When you're on the menu. What would you do?

[Hibrion]

Please don't rely on birdshot for self preservation against large predators. #4 birdshot wouldn't penetrate a small pumpkin, never mind a bear's hide. It being haloween and all I have recently teated this

#4 buckshot, i've never tried. However, i you can get 00 buck or 000 buck i'd stick with that. Even at that, i'd be far more comfortable with a lever action rifle. People get this idea in their head that you can point a shotgun roughly where you want ot to go and the spread will yake care of the rest. This is just not the case, especially at these type of distances.

At the end of the day, you want stopping power, penetration, reliabilty and the possibilty of a quick follow-up shot without scrificing reliability. For me, that means autos are out; that means shotguns, rifles or pistols where allowed. When you look at what people carry speciically or this purpose, you get a guide gun. A lever action with rifle calibre at least 30-30 but preferably 45-70 if you are confident you can handle the recoil and keep on target when it counts. A low powered scope or iron sights on top. Anything else is a compromise.

 

[Robson Valley]

Suppose young grizzlies are stalking your young children at the country school bus stops.
Try a .338 Lapua and be done with it. With a rifle, shot #1 to break up the shoulders then finish the beast.

You won't get the time for very carefully placed shot after shot.
Recall that a grizz can sprint at 35mph.

 

[santaman2000]

....santaman2000: don't think you get a 15-20' shot at a rushing bear. I'm quite fond of Rem Nitromag #2.

Nor do I. But that comment was in reply to the one that #4 was popular for home defense and that dry wall wouldn't stop shot.

 

[santaman2000]

Please don't rely on birdshot for self preservation against large predators. #4 birdshot wouldn't penetrate a small pumpkin, never mind a bear's hide. It being haloween and all I have recently teated this

#4 buckshot, i've never tried. However, i you can get 00 buck or 000 buck i'd stick with that. Even at that, i'd be far more comfortable with a lever action rifle. People get this idea in their head that you can point a shotgun roughly where you want ot to go and the spread will yake care of the rest. This is just not the case, especially at these type of distances......

Very true. At realistic defense ranges the spread is more about column length than lateral spread. Even that is limited.

 

[santaman2000]

.....At the end of the day, you want stopping power, penetration, reliabilty and the possibilty of a quick follow-up shot without scrificing reliability. For me, that means autos are out; that means shotguns, rifles or pistols where allowed. When you look at what people carry speciically or this purpose, you get a guide gun. A lever action with rifle calibre at least 30-30 but preferably 45-70 if you are confident you can handle the recoil and keep on target when it counts. A low powered scope or iron sights on top. Anything else is a compromise.

Many people do indeed carry a short barreled 12 gauge specifically for this purpose. If it were me (and I was carrying a shotgun, I'd prefer slugs and a semi-auto (yeah I get the reliability issue but I'm quite comfortable with mine. Likewise I'm quite comfortable with the reliability of my Remington Model 74 in 30-06. What I'm uncomfortable with in both of them is the agility. As RV says, the encounter will likely be at close range and a quick handling gun is called for. Scopes are nice if you get to aim but this is just as likely to be a scenario where you stick the end of the barrel to the bears chest (or in his ear) and pull the trigger.

 

[Robson Valley]

Just how long are you going to have in a surprise rush? About 8'.
People die here in bear attacks, night and day.

From time to time, we face the threat of big cats in the village.
Big threats to small school children.

We have a bylaw forbidding the discharge of firearms in the village.
You can bet your last dollar that the cat will get cut in half and it will not be rifle damage.

 

[Goatboy]

Luckily the squirrels here in the U.K. can be discouraged from charging with a loud "Shoo!"

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[British Red]

Well, most of us

 

[Goatboy]

I only say shoo to the grey invaders Red.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

That's very unlikely if you have a fire - or at least I've never heard of attacks in camps inside the limit of the firelight. Of course if you choose to have no fire, well good luck with that. A guy got drunk in Stewart had a fight with the friend he'd been visiting, and went to sleep it off in the campground. He got killed and partly eaten by a griz at place I've camped at and would camp again. I'll just be especially careful about the fire and not reeking of sweet booze and food. One guy I'd taught as a kid was killed etc. because while was he was told not to venture outside the light at a fish camp at night because bears would be checking the place out, but no he had to go take a pee in the dark. I know of so many cases like that, but I don't recall any of people being attacked in a camp with a proper setup and fire.

What is the proper setup?

How big a fire do you normally keep for Ursal deterrence? Do you build a fire next to the Lat too? Can you elaborate on your practice?

That sounds noble except if you are hurt badly or killed and didn't provoke the attack, then probably a lot of animals will be killed in the search to find and kill the right one. If a person has a gun and it gives them the courage to stand up and not run, or uses spray - then the local animals are safer.

That's an interesting viewpoint that I've not considered.

You are going to have rifle experience by law there (and a whole raft of other things including search and rescue insurance)

Surely you have SAR insurance by default? You venture out without it?

You can't just rock up to Svalbard and wander off - so the tour operator will take of protection.

Of course, I was using a single point as a somewhat facetious reply to your original question.

i still believe that homo sapiens are more dangerous then all other predators together....

My general approach within the UK, and the flatter parts of the Benelux is that the most dangerous create for miles is a Homo Sapiens, and it's fair to say it's probably me (by the numbers, I cause more injuries to myself than any other source...). But the more I look at maps for trips I would like to do, the more that it becomes apparent that the scales tip in favour of other animals being more dangerous than the local humans. Purely on account of there not being a human for several hundred, if not thousands of kilometres. At that point you do have to start to worry about the other creatures.

Given the accounts of someone being attacked when venturing away from the fire to have a brief conversation with the shrubbery, it would appear that my concerns are not entirely without merit.

Cheers

J

 

[Robson Valley]

There's no "Ursal deterrance" except deep snow aka winter. Bear Spray means no more that people and food. Gun shots mean gut piles.
If you don't care for that brutal sense of reality, try stepping into a partially buried kill and see what you face.

I've seen pix of a Grizz that rushed a fire of hunters in a guided camp = >.338 stopped the bear less than 5' from the flames.

I have lived in Black & Grizz country for some 50 years. There's just a different mindfulness about where you go and what you do.
They hunt the same forests that I do and I am out there, some 20-30 days in the autumn.

Only once. The Grizz stopped, looking right at me from 30-40yrds away. I had the luxury of choice so I picked a log,
possibly 10yds in front of me. I decided, then and there, that if the bear put 2 paws over that log, it would get a
.30-'06 x 180gr load between the eyes. The grizz moved on.

 

[benn25]

Hypnosis....best form of attack.

Look into my eyes....look into my eyes

I watched that new Dicaprio film called 'The Revenant'...very good btw. Anyway, was on Imdb and scrolling through the discussion board and there was a point made where in the film (SPOILER ALERT) he gets attacked by a bear, that in a real situation, the bear would go for the head and try and crush your skull. Lots of tooing and throwing of whether the attack in the film was realistic enough (based on the fact the director I believe did lots of research on bear attacks).

Anybody have a theory and actually know?

 

[Goatboy]

Will admit to rooting for the bear at that point in the movie as I'm really not a DiCaprio fan. However I'll grudgingly admit that he was pretty good in the film and its worth watching.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[benn25]

Will admit to rooting for the bear at that point in the movie as I'm really not a DiCaprio fan. However I'll grudgingly admit that he was pretty good in the film and its worth watching.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

Every bushcrafter should get on it, just for the horse scene...ideas!!!!

 

[Goatboy]

Every bushcrafter should get on it, just for the horse scene...ideas!!!!

Being the Sci-fi geek I couldn't help but have the "I thought these things smelt bad on the outside" line from The Empire Strikes Back going through my mind at that point.
Also that DiCaprio's character should've had the nickname "Lucky White Heather" as he certainly goes through the mill in the film.
Certainly worth watching and very well made. Couple of wee niggles like firing multiple shots from his pistol a couple of times without reload, but on the whole very well thought out.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[tsitenha]

That show is based on a real event, Hugh Glass was the person being "portrayed".

What got my hair up was that DiCaprio publicized tat the film was affected by global warming and the crew had never seen such....

Chinooks is what he experienced, they happen often but that is hollywood

 

[tsitenha]

Breaking the bear's shoulder is best if you can achieve it.
12ga slugs and 00/000 buck if you know there is a problem

 

[woof]

Only just noticed this thread.

My son is in the army, & was on exercise in Kenya last summer, & he was put on "anti lion patrol". A patrol of Grenadiers were out & reported that they were being stalked by a group/pride of lions. As my son was the only one with an army off road licence, he had to patrol the patrol, at a distance, but sadly never saw the lions.

Rob

 

[Goatboy]

That show is based on a real event, Hugh Glass was the person being "portrayed".

What got my hair up was that DiCaprio publicized tat the film was affected by global warming and the crew had never seen such....

Chinooks is what he experienced, they happen often but that is hollywood

Cheers Tsitenha, to my shame I didn't actually know what a Chinook Wind was until today LINK Always good to learn something new.

 

[santaman2000]

Cheers Tsitenha, to my shame I didn't actually know what a Chinook Wind was until today LINK Always good to learn something new.

Outside West Coasters not many North Americans know either. The only reason I knew was because it was taught in the meteorology portion of pilot training.