Posted on 02/09/2021 3:30:05 AM PST by marktwain
Before I graduated from high school, I overheard the older brother of a close friend talking about shooting a bear. The bear had been discovered in a den, during the Wisconsin deer season. As I recall, in 1968, such a harvest would have been legal.
The older brother was a Vietnam veteran. He approached the den with another vet. The brother suggested the other vet poke into the den to see if the bear were still there.
The other veteran said no, he would not do it. The brother said, well, in Vietnam, you went into holes to get Charlie.
Whereupon, the other veteran said: yes, but I had a different rifle then. (speaking of the M16).
He considered the M16 a superior gun for close-range bear defense than the common 30-30, whether Winchester 94 or Marlin 336.
At the time, I thought it strange someone would prefer a .223 semi-automatic rifle to a 30-30 or larger caliber rifle.
50 years and considerable time investigating actual defensive shootings of bears later, my opinion has become less certain.
Of the defensive bear shootings I have found, four of them were with rifles reasonably characterized as semi-automatic civilian versions of popular military rifles.
All four defensive shootings were successful. Modern sporting rifles most commonly are AR15 or AK47 style semi-automatic rifles. They are the most popular rifles in today’s America. It is certain more bears will be shot with them in the future. Here are the four incidents:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
“What I found odd was the idea that you went in a tunnel or cave network after an NVA or Viet Cong with an M-16.”
Going into a tunnel with an M16 was not something I said. I do recall tunnel rats and the only weapon I am aware of their taking was the 1911. A pistol would be the only useful weapon in a tight quartered quick draw situation.
My recollection of the era is that the M16 was originally developed by the USAF and proved out quite well. Because of this the Army adopted the weapon and issued it en masse. However the Army induced the jamming issue be issuing an ammunition not approved by the manufacturer. They initially compensated for it by using a lube called LSA.
By contrast the COMBLOC weapons were made to operate under all conditions, to include never being cleaned. I recall a training session we had with COMBLOC weapons after I got back from Vietnam. The instructor took an SKS, dropped into a mud puddle, drove over it with a M151. The next day he field stripped it, urinated on it to clean it, put fresh rounds in it and it fired.
I was so impressed I bought an SKS years ago, fire it frequently, have never cleaned it, but do oil it occasionally. For extremely brutal unsupported field conditions, this is the only rifle I’d want.
I saw the same test. A weapons instructor dropped an SKS into a muddle puddle, left it there the entire day. Before we were dismissed he pulled it out and fired a few rounds.
“Am looking for a Blackhawk 357 mag 6.5” barrel. (wife has a 357)”
That Blackhawk you’d like to have would have great stopping power, assuming you hit the target.
A couple years ago I was the typical shooter, wanting the best pistol, kept it clean, and target shot quite often to maintain familiarity.
Finally it dawned on me, that beer cans and paper targets do not shoot back. In order to take the proper stance, carefully aim, then fire like you do at the range, you also must be willing to take fire while you are wasting all that time.
I acquired a Taurus Judge, which shoots 410 shotgun shells and 45 long colts. It’s a point and shoot gun. With bird shot you will hit your opponent at 50 feet or less. Follow up with something more lethal once the opponent has been dazed by the stinging sensation and blood letting from the small shot. You can get 410 shells loaded with 3 or 4 balls about the size of a 9mm. The shot group from a single shell is about 8 inches at 50 feet. The 45 LC will plow through about anything.
S&W makes the same thing called a Governor. This type weapon is by far the best self defense gun imaginable for a real close range fire fight.
Hunting in brown bear country I carry a blackhawk in .41 Mag with hardcast butllets along with my rifle.
When I’m working on my very secluded property near the Buffalo River here in Arkansas I carry my Judge. No real threats from the bobcats, coyotes or black bear unless it’s a momma with a cub. But I’ve heard of the occasional feral dog pack and there is always the chance of a rabid animal or trespasser.
2-#6 followed by 2-000 buck followed by 1-45 long Colt
” can tell you definitively that the M-16 was issued in March 1967”
I was in 1/9 at Dong Ha in April ‘67. After a quick class and sighting-in on a 100” range we traded our M-14’s for M-16’s. Soon after we made our first outing. My company was helilifted to set up as a blocking force while the remainder of the battalion humped in. Guys on the hump were ambushed and in the fight more than a few M-16’s jammed. In close quarters fighting, some Marines were killed while trying to clear their weapon – it being in some stage of field stripping. Others resorted to using NVA weapons. Other than we weren’t cleaning our new rifles properly, no explanation was offered. Snuffy McNasty’s opinion was “following Bootcamp, Marines don’t need further instruction on cleaning rifles”. During previous service with 3/6, I participated in a 2-3 month field test of the Stoner-63 weapons system. Aside from too much choice in how to option the Stoner, I thought it a superior weapon. Corps may let the wrong ship sail.
Joined the USAF in March 1966, qualified with a first model M-16 that month.
After that every year it was qualification with an M1 carbine except 1969 when going to Thailand I again qualified with an M-16. Got to Rock and Roll two 20 magazines!
Ah - sorry.. We Old Guys are sensitive to questions concerning our memory!
Yes, the Marine Corps (rear) screwed that pooch. And they are still clueless today. Something about the water at Quantico, I guess.
In my Air Force Basic Training weapons qualification in July 1967, we used M-16s. They were the standard weapon for the Air Police that were standing guard on the flight line at that time.
I guess that the USAF “stole a march” on the Army and Marines with the M-16.
Yep, that was my experience also. Trained with the M-16 at Lackland in ‘67, then qualified with the M1 for the next 2 years. Qualified for the SAEMR with both.
I had almost the same experience. The only thing I noticed about the M14 was to keep a little slack in your mags and it would fire all day without a hickup, I always tried to remember to strip two rounds out of the mags might have just been particular to the one I carried...
9mm handguns work well against bear attacks. Surprising, but true.
ltr
I am 73.
2 times in my life I have had to produce a weapon.
I traveled for a living for about 35 years, outside sales, management and support.
I did not have to use it either time. But had I not had it, I would have been in big trouble.
A 6-1/2” Blackhawk is not a “concealed” weapon. But it shoots well, I don’t feel like I need to conceal a weapon.
I do know how to use them.
The .30-06 has a larger case volume than the .308, so of course, placed head to head, the venerable '06 will always come out on top in terms of ballistic performance.
That said, things can not always be looked at, "head to head." The development of the M1 and M2 ball cartridges began with the adoption of the Springfield Rifle in 1903, and subsequent tweaking of the cartridge resulting in the M1906 round. Believe it or not, one of the (many) considerations made in adoption of the .30-03 (and subsequent .30-06) was that based on infantry doctrine of the day, it had to be capable of killing a horse, which of course it certainly was/is and its performance reflects that.
If you look at the original M1906 ball, with which we fought WWI, and the M1 and M2 ball which were used in WWII, the ballistics are not significantly different than what the 7.62x51 was capable of doing with the development of newer powders in the 1950s and beyond.
So yes, the .30-06 will always have greater case volume to make use of with like powders, but a soldier with an M-14 in Vietnam, or an FN FAL in the Falklands in the 1980s was at no appreciable ballistic disadvantage to a soldier with a Springfield Rifle at Saint-Mihiel in 1918, or a Marine in the Solomons in during WWII.
hmm
Tell that to Syrian Kurd soldiers (YPG/YPJ) after Kobane held. They were crying for heavy rifles to defeat ISIS with. No body came forward with solution for them. So they made their own solution. The Zagros rifles. (Suspect the Vietnamese might have helped them with concept, they make a similar one too.)
Zagros were built around Russian machine gun barrels. Some close to 50 caliber, others were 14.5MM Russian barrels.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/07/15/peshmerga-zagros-rifles-actually-accurate/
Actually I think I remember some mention of a 12.7MM version too.
Here is one in the US (50BMG):
http://www.anzioironworks.com/
They also make a 20MM version.
http://www.anzioironworks.com/20MM-TAKE-DOWN-RIFLE.htm
To a degree, that is so. What noone has discussed in this thread is that the .30-06 round describes the casing format. The .308 use exactly the same bullet, so it is the same caliber. But the .308 casing is shorter, using less brass, but the bullet and the powder load are the same, achieving essentially the same ballistics. The .223 cal bullet is less than half the mass, hence possessing far less momentum (mass x velocity) than the .308/,30-06 fired round.
However, that is not the issue that makes any of the military bullets different from the hunting bullet with the same brass casing. The BIG difference is that the military round is fabricated with a sharply pointed (= Spitzer)_(thinly) copper-clad steel core which, by the Geneva Convention, is meant to minimize maiming by piercing and holding its shape in its travel, amd if not meeting bone, exit cleanly; creating less agony (on the average) for the wounded, his medic/corpsman, and the surgery afterward.
In contrast, the hunting round is either very deformable lead with low stress-to-deformation metal; or for higher velocity ballistics, clad with also-deformable copper (to keep the metal out of the rifling), so that at the point of entering flesh, in passage it mushrooms to perhaps three or even four times the diameter, losing its aerodynamic shape, and creating a chunk of metal that creates a much larger wound channel, cavitates disruptively, and comes to rest in the target's body, having spent all of its stopping momentum, and maximizing the hammering and killing damage.
That is why armed forces making dum-dums out of military ammo to increase its maiming and killing power, is a war crime, setting the Geneva Convention's provisions to nought.
At our local state 50-yard indoor range, the use of military ammo is forbidden. The range master checks your rifle ammo with a magnet to see if the round contains steel. How I found out about that was showing up there with my M1 Garand and a bandolier of M2 ball ammunition (Spitzer-shaperd). After checking it, the range master said "No!" and I was not able to shoot that day.
Now, regarding the "Spitzer" type ammo, it is shaped that way not only because of the humanitarian concept, but moreso because its shape gives better accuracy through better ballistics; and because the rifling imparts a rotation about its longitudinal axis, does not tumble end for end in flight (thus losing both accuracy and velocity).
If, on passing through flesh, it is deflected by bone or a belt buckle or a helmet or simply by prior ricochet; then, yes, it may change its mode of travel and then tumble, creating more liquefying damage in the wound channel. But according to you:
Spitzer rounds are designed to tumble increasing the size of the wound channel. Enter nose exit base after a 180 tumble.
Now, I'm calling you on that, because it is absolutely not true, and is contrary to the design criteria from both the ballistics and from the humanitarian points of view. Similarly, while the hunting round is intended to expand, mushroom, and immobilize or kill the quarry, the pointed boat-tail round (a better "Spitzer" design variation) has the best aerodynamics to pass through the air with the least resistance, keeping its velocity and lack of "wobble" longer.
Shooting a bear with a 5.56 military steel-core round doesn't make as much sense as hitting it with a .308 hunting round would, if stopping it is the idea.
There is a very good maxim-
The M1 is a wounding rifle.
The M14 is a killing rifle.
The M16 is a mangling rifle.
Sort of, if simply rate of fire is the basis. But your hypothesis is not. AR15 classes as a much, much weaker form of M1 Garand, not a winner at all except for greater magazine, as in the M1A (semiautomatic issue of M14 format).
For your information, I was rated Expert in M1 Carbine, M1 Rifle, B. A. R,, as well as Master Gunner on the 81mm mortar. I load my own ammo. .45, .38, .30-30, and .30-06.
You, and all those who have responded in this thread, have my high respect for your service and all that you have done for this country building on your military training and experience. I enlisted 1956, discharged 1962 and address those who have served with great appreciation. More even than I respect 800-lb black bears, eh?
How do those zagros rifles perform against non sequiturs?
“there is always the chance of a rabid animal”
Twice I’ve had to shoot a rabid skunk. The first time was a nightmare as it literally was after our whole family while out in the woods. It tried to get my wife so she climbed into the pickup box. It tried to get me when I was in a shed looking for a gun. Then it went to the camper where the girls and dog were and tried getting in. The first time I shot it, it laid down and I thought it was dead. Then it got up and came after me again. The second shot nailed it and it sprayed.
The next skunk fled when it saw me, went through the woods and came back at me from behind. Wife saw it, I nailed it.
I’m not hear to argue with you. I am already past the context of the original post and regret it.
You said:
“So yes, the .30-06 will always have greater case volume to make use of with like powders, but a soldier with an M-14 in Vietnam, or an FN FAL in the Falklands in the 1980s was at no appreciable ballistic disadvantage to a soldier with a Springfield Rifle at Saint-Mihiel in 1918, or a Marine in the Solomons in during WWII.”
I took that as an indication that size of projectile is not important in modern weapons. I believe it still does.
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.