gun for backpacking

[kid]

Me and some buddies are going to go and do thwe tahoe-yosemite trail either this summer or next. Since it iis a long trip, and is through bear country we want to have a couple of guns; but since weight is an issue we haven't found a gun that is light enough and has a heavy enough caliber to defend from bears. Any one have any ideas??

[RobertRogers]

How about carrying pepper spray? The problem with guns is that A) They are dangerous for the inexperienced B) A shot may serve to enrage a bear rather than stop it C) it may be difficult to deploy a gun in time if the event happens unexpectedly D) Park officials, and others, may frown upon heavy artillery E) you may hesitate to use a gun on a person or animal (its one thing to talk about doing it, quite another to actually do it). However with spray, since it is not deadly force, you are more likely to use it F) the list goes on and on.

There is little need to be afraid of bears in the first place - you are safer in the wilderness than you are walking down the street of any city. This is a fact.

[Ole WV Coot]

Skip the firearms completely. If you have to ask you aren't experienced enough to hit with a heavy handgun, rifle is too obvious and neither is a guarantee of a stopping hit. Buy the spray and everyone keep it on them at all times but don't depend on it. Caution and reading a little about the animals to learn their habits is #1, but don't depend on any animal or person for that matter doing anything predictable except the Ranger who will frown on your artillery. Just my opinion and wasn't trying to insult your intelligence.

[Rick]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used......

Leave the armor at home.

You may want to read this post:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?t=708&highlight=carrying+park

[Beowulf65]

Most on here know I'm a cop no big secret, so here is a little on guns and backpacking in a park as posted in another thread. A gun is not kit for survival but since you asked and may be to lazy to follow Rick's link here ya go."I want to carry a firearm for protection." Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in national park activities. The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in state and national parks in the United States generally, are extremely low. Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons. Crimes indexed by the Park Officials Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within State and National parks tend to be drug possession, petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas. Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults. The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within the State and National Parks. All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by federal and state park law enforcement does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever. There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms and
The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms.
Statistics collected by park law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders. Carry the bear spray as suggested a good one used by a friend of mine (Medicine Wolf on this forum) in Montana who is a Ranger in the middle of bumblefook nowhere is- Counter Assault Bear Deterrent.
Bushwacker Backpack & Supply Co. Inc.
120 Industrial Court
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Mr. Pride Johnson
Tel: 1-800-695-3394
E-Mail: original@counterassault.com
Website: counterassault.com

Bear Spray plays an important part in reducing attacks during human encounters with bears. It is an effective deterrent of North American bears, but it can be adversely affected by wind, rain, temperature, and even how close the bear is when it charges. When purchasing bear spray it is important to remember that personal defense sprays are not the same as bear spray. Although both types of sprays are made from oleoresin capsicum, it is the capsaicin and related capsaicinoids that are the active ingredients in bear spray. Therefore, if you see claims on a large can that state 10%, 20% or 30% oleoresin capsicum, it is a personal defense spray, not bear spray.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates bear sprays pursuant to an Act of Congress. Look for the EPA registration and establishment numbers, usually found at the bottom of the front label; only bear sprays will have this information. Also, bear spray labels will clearly refer to bears, and state it is a bear deterrent, bear repellent, or for stopping attacking bears.
Currently the EPA requires that the concentration of Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids range between 1 and 2.0%. The variance in potency within this range is negligible, and all will affect the eyes, nose, throat and lungs of a bear. The minimum size can the EPA will register is 7.9 ounces, or 225 grams.

Just some food for thought.
Beo,

[Rick]

Beo, truly an excellent post.

And don't dink around with the bear spray, either. A friend of mine thought it would be cute to squirt a bit up in the air. He did. A breeze caught it and it landed on another buddy behind us. It was not a pretty scene.

[canid]

when i was growing up in juneau there was a tourist who had bought some bear spray for a hike. he ended up in the ER because he thought it was used like insect repellant. according to my mother; true story.

[Rick]

That's where my buddy wound up. On O2 and getting his eyes rinsed. The guy that sprayed the stuff laid low for a couple of weeks till things cooled down.

[Beowulf65]

I hope by no means does anyone think I don't support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I do whole heartedly, but I don't think one is needed in a National Park for hiking, the spray is much better and won't get you in trouble. I am an avid hunter with my Long Bow and Flintlock and carry off duty in case I run into some Johnny Butterbut I have locked up and he wants to start some bulljunk. I even do Starvation Treks and Canoe Treks with my flinter but we always get the permission from the needed local or federal government to do this.
Anyhow, just letting ya know I support the RIGHT TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS, (but please if ya got back fat on your arms wear sleeves:D

[Rick]

Dude, there is something seriously wrong with you (wickedly funny, though).:D

[corndog-44]

Beo, truly an excellent post.

And don't dink around with the bear spray, either. A friend of mine thought it would be cute to squirt a bit up in the air. He did. A breeze caught it and it landed on another buddy behind us. It was not a pretty scene.

That would be my luck, Rick. The wind would be blowing from my back when I aim the spray at the bear and just as I sprayed the wind would change direction and blow from behind the bear and towards me :eek:. Maybe it would be better while in bear country if I got a pole and made a spear out of it and sit at the base of a big tree with the butt end of the spear propped against the base of the tree and tell the bear, "Come on you ******come and get it!! :mad:

[Rick]

There was this awful moment when it was just sooooo funny. The minute that spray hit him in the face. Then there was this quick realization that he was in real trouble. I think he would have killed at that moment if he had the capacity. He still doesn't find it funny and it's not a point ever brought up in his presence.

[Beowulf65]

That would be my luck, Rick. The wind would be blowing from my back when I aim the spray at the bear and just as I sprayed the wind would change direction and blow from behind the bear and towards me :eek:. Maybe it would be better while in bear country if I got a pole and made a spear out of it and sit at the base of a big tree with the butt end of the spear propped against the base of the tree and tell the bear, "Come on you ******come and get it!! :mad:


Or grease yourself in bacon fat and run naked through the woods, end result will be the same, Bear leaves with a full belly :D

[Rick]

See? That there is kinky I don't care who you are. Are you chasin' the bear or is he chasin' you? Kinky, kinky, kinky.

[trax]

See? That there is kinky I don't care who you are. Are you chasin' the bear or is he chasin' you? Kinky, kinky, kinky.

that's just sad, I think you should go hover over the underlined red letters in the other post.....

[Beowulf65]

what if ya took your buddy's bear spray and replaced it with that gag Bullsh** spray and he used it on a bear:D lol...

[corndog-44]

Or grease yourself in bacon fat and run naked through the woods, end result will be the same, Bear leaves with a full belly :D

Hey thanks Beo. Never thought about getting naked in front of a hungry bear...I can see the look on his face :eek: "Holy crap...I ain't eat'n that!!", he says. :D

[Rick]

I know a mechanic that filled an old fire extinguisher with kerosene and put it back in one of the trucks. A couple of months went by and the driver ran up behind another truck that had a wheel bearing on fire. He grabbed that extinguisher, ran up and gave the wheel bearing a good spritz. The flames jumped up quite bit. He sprayed it again and the flames just a bit more. The other driver looked at him then at the extinguisher and told him, "I don't know what the hell's inside that extinguisher but I'll pay good money if you don't use it anymore." The mechanic got fired over the deal but it was pretty funny.

[Sarge47]

Okay, leave the howitzer at home; in some places it can be illegal to kill a bear even to save your life. Get yourself a nice long walking staff and nail a strap with sleigh bells or small cowbells to it so that it makes a lot of noise. You and your hiking buddy (ies) dialouge back & forth real loud. Bears usually want to avoid human confrontation. If one sees you and doesn't run off and charges, crouch down, put your head between your legs and kiss your tush goodbye!:eek::D

[Tony uk]

If it is legal where you live you could try and use a tazer i think, hopefully make it go away

[Beowulf65]

Tazer International actually makes a tazer that will take down a full grown Bull.

[trax]

Just what I've always wanted, a device that will kill my meat and cook it at the same time. This is even better than hunting buffalo with a bulldozer. God bless science...and those little New Guinea pygmies...

[nell67]

Not the pygmies again doh!!!!!!!:p

[trax]

Of course the pygmies again. Part of my plan for Free Traxistan (and I know this is off topic, but bear with me) is to offer immigration to the little cuties and put them to work picking mushrooms....you see, I do have a plan!

[Rick]

Who was it yelled out in another thread? Shoot low boys, they're riding shetland ponies!
that there is funny I don't care who you are.

[Tony uk]

Gay Rights Now !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rick]

Is that like an "about face" command?

[nell67]

Of course the pygmies again. Part of my plan for Free Traxistan (and I know this is off topic, but bear with me) is to offer immigration to the little cuties and put them to work picking mushrooms....you see, I do have a plan!

Ok and my job would be in Traxistan???

[Tony uk]

Is that like an "about face" command?

Nope, its like a magical, irreplaceible, surpercalefragilisticxspealadousious kind of .................... Thinggggg

[Beowulf65]

What do gay rights have to do with pygmies? And Trax that's pygmie slave labor... lol...

[Tony uk]

You have to beleve that pygmies can become sexualy confused before you get it.

[nell67]

Nope, its like a magical, irreplaceible, surpercalefragilisticxspealadousious kind of .................... Thinggggg

Gee,I didn't know anyone could acutually spell that!!!

[trax]

beo..dude...I'd pay them!

Nell...queen of traxistan!

Rick...shetland ponies! Brilliant, I could start a short cavalry to combat light DRAG goons....


Tony....apparently queen of scotland....to each their own

[Rick]

There you go. I peed again! I know I did.

[nell67]

Qween!!! sweet,and hello to my fellow (fella???) Qween Tony!

[trax]

You have to beleve that pygmies can become sexualy confused before you get it.

before I get it from any pygmies anyway....They're definitely going to have to answer some "skill testing questions" before they get on their little tiny boats to Free Traxistan

[Beowulf65]

Screew that, pygmie slave labor is cool, what will they really do about kick in your knee caps. Oh snap no wonder I was overthrown!!!!!!!!

[Rick]

It has to be a tiny skills test best administered by the tiny boat captain, named Tiny.

[Tony uk]

Qween!!! sweet,and hello to my fellow (fella???) Qween Tony!

All Hail Queen Tony, Master of the chocolate muffins

Bringer of Haggis

Destroyer of alarm clocks

[nell67]

Hey Tony?? PUT DOWN THE SUGAR MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tony uk]

Hey Tony?? PUT DOWN THE SUGAR MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you talking about ?????

What sugar, Where ?

[nell67]

What are you talking about ?????

What sugar, Where ?
Oh God,it's too late!!!!!!

[Sarge47]

Tony's off his meds again! Also he's coom out o' the closet! I shoulda known there was something phony about Tony when I saw his Kilt was the only one trimmed in lace!:rolleyes:

[Tony uk]

Oh God,it's too late!!!!!!

AHHHH The Nukes Have Been Launched, There Gonna Fry My Sorry A**

[nell67]

Tony's off his meds again! Also he's coom out o' the closet! I shoulda known there was something phony about Tony when I saw his Kilt was the only one trimmed in lace!:rolleyes:

Now THATS funny!!! Nice one Sarge!

[Tony uk]

Tony's off his meds again! Also he's coom out o' the closet! I shoulda known there was something phony about Tony when I saw his Kilt was the only one trimmed in lace!:rolleyes:

Erm *Thinks of wicked comeback* .................... *5 Hours later*

Your a cheese

[RBB]

Me and some buddies are going to go and do the tahoe-yosemite trail either this summer or next. Since it iis a long trip, and is through bear country we want to have a couple of guns; but since weight is an issue we haven't found a gun that is light enough and has a heavy enough caliber to defend from bears. Any one have any ideas??


Specifically in answer to your firearm question: A reliable and reasonable weapon for defense against a grizzly bear would be a 12 gauge slide action shotgun loaded with slugs. I've always preferred the slide action over a semi-auto for a pack gun as they are generally less tempermental. A short barreled shotgun with an aluminum receiver - such as an Ithaca Featherlight, is a fairly low weight weapon. As to pistols, a 44 Rem Magnum is roughly on par with a 30-30 Winchester, and is not a caliber I would care to rely on when facing a Grizzly. Unless you are a good pistol shot and like shooting something like a 454 Casull magnum - more than I do - I'd stick with a 12 gauge slide action shotgun. To be of any use in case of bear attack - your gun needs to be immediatley accessible - which generally requires some training or long term hunting skills.

[traderran]

I have hunted an still hunt Alaska where the question is not will I see bear
but how many. I carry a custom .454 with 4.5 barrel and a mod 70 Winchester
.458. The .454 will put one down for keeps. And yes I know this first hand.
If I was only backing and not hunting I would only carry the .454. By the
way bear spray only ads seasoning for the bear.:D

[Rick]

Carefull, traderran. This trail cuts across Yellowstone National Park and other BLM land. While the BLM recognizes state law on weapons, the National Park Service does not (for now). While your experience may be fine for Alaska it is not okay to tote, concealed or otherwise) on National Park land.

"Neither hunting nor firearms are allowed in Yellowstone's backcountry."

Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/backcountryhiking.htm

[Beowulf65]

Listen To What Rick Is Saying About Firearms On Blm And National Park Land, It Is All True.

[awfoxden]

the only good i can see a gun being in a bear attack situation is to shoot your buddy in the leg so you can out run him. not to mention all of the laws broken as previosly mentioned by carring one in the park. concealed for self defense against other humans is about the only reason i could see for carring one in a state park, and it is still illegal to do so.

[Rick]

Not in Indiana. You can carry concealed in state parks and on BLM land. The only place you can not carry is Corps of Engineers property.

[go2ndAmend]

If legal to carry in that location, I'd pack a Smith and Wesson .357 Airlight revolver in a Wilderness tactical holster. Discreet and deadly combination for man or bear.

[Arkansas_Ranger]

If it's illegal then don't do it.

If you don't know how to operate it or carry it safely then don't do it.

People haven't always had guns in bear country. You can survive without one. If you know what you're doing and can carry one legally then I'm all for it. I'll support you 100%. But are you going to tuck it away in your pack? Won't that defeat the purpose of readiness?

[Arkansas_Ranger]

Not in Indiana. You can carry concealed in state parks and on BLM land. The only place you can not carry is Corps of Engineers property.

I've always guessed it's that way because the poor COE boys don't get to carry guns themselves. Just a thought from a fellow parkie...

[Arkansas_Ranger]

If it is legal where you live you could try and use a tazer i think, hopefully make it go away

Will it work? I've had a TASER deployed on me in training, and I've deployed one against two other people. It worked, but I don't think it would work on a bear. They don't seem to work as we'd hope on dogs, and I recall seeing a TASER video demonstrating the "Animal TASER." Basically the dude drops a bull with one. Cool vid. Look it up.

[Arkansas_Ranger]

the only good i can see a gun being in a bear attack situation is to shoot your buddy in the leg so you can out run him. not to mention all of the laws broken as previosly mentioned by carring one in the park. concealed for self defense against other humans is about the only reason i could see for carring one in a state park, and it is still illegal to do so.

He's right. Ironically, just because you might could carry the gun lawfully it could still be illegal to use it against the wildlife in the protected habitat that you were encroaching upon or simply for discharging the weapon in the park.

If you shot a bear that was about to bite you I wouldn't arrest you unless (a) officer discretion was yanked from me by an upper echelon or (b) you did something stupid like tried to turn the cub den into a petting zoo and mom decided to suggest that wasn't a good idea.

[Rick]

But are you going to tuck it away in your pack? Won't that defeat the purpose of readiness?

I'm sure you know there are packs/buttpacks designed for conceal carry. I think the down side of not carrying concealed in a park is you risk being reported by "concerned" park goers. Don't advertise and you won't get bothered or cause some Ranger to respond to an unnecessary call.

[kx250kev]

I personally don't want to be dead or a part of the food chain (despite the "odds") so I (like James Madison) believe that it is my right to defend my life with a firearm. In that spirit, I've been trying to find that perfect lightweight backpacking defense gun also, but it's not easy. I've settled on a .40 cal polymer pistol with double action fire capability and no safety(or maybe a backstrap/trigger safety) and ideally a decocker for hammer down open carry. A double action trigger allows you to try to fire a second time if the round doesn't fire. I know what your thinking...why not a large caliber revolver like a Ruger .454 Casull? Had one, and it was like carrying around a cinder block. Much too heavy, and with one shot (deer hunting 3 years ago), I managed SIGNIFICANT hearing loss in my left ear, not to mention CONSTANT ringing (aka Tinitus).:( A revolver is a more dependable gun, but 5 or 6 shots is not enough in my opinion. If you are defending yourself from a large animal, you want to throw a lot of lead quickly, and I'm sure your shots won't be well placed. Most state parks in WI will let you possess a gun if it is unloaded and cased. A revolver is just to slow to load in an emergency, but a pistol is pretty damn quick. Slap in a mag, rack and shoot. I also like to attach a light to the light rail and sleep with it "ready to roll" incase something goes BUMP in the night. I've done some penetration testing with .40 cal FMJ ammo, and I'm pretty satisfied that it would penetrate the skull of a bear at 50 ft. The .40 also gives you about 10-12 shots which is better than a revolver. (Technically, my penetration testing for the 9mm FMJ round out performed my .40 and .45 test, and you get 15 to 17 shots) The ballistics of a .40 cal are similar to a .357 at 100 yards, and perform like a HOT and heavier 9mm round. My use of a pistol would also be a last resort as the beast is attacking me. (Shoot when you can see the whites of their eyes :eek:) I like to "open carry" while hiking/backpacking so I chose locations (ie. non-state parks) that allow me to exercise this right.

P.s. I had a buddy who chased a bear out of camp in Canada (entered a tent in the middle of the night) with firecrackers, so you might want to add those to your backpack too. ;)

[Rick]

kx250 - You might want to re-think how quickly you can load a wheel gun. I have no doubt I can load my .32 or .38 and fire before you can load your automatic and fire. I use speed loaders, of course. Once I snap the cylinder closed it's ready. Once you load the clip you still have to cycle a round. By then I've fired. Just a thought.

You might want to take a look at this thread. I just went through the same process and yesterday settled on the Springfield XD .45 Service Model in 4".

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2678

Just for fun, how about a 6 shot wheel gun, a reload and six more shots in 2.9 seconds?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/21940/fastest_shooter_ever/

[Ole WV Coot]

Semi slower to reload? I don't think so. I can push a button, drop the empty mag and reload push down another and fire before the empty hits the ground. In the good ole USA I don't see me going thru a full mag but in a semi controlled situation you don't empty your mag. Fire what you must, if a chance drop the mag before empty and reload. Remember just in case you have a live round in the tube if it's needed. If you empty a mag semis lock the slide open. Drop the empty, reload, hit the slide close, it picks up a round from the new mag and fire. I don't have to drop my pistol down to reload nor get off target, takes a little practice and has to be automatic. I own several wheel guns, a few SA and it took a lot of use to convince myself to change. A quality semi of mine I trust. I can beat a speed loader easily, especially against the average person. I ain't the fastest I've ever shot with but I can change mags and aimed fire before you can drop, dump, reload, raise the revolver and find your front sight. I have carried and practiced with handguns over 50yrs, only have a Win Defender 12ga, Marlin 30-30 for coyotes, and a Ruger 10-22, plus a 50cal front loader, gave everything else to my son years ago. I kinda put myself on automatic and it works for me, guess that's what counts. I use handguns a lot, every type has their use. Just don't "limp wrist" a semi and use the right ammo.

[Stony]

as a person living and working in bear country I agree with the posters advocating
bear (or pepper) spray.
8 ounces af spray can on the belt is much less weight than 7pounds of rifle.

[Alpine_Sapper]

as a person living and working in bear country I agree with the posters advocating
bear (or pepper) spray.
8 ounces af spray can on the belt is much less weight than 7pounds of rifle.

Yeah, but for an additional 6.5 lbs, I get a lot more functionality. So soddy GI, but rifle trump spray every time in my opinion.

[Rick]

Is it against the law to carry both?;)

[kx250kev]

I love my Ruger GP-100 .357, and I'm very accurate with it, but even if I could load it fast (with practice), it is still too heavy for serious hiking in my opinion. :( I've looked into the S&W Airweight models, and I know the .38 is very light from holding it. I'd like to hold the .357 Airweight model sometime, but I still think (for my needs) the polymer pistol is a better solution.

[klkak]

Of all the folks who defended themselves from bears. Most of those who use a gun get mauled after shooting the bear. No of them that used Pepperspray are mauled after using it. For a shot to stop a bear it must be instantly fatal (almost impossible on a moving target). All pepperspray has to do is hit them in the face and the attack is over. I have defended myself 3 time with pepperspray once from one side of my ATV with the bear on the other side. She was in full charge. The spray stopped her dead in her tracks and turned her around. She was gone in a flash. Dont forget that most bears only become a threat when they are to close to use a long gun and at that range unless you hit them in the brain or spine a handgun is only going to enrage them more. If you think you are good enough to shoot one dead with the first shot try a little experiment. Have someone throw a softball (which is slightly larger than a bears brain) at you. You draw your handgun or lift your rifle and hit it with the first shot. In my observations most bears are shot during a false charge which wounds them and makes them mad. If they do runaway after being shot now you are obligated to track it down and put it out of its suffering. I've tracked a wounded bear. It's terrorfying. I'm not telling you this stuff to discourage you or start an arguement, only to inform and educate. It's better to know how to avoid bears then thinking you can kill one if you have an encounter.

[crashdive123]

Don't worry about starting an argument (we can do that easily enough). I want to hear the nuts and bolts from those that have "been there, done that, got the T-shirt". Last November I went hiking in the Smokies. Since I haven't dealt with bears, I did quite a bit of research on the what to and not to do's. I had a hand gun, but also opted for the bear spray (which would have been my choice if needed). So klkak, Hopeak and others - keep it up because I believe you guys "got the T-shirt".

[klkak]

Study shows bear spray effective

The Associated Press


Published: April 20th, 2008 02:32 PM
Last Modified: April 20th, 2008 02:41 PM

A study concludes that bear spray works a great majority of the time in warding off bear attacks.

Biologist Tom Smith and others have published a paper of their research in "The Journal of Wildlife Management."

The study says bear spray is effective 98 percent of the time.

The researchers looked at 83 cases where bear spray was used and found that none of the incidents involved any serious injuries. The red-pepper spray causes painfully swollen eyes and nasal passages on its targets.

Smith spent years working in Alaska as a bear biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey.

He is now a professor of wildlife science at Brigham Young University.

In the report, Smith noted the risk for injury is greater with firearms, the other main means of self-protection. Wounded bears sometimes turn on people.

Johnny McCoy, a Baptist minister and former North Pole mayor, had his ear ripped off in 2001 by a grizzly bear that attacked moose-hunting partner Gary Corle. Corle shot at the bear with his rifle, but missed. The bear then turned on McCoy, who needed surgery to reattach his ear and close large gashes in his forehead, arms and hands.

Bear spray has been used in Alaska for more than two decades. No similar attacks against those using spray in self-defense have been reported.

"Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force," the researchers wrote.

But bear spray also has its limits. Smith notes there have been problems with the spray in the wind, although its biggest drawback may be the one-shot limit.

Smith reported that in "7 percent of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached bears in every case

[klkak]

Thanks Crashdive. I just found the previous artical.

[trax]

If you think you are good enough to shoot one dead with the first shot try a little experiment. Have someone throw a softball (which is slightly larger than a bears brain) at you. You draw your handgun or lift your rifle and hit it with the first shot. It's better to know how to avoid bears then thinking you can kill one if you have an encounter.

And of course, if the little experiment fails...which I'm betting it will, you're going to have to find someone else to throw the second softball aren't you? Good comparison though klkak.

[Rick]

I was thinking the same thing. Just didn't want to say it. I read that and thought, "Hey, I ain't throwing that ball."

[Alpine_Sapper]

I'd rather have a couple bullets in reserve than shoot your load once and have the wind carry it away. What are you gonna do then? Crap you pants? Besides, I humbly suggest this: The only reason that it was effective 98% of the time, and there were "No similar attacks against those using spray in self-defense have been reported." is because after they maced the p!ssed off bear and made it even madder the bear decided to have a nice lunch. Capsaicin flavored even.

:D:D:D

Seriously though, the above was all in good fun. My point to Stony was that the if it's either or, I'm gonna go for the rifle.

I agree with Rick. Carry both. That way when the spray is ineffective because of the wind you still have a real world alternative.

Or god forbid the bear is charging you the same direction as the wind. Then you're getting maced and then mauled by the bear. D@mn, shoulda had the gun.

[trax]

Hey Alpine? Throw this softball at me......:D :D :D :D

[Alpine_Sapper]

Hey Alpine? Throw this softball at me......:D :D :D :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/M-67Grenade.jpg/371px-M-67Grenade.jpg

how about one of these instead? :D:D:D:D

[klkak]

And of course, if the little experiment fails...which I'm betting it will, you're going to have to find someone else to throw the second softball aren't you? Good comparison though klkak.

:D:D:D LMAO

[trax]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/M-67Grenade.jpg/371px-M-67Grenade.jpg

how about one of these instead? :D:D:D:D

OK, follow these instructions:

1. Clutch big round part, depressing small side handle
2. Pull ring
3. Release grip on small side handle
4. Maintain firm grip on big round part, throw ring.

[Rick]

Where's that John Wayne spirit? Pull that ring with your teeth.:rolleyes:

[crashdive123]

What???? Again?????

http://www.peculiarpeople.com/Images/MiscPhotos/toothless_man.jpg

[klkak]

:DYou guys are real comedians.:D I've been charged 4 times. The first time my 12guage blackmagic slug hit the bear in the forehead but did not hit the brain. My hunting friend hit him with a 250gr. Nos. par. from a 338 win mag. in the shoulder. The bear turned toword my friend. Then I hit him again in the ear with another slug which did hit the brain. The bear plowed right over my friend and died about 10 ft past him. This bear had already been shot in the shoulder by another person an hour earlier with a 338 win mag. I had the 870 up to my shoulder in the ready position when the bear charged. If my friend had not also hit him and made him turn I'm sure he would have gotten me. The whole thing happened in the amount of time it took me to cycle the action on the 870. This all happened with the bear no more then 10ft from either of us. The other 3 times I used pepper spray. "No fuss no muss" and I didnt have to prove to the Troopers that it was a justified "DLP" Defence of life or property. The point I'm trying to make is. Chances are you wont have a chance to take an aimed shot. Even if you hit the head you proably wont hit the brain. You are beter off educating yourself about bears and avoiding them.

(We have a saying up here about buying a handgun for bear protection. "File the front sight off, That way it dont hurt so bad when the bear takes it from you and shoves it up you butt".)

[Rick]

Outstanding!!! LMAO!! (to Crashes post).

[Rick]

Based on what those that know have said, I think I'd go with the bear spray. Even if the wind were blowing straight at me and the spray came back in my face, that would be okay. At least one of us won't have to watch what's about to happen.

[Alpine_Sapper]

OK, follow these instructions:

1. Clutch big round part, depressing small side handle
2. Pull ring
3. Release grip on small side handle
4. Maintain firm grip on big round part, throw ring.

lol. Glad I never spent any time in a foxhole with you.

[kx250kev]

Carefull, traderran. This trail cuts across Yellowstone National Park and other BLM land. While the BLM recognizes state law on weapons, the National Park Service does not (for now). While your experience may be fine for Alaska it is not okay to tote, concealed or otherwise) on National Park land.

"Neither hunting nor firearms are allowed in Yellowstone's backcountry."

Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/backcountryhiking.htm

Update: Looks like that's changed.;)
http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

[Cleankill47]

This is my answer to the original question, nothing else.


I think you would be perfectly suited to a full-sized (4"-5" barrel) pistol in .45ACP.

First of all, find one legal to carry and own in your own state (I will never live in CA)

Then, make sure it is legal to carry everywhere else you are going.

Including the park itself.

Then, and only then;

Get a .45ACP you can comfortably hold, that naturally fixates at your point of aim when raised.

Get a comfortable holster, that will not make you want to leave it somewhere or in your pack.

Load it and your spare magazine(s) with some Magsafe ammo.

Carry it.

[skunkkiller]

The best thing to do in bear country is make noice so you don't seprice the bear bells on packs work well.I hunted Admiralty inland in alaska and noice is the best thing to let the bears know you are there they will leave you alone because most times if they hear you will not see them.Admiralty inland has the second bigest grizzlys first is Kodiak.

[canid]

there is a world of difference between a supprize encounter, which can be easily avoided and a predatory or investigative one. the first is considerably more common, but when a bear is actually engaging you in a stalk, even if it is out of curiosity, the best thing you can do is to deter the bear as quickly as possible. with black bears, this can be as simple as yelling and throwing rocks. that has worked for me in the past. it will probably be all that is needed.

i advocate both firearms and bear spray, but i trust the spray to be a first choice the more i think about it, and the more i learn.

if you mace a bear as soon as it's in range, it probably won't come closer. if you shoot a bear as soon as it comes in range, you are probably committing a crime, and as klk mentioned, if it isn't killed and it dosen't charge you, or continue charging you, you still have a wounded and much more dangerous bear roaming around. gunshot bears maul people, and it's not always the person who fired.

a maced bear might enrage, but generally will just retreat. in either event, it can no longer see or smell you which has to be an advantage.

i should point out that if it does enrage, you still have the potential for the bear to stumble on other people or camps in the area, but the rage will not last as long as a bullet wound.

i know this is not an easy subject, and i'm thrilled that there are so many here with enough bear experience to give sound testimony and advice.

[primeelite]

I would say a .45 pistol would be perfectly fine for protection against large game. But really from experience bears will not mess with you unless they are cornered or cubs are around. So really if you just use avoidance then it should be no problem.

Also with all of the talk about pepper spray, the bear spray that I have seen is a gel, not an actually traditional pepper spray, that is developed to be wind resistant up to a pretty high mph wind.

[SARKY]

If you can find one, get your hands on a Taurus Total Titanium Tracker in .41 Magnum. I love the caliber and stoked with Federal Dangerous Game loads it will handle any dangerous game in North America provided you do your part. Be forewarned it is only a 5 shot revolver and with it's light weight kicks like a mule, but when the adrenaline is flowing you will never feel it.

[canid]

and still be forewarned [as also mentioned above]that if you can't get a kill shot off after the animal engaged you it's worthless. otherwise, a worthy round i'm sure, and pistols are certainly more manuverable in close quarters than longarms.

for pistols, i like my .45acp, but that is because it's the only reasonable cartridge pistol i happen to own. i would try to defend myself against an attack [if it came to that] by any animal with whatever i had handy, but i somehow doubt that my 2 shot .22 would help.

[primeelite]

Yeah .22 wouldn't do a thing. I think the .45 acp round could handle a large bear probably if you shot off 3-4 rounds into it. I also heard a story about a guy who was attacked by a grizzly and shot at it with a 9mm and the two shots he got off before it got to him didn't even penetrate but just bounced off the skull.

[jbone]

I found this pretty funny:

http://www.outdooroddities.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/grizzly_bear_warning_sign.jpg

[crashdive123]

Nice.......

[primeelite]

Haha Jbone thats hilarious. I think I have seen that somewhere before but it really does apply to this thread perfectly.

[minuteman]

Since you will be backpacking I would reccomend a .44 magnum handgun or a .357 magnum. You really don't want to compromise your safety with small caliber firearms when it come to bears. In my opinion the best choice would be the .44 magnum. Hope this helps.

[hermitman]

There are some reviews on youtube about topics like this by Nutnfancy where he says you have to weigh mobility vs firepower deppending on the situation seems like good advice.

[BlackEagle]

I searched Google for "backpacking with guns" and found this thread. I enjoy reading posts from knowledgeable people, and this thread seems to have a bunch, so I joined.

Assuming I am in bear country and I wish to carry both spray and my Sig 226 .357, does anyone have suggestions on holsters, either concealed or open? Of course, that pesky backpack waist strap would be in the way. I am thinking that some custom sewing or rigging on the pack might provide an answer, or possibly a pocket on the front of the waist strap similar to the Bianchi 4410. Any other ideas? (Yes, I have a concealed carry endorsement in MO, and therefore about 35 other states.)

And here's some fodder for the "should I carry a gun or not" argument. Bears are not the only safety concern. I have run into a pack of wild dogs on county park land here in Kansas City, and I have run into feral hogs on the Buffalo River in Arkansas. I also ran into a guy once (whose parents had to have been closely related) who was walking around a crowded campsite with a pit bull that was trying desperately to get free from his log chain leash.

I seek enlightenment from those who have more experience or knowledge than I do. Thanks.

[crashdive123]

For concealed carry while backpacking I prefer a small fanny pack worn in front. (wonder why it's not called a front pack) For open carry while wearing a pack I prefer a holster (either sewn or separate rig) that is worn across the chest.

[klkak]

This thread could be moved to the "Guns and Ammo" page.

[lucznik]

Not trying to pick nits here but, I had a few thoughts...

...I've been trying to find that perfect lightweight backpacking defense gun also, but it's not easy. I've settled on a .40 cal polymer pistol with double action fire capability and no safety(or maybe a backstrap/trigger safety) and ideally a decocker for hammer down open carry. A double action trigger allows you to try to fire a second time if the round doesn't fire. I'm not a big fan of the 40 S&W but, otherwise I don't see too much wrong with this logic. Personally, I prefer to have a manual safety on my auto pistols - just as an extra safety measure for the kids and I tend to prefer DA/SA mechanisms. The long, relatively heavy DA stroke for the first shot provides added safety and, if you have the time, the SA option allows for greater accuracy (all other things being equal).

What specific DAO auto are you planning on using?

A revolver is a more dependable gun, but 5 or 6 shots is not enough in my opinion. If you are defending yourself from a large animal, you want to throw a lot of lead quickly, and I'm sure your shots won't be well placed. I watched an interesting dash-cam video of a traffic stop turned gun fight not too long ago. Perp got off the first shot after which the cop unloaded his entire 15+1 from what looked to be a S&W 5906 (a very accurate duty weapon, BTW) as fast as he could pull the trigger and at a range of under 5 yards. Wanna guess how many of those rounds struck the perp? That's right; ZERO! Not one. Luckily he wasn't a good shot either and the cop survived unscathed as well.

Read much about such shootings and you will find that a large percentage of them involve a whole lot of missing. I can't help wonder if that's partially due to the mentality of "throw a lot of lead quickly" that wasn't available when you had only six shots and thus had to make them count.

Accurate shooting is EVERYTHING. No matter how many bullets you have and no matter how powerful they are, if you don't hit the charging beastie, they won't do you any good. You want a clean, solid hit on the brain or CNS. A single shot will do, if the bullet strikes where it's (supposed to be) aimed. If you are shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger, you aren't aiming.

If you prefer an auto over a revolver, that's fine. But whatever gun you choose, learn to control your adrenaline and shoot for accuracy first, speed second.

I also like to attach a light to the light rail and sleep with it "ready to roll" incase something goes BUMP in the night. Of course, the danger here is that such lights put you in the position of violating one of the cardinal rules of safe gun handling: "never aim a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy."

So you're awakened in the middle of the night by some unknown sound, you are unaware of what you really heard, perhaps juiced on adrenaline a bit, and using your gun to illuminate the darkness for an unknown "threat." What happens if something/someone startles you?

You're much better off with a flashlight in your non-dominant hand scanning the area while your gun is held at "low-ready" in your dominant hand, ready to be brought into action should an actual, real threat present itself.

If you just simply insist upon having a weapon-mounted light, make sure you have another non-mounted flashlight as your primary illumination and search tool and activate/use the gun-light only after you have properly assessed the threat and have determined that shooting must now commence.

I've done some penetration testing with .40 cal FMJ ammo, and I'm pretty satisfied that it would penetrate the skull of a bear at 50 ft.
FMJ ammo is not generally a good choice for stopping raging beasties. It's cheap. It can punch paper targets with aplomb. It is however, not a good fight-stopper. Just ask soldiers who are required by binding international treaty to use only FMJ ammo in all their small arms.



Addendum: I just noticed how old this thread was. Sorry, wasn't trying to drudge up old material.

Oh, and as for bears, I'm in full agreement that bear spray is the best primary option and the one most likely to turn an enraged animal before any injuries, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc. occur, but I still also carry a gun whenever I'm in the wilderness.

[MatthewnOK]

I prefer one of these
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/kingmog/deagle.jpg
My grandpa and I both have larger than normal hands so we can both comfortably hold one.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/kingmog/CartridgeComparison.jpg

[catfish10101]

Probably a better idea to wear bells and make noise while traveling to avoid startling a bear. If they know you are coming, most times, they will avoid you without you even knowing it.

[wildography]

I agree with the above; leave the guns at home; carry bear spray. Having lived in Yosemite National Park for 4.5 years, and dealing a lot with Black Bears, I can tell you that 95% of the Black Bears that you encounter will run away when you yell & threaten them. The bear spray is for the other 5%. I've been bluff-charged about 20 times by Black Bear... and the most effective "anti-bluff charge" technique that I've found is to act like a full-grown Grizzley that is going to rip the head off that Black Bear. (PS... never - ever - try that with a real Grizzely!)

You also get those really pesky Black Bears that run away... and come back in about an hour... makes for a poor night's sleep. Bear Spray will help change their minds.

[Rick]

Yeah, but those bells are so hard for the bear to swallow.

[kx250kev]

Not trying to pick nits here but, I had a few thoughts...

I'm not a big fan of the 40 S&W but, otherwise I don't see too much wrong with this logic. Personally, I prefer to have a manual safety on my auto pistols - just as an extra safety measure for the kids and I tend to prefer DA/SA mechanisms. The long, relatively heavy DA stroke for the first shot provides added safety and, if you have the time, the SA option allows for greater accuracy (all other things being equal).

What specific DAO auto are you planning on using?

I watched an interesting dash-cam video of a traffic stop turned gun fight not too long ago. Perp got off the first shot after which the cop unloaded his entire 15+1 from what looked to be a S&W 5906 (a very accurate duty weapon, BTW) as fast as he could pull the trigger and at a range of under 5 yards. Wanna guess how many of those rounds struck the perp? That's right; ZERO! Not one. Luckily he wasn't a good shot either and the cop survived unscathed as well.

Read much about such shootings and you will find that a large percentage of them involve a whole lot of missing. I can't help wonder if that's partially due to the mentality of "throw a lot of lead quickly" that wasn't available when you had only six shots and thus had to make them count.

Accurate shooting is EVERYTHING. No matter how many bullets you have and no matter how powerful they are, if you don't hit the charging beastie, they won't do you any good. You want a clean, solid hit on the brain or CNS. A single shot will do, if the bullet strikes where it's (supposed to be) aimed. If you are shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger, you aren't aiming.

If you prefer an auto over a revolver, that's fine. But whatever gun you choose, learn to control your adrenaline and shoot for accuracy first, speed second.

Of course, the danger here is that such lights put you in the position of violating one of the cardinal rules of safe gun handling: "never aim a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy."

So you're awakened in the middle of the night by some unknown sound, you are unaware of what you really heard, perhaps juiced on adrenaline a bit, and using your gun to illuminate the darkness for an unknown "threat." What happens if something/someone startles you?

You're much better off with a flashlight in your non-dominant hand scanning the area while your gun is held at "low-ready" in your dominant hand, ready to be brought into action should an actual, real threat present itself.

If you just simply insist upon having a weapon-mounted light, make sure you have another non-mounted flashlight as your primary illumination and search tool and activate/use the gun-light only after you have properly assessed the threat and have determined that shooting must now commence.

FMJ ammo is not generally a good choice for stopping raging beasties. It's cheap. It can punch paper targets with aplomb. It is however, not a good fight-stopper. Just ask soldiers who are required by binding international treaty to use only FMJ ammo in all their small arms.



Addendum: I just noticed how old this thread was. Sorry, wasn't trying to drudge up old material.

Oh, and as for bears, I'm in full agreement that bear spray is the best primary option and the one most likely to turn an enraged animal before any injuries, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc. occur, but I still also carry a gun whenever I'm in the wilderness.


My gun is a Beretta Px4 Storm .40

Regarding the light, you make very good points. I will remove the light when using, but keep the light on the rail until then. ;-)

[kx250kev]

you have to weigh mobility vs firepower deppending on the situation seems like good advice.

I agree, mobility vs firepower. Better to have and not need than need and not have. Whether to carry and defend yourself and your loved ones....well...I'll quote Sergeant Al Powell from Die Hard...

"Now you're gonna stand there and tell me that he's gonna give a damn about what you do to him, *if* he makes it out of there alive? Why don't you wake up and smell what you shoveling?"

[rat31465]

In a photo provided by Ron G. Leming, Leming holds the arrow he shot to kill a grizzly bear that was attacking his son while the pair were elk hunting west of Cody, Wyo., on Sept. 12, 2008. Hunters have been killing bears in record numbers around Yellowstone National Park, threatening the species decades-long recovery just two years after it was removed from the endangered list.
(AP Photo/Ron Leming)


http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/picture.php?albumid=101&pictureid=846

My experiences in the woods do not include being in Grizzly country but I have some personal experience with Black Bears, Mountain Lions and Wild Hogs here in S.W. Missouri and Northern Arkansas. I think that its irresponsible for anyone who is going to venture deep enough into the woods away from civilazation and immediate rescue help not to carry a Firearm for personal defense. In my own encounters with Black Bear there wasn't any need for a firearm as the Bear turned and ran as soon as he saw me but the chance of attack from a different type of two-legged creature, one whom walks upright and reeks of beer or worse...makes me feel the need to carry at least my 9mm. I would rather have it and not need it, than to find myself needing it and not having it with me.

[kx250kev]

I think that its irresponsible for anyone who is going to venture deep enough into the woods away from civilization and immediate rescue help not to carry a Firearm for personal defense. In my own encounters with Black Bear there wasn't any need for a firearm as the Bear turned and ran as soon as he saw me but the chance of attack from a different type of two-legged creature, one whom walks upright and reeks of beer or worse...makes me feel the need to carry at least my 9mm. I would rather have it and not need it, than to find myself needing it and not having it with me.

I agree with you completely. I wish more people could understand the basic concept/need for self defense and self reliance while in nature.

On a side note: I personally would not shoot at a bear unless I was definitely under attack. I understand that bear sometimes "bluff rush", then stop their charge, but occasionally they DO carry out a full attack, and in that situation, I want real options to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones. This is only accomplished with real firepower IMHO.

[Rick]

Just to follow up on your other post about 9mm. If that is what you plan to stop a charging bear with then I think you are woefully under armed. You are correct that shot placement is key but I don't think this is a real possibility with a charging bear and an adrenaline filled body. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding between the two posts. I also like 9mm. It's a good self defense round. I like .45 better but I would not want to use either one against a bear.

I'm certainly no expert, never pulled down on a bear. Never faced one in the wild. So I defer to the experts on here and would carry bear spray.

For any threats in the Midwest, where I am, 9mm is a great choice. Packs of dogs is about the most dangerous thing you are apt to run into with 4 legs. Hollow points in either caliber for me.

[rat31465]

No it was never my intent to infer that a 9mm was a good cartridge for Bears. I have never had any life threatening issues with Bears here where I am from, however I have had a couple of run ins with people on the trails and that is why I carry my Glock 17 everywhere I go.

If I were going to be in Bear country I would carry a suitable round for the job...and while I am proficient with a handgun, I am not sure that I would feel all that comfortable with any handgun even with a .44 mag on Black Bears. However, if I were surprise attacked by a Bear and all I had was my 9mm Pistol....I sure wouldn't drop it and pick up rocks to throw as having 18 rounds of Federal hydrashocks would be at least better than spitwads.

I agree with you about the packs of dogs to....I have came across as many as 6 running together while out hiking at Hercules Glade in Mark Twain Forest. I wasn't attacked but did feel like that they were a little to interested in me when the circled around me at about 20 yards away. I fired a couple of shots near them and they ran off. Interesting here to note that I was packing a Ruger Mk-II .22 LR Pistol that day and at the time was all I had.

[kx250kev]

if I were surprise attacked by a Bear and all I had was my 9mm Pistol....I sure wouldn't drop it and pick up rocks to throw

LOL, 15+ rounds of 9mm beats a handful of rocks everytime..(but I'd prefer my .40 S&W)

[lucznik]

I have came across as many as 6 [dogs] running together... I wasn't attacked but did feel like that they were a little to interested in me when the circled around me at about 20 yards away. I fired a couple of shots near them and they ran off... Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

[rat31465]

Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

As I stated they just seemed a little to interested in me. None of them ever assumed an agressive posture nor made any move that would indicate they were ready to attack. I have no way of knowing if they were wild dogs or someones Coon Hounds...None wore collars and they didn't look mal-nourished so at the time I felt a couple of warning shots fired at the ground three feet behind one of them was my best course of action. If any one of them had acted aggressively I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot as I had already positioned myself under a tree which would have been easy to climb.
I knew that I could have easily picked them off one by one if necessary sitting on one of its branches. I shot this little pistol alot and hunted squirrels with it frequently so I wasn't worried about being able to hit a dog with a well placed shot. Plus I had two full magazines in my cargo pants pockets so had plenty of ammo on hand.

[Alpine_Sapper]

Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

Not everyone kills indiscriminately. The dogs didn't threaten him, just check him with a probe. He probed back. They decided better of it. Why escalate the situation further?

[remy]

Cause killing is awesome !
Sorry...couldn't resist.

[Rick]

It really is awesome, isn't it? I mean, think of the power you have invested in yourself. For that one moment in time no one but you owns that level of power. Not Klkak, not War Eagle, not Trax, not me. Just you. In that one instant you can decide to kill or not to kill. It's up to you. Take yesterday for example. I killed probably six times. Every time the bag was full on the mower I just reached down and killed the engine. And, God help me, it felt good. A bit more than awesome that one time my finger touched the spark plug the but the rest of the time...just awesome!

[sgtdraino]

Most on here know I'm a cop no big secret,

As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.

A gun is not kit for survival

I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be the most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3689

Not even close.

"I want to carry a firearm for protection." Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in national park activities. The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in state and national parks in the United States generally, are extremely low.

The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you anywhere are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"

Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons.

And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.

Crimes indexed by the Park Officials Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within State and National parks tend to be drug possession,

I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.

petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas. Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults.

Then why bother arming park rangers?

The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within the State and National Parks. All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by federal and state park law enforcement does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever.

The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to restrict them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is no need to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.

There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms and
The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms.

As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.

Statistics collected by park law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders.

I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.

Carry the bear spray as suggested

I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.

I hope by no means does anyone think I don't support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I do whole heartedly, but I don't think one is needed in a National Park for hiking,

With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't need one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me.

I am an avid hunter with my Long Bow and Flintlock and carry off duty in case I run into some Johnny Butterbut I have locked up and he wants to start some bulljunk.

So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away in a park, and that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.

Assuming I am in bear country and I wish to carry both spray and my Sig 226 .357, does anyone have suggestions on holsters, either concealed or open?

I suggest you always carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.

And here's some fodder for the "should I carry a gun or not" argument. Bears are not the only safety concern. I have run into a pack of wild dogs on county park land here in Kansas City, and I have run into feral hogs on the Buffalo River in Arkansas. I also ran into a guy once (whose parents had to have been closely related) who was walking around a crowded campsite with a pit bull that was trying desperately to get free from his log chain leash.

Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is you.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.

[crashdive123]

Sgt D - you may have to wait a bit for a response from Beo - he's in Afghanistan right now.

[sgtdraino]

Sgt D - you may have to wait a bit for a response from Beo - he's in Afghanistan right now.

I thought I remembered that, too bad I am so late to this thread. Perhaps someone who sees things similarly could speak on behalf of his position?

[kx250kev]

As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.



I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be the most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3689

Not even close.



The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you anywhere are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"



And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.



I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.



Then why bother arming park rangers?



The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to restrict them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is no need to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.



As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.



I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.



I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.



With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't need one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me.



So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away in a park, and that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.



I suggest you always carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.



Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is you.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.


sgtdraino, I'm with you. You hit the nail on the head with all of your points. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to ensure their own life, their own liberty and their own property. The police or rangers are usually left to clean up the mess. The founding fathers said it best..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

P.s. Beo, thanks for your service.:thumbs_up:

[lucznik]

Not everyone kills indiscriminately. The dogs didn't threaten him, just check him with a probe. He probed back. They decided better of it. Why escalate the situation further?

The shooting of a pack of wild dogs is not exactly what I consider to be indiscriminate. In my neck of the woods there are very few people running around with packs of 'coon dogs - which apparently is a real possibility in rat's case and thus, for the explanation of this mitigating circumstance, I am thankful. Any pack of dogs around here is simply a menace - posing a very real danger not only to the game animals in the area, but also to any people, especially children.

Other animals that simply get shot on sight around here include:


Coyotes
Red Fox
Any skunk observed during daylight hours. (Skunks out during the day are almost universally rabid).
(Hopefully soon) Wolves

[lucznik]

As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.



I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be the most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3689

Not even close.



The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you anywhere are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"



And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.



I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.



Then why bother arming park rangers?



The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to restrict them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is no need to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.



As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.



I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.



I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.



With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't need one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me.



So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away in a park, and that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.



I suggest you always carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.



Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is you.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.

I must say, I am in complete agreement with your assessments here.

One of the things I have absolutely no confidence in at all is Law Enforcement's capacity to protect me from harm. That, by the way, is not intended as a slight against any cops. I have some very, very good friends who are police officers and I spend a lot of time working with my local Sheriff's Dept. as a contract Spanish translator.

I just recognize that, if I am going to be the target of criminal behavior, then by the time the police know about the crime, it will already be all over.

I also question Beo's statistical analysis. I too would like to read some of this research as it flies in the face of just about every other study related to concealed carry that have almost universally shown that, in every State that has enacted "Shall Issue" standards, crime rates have gone down.

[glockcop]

4-6" s/s .44 mag and up. Smith or Ruger. Also make sure you are in really good shape so you can outrun your buddies. I know weight is a deciding factor for ya so think about this for a minute...That gun won't feel so heavy once it saves your life. Carry a BIG gun If you are in an area where YOU are not the top of the food chain. Nuff said! Just the same I'd rather have a 12g slug gun or rifle.