Posted on 07/31/2013 5:41:45 PM PDT by Kip Russell
Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. Failing that caliber. Failing that lots of shots on target. To wit: “The hiker, who has not been identified by Alaska State Troopers, had set out from the Rainbow trail head at Milepost 108 of the highway Sunday morning, said Tom Crockett, a park ranger. He was near the first Turnagain Arm viewpoint, about a half-mile up the trail toward McHugh Creek, when he spotted the bear . . . The man called, “Hey, bear,” hoping not to startle the animal, he said. The bear turned and charged, the hiker later told rangers. The man fired the AK-74 he was carrying . . .
The bear stopped after the first volley of shots, and then charged again. The man fired once more. That time the bear folded into a ball, rolling and running downhill and thudding to a stop in a clump of birch trees about 100 yards from the trail.
newsminer.com reckons the hiker needed 13 shots to take down the 500 – 600 pound bear. Like I said.
There are tons of American vets who, if they didn't actually carry AKs, sure seemed to envy them.
I'm sure, like you pointed out, establishing fire superiority was a big consideration for going with a smaller round. Another theory I've heard thrown around was that a wounded soldier actually causes the enemy more difficulty, since they must use men and resources to evacuate their wounded. I don't give this theory much credence, especially in light of our experiences in Korea - the commies didn't seem overly concerned with their wounded.
I don’t live in bear country but would that be adequate if I did?
Most .45-70 ammo is loaded to low pressure so it's safe to use in vintage rifles. Even at these levels, it should be adequate for bears.
In the case of your Browning, it can be loaded somewhat hotter, making it more effective. Here's an example of some "+P" .45-70 ammo:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=328
Its use should be limited to the following firearms: All Marlin 1895 (1895 Marlins are simply 336 actions, with a 45-70 barrel screwed on to them) iterations made since 1972, all Browning 1885 and 1886 copies, Rossi Rio Grande, New England Arms Handi Rifle, T/C Encore, ALL falling block actions made of modern steel such as the Ruger #1 and #3, Shiloh, Christian and Pedersoli Sharps, all Winchester 1886 iterations made since 1915 and all Siamese Mauser bolt actions.
It fires a 300 grain bullet at 2350 fps...a considerable boost over the standard load which shoots the same bullet at 2050 fps. Of course, it costs $75 for a box of 20...but you get what you pay for.
On a much more trivial level, a rabid raccoon in my back yard tried to charge me. He didn't get far because I shot him 3 times with my little .380 backup pistol . . . which I happened to have in my pocket while my .45 was sitting on the kitchen table. You NOTICE when you are carrying a .45, I forget I have the .380 on me.
Unfortunately the .380 stopped him, but didn't drop him. He ran off into the woods, but no doubt died soon after because he left a significant blood trail down to the creek, where I lost him. He won't be missed. I had to quarantine my dogs last year on account of a rabid raccoon.
But I think I'm just going to have to put up with the .45. He would have gone nowhere at all after 3 hits with that.
No substitute for cubic inches.
Thanks for the good analysis, I have learned something today!
(pops a beer to reward meself...)
.45-70 is a good old fashioned round with relatively slow velocities and heavy bullets. As long as you use the modern 'hot' loads in a decent rifle (in other words, DON'T use granddaddy's trapdoor Springfield with the reduced loads) it should be adequate bear medicine.
My understanding is that limitations on bullets come from the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention. At that time the Germans had just invented their spitzer pointed bullets and the British had a round nose bullet with the jacket applied by wrapping it around the base. That made the .303 Brit round very very accurate. The Germans wanted to make their round legal and the Brit round illegal, so they seized on the exposed lead as the difference that mattered, and used other rounds (not Brit, as the Brit had high antimony levels so it was definitely not a soft point) to demonstrate the cruel nature of bullets with exposed lead.
Hague Convention also banned bombing cities from the air and sinking passenger ships of any kind, but protected transports by requiring the sinking ship to make provision for all survivors. Of course you may remember how far Germany kept their side of the Hague Convention in WWI....
There’s a reason the Mujaheddin called it the “poison bullet”.
If they have Meirs (sp?) Dept. stores close to you, I bought a couple ‘survival’ blister packs of Columbian coffee there today. Sale priced at $4.00, add hot water makes 4 cups in the bag. Looks like they’re changing out inventory. Got some wet firestarter cubes too.
Spray and pray wasn't what American troops were supposed to do. One element would put down fire while another element would advance. Repeat as necessary to close with and destroy the enemy. I don't doubt what you say is accurate regarding the use of snipers in Afghanistan and Iraq, I just wonder how practical it would have been in terrain like Vietnam, or in situations where we don't have so many tactical and technological advantages over the enemy.
Add a fully loaded 20 round magazine, you just added another pound and a half. Then there's the scope and sling . . . .
I think I'll just carry my little Ruger M-77 . . . .
Nagant is a fine rifle. Mine is Finnish, but they have been manufactured nearly everywhere. There are thousands made by Remington that are still in service somewhere. They were used by US soldiers during WWI. The top sniper (by kill number) of WWII used a Nagant with iron sights.
The round is roughly equivalent to the .30/06, but its rim makes headspace easy and cheap but automatic feed a bit more of a challenge. Not bad for a round and action that predates the .30 Krag, and they never had to pay Mauser royalties.
Definitely not light.
Probably a 53 grain round only 13 grains more than a CCI mini mag .22 LR. Although its moving at 3,000 ft per second and if he was using Russian military ammo it has an air tip on it and turns on impact and does massive dammage. Thats what I use in mine. Very scary scenario though. Good shooting for sure.
Still thats the last weapon I would carry in the Alaska bush. I’d rather carry our Mossberg 500 loaded with slugs.
With Grizzly or Polar bear, you want your lead to have high antimony fraction, so the bullet is hard and penetrates. Most Black bears are not so aggressive. Sun bears (Asia) are even more aggressive but not so big and tough, rather like an oversized wolverine!
Wasn’t the sniper Finnish? I believe his name was Simo Haya. Over 500 kills in 100 days. Didn’t he use some light, low report loads “cats sneeze” loads?
Maybe some Russian snipers had higher scores than that.
http://www.kevos4.com/simo_hayha.htm
ping
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.