Posted on 06/19/2013 3:07:13 PM PDT by virgil283
"This monstrous revolver known as the Raging Judge will have most people shaking in their boots. With a 6.5-inch barrel, high visibility optic fiber sight, a grip-reducing recoil and the ability to fire 28GA shotgun shells, this gun is definitely hardcore. So if you want to blast zombies away and shout all sorts of 80s action movie one-liners, the Raging Judge should help you do it. "
(Excerpt) Read more at trendhunter.com ...
I don’t know where you get your statistics from but if it is from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fact Sheet # 8 (the only thing on line that I could find that actually claims to have compiled data) I don’t consider the US Government a reliable source when it comes to natural phenomena.
Can’t wait to see some knob at the range hand one of those to his 102 pound girlfriend who’s never shot a pistol before. </sarc>
I have recently sold my custom built Magnum Research BFR revolver chambered in .50 Alaskan. The load I used was a 525 gr bullet at 1600 fps. It wasn’t a very practical hunting gun, mostly just a fun shooting conversation piece. I had it built because I also had a custom .50 Alaskan Marlin 1895 Levergun and I like leverguns I and revolvers in matching calibers.
My largest current revolver is a .500 Linebaugh Long aka .500 Maximum.
Here is my friend Avi shooting his custom 50-90 BFR which is very similar to my .50 Alaskan.
Research proves bear spray doesn’t work for hunters
http://www.examiner.com/article/research-proves-bear-spray-doesn-t-work-for-hunters
I do not believe it. I recall at least one incident where someone was mauled and had bear spray on them, but I have been unable to find it. I did find this description of the research to show that bear spray was so effective. Even it only claims that the spray is 90-92 percent effective. Now look closely at how they compare the numbers. They only count uses of a gun to stop bears where maulings actually occured. That is completely stacking the deck. It is one of the worst cases of data selection bias that I have ever seen.
To compound the error, then they include all cases of where bears did *not* commit maulings but where pepper spray was used on the side of "successful" uses of pepper spray.
This is not a study. This is full blown advocacy disguised as a study. Maybe there is a better "study" out there. I would be glad to look at it.
Does carrying a gun prevent serious or fatal injuries by bears? Not according to Kaniut’s list. In 86 (70 percent) of the 122 maulings where enough information is provided, either the victim or someone else in the party had a firearm. Of course, some bears are shot before they can do any damage. These encounters aren’t included in Kaniut’s list and aren’t necessarily reported. A firearm can be useful, as Herrero attests, but obviously firearms don’t prevent maulings. Many of the victims in Kaniut’s list were injured before a firearm could be discharged, or the shots missed the bear. In 40 (36 percent) of 110 maulings someone in the party had wounded the bear before or during the attack.Here is the link: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/are-guns-more-effective-pepper-spray-alaska-bear-attackHow about Herrero’s contention that a firearm may increase the likelihood or severity of a bear attack? Based on Kaniut’s list, in 30 percent of the 40 attacks where the bear was wounded before or during the attack, the bear killed at least one person. In 24 percent of the 86 attacks where someone in the party had a firearm, a person died. That seems like a high fatality rate to me.
Is a firearm better protection than bear spray? Bear spray -- a concoction of propellants and capsaicin (from red pepper) that burns the eyes and mucous membranes -- is effective up to about 30-35 feet. Dr. Tom Smith, Herrero and others assessed the effectiveness of bear spray in 72 incidents in Alaska where someone used it in defense. Bear spray was effective in 92 percent of the 50 cases involving grizzlies and 90 percent of the 20 cases involving black bears. No one who used bear spray was killed. In the nine instances where a grizzly charged a person, the bear broke off the encounter after it was sprayed, and only one person was injured. The injury was relatively minor, deep scratches requiring stitches. Eventually, someone who uses bear spray will be severely injured or killed by the bear. But it seems clear that bear spray promises to be at least as effective at preventing maulings as a firearm.
I think that bear spray can be effective in some circumstances. To claim that it is 100% effective is naive. How about attacks where it is raining hard and or the wind is blowing hard? Airborne spray will be far less effective in such circumstances.
Another person who has studied bear attacks (James Gary Shelton, Bear Attacks, The Deadly Truth) has estimated that bear spray is effective about 2/3 of the time.
Bears often display bluff charges where they pull up short and eventually leave. The way the data was collected above, all bluff charges would be counted as successful uses of bear spray, and not noted as defensive uses of firearms.
Back 1968 or 1969, a gun magazine had an article about a gunsmith who took two 1917 Colt 45ACP pistols, cut the cylinders and silver soldered them together so they were longer.
Then he cut the frames, welded them together longer, and made a .410 Colt 1917. Back then, he still had to register it with the BATF.
Does that gun come with wheels? I'd hate to walk very far with it. It would cause back problems.
I was just thinking, what did Hellboy use?
You are going to need a steel forehead protector to shoot that thing.
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.