Self Defence

515034s10ring · Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: Self Defence

My friend just e-mailed this to me.........coincidental to say the least, other than my own liking of the animals ------------->GRIZZLY MAN

I guess it was a limited release and if you view the trailer......yup, the guy was a snack at the end Neutral

mikekuzara · Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Self Defence

The moron let the bears bears know he was not a threat and acted like prey, when you are not a threat and act like prey, you are FOOD! wtf

Another complete imbicile who believed that animals have human emotions and feelings.

The only amazing thing about him is that he didn't wind up being bear crap sooner. Very Happy

515034s10ring · Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Self Defence

With black bears wouldn't catch me without a minimum of a 10MM and 16 rounds plus an extra 15 (not hunting, no restriction)! And some of my friends think that's overkill Rolling Eyes

I can say for sure my undies are going to stay cleaner than the rest, in the event we stumble upon one no matter what size Cool

Flint54 · Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:58 am Post subject: Re: Self Defence

This overly educated, bookworm or whatever he was had no"COMMON SENSE"! I place him in the same light as those that swim freely with SHARKS, defuse MINES, walk on TIGHTROPES and a few other activities.

If you engage in something that can kill you or, thinks of you as food eventually the odds are that you will get bit Shocked

.

I used to jump out of perfectly good airplanes until I had a major malfunction that I was able to survive from. I thought long and hard about what I was doing and about my wife and 4 year old son. They are more important to me than the thrill.

If you play with a wild animal that is bigger than you then don't be shocked with a bad outcome, better yet, don't do it in the first place! Bonk

mikekuzara · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:40 am Post subject: Re: Self Defence

After some thought and discussion with family and friends I concluded that there are different answers to the question depending on the activity.

In the simplest form, the best thing I would use for self defense from a grizzly would be a large 4X4 pick-up truck with a large, heavy, grill guard. Then I could either drive away or hit him with it.

If I were hunting, I would have whatever I was hunting with (rifle), plus a can of bear spray. Since you or a companion can't carry a firearm when archery hunting in Wyoming, that means bear spray and a bow. (If you have a partner to hunt with, you can always spray him with the bear spray, it will distract the bear, ensure your escape, and if your partner survives-he can't charge you with attempted murder like he could if you shot him in the leg)

Hiking, I would carry bear spray and my M1911. Hardball ammo loaded hot. Never use a hollow point or hunting round. With hide, fat, and muscle covering the vitals(especially if the bear is running towards you) you want as much penetration as possible. A shot gun or rifle is going to be more weight and a pain in the butt to carry along with a full pack and all the other gear. I would kep both in belt or shoulder holsters in easy reach. Bear bells or something similar are a good idea. If you are not stalking prey, making noise is the best way not to get mauled. Most bears get very cranky when surprised.

Fishing. I would carry the spray M1911 combo again. A rifle or shotgun is going to get in the way of casting. Again making plenty of noise to keep from surprising a bear is the best way not to get into trouble.

If all else fails, go completely unarmed and take someone you really don't like. Then every morning, fill the outside pockets of their fishing vest/backpack/hunting pants with honey and bacon.

Coyote_Hunter_ · Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: Self Defence

I'd like my .45-70 stoked with any one of several handloads I have worked up. Maybe alternating 350g North Fork at 2183fps followed by 460g hardcast at 1812fps.

The bonded North Fork bullets expand well but have a solid shank to limit expansion, thereby providing deep penetration. Thump a bruin in the noggin with one of these and its lights out. But if it fails, a Cast Performance 460g WFNGC should pretty much go end-to-end, destroying everything in its path. In my penetration tests the 460g CP took out 50% more water jugs (9 versus 6) than its closest competitor. (It was matched and exceeded by the 500g Speer African Grand Slam Tungsten Solid but that bullet is definitely not safe to use in a tubular magazine.)

In 1983 the Forest Service published a study called â€œSafety in Bear Country: Protective Measures and Bullet Performance at Short Rangeâ€. The article can be found at www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr152.pdf .

Not only is the USFS study data dated (1983), it is horribly flawed. I entered the authorâ€™s data into a spreadsheet and made my own calculations, with drastically different results. More about my results later, but first, some excerpts regarding their methodology, and a few comments about its flaws:

Quote::

We evaluated each cartridge-bullet weight-barrel length combination tested by four ballistic categories: striking energy, penetration, retained bullet weight, and bullet expansion. We also measured bullet velocity because energy is a function of bullet weight and velocity.
â€¦
To determine expansion, we measured to the nearest 0.01 inch the maximum diameter of the bullet (or the largest fragment) and the diameter at 90 degrees to the maximum diameter. The cross-sectional area of this ellipse was determined by the formula A=3.1416 ab, where a = maximum diameter and b = diameter at 90degrees to a. Both retained bullet weight and expansion were expressed as a percentage of the weight and cross-sectional area of an unfired bullet pulled from a cartridge identical to that fired in the tests.
â€¦
Because we had no unbiased way to determine the relative importance of each ballistic category, we considered each to be equally important. Our first step in evaluating overall ballistic performance was to calculate the average value in each category for the three shots fired from each test combination. We then divided each average by the maximum average value in its category to convert it to a relative proportion of the maximum value encountered during the tests. We rounded the quotient to two significant decimal places and multiplied by 100 to eliminate decimals. This transformation also eliminated the different category units and allowed all four to be arithmetically combined into a single performance score. We calculated this score by multiplying the four relative scores of each test combination. To eliminate the use of unwieldy eight-digit numbers as scores, we divided the product by 100,000 and rounded the quotient to the nearest whole number. This provided a two- or three-digit score for each test combination, which we ranked in highest to lowest order.

Your government funded study canâ€™t get the formula for the area of an ellipse correct, but there are even bigger problems. Accepting their definitions for â€˜Aâ€™, â€˜aâ€™ and â€˜bâ€™, the correct formula is â€œA=3.1416 * 1/2a * 1/2bâ€, not â€œA=3.1416 a * bâ€. The formula error resulted in a calculated expansion that was 4x greater than it should be, and erroneously skewed the results in favor of expanding bullets regardless of their initial or final diameters.

Further, the authors donâ€™t seem know the difference between â€œretained bullet weightâ€ and â€œpercent retained bullet weightâ€, or between â€œbullet expansionâ€ and â€œpercent bullet expansionâ€.

Consider the following bullets:
.224â€ 55g, expanded 100% to .448â€ and retained weight of 100% or 55g, and
.458â€ 405g expanded 64% to .750â€ and retained weight of 90% or 364g.

Using the authorâ€™s methodology, the .224â€ bullet would score 100 in both retained weight and expansion, while the .458â€ bullet would score 64 and 90 respectively. These interim scores are then multiplied together (along with those for striking energy and penetration, which we will ignore for now) to achieve a final score. Hence the .224â€ bullet scores 10,000 while the .458â€ bullet scores 5,760, or a little over half what the .224â€ bullet scores in these categories. The authorâ€™s methodology resulted in silly stuff like a 7x57 Mauser with a 175 grain bullet with a retained weight of 91g outscoring a 12 gauge 438g slug with a retained weight of 420g, even though the slug out-penetrated the 7mm bullet.

It seems to me that it would make much more sense to compare retained weight in grains, not percent, and bullet expansion in inches instead of percent, and base the scores accordingly. In this manner, the .224 scores 55 and .448, which combine to form a score of 25.19, while the .458â€ bullet scores 364 and .75, for a combined score of 273. I think most of us would agree the .45-70 is more likely to be 10 times more effective than a .22-250 for the purposes cited, rather than half as effective, so this methodology at least passes the laugh test.

I used this method to recalculate scores for all the loads tested in the report, along with some Garrett Hammerhead loads and loads based on handload data.

Here are the US Forest Service Results:

Code::

Cartridge/Notes....USFS Score....USFS Rank....Weight (grains)....Type....Brand....Velocity @ 15 Yards (fps)....Energy @ 15 Yards (fpe)
.458 Win. Mag.............538.....1....510....RSP....W-W....2074....4871
.460 Why. Mag.............467.....2....500....RSP....WBY....2364....6204
.375 H&H Mag. (L).........301.....3....300....SSP....W-W....2541....4903
.338 Win. Mag. (S)........260.....4....300....RSP....W-W....2314....3568
.375 H&H (L)..............239.....5....270....RSP....R-P....2659....4241
.338 Win.Mag. (S).........213.....6....200....PSP....W-W....2699....3235
.338 Win. Mag. (S)........197.....7....250....SSP....W-W....2507....3491
.338 Win. Mag. (L)........191.....8....200....PSP....W-W....2634....3563
.338 Win. Mag. (L)........186.....9....300....RSP....W-W....2360....3710
.375 H&H Mag. (S).........185....10....300....SSP....W-W....2401....3843
.30-06 U.S................157....11....220....RSP....R-P....2261....2498
.30-06 U.S................153....12....180....RSP....R-P....2456....2411
.444 Marlin...............146....13....240....FSP....R-P....2237....2668
.358 Winchester...........142....14....200....SSP....W-W....2366....2488
7mm Rem.  Mag.............141....15....175....PSP....W-W....2709....2853
.375 H&H (S)..............137....16....270....RSP....R-P....2456....3735
.45-70 U.S. (S)...........133....17....300....HSP....FED....1573....1649
.308 Winchester...........128....18....180....RSP....FED....2430....2360
.45-70 U.S. (L)...........124....19....300....HSP....FED....1666....1849
.358 Norma Mag............115....20....250....PSP....NOR....2730....4139
8mm Rem. Mag..............107....21....185....PSP....R-P....2991....3676
.300 Weatherby Mag........104....22....180....PSP....WBY....3033....3678
.338 Win. Mag. (L)........100....23....250....SSP....W-W....2594....3735
.350 Rem. Mag..............93....24....200....SSP....R-P....2568....2931
7x57mm Mauser..............87....25....175....RSP....FED....2419....2274
12-gauge x 2-3/4 inch......74....26....438....LRN....FED....1398....1902
.45-70 U.S. (L)............65....27....405....RSP....R-P....1322....1572
.300 Win. Mag..............60....28....200....PSP....FED....2699....3237
.300 Weatherby. Mag........59....29....220....RSP....WBY....2798....3826
.45-70 U.S. (S)............50....30....405....RSP....R-P....1211....1319
8mm Rem. Mag...............49....31....220....PSP....R-P....2779....3773
.44 Rem. Mag. (L)..........47....32....240....LGC....R-P....1401....1046
.300 Win. Mag..............44....33....180....PSP....FED....2959....3268

Here are my results, based on ADDing the individual scores (Additive Rank) for energy, penetration, retained weigh and expansion. (Since I didnâ€™t have weight retention and expansion data for the new loads, I used the averages for the original four .45-70 loads.) I also included a â€œMultiplier Rankâ€ based on my methodology, which corresponds closely but not exactly to the â€œAdditive Rankâ€:

Code::

Cartridge/Notes....Weight (grains)....Type....Brand....Velocity @ 15 Yards (fps)....Energy @ 15 Yards (fpe)....Multipier Rank....Additive Rank
.458 Win. Mag............. 510....RSP..........W-W........2074....4871.....1.....1
.460 Why. Mag..............500....RSP..........WBY........2364....6204.....2.....2
12-gauge x 2-3/4 inch......438....LRN..........FED........1398....1902.....3.....3
.45-70.....................540....HC...........Garrett....1550....2880.....4.....4
.45-70.....................400....JFP..........Speer......2002....3560.....5.....5
450M.......................400....JFP..........Speer......1958....3405.....6.....6
.45-70.....................420....HC...........Garrett....1850....3200.....7.....7
.45-70.....................350....JSP..........Hornady....2191....3730.....8.....8
450M.......................350....JSP..........Hornady....2196....3747.....9.....9
.45-70 U.S. (S)............405....RSP..........R-P........1211....1319....17....10
.375 H&H Mag. (L)..........300....SSP..........W-W........2541....4903....15....11
.45-70.....................300....Partition....Nosler.....2424....3914....10....12
.45-70.....................420....HC...........Garrett....1650....2450....12....13
450M.......................300....Partition....Nosler.....2321....3588....11....14
.45-70 U.S. (L)............405....RSP..........R-P........1322....1572....16....15
.45-70.....................300....Nosler Par...Garrett....2150....3080....13....16
450M.......................250....XFN..........Barnes.....2509....3494....14....17
.375 H&H (L)...............270....RSP..........R-P........2659....4241....18....18
.338 Win. Mag. (L).........300....RSP..........W-W........2360....3710....20....19
.338 Win. Mag. (S).........300....RSP..........W-W........2314....3568....21....20
.375 H&H Mag. (S)..........300....SSP..........W-W........2401....3843....19....21
.358 Norma Mag.............250....PSP..........NOR........2730....4139....25....22
.45-70 U.S. (S)............300....HSP..........FED........1573....1649....23....23
.45-70 U.S. (L)............300....HSP..........FED........1666....1849....22....24
.338 Win. Mag. (L).........250....SSP..........W-W........2594....3735....27....25
.338 Win.Mag. (S)..........200....PSP..........W-W........2699....3235....26....26
.30-06 U.S.................220....RSP..........R-P........2261....2498....30....27
.375 H&H (S)...............270....RSP..........R-P........2456....3735....28....28
.300 Weatherby Mag.........180....PSP..........WBY........3033....3678....35....29
.300 Weatherby. Mag........220....RSP..........WBY........2798....3826....36....30
.444 Marlin................240....FSP..........R-P........2237....2668....24....31
.338 Win. Mag. (S).........250....SSP..........W-W........2507....3491....29....32
.338 Win. Mag. (L).........200....PSP..........W-W........2834....3563....31....33
.300 Win. Mag..............200....PSP..........FED........2699....3237....39....34
8mm Rem. Mag...............220....PSP..........R-P........2779....3773....40....36
.44 Rem. Mag. (L)..........240....LGC..........R-P........1401....1046....33....35
.358 Winchester............200....SSP..........W-W........2366....2488....32....37
.350 Rem. Mag..............200....SSP..........R-P........2568....2931....34....38
.30-06 U.S.................180....RSP..........R-P........2456....2411....37....39
.308 Winchester............180....RSP..........FED........2430....2360....38....40
8mm Rem. Mag...............185....PSP..........R-P........2991....3676....41....41
7mm Rem.  Mag..............175....PSP..........W-W........2709....2853....42....42
7x57mm Mauser..............175....RSP..........FED........2419....2274....43....43
.300 Win. Mag..............180....PSP..........FED........2959....3268....44....44

My results arenâ€™t perfect either, as the .300 Win Mag 180g bullet comes in dead last, but I think the overall results make far more sense than what the USFS concluded.

Although I determined the methodology first and built my spreadsheet accordingly (rather than build the spreadsheet to make the numbers come out a particular way), I was not surprised the .45-70 did far better than in the USFS study. What did amaze me was 16 of the top 17 rankings went to a .458â€ bullet or bigger (12 gauge), and included ALL the .45-70 and 450 Marlin loads, even the original .45-70 loads tested by the USFS. The lone exception was a .375H&H load that came in at #11.

If anyone wants this spreadsheet, send me an email.

515034s10ring · Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:06 am Post subject: Re: Self Defence

As i do agree with 'some' results of that spreadsheet. No where is to be found results of a 454 Casull in 300+ grain or a 44Mag in a Garrett 330 (i don't know anyone that would ever carry a 240gr bullet in a 44 for the sole purpose of defense) grain (or the likes) which that would be often carried. And maybe for kicks to even add the 480 Ruger, 460 S&W, 500 S&W, and 10MM.

But yeah, flawed and old data....not a good mix Confused

Coyote_Hunter_ · Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:35 am Post subject: Re: Self Defence

515034s10ring -

I only listed the rifle data. There was a separate section for handguns. (I know, the .44 and .454 are available in long guns. I think the .480 may be as well, but I'm not familiar with any chambered for the .460 or .500.)

The rifle data is still pretty useful even though the WSM's and RUMs and STW's are not represented at all and the .340 and .375WBY's are missing as well. Nevertheless cartridges range from the 7x57 to the .460WBY and the 12 ga. I don't think a little interpolation is out of order.

Bullet selection could be better as well, as I would prefer premium bullets in most rifles (Partition, A-Frame, North Fork, Trophy Bonded, TSX or MRX, Failsafe, etc.).

515034s10ring · Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:01 am Post subject: Re: Self Defence

Very true and well put coyote hunter Cool

I only used Trophy Bonded (250 grain) out of my .338WM and with knowing i could see better groups (i was a severe stickler for group size) i switched to Barnes in their respective weights. The only thing noticed different was the enterence wound where the Barnes did open up more, but exit stayed closely the same.

But i still rather have a 10MM or 44Mag on my hip to do the job Very Happy