Nevermind.
Posted on 06/05/2010 5:58:20 AM PDT by marktwain
A week ago, a hiker shot and killed a grizzly bear in Denali National Park (in Alaska):
A backpacker shot and killed a grizzly bear in Denali National Park and Preserve on Friday after the animal charged toward his hiking companion. This is the first shooting incident since a change in federal law that allows firearms to be carried in many national parks and wildlife refuges went into effect in February.
Granted, we have only the hikers' word for it that the shooting was indeed in self-defense, rather than pointless destruction of a magnificent animal, and park authorities are now investigating the self-defense claim. I'm a bit unclear as to how one would determine, by investigation, whether or not that claim is true, but then again, I have no expertise in either forensic science or grizzly bears. I do know a bit about guns, though, and one detail caught my eye.
The male hiker drew a .45-caliber pistol he was carrying, and when the bear emerged and charged toward his female hiking companion, he fired about nine rounds toward the grizzly.
Now ".45-caliber pistol" is more than a little ambiguous. There are dozens of cartridges that contain bullets of a diameter ranging between .451" and .458", that could plausibly be referred to as ".45 caliber." Of those, some are at least debatably adequate for something as large, tough, and dangerous as a grizzly bear. Of those, a few--a very few--are chambered in handguns that aren't very specialized single-shot hunting handguns. And finally, of the tiny number of repeating handguns that fire such cartridges, almost none would be capable of firing "about nine rounds" without reloading--and reloading seems a pretty unlikely possibility when facing a grizzly bear, whether in self-defense or when killing one for "fun."
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
a nine-gun revolver?
Or that they needed to get some “skin in the game” of the food chain.
This is self-evidently true.
No one would intentionally assault a bear with a .45 caliber revolver (unless it's a case of attempted suicide by bear).
These hikers are extremely lucky they are alive.
Yup. If I was hiking in AK I would be carrying nothing less than a .50 desert eagle.
The author is an idiot. There’s many 45’s that can handle 10 clip magazines.
Say, what?
Now ".45-caliber pistol" is more than a little ambiguous. ...And finally, of the tiny number of repeating handguns that fire such cartridges, almost none would be capable of firing "about nine rounds" without reloading
Exsqueeze me?
Now I'm no expert on the '.45', but when I see '.45-caliber pistol' I think '1911'. And from what I've seen they make magazines for the '1911 45' that holds more than the standard seven rounds. So that answers that.
Plus, it's now 'common knowledge' that the term 'pistol' means semi-auto, otherwise the term 'Revolver' is used. Additionally, my neighbor recently bought a '45-caliber pistol' that holds '10+1' rounds (which is more than nine), it's a Taurus. So I see nothing 'ambiguous' about the term/word 'pistol' (1), or the 'more than nine rounds'.
(1) Ha! What a coincidence:-)
I just went to the Taurus web page. And what menus are at the top...
'What's New', 'Pistols', 'Revolvers', and 'Hot topics'.
Yep, he is an idiot.
There's many Mags for the model 1911 alone that hold more than seven rounds -- which I just posted about.
btw, I know you meant '10 round magazines'.
But you'll catch some grief for the typo, and for using the word 'clip' ;-)
I was referring to improper terminology, not the capacity. WTH is a 10 clip magazine?
You overlooked this important sentence. If you read the whole article, the author is clearly saying that the firearm was probably a .45 ACP, not a firearm chambered for one of the very few pistol calibers considered adequate for grizzlys.
My Kimber 1911 mag holds 8 and one in the pipe makes nine...but to be honest, I think the facts of the story are just confused and the author is trying to create a story based on hear-say.
Nevermind.
Wow...Taurus 800 Series .45...12+1.
A veritable WMD.
I want one.
“adequate for something as large, tough, and dangerous as a grizzly bear.”?
That is the essential point that seems to be missed. The author is saying, quite clearly, that the gun carried was probably a .45 ACP, and therefore, a self defense firearm, not one intended to hunt grizzlies with.
Good, I see that you understand the point of the article.
I have never hunted bear. Certainly a .45 ACP (at 750-900 ft/sec) is not as effective as something of similar calibre with a muzzle velocity of 1500-2000 ft/sec. But .45 ACP is nothing to scoff at either. I am guessing that well placed rounds to the head and neck would likely be effective. Being charged, those vital areas would be exposed. If I was hunting bear, I’d have a 30.06 rifle or bigger. But if its .45 ACP or nothing, I would take the .45 ACP.
The next sign I saw said "Danger: Lion and Bear Country" so I stopped and re-loaded the .45.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.