shot gun on board
- Thread starter chester613
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
That's hilarious. You, who have apparenty NEVER been charged by a brown and put into a split second decision situation, ARE an expert?
That's like telling a fellow whose been shot that, since he's only been shot once, he's not an "expert" at being shot.
When you have been in a survival situation like this and managed to live through it, then you can come tell me what it was like and what an expert you are. Until then, I'm really not interested in your theories.
Last edited:
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
This is the Original Post of the thread. He doesn`t seem vitally concerned about bears, doesn`t even mention them. Maybe he should be bear aware, I can`t say, but it is not the focus of his post. Unless there is more to answer him, we are drifting onto rocks.
hmason
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,764
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Lucky Lucky
- Vessel Make
- Pacific Mariner 65
We carry a Winchester Mariner 12 ga made of stainless steel. In desolate anchorages I might keep a few rounds in it but most times it is unloaded. I hope and doubt I will ever need it but it makes me feel a bit more secure.
Howard
Howard
psneeld
Guru
Well I guess which Alaska F&G guys you talk to will tell you a different story.
The F&W guys used to laugh at our 12 Ga's we carried in the Arctic for survival....they all had a variety of high power rifles.
They told us a 12 Ga may stop a bear with repeated hits, but were convinced a rifle for bears was the better choice . They did tell us to alternate slugs and shot and alternately soot for the face with shot and houlder with slug...the shot to blinds and get enough blood in their nostrils to prevent them from smelling us...and the slugs "may" break a bone in/near the shoulder which would slow them down and give you options.
I am with the article writer on this one, better to have a weapon matched for the target meaning one you can shoot, hit and the load is matched.
Overall a shotgun is a good survival weapon...but they call them big game rifles...not big game shotguns.
And to qualify for the pissing match I have confronted black, brown and white bears in my travels. Fortunately my survival training allowed me to skirt them versus have them charge...although I should have shot a few for stealing my salmon.
The F&W guys used to laugh at our 12 Ga's we carried in the Arctic for survival....they all had a variety of high power rifles.
They told us a 12 Ga may stop a bear with repeated hits, but were convinced a rifle for bears was the better choice . They did tell us to alternate slugs and shot and alternately soot for the face with shot and houlder with slug...the shot to blinds and get enough blood in their nostrils to prevent them from smelling us...and the slugs "may" break a bone in/near the shoulder which would slow them down and give you options.
I am with the article writer on this one, better to have a weapon matched for the target meaning one you can shoot, hit and the load is matched.
Overall a shotgun is a good survival weapon...but they call them big game rifles...not big game shotguns.
And to qualify for the pissing match I have confronted black, brown and white bears in my travels. Fortunately my survival training allowed me to skirt them versus have them charge...although I should have shot a few for stealing my salmon.
Attachments
Last edited:
ranger58sb
Guru
Back in the early '80s, approx. '83 IIRC, Alaska Fish & Game did a penetration study of various firearms/cartridges available at the time. Purpose was to determine minimum recommended armament for their field folks, and especially in light of their current (at the time) hiring of new/young people often with little firearms knowledge or practice, ans also considered slighter stature as a possibility with new some female employees.
The study results were published in Rifle Magazine.
The test was focused on penetration, and only included factory loads. The .458 Win Mag came first, .460 Wby Mag second, .375 H&H Mag third, and the .45-70 was about 4th in the findings. (This from memory; don't have the article here on board, but do have it somewhere or other...).
This was with factory .45-70 loads of that era, and that pre-dates newer modern factory offerings with upgraded ballistics.
The 12-gauge shotgun was also respectable, with some caveat, I think. (Might have been about "only with slugs" or some such; can't exactly remember that part.)
I think their cut-off recommendation was "nothing less than a .338 Win Mag" (or equivalent, probably, since there's also a .340 Wby Mag).
In some cases, cartridges didn't do as well because bullets of that era could break up before achieving the minimum required penetration.
No handguns were recommended, although the .44 Rem Mag was acknowledged to be useful if employee left his rifle over there somewhere leaning up against a tree. (The .454 Casull wasn't tested, IIRC, might not have existed in mainstream at the time.)
Wouldn't surprise me if those results have been updated, given the flock of newer cartridges -- and especially factory loading -- introduced since then, but I haven't seen an update.
-Chris
psneeld
Guru
Hated to ruin the idiocy of my last post...just couldn't help myself..it is TF and a gun thread.
For the OP...
Yep...doesn't matter what federal law states...it's whatever the LEO stopping you thinks. Sure in the end you win...but the hassle is rarely worth it all.
Most experienced cruisers all eventually concede that it comes down to personal comfort of having the weapon with you or not. The probability of needing it is less than the stuffed teddy bear on your bed for comfort during some tough times afloat not involving intruders.
I agree with the personal protection types...but am pretty comfy with not having a weapon on board for personal protection.
The similarity with the bear concept....is if you do need it...it better be matched for you and the target more than what it is (a tiny 22 will do the trick in many close range situations)....
My main disagreement with things like sprays, etc....my philosophy and training is if you point the gun....usually it is immediately followed by a well placed shot. End of old problem...but in most places today...beginning of a whole new nightmare.
Spraying someone with something less than buckshot could just intensify the immediate nightmare.
And like the bear concept...better to be aware of your surroundings/situation and skirt the danger rather than need to confront it. Not always possible...but the numbers are clearly on your side.
For the OP...
Yep...doesn't matter what federal law states...it's whatever the LEO stopping you thinks. Sure in the end you win...but the hassle is rarely worth it all.
Most experienced cruisers all eventually concede that it comes down to personal comfort of having the weapon with you or not. The probability of needing it is less than the stuffed teddy bear on your bed for comfort during some tough times afloat not involving intruders.
I agree with the personal protection types...but am pretty comfy with not having a weapon on board for personal protection.
The similarity with the bear concept....is if you do need it...it better be matched for you and the target more than what it is (a tiny 22 will do the trick in many close range situations)....
My main disagreement with things like sprays, etc....my philosophy and training is if you point the gun....usually it is immediately followed by a well placed shot. End of old problem...but in most places today...beginning of a whole new nightmare.
Spraying someone with something less than buckshot could just intensify the immediate nightmare.
And like the bear concept...better to be aware of your surroundings/situation and skirt the danger rather than need to confront it. Not always possible...but the numbers are clearly on your side.
Last edited:
ranger58sb
Guru
The "rifle" was a Winchester Model 92 clone chambered for .44 WCF (aka .44-40), firing 5-in-1 blanks. (Can't remember if they used a real Winchester or one of the South American clones.)
The cartridges in the belt were .45-70s. It was a Hollywood thing.
-Chris
kulas44
Guru
A 12 gauge shotgun is more versatile. It can be had specifically for boat purposes and has been designed as such. One of the major downfalls of using a rifle for self defense is collateral damage. They just shoot to far. The shotgun is good to about 30 yards. Its hard to miss with a shotgun at the close range its normally used at. Not so much with a rifle. I'm not and expert on bears, having only had one situation where I had to "shoot" a brown bear on Kodiac. The flare pistol did a stellar job. Bears make a lot of noise when you set them on fire. I'm glad it worked, but honestly he was only interested in eating my fish, not me. I would have let him have the fish but they were between me and him and my only escape route was straight up or swim. I figured he could outclimb or outswim me. The flare gun worked, but I wouldnt want to rely on it to often. Although, its very legal and very effective for close encounters like you may have on a boat. And, if you shoot an intruder with a flare at night he makes a more visible target as he runs away. You could then shoot at him with your 45/70
Northern Spy
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,075
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Northern Spy
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 26
And, if you shoot an intruder with a flare at night he makes a more visible target as he runs away. You could then shoot at him with your 45/70
Also known as a screaming class A fire.
jleonard
Guru
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 5,063
This is pretty much how I feel also. I've been cruising 25 years and never felt I really needed a gun although I have carried a .380 aboard for a few years. I also have a carry permit but never carry. Maybe I'm the oddball but I've never really felt threatened enough to bother.
My only encounter with a bear (black) was in my backyard in suburbia. I lobbed a snowball in it's direction from 40 feet just to see what it would do. He/she just laughed and went on to rob someone else's bird feeder.
No, it won't. This is an urban legend with no truth to it. I have no idea how it got started, but it is an extraordinarily wide-spread belief, even though it is completely untrue.
How do I know? Because I was once accidentally shot in the face with wasp spray. It was unpleasant, and my doctor told me that it was a good thing that I quickly washed my face and my eyes with copious amounts of water, as the long-term effects could be rather serious had I not done that, but it did not blind me, nor in any way incapacitate me. Were I intent on attacking someone, it would not have slowed me down in the least.
Please do not believe this, and even more, please do not rely on wasp spray for self defense. It will not work!
"And, if you shoot an intruder with a flare at night he makes a more visible target as he runs away. You could then shoot at him with your 45/70 "
On one hunting forum I subscribed to had a thread concerning the best pistol round for bear defense while bowhunting. The winning response, at least IMO, was: I never hunt alone and carry a .22LR. After I shoot my hunting buddy in the knee cap I only have to outrun him!
Course correction....
We have always carried a nickel plated .357 S&W revolver, 6" barrel loaded with .38 spl for shooting big cobia before gaffing them. Have not lost the hinges on a fish-box or a rod tip since. For self defense we carried a Mossburg Model 12 knockoff that was nickel plated (or SS..not sure) with 00 buckshot. every year one of us would discharge the weapon in a safe area and then clean and put in fresh rounds. The brass would corrode to the point of the round seizing if not replaced periodically.
On one hunting forum I subscribed to had a thread concerning the best pistol round for bear defense while bowhunting. The winning response, at least IMO, was: I never hunt alone and carry a .22LR. After I shoot my hunting buddy in the knee cap I only have to outrun him!
Course correction....
We have always carried a nickel plated .357 S&W revolver, 6" barrel loaded with .38 spl for shooting big cobia before gaffing them. Have not lost the hinges on a fish-box or a rod tip since
. For self defense we carried a Mossburg Model 12 knockoff that was nickel plated (or SS..not sure) with 00 buckshot. every year one of us would discharge the weapon in a safe area and then clean and put in fresh rounds. The brass would corrode to the point of the round seizing if not replaced periodically.
As usual and like most of the people on forums like this you're reacting to what you think someone wrote, not what the person actually did write.
Eskimos used to hunt polar bears with .22s and it worked if they hit the bear in the right place. You can probably kill a big charging animal with one of Monty Python's pointed sticks if you get lucky.
I'm saying that in a survival situation the 12-gauge is the best option, in part because it has more stopping impact-- not penetration or range or velocity, none of which are as important in a very close range situation-- than a rifle. A charging animal, be it a squirrel or a bear or a whale, is a very different creature than that same animal walking or swimming around doing its own thing until a hunter shoots it.
Is a 12-gauge the only option? Of course not. But in my opinion, which has subsequently been reinforced by my actual experience, the 12-gauge is more effective and is more likely to be successful under the specific circumstances I have been writing about, than any other firearm. And these circumstances include a person-- myself in this case-- who is not a professional hunter or someone who works around bears as a matter of course, but is just your average back country camper/hiker/fisherman who suddenly finds himself in a critical situation with an animal.
Many years ago in McKinley National Park I and a friend-- the fellow with the Marlin .45-70 I mentioned earlier-- took a course of sorts on how to "get along" with the bears in the park. The object was not how to kill them but how to avoid them. So I know all the "rules" about what kind of areas to avoid, how to use noise to announce your presence, what sorts of things to do when you come across one, and so forth. In my subsequent experience flying in the Coast Range and camping in often very close proximity to bears, black and brown, 99.999 percent of the time the avoidance actions and techniques work as advertised.
But 99.999 percent is not 100 percent. Bears (and plenty of other creatures) are very cunning, determined animals when they want to be, so there can be times when all the avoidance knowledge and deterrent actions simply don't work, and it all comes down to a sudden and very close range confrontation. In this respect, it's not unlike what can happen with people. I suspect it is this situation the original poster is concerned about.
So when this happens, a person needs every advantage they can get. It is here where in the case of an animal attack the shotgun, effectively loaded, provides a much higher probability of a successful defense for the reasons I've stated than a rifle and certainly than a handgun.
In the course of putting together the survival kit we carry in the plane I asked people we knew and sought out who, like the F&G folks, had a lot of experience in the bush, about the advisability of using a handgun as the required firearm. I have one and with weight and space always an important consideration in a plane I thought it might be a good solution. My notion was quickly quashed by the experts. Not only a poor choice for a survival situation--- unless one is a hell of a good shot, shooting small game or birds with a handgun in rough country and perhaps with physical issues as a result of the crash or forced landing is an iffy proposition-- but in animal defense even the most powerful handgun, at the time the .44 magnum, was a very poor choice. Except, they said, in one specific situation.
If, as the bear bites down on you, you can reach up and jam the handgun into its mouth in such a way to prevent it from closing its jaws, it could work.
They were joking, of course. But they also weren't joking......
In the end we chose the shotgun that we still have and carry and this choice has proven to be the best one in actual experience.
Last edited:
Two of the dumbest things I did as a college kid were sell my Austin Healey 3000 Mk II and sell my National Match M1 Garand. I bought the NMM1 from a gun store in Ft. Collins, CO before my freshman year at Colorado State for $65 and the following year when I decided to go beck to Hawaii and finish college there I sold it back to the same gun store for..... $65.
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
My understanding is that Eskimos favored the 22 Hornet, a small center-fire round designed for varmints, not the 22 rimfire cartridge which is considerably less powerful. The Hornet was used in some WWII survival kits.
Last edited:
I own 2 Garands
A CMP Service Grade, +- $1000 and another in Match Grade, ssssshhhh, not putting anything incriminating in writing.
And in ALL seriousness I would prefer the 45-70 to the SG, even if it were in 3.5 inch.
Simple ballistics....
A CMP Service Grade, +- $1000 and another in Match Grade, ssssshhhh, not putting anything incriminating in writing.
And in ALL seriousness I would prefer the 45-70 to the SG, even if it were in 3.5 inch.
Simple ballistics....
ranger58sb
Guru
So much for memory. Like a steel sieve, sometimes...
The article -- A Study in Stopping Power -- was published in Rifle #95, Sep-Oct 1983. Study by John F. Thilenius and William R. Meehan, on behalf of the Forest Service in Alaska.
The top four were .458 Win Mag, .460 Wby Mag, .375 H&H Mag, and .33 Win Mag, in that order. With several different bullet weights and styles, the .338 and .375 also took the next 6 places. The .30-06 was 11th (220-grain bullet) and 12th (180-grain). Then the .444 Marlin (13th place), .358 Win, 7mm Rem Mag, and another .375 H&H (270-grain bullet).
The .45-70 U.S. was next, at 17th and again at 19th, both with 300 grain bullets but different styles, and yet again at 27th and 30th with the 405-grain bullet (again, different styles).
Some of the others interspersed in that range included the .358 Norma Mag, 8mm Rem Mag, .308 Win, .300 Wby Mag, .350 Rem Mag, and the 12-gauge 2¾" shell with slugs... at 26th on the list.
The .44 Rem Mag in a handgun came in at 32nd on the list.
The Marlin M1895 got good marks for handiness and rapidity. The .45-70 got OK marks, with observation that factory loads weren't wonderful (in that era) and with a hope that "perhaps the current reinterest in .45-70 rifles will cause the manufacturers to produce a more suitable bullet." Actually, one of the .405-grain loads penetrated deepest of all candidates, but it didn't expand well and that counted against it using their formula for comparison. (This was well before Buffalo Bore, Garrett, et al, started loading for brown bear... so to speak).
The short, pump (slide-action) shotgun also got good marks for handiness and rapidity. It didn't score as well as many others, due to the formula, partly because of low energy, partly because of low expansion. But they also observed in their notes that the .672" rifled slugs were already "expanded" when fired, so the formula outcome was "slightly misleading."
Rifled slugs were deemed potentially suitable; pellets (00), not so much except perhaps at VERY close ranges.
At the time, most (all, I think) of the other rifles were bolt-action, so a lever Marlin and a pump Remington (or whatever it was; doesn't say) could well be seen to be handier and faster, especially for people who can't cycle a bolt-action rifle quickly from the shoulder.
The .44 Rem Mag was the only handgun cartridge they could "recommend" for carry, and even that was not to be considered to primary protection. All other handgun rounds (at the time -- this predated the Casull, the .50 Desert Eagle, the .475 and other Linebaugh cartridges, the .480 Ruger, and the .460 and 500 S&W cartridges) were lesser in capability, not seen as useful. The one "possible exception" was the .41 Rem Mag, but they couldn't fully test it.
The conclusion was mostly a recommendation to carry the highest one on the list one could shoot well.
Probably more data that anyone here really wanted...
-Chris
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
Am I reading that stopping power is the key? If so ...with a shotgun...I'm guessing that is with a slug?
Is it any harder to hit a charging bear with a rifle than a shotgun loaded with slugs?
Again...only in fun because.... I get it...whatever you guys decide.
For personal protection...a gun is only one layer of the protective onion shell....make sure you work on all the others too.
Is it any harder to hit a charging bear with a rifle than a shotgun loaded with slugs?
Again...only in fun because.... I get it...whatever you guys decide.
For personal protection...a gun is only one layer of the protective onion shell....make sure you work on all the others too.
ranger58sb
Guru
According to the AK study, yes... qualified with whether one can shoot the firearm well or not.
Yes slugs, for the shotgun data, except for very close ranges -- e.g., 15' or less, where they concluded 9 pellets of 00 Buck would perhaps (perhaps) act more like a single slug.
Depends on other variables, like sights, barrel, etc. A rifled shotgun barrel can be very accurate with slugs; smoothbore barrels, it usually depends. At the time, sights normally fitted on defense rifles would likely have mostly been open iron sights, and those vary for efficacy... and eyeball age can matter, too.
Minute of brown bear isn't a difficult target. Minute of brown bear approaching at 30 mph could be much more difficult... but even then, pinpoint accuracy at defensive ranges is usually not a high ranking criterion.
I digress: I have read there are more attacks by black bears i-- with more damaging results -- n the Lower 48 than there are attacks by brown (and grizzly) bears anywhere.
-Chris
ksanders
Moderator Emeritus
What I have seen in my own personal experience is that brown / grizzly bears want nothing to do with you.
The ones I've seen all appeared to quickly leave the county once they spotted me. The last one I saw was a couple of weeks ago now.
If you suprise one, thats of course another story.
Not so with Black bears. They are like curious dogs. They want to see what you are up to. They from my experience are not generally afraid of humans like a grizzly/brown bear.
Just a FYI, there has been allot of interest and popularity in the old 45-70 here in Alaska for bear defense. There is a custom gunsmith Wild West Guns that specializes in the Marlin 45-70 and does things like muzzle brakes, larger loop lever (like the rifleman), special sights, etc...
While the 12 gauge is still popular, there are other choices out there, that are extremely effective, and in use in bear country.
Bear defense weapons, like anchors, brings our allot of unsubstantiated passionate opinions based on ones personal experiences, not necessarily the underlying facts.
Thats why we see so much debate. Its easy to debate something you cannot prove either way. Then it generally comes down to the person with the best writing skills being declared or proclaming themselves "right".
But there is no real right or wrong, again just like anchors. One product is not inferior and the other great. Its more like several products that can get the job done perfectly well.
When I step off the skiff like I do hundreds of times a year in bear country, I'll have my marlin, but I could just as easily have another weapon, including my 12 gauge pump. That won't make me wrong regardless of opinions on TF.
The ones I've seen all appeared to quickly leave the county once they spotted me. The last one I saw was a couple of weeks ago now.
If you suprise one, thats of course another story.
Not so with Black bears. They are like curious dogs. They want to see what you are up to. They from my experience are not generally afraid of humans like a grizzly/brown bear.
Just a FYI, there has been allot of interest and popularity in the old 45-70 here in Alaska for bear defense. There is a custom gunsmith Wild West Guns that specializes in the Marlin 45-70 and does things like muzzle brakes, larger loop lever (like the rifleman), special sights, etc...
While the 12 gauge is still popular, there are other choices out there, that are extremely effective, and in use in bear country.
Bear defense weapons, like anchors, brings our allot of unsubstantiated passionate opinions based on ones personal experiences, not necessarily the underlying facts.
Thats why we see so much debate. Its easy to debate something you cannot prove either way. Then it generally comes down to the person with the best writing skills being declared or proclaming themselves "right".
But there is no real right or wrong, again just like anchors. One product is not inferior and the other great. Its more like several products that can get the job done perfectly well.
When I step off the skiff like I do hundreds of times a year in bear country, I'll have my marlin, but I could just as easily have another weapon, including my 12 gauge pump. That won't make me wrong regardless of opinions on TF.
Last edited:
CPseudonym
Moderator Emeritus
Exactly what I alluded to many many posts ago. Situational awareness is more important than gauge or caliber for both bipeds and bruins
It shouldn't be. But compared to the rifle bullet, the slug is much larger in diameter and at very close range has more impact stopping power.
- Status
