Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/19/2006 5:09:14 PM EDT
The ever-popular bear gun thread. What'd you choose to take with you camping for the off chance you cross an irate bear?

This?

www.serbu.com/shorty.htm

or this?

www.atlanticfirearms.com/programming/expand.asp?Prodid=200
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:11:25 PM EDT
I say neither. But if those are the only two choices, I would go with the shotgun.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:12:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
I say neither. But if those are the only two choices, I would go with the shotgun.



What would you go with?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:13:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:16:19 PM EDT by THellURider]
12 ga with slugs. (But not that Serbu) No question. Or .45-70 loaded hot, .375 H&H, .416 and up.


A 7.62 would just piss it off.

ETA: You live in Alaska; you ought to know better.

ETA2: Clearly some of these posters have no damned clue.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:13:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:27:08 PM EDT by azhammer]
My S&W 500
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:14:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:25:48 PM EDT by yobo]
I would just go with one of these loaded with 3" magnum shells of 1 oz slugs

Atleast I can hit my target with this shotgun.

I don't think I could hit anything with your choices... while under the stress of charging bear.


Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:14:26 PM EDT
7.62 Krink with a reliable drum it trained hands would be hard to overcome for any animal.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:14:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
I say neither. But if those are the only two choices, I would go with the shotgun.



What would you go with?



Either my .500 S&W, .460 XVR, or my Marlin .45-70.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:14:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:15:39 PM EDT by Zatu]
I'd rather have 30 shots that hit the target hard at 50 yards than 3 shots that hit the target harder at 10 yards. I wouldn't want to rely on a short-range weapon against an angry bear. Seems healthier to get them farther away.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:16:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:22:23 PM EDT by THellURider]

Originally Posted By Zatu:
I'd rather have 30 shots that hit the target hard at 50 yards than 3 shots that hit the target harder at 10 yards. I wouldn't want to rely on a short-range weapon against an angry bear. Seems healthier to get them farther away.



HAHA Hilarious.....


Jesus...

You can hit a bear 30 times while its charging you?

THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT.

A handgun in some of the above posted calibers would be a second choice after a long arm of the choices I posted. Starting with a properly equipped 12 ga. A shotgun with rifle sights can easily shoot modern slugs accurately at 50+ yards.


You need to go ask this question at a hunting forum such as www.accuratereloading.com, NOT on this chairborne commando forum. Listening to some of these guys could get you killed.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:22:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THellURider:
12 ga with slugs. (But not that Serbu) No question. Or .45-70 loaded hot, .375 H&H, .416 and up.


A 7.62 would just piss it off.

ETA: You live in Alaska; you ought to know better.



Your choices, a .45-70 or a magnum rifle, are indeed dead-on best choices. I know.

But I usually operate around southcentral AK, not Kodiak or places where if you go into the wild you're highly likely to cross a bear. Encountering a bear for me is unlikely. It's happened, but it was a little cub and we ran from each other. I'm not real scared of bears.

So, given that, I want a defense weapon that's real light and has other uses, like home defense or personal defense in my car. I figure the shorty AK and shorty shotgun are the best for both roles, and that's why I asked.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:22:06 PM EDT
a 10/22 and a .38.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:24:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:26:50 PM EDT by THellURider]

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By THellURider:
12 ga with slugs. (But not that Serbu) No question. Or .45-70 loaded hot, .375 H&H, .416 and up.


A 7.62 would just piss it off.

ETA: You live in Alaska; you ought to know better.



Your choices, a .45-70 or a magnum rifle, are indeed dead-on best choices. I know.

But I usually operate around southcentral AK, not Kodiak or places where if you go into the wild you're highly likely to cross a bear. Encountering a bear for me is unlikely. It's happened, but it was a little cub and we ran from each other. I'm not real scared of bears.

So, given that, I want a defense weapon that's real light and has other uses, like home defense or personal defense in my car. I figure the shorty AK and shorty shotgun are the best for both roles, and that's why I asked.



Ok I misunderstood your situation


Well in that case, SBR a 870 but keep the stock on it. Say to 12 - 14" barrel. Surefire light... That would be my choice. OR buy a Marlin Guide Gun and have Yost Bonitz or Wild West Guns (in Anchorage) fix it up. A Custom guide gun can make a hell fo a self defense rifle. My Marlin is going to Yobo in a few weeks for the full make over.

I WOULD NEVER try a 7.62 x 39 on a pissed off bear. You'd be better of packing a .44 handgun. Besides, a Krink with a 30 rnd mag is no lightweight in my book.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:24:55 PM EDT
Serbu
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:25:03 PM EDT
Having met bears under less-than-social circumstances (just adult black bears--not what you have in AK) with only a .357 revolver handy, I would have to say that when I see the next one I'd prefer the krink.



Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:25:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:29:06 PM EDT by ICEAGE]
I heard bear mace is the best thing against a bear.


a 500 S&W if ya gonna be buying a gun. you can make 200 + yard kills with one against deer, might be hard for follow up shots though, and rapid firing can make the palms of the hands hurt a bit, also I wouldnt wanna hold onto it with sweaty hands.



I myself would want a 18.5 barreled 12GA with the 2 shot extension.

3 and 1/2 inch buckshot out a .12GA can drop deer at 75-100 yards with one shot. Of course thats from a longer barrel though. I think the 3 and a half shells would be my # 1 choice to defence against a bear.

Or a Garand fires 30-06 ammo right? If so and it fires good ammo that my be my choice since I'd like to own a Garand anyways and I hunt with a 30-06 weapon sometimes.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:26:38 PM EDT
Poll time
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:27:28 PM EDT
I would stab the bear with my psychic mind spear
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:27:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THellURider:

Originally Posted By Zatu:
I'd rather have 30 shots that hit the target hard at 50 yards than 3 shots that hit the target harder at 10 yards. I wouldn't want to rely on a short-range weapon against an angry bear. Seems healthier to get them farther away.



HAHA Hilarious.....


Jesus...

You can hit a bear 30 times while its charging you?



I wouldn't bet my life on 3 shots. Maybe that's just me, but if I can have more, I'll take it.

I guess the best choice is obviously to get both and take both of them with you. But if it's one or the other I'll take more bullets.

Personally I believe that if I were attacked by a bear I'd probably either start shooting too early and waste my three shots before they do enough damage or underestimate the speed of the bear and start shooting too late and get mauled before I can stop it. If I can have 30 shots to take and fire repeatedly until I stop it, I'll take that option.

But then again I've never been attacked by a bear.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:27:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:33:58 PM EDT by Sub-MOA]


-or- if ya gotta have nfa

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:27:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Poll time



IBTP
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:28:29 PM EDT
I'm skeptical of anything that only gives you three shots. Also, I doubt that the video shown on the shotty website has the guy shooting 3" slugs. I bet recoil is murder. Given your choices, I'd go with the Krink.

Given my own choice, I'd take a pistol grip 18" Mossberg. 2x the size with 3x the firepower.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:29:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:58:32 PM EDT by THellURider]

Originally Posted By Zatu:

Originally Posted By THellURider:

Originally Posted By Zatu:
I'd rather have 30 shots that hit the target hard at 50 yards than 3 shots that hit the target harder at 10 yards. I wouldn't want to rely on a short-range weapon against an angry bear. Seems healthier to get them farther away.



HAHA Hilarious.....


Jesus...

You can hit a bear 30 times while its charging you?



I wouldn't bet my life on 3 shots. Maybe that's just me, but if I can have more, I'll take it.

I guess the best choice is obviously to get both and take both of them with you. But if it's one or the other I'll take more bullets.

Personally I believe that if I were attacked by a bear I'd probably either start shooting too early and waste my three shots before they do enough damage or underestimate the speed of the bear and start shooting too late and get mauled before I can stop it. If I can have 30 shots to take and fire repeatedly until I stop it, I'll take that option.

But then again I've never been attacked by a bear.



And there in lies the key.

How much bear and/or hunting experience DO you have?

Dangerous game hunters in Africa bet their lives every day on 2 shot rifles...
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:29:40 PM EDT
I vote neither.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:30:30 PM EDT
Yeah, anybody here ever see a bear run? In rough mountainouse terrain they can cover ground 10X times faster then a human, I've seen it.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:32:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:32:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:37:51 PM EDT by THellURider]

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Yeah, anybody here ever see a bear run? In rough mountainouse terrain they can cover ground 10X times faster then a human, I've seen it.



+1 and I've seen them shrug off .300 Weatherby 180 gr Barnes X..... A fricking 7.62x39 will just sting and piss them off more. It probably wouldn't penetrate to the vitals.

A 12 ga slug has momentum going for it...

ETA: <Shrug> I give up....
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:34:52 PM EDT
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:35:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I have to admit that this is a new spin on this old topic.
.



The real topic is "Which AOW should I buy?"
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:38:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THellURider:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Yeah, anybody here ever see a bear run? In rough mountainouse terrain they can cover ground 10X times faster then a human, I've seen it.



+1 and I've seen them shrug off .300 Weatherby 180 gr Barnes X..... A fricking 7.62x39 will just sting and piss them off more. It probably wouldn't penetrate to the vitals.



You have? Wow.

I dont think a FMJ 7.62 would have much trouble penetrating a bear's body. The head, though, whole 'nother kettle of fish. From the front, it's thick and slanted like a tank, bullets tend to glance off it.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:38:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:39:36 PM EDT by MagKnightX]
An ACTUAL Krinkov wouldn't be a bad idea if it was just for defense rather than hunting.

Sure, 7.62 may be a poor choice against bear, but I bet 30 rounds (ETA within the space of a few seconds) will drop it anyway.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:40:37 PM EDT
Defense, not hunting.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:40:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:56:37 PM EDT by THellURider]

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By THellURider:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Yeah, anybody here ever see a bear run? In rough mountainouse terrain they can cover ground 10X times faster then a human, I've seen it.



+1 and I've seen them shrug off .300 Weatherby 180 gr Barnes X..... A fricking 7.62x39 will just sting and piss them off more. It probably wouldn't penetrate to the vitals.



You have? Wow.

I dont think a FMJ 7.62 would have much trouble penetrating a bear's body. The head, though, whole 'nother kettle of fish. From the front, it's thick and slanted like a tank, bullets tend to glance off it.



A pissed off bear is a pissed off bear. They have adrenaline pumping and just punching icepick holes in them won't do a damned thing if they're gunning for YOU.

Who cares if they die after they've gotten to you? What you want to do is stop them, and all that Krink would do is make you more of a target in their eyes as survival instincts take over for them and they see red.

I saw one take a .300 Wthby round, perfect... and it still made it 300 yards faster than you or I can... and he wasn't even big nor pissed.

If you want either of your two choices just because then fine, but don't think you just made the best choice in protecting yourself from bears. If you think you can hit a bear 30 times while it's charging than you're a better shot than I am AND you want to rely on a "it might stop it" then ok. BUT slow, controlled, measured fire is the key to any dangerous game situation.

That's it, I'm out.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:46:40 PM EDT
460 Rowland from Dan Wesson - 230gr bullet at 1350fps




or a standard fare 44mag will do the trick.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:48:41 PM EDT
Gotta go with the Krink- 30 rifle rounds sounds better to me than 3 shotgun rounds. I have no doubts the 7.62 will take a bear down- I've seen a couple of videos of elephants being shot with AKs. Yeah, they emptied the magazine into him but it still worked (one was of ivory poachers and the others was game wardens culling a bull male). Pretty sad to see either way.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:49:04 PM EDT
+1 for the Marliln Guide Gun in .45-70 or .450 Marlin.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:43:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THellURider:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By THellURider:

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:
Yeah, anybody here ever see a bear run? In rough mountainouse terrain they can cover ground 10X times faster then a human, I've seen it.



+1 and I've seen them shrug off .300 Weatherby 180 gr Barnes X..... A fricking 7.62x39 will just sting and piss them off more. It probably wouldn't penetrate to the vitals.



You have? Wow.

I dont think a FMJ 7.62 would have much trouble penetrating a bear's body. The head, though, whole 'nother kettle of fish. From the front, it's thick and slanted like a tank, bullets tend to glance off it.



A pissed off bear is a pissed off bear. They have adrenaline pumping and just punching icepick holes in them won't do a damned thing if they're gunning for YOU.

Who cares if they die after they've gotten to you? What you want to do is stop them, and all that Krink would do is make you more of a target in their eyes as survival instincts take over for them and they see red.

I saw one take a .300 Wthby round, perfect... and it still made it 300 yards faster than you or I can... and he wasn't even big nor pissed.

If you want either of your two choices just because then fine, but don't think you just made the best choice in protecting yourself from bears. If you think you can hit a bear 30 times while it's charging than you're a better shot than I am AND you want to rely on a "it might stop it" then ok. BUT slow, controlled, measured fire is the key to any dangerous game situation.

That's it, I'm out.



+1

I personally would say best bet is either a second long arm thats high powered or just use your primary. But primary will prolly have a scope and that isnt good for a charging animal when your shitting yourself.

Anybody see that video of like 4 or 5 guys shooting a charging lion with high powered hunting rifles at close range? The lion still managed to attack one guy with multiple people shooting him. All good hits with weapons/ammo for lion hunting.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:52:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.



Where did this come about, I find that the whole 762x39 is around the same as the 30-30 arguement only on this board. I am not sure who got the idea started but I will say, there are not the same performance wise.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:01:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 7:01:53 PM EDT by Sub-MOA]

Originally Posted By Cold:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.



Where did this come about, I find that the whole 762x39 is around the same as the 30-30 arguement only on this board. I am not sure who got the idea started but I will say, there are not the same performance wise.



Bullet weight and muzzle velocity between a 30-30 and 7.62x39 is virtually identical. ANY differences in performance will be the result of a different BC or projectile construction.

The ballistic gelatin test I’ve seen show 30-30 actually outperforming 7.62x39 in most instances.

I assure you that I’m far from the first person to make the comparison… The first time I remember hearing it was around 1983 in an article by Peter Kokalis.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:04:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By Cold:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.



Where did this come about, I find that the whole 762x39 is around the same as the 30-30 arguement only on this board. I am not sure who got the idea started but I will say, there are not the same performance wise.




The ballistic gelatin test I’ve seen show 30-30 actually outperforming 7.62x39 in most instances.





EXACTLY What I am getting at....also FMJ versus semi jacket soft point or hornadys new lever rev rounds, should make the case why the 30-30 should out perform termanially.
(my spelling is bad, sorry...)

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:11:22 PM EDT
HK51B
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:15:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cold:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By Cold:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.



Where did this come about, I find that the whole 762x39 is around the same as the 30-30 arguement only on this board. I am not sure who got the idea started but I will say, there are not the same performance wise.




The ballistic gelatin test I’ve seen show 30-30 actually outperforming 7.62x39 in most instances.





EXACTLY What I am getting at....also FMJ versus semi jacket soft point or hornadys new lever rev rounds, should make the case why the 30-30 should out perform termanially.
(my spelling is bad, sorry...)




Yep, a hot loaded 30-30 is a WAY better hunting gun than a SKS or an AK. Around here you mostly see people trying to make a case for the 7.62x39 though.

(struggling not to bash AKs at this point)
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:24:25 PM EDT
Denfensive only?
Charging bear or at close range?
Only choices these two weapons?

Shorty shotgun

Go to www.theboxotruth.com/
and look up the differance of what a 7.62 size bullet will do and what a 12 guage slug will do.

More than likly only have enough time to get three shots of anyway might as well get the most bang for the buck.

My choice.....large caliber revolver. reliable, powerful, reliable, did I mention reliable?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:29:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:
a 10/22 and a .38.





Your are right, that is all he would need for the "little cub" he has encountered
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:30:48 PM EDT
Since you you dont accept IMs, I have to ask here:

You're Navajo? What are you doing in MD. Curious. I'm Athabaskan
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:01:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 8:08:33 PM EDT by NavajoGunOwner]

Originally Posted By raven:
Since you you dont accept IMs, I have to ask here:

You're Navajo? What are you doing in MD. Curious. I'm Athabaskan



Yá'át'ééh shiyáázh, Navajo Gun Owner yinishyé.

Came to do some work I DC about 7 years ago, getting ready to leave, move back out west, somewhere I can relax, shoot off the porch and raise my kids.



ETA: try the IM now, never tthought to sent that up....
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:07:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NavajoGunOwner:


My choice.....large caliber revolver. reliable, powerful, reliable, did I mention reliable?



Something like this?

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:11:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 8:14:35 PM EDT by NavajoGunOwner]

Originally Posted By TheSneak:

Originally Posted By NavajoGunOwner:


My choice.....large caliber revolver. reliable, powerful, reliable, did I mention reliable?



Something like this?

img475.imageshack.us/img475/8003/060309m8112omgl14lr3us.jpg





That would be the ticket puncher for sure. No doubt about it!!!!

ETA: IBNT (post whore) been kind of a nice thread with out him
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:14:52 PM EDT
Ahhh, the ever-present bear thread. In all reality, neither is such a great choice. While the slugs pack a mean punch, they won't offer the penetration that you really want. On the other hand the 7.62 may penetrate better, but will not have the power of the slug. .45-70 would be your friend.

Due to it being semi-auto, if I had to choose, I would go 7.62. A semi shotgun, full stock, no pistol grip, with 3" slugs would be my choice for shotgun.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:22:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cold:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.



Where did this come about, I find that the whole 762x39 is around the same as the 30-30 arguement only on this board. I am not sure who got the idea started but I will say, there are not the same performance wise.

it is more powerful than that pansyass 5.56 everyone fawns over.

it is not just here, from Wikipedia.


Since approximately 1990 the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge has seen some use in hunting arms in the US for hunting game up to the size of whitetail deer, as it is approximately as powerful as the old .30-30 Winchester round. Large numbers of inexpensive imported rifles, like the SKS and semi-auto AK-47 clones, are available in this caliber. Inexpensive imported 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition is also widely available, though much of it is of the non-expanding type that may be illegal to use for hunting in some states.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:31:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:

Originally Posted By Cold:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
Between the 2, gimme the krink. 7.62 is roughly .30-30-ish, a bit less out of the short barrel, but since capacity in the Serbu is only 3, um, gimme the 30 rounds.



Where did this come about, I find that the whole 762x39 is around the same as the 30-30 arguement only on this board. I am not sure who got the idea started but I will say, there are not the same performance wise.

it is more powerful than that pansyass 5.56 everyone fawns over.

it is not just here, from Wikipedia.


Since approximately 1990 the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge has seen some use in hunting arms in the US for hunting game up to the size of whitetail deer, as it is approximately as powerful as the old .30-30 Winchester round. Large numbers of inexpensive imported rifles, like the SKS and semi-auto AK-47 clones, are available in this caliber. Inexpensive imported 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition is also widely available, though much of it is of the non-expanding type that may be illegal to use for hunting in some states.





Oh you mean that 556 is pansy compaired to a 458 SOCOM right ?!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top