furball.; 1:36 AM, February 28, 2010
T.Stahl said...: One day a Norwegian friend and I want to go hiking on Spitsbergen and naturally we'll carry rifles (at least two in total and at least one for every two to four members of the group).
His choice is a home-made, K98-based scout rifle in 8x57. Mine was my Enfield No4.MkI and now is my AIA No4Mk4.

But remember, it's not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. It's the hits that count.; 7:23 AM, February 28, 2010
Tam said...: True 'dat. And in these jobs, bullet construction and sectional density are a lot more important than most folks realize.; 7:56 AM, February 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: Having spent time in both BC and Alaska hunting, my BC guides either carried Mossbergs with slugs or nothing in grizzly country. In Alaska both times they carried rifles .375 H&H.

A friend who hunted polar bears in Canada was backed up by a guy with an empty .222 Rem. His faithful guide had shot all his ammo at seals. He did not feel warm and fuzzy with that fact.

Gerry; 10:45 AM, February 28, 2010
T.Stahl said...: Placement, placement and placement.

Oh, and a large mag to keep trying.
(the AIA accepty slightly modified 20rd M14 mags); 2:06 PM, February 28, 2010
Will Brown said...: Ok, I've slept and my umbrage levels have re-set; let's continue. :)

AT, I submit that there is a practical difference between "wasn't necessarily an innappropriate weapon choice" and weapon/caliber of preferrence. :)

Citing my variation on Tam's preferred primary defense mechanism as being the most effective option, can we agree that a shotgun is likely to be more effective vs bear (polar or "only" horribillus) than any pistol that didn't begin it's existence as somebody's rifle. And maybe even then.

Weapon of choice? I have a bit of a sweet spot for older rifle formats and calibers so, whad'dya think of one of these in 45/70? Actually, I'm quite tempted by this one as well, but who's kidding who here; it would have to be "instead of" given my financial resources.

If money wasn't a seriously restrictive condition, I vote for someone gifting me with an H&H in .375 as Gerry mentioned above.

Friends again? :); 2:06 PM, February 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: We never weren't, Will.

Fine and capable choices, and I can't fault that .375; money is no object when contemplating a throw-down with a polar bear.

And that was my original comedic (I thought) point. That weapon/caliber preference is implied in qualifying the slug gun as a "price point" choice. I just found a bit of comic irony there.

Myself, I would prefer to save up for that H&H before having a meetup with Mr. P.B. Or, like Tam, we can just stay well outside his range, and live and let live.

Sorry for any umbrage inflicted on my end, none was intended.

AT; 3:40 PM, February 28, 2010
ASM826 said...: I dunno about pellets, but slugs, fired as the bear advanced into the less than 50 yard area, would provide 9 one oz. slugs. I would think the last couple would be fired at the tag-you're-it distances.

Would I choose to shoot a bear with one round of buckshot? No.

Would I throw a loaded shotgun down in despair and not bother to shoot for vitals, particularly head shots, as the bear closed the distance? No.

The (very close range) muzzle energy for a 12 ga. slug is 2361 ft. lbs (Remington's number). I think a 200 yard shot with .338 or .375 would be a better choice, but sometimes ya gotta shoot what you brung.; 11:17 PM, February 28, 2010
Geodkyt said...: Hypnagogue said...
The 12 gauge with 00 buck is effective against a polar bear -- provided you shoot from inside the polar bear.

And, if you're relying on 12Ga with 00 buck, "from inside" is likely going to be coming up Real Soon Now.

I do find it interesting that .223 Remington is apparantly fairly popular for bear defense (NOT bear hunting) with Inuits -- even the guys on bear watch during whale or seal hunts. In both the AR and the Ruguer Mini-14 flavor (ALWAYS with a 30 round magazine in what I've seen) they outnuber the .30 and larger guns by a wide margin.

Interestingly enough, I've never see a shot of an Inuit bear guard on watch with a shotgun. . .; 11:37 PM, February 28, 2010
pdb said...: Guns + bears = 36 comments.

Never fails!; 12:22 AM, March 01, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yes, but this one is different, pdb.

The question this time?

What bear for gun (twelve ga. w/00buck)?

Well, you've got yer teddy bears, yer koala bears, (most) of yer Chicago bears, maybe even a mama bear, papa bear or baby bear if they're the regular black bears.

But bringing that gun to a fight with a grizzly, a kodiac, or most especially a polar bear the size of a small car, is to ignore the first wilderness rule: Don't Feed the Bears.

That makes it 38, I believe.; 8:35 AM, March 01, 2010
Tam said...: There is even a term that applies to this: "bearthread".

"I walked up to Jed and Bob at the gun store, they were talking to some guy about a carjacking that happened the other night. He was asking which holster he should buy to wear while he was delivering pizzas, but inside of fifteen minutes it had devolved into so much bearthread, with talk about which JHP design was best for expansion after shooting through pizza boxes."; 9:34 AM, March 01, 2010
Noah D said...: What gun for bear? Something chambered in 20mm Solothurn Long, of course.

Also: Fortieth!; 10:23 AM, March 01, 2010
Timmeehh said...: For most of the 20th century, most of the Inuit in Canada were armed with nothing but .303 Enfields. They didn't seem to have much problem taking polar bears.

Me, I'd take a double rifle in .416 Rigby.; 2:23 AM, March 02, 2010
Anonymous said...: Pick the weapon judged best to hunt Polar Bears as your defence weapon.
Test it, practice offhand shooting.
Its not $$$, its about your abilities to save your or your partners skin, not price tags.
If you cannot afford that kind of rifle, borrow, but you must still familiarise yourself with it.

Thats all folks.; 12:10 PM, March 11, 2010