Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
Have to allow for the fact that on a pound-for-pound basis, wild animals are usually a whole lot tougher than humans; which is why (on a straight physical-attack danger basis) a 200-lb mountain lion or bear carries a lot more threat than a 200-lb walmart clerk.

Not just a predator-animal thing either - we've all see even deer run away at a full sprint after taking a thoracic thru-&-thru with a .30-06 or 7mm magnum softpoint. People often live thru that kind of hit and some even make some distance, but I've never heard of someone sprinting a quarter mile after a chest thru-&-thru with a full MBR-caliber softpoint that way. Man-size deer do it on a regular basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
that's right, which is why the 454 and .44 mag vs bears is a bs claim. you have to hit the brain to have a reasonable expectation of stopping a charge and such guns make such hitting harder. They are also next to worthless vs the 20,000x more likely attack by men or dogs.
Fwiw, in our area, bear are less likely to be encountered than feral hogs. The 'head shot' (ie 'cranial bone') thing is a real consideration for both, and is one reason I like the heavy caliber in a woods gun. A 9mm, 45acp, etc are completely in my comfort zone for anti-personnel defense, but on a hog or bear with their massively thick skulls, I want more thump; as long as it's running at a decent velocity. Reason I carry a .454 is because in the woods I prefer a DA revolver to an auto. Right or wrong, it’s simply reality and one of those “it is what it is” things. I do carry it with reduced loads running 900 ft/lbs rather than the typical 1800-2000 ft/lbs of full 454 loads. With those reduced loads, with that gun’s heavy frame, and frankly with my wrist strength, good hit speed isn’t much of a problem. And the >1300fps velocity reduces the likelihood of bullet deflection from heavy bones, compared to a slower bullet of the same diameter.

That said, if weather permits, I’ll be bush-hogging a bunch this weekend, and since snakes are the main issue in those circumstances, will actually be carrying a gun on pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum; a mini-1911 loaded with shot loads. (If it doesn't rain again - I've been trying for the past two weeks to get this bush-hogging done...) Never found a 9mm shot load that will reliably cycle an auto, but the CCI .45 shot loads run fine in my old detonics, so that’s what I use them in.

Even allowing that on rare occasions I use the 1911 for shot-load use, that variance in desired load types (light, heavy, snake shot, whatever) is part of why I prefer a revolver as a woods gun 99% of the time. It lets me use any type of load I want, including shot loads and loads from 200 to 2,000 ft/lbs, with complete reliability; something an auto doesn’t give me.

Curious why a .44 or .454 would be considered ‘next to worthless’ against dogs or men. Because of power levels or because of being a revolver thing? I hugely prefer an auto for defensive use, but imo revolvers can do just fine also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
you're foolishly hung up on the idea that bears are the main threat.
You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you? I specifically said just the opposite, that they're LESS likely to be encountered than hogs; and yes, hogs are even less likely to be encountered than feral dogs. Don't know about your area, but here, feral dogs are much-more-often encountered in the woods than hostile humans.


...Furthermore, you assume that you'll get that big club in your hand in time, which sure as hell aint likely.
Why on earth not? It's on my body with its grip about three inches from my navel, with no snaps or straps to undo:

Carried on-body like that, accessible with no encumbrances, in the same position I've carried it for years, what would prevent me from reaching it?

As far as it being a "big club", hardly. I've mentioned before about having had it shortened years ago:



...and then you assume that body shots will suffice, when they probably wont.
Once again - if you had bothered to read and process what I wrote rather than jump to bias-based conclusions, you would know that I said just the opposite. I specifically said that the thick cranial bones on hogs & bears were a real part of my thoughts. How in the world does that lead you to think that I assume body shots will suffice?


So, basically, you're ignorant of the facts of the matter.
Seriously? You twice in this very post claimed that I said or thought something that was the exact opposite of what I actually DID say.

Done out of either ignorance on your part or malice on your part; curious which one...?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you?

...Why on earth not? It's on my body with its grip about three inches from my navel, with no snaps or straps to undo

...Carried on-body like that, accessible with no encumbrances, in the same position I've carried it for years, what would prevent me from reaching it?

...I specifically said that the thick cranial bones on hogs & bears were a real part of my thoughts. How in the world does that lead you to think that I assume body shots will suffice?

...Done out of either ignorance on your part or malice on your part; curious which one...?
Still waiting for a response...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
oh yeah, and SO MANY people get attacked by grizzlies, right? 5 a year in the lower 48 states and almost all of those were provoked by some sort of stupidity.
You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you?

...Why on earth not? It's on my body with its grip about three inches from my navel, with no snaps or straps to undo

...Carried on-body like that, accessible with no encumbrances, in the same position I've carried it for years, what would prevent me from reaching it?

...I specifically said that the thick cranial bones on hogs & bears were a real part of my thoughts. How in the world does that lead you to think that I assume body shots will suffice?

...Done out of either ignorance on your part or malice on your part; curious which one...?
Still waiting for a response...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
Still waiting for a response. For three days now. An emotionally secure man would defend his writings; not abandon his own thread when asked questions.

Even a simple response of 'I misunderstood or misread your post' or something similar would approach mature discussion. Not full-blown mature discussion, but much closer than this 'run and hide in a new thread' silliness we constantly see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
As this got rolled onto another page, figured I'd repost the questions to make it easy:

You didn’t even read what I wrote, did you?

...Why on earth not? It's on my body with its grip about three inches from my navel, with no snaps or straps to undo

...Carried on-body like that, accessible with no encumbrances, in the same position I've carried it for years, what would prevent me from reaching it?

...I specifically said that the thick cranial bones on hogs & bears were a real part of my thoughts. How in the world does that lead you to think that I assume body shots will suffice?

...Done out of either ignorance on your part or malice on your part; curious which one...?
Still waiting for a response...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
Still waiting for a response, for six days now.

How cowardly and insecure does a person have to be, to not even be willing to defend his own statements on an internet forum..?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
...How cowardly and insecure does a person have to be, to not even be willing to defend his own statements on an internet forum..?
Apparently the answer is "quite a lot". Six days later, making more than 40 posts on this forum since I asked the simple, civil questions (including posting in this very thread since I asked), and still incapable of defending his own words. And it's not even in person; just faceless, danger-less internet conversation.

Cowardly and insecure indeed...


John, fact is you're the one that's "dared" me (and others) to point out one error or inconsistency on your part, and I've been kind enough to refrain for the most part. Would be more than willing to do so, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,945 Posts
...Why on earth not? It's on my body with its grip about three inches from my navel, with no snaps or straps to undo

...Carried on-body like that, accessible with no encumbrances, in the same position I've carried it for years, what would prevent me from reaching it?

...I specifically said that the thick cranial bones on hogs & bears were a real part of my thoughts. How in the world does that lead you to think that I assume body shots will suffice?

...Done out of either ignorance on your part or malice on your part; curious which one...?
Still waiting for a response...



...Six days later, making more than 40 posts on this forum since I asked the simple, civil questions (including posting in this very thread since I asked), and still incapable of defending his own words. And it's not even in person; just faceless, danger-less internet conversation.

Cowardly and insecure indeed...


John, fact is you're the one that's "dared" me (and others) to point out one error or inconsistency on your part, and I've been kind enough to refrain for the most part. Would be more than willing to do so, though.

Now at 12 days and more than a hundred posts; and still no response to these simple questions in your own thread...

Explain how I'm wrong and you're right on the idea that I can't get to my crossdraw-carried gun, or how my stated allowance for thick cranial bones means that I plan to use body shots rather than head shots.

Sad indeed. Come on out and play, John... :laugh:


(Keep calling me a liar and BS'er, and my pointing out of your incompetence and errors will certainly continue; simply because you're an error-prone incompetent, after all.)
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top