>I'd rather get mauled by a bear than intentionally take

>>32747657
you work with fags my man

>>32747657
Darwin claims another and no reason to care

>>32747657
All I have is black bears. Getting mauled by them would be the most adorable way to die.

>>32747657
>Personally I'd rather...
You mean you are a rational living being? Nature is cruel and violent. Animals kill each other all the time for the fuck of it and don't eat them. A bear comes at me and I'm dumping magazines.

Nothing of value lost.

What is the best lead based bear spray?
I hear some anons claim 10mm is enough but it sure doesn't seem like it.

Reminds me of my fiancés sister who said "if it came down to me having to kill someone to defend my life I would probably die because I don't think I could kill another human." Some people are just not worth living under our flag.

>>32747657
Whatever. Natural selection has to happen somehow.

>>32747657

Why doesn't the dumb fuck just use bear spray then?
Literally every study ever done shows its far more effective than using a gun anyway.

>>32748581
If I was worried about bears I'd never take anything smaller than an AR-15. Fuck pistols when dealing with Grizzly bears.
And really, I wouldn't want to trust myself with .223 either. I'd probably take a shotgun with slugs or a .30-06.

>>32747657

I'd rather that person get mauled as well hopefully preventing them from passing down their weak genes

>>32749095
>.30-06
Why not .308?

>>32749095
>AR-15
>bear
you're a retard

>>32749253
Has much a /k/ hates to admit 30-06 is a very good round. For bear it's a no brainier better than .308 but .308 works just fine too.

>>32749253
Has much a /k/ hates to admit 30-06 is a very good round. For bear it's a no brainier better than .308 but .308 works just fine too.

>>32749576
This

>>32747657
>I'd rather get mauled by a bear than intentionally take his life, I refuse to carry a firearm in the woods

there is a german proverb that fits ere: you shouldn't try to stop travelers on their journey....

>>32749686
>For bear it's a no brainier better than .308 but .308 works just fine too.

why? 308 outperforms 3006 depending on loading.

Would a 12g slug kill a bear? All I have near me is black bears so I'm not too worried but they are very curious.

Thinking of getting the shockwave Mossberg when it comes out for hiking

Also skinwalkers

>>32749725
yes, heck even unloading a 9m on its head will kill a bear.

>>32749576
>you're a retard

if you have the time to take aim, which you should, a 556 between the eyes will kill the bear dead.

>>32749725
>Would a 12g slug kill a bear?

it's the primary go to bear killer so yes.

>All I have near me is black bears so I'm not too worried but they are very curious.
take a 4x4 and smack it over the back to scare it away while somebody spots you with a shotgun. teaching them to be fearful of humans is in both our interest.

>Thinking of getting the shockwave Mossberg when it comes out for hiking
I'd take an AK pistol/SBR.

>>32749718
>308 outperforms 3006 depending on loading.
Even factory .30-06 outperforms factory .308 in nearly every way. If you handload, that gap widens

>>32749674
>>32749686
>>32749773
less than 1% difference except in the most gucci handloads
and even then you can make gucci 308 loads that do the same thing

Stop with this stupid fucking meme

30-06 is a perfectly acceptable round but is no different than 308

>>32750295
>30-06 is a perfectly acceptable round but is no different than 308
you're and idiot. Just stopping by to say this in a retarded thread.

>>32750348
quality first sentence bud

>>32749731
9m Glock 1007 coming to an artillery warehouse near you soon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLPXBIcshE

Stan from Yukon Men -Here are my main guns I use throughout the year.

>>32748273
This attitude is why Black Bears actually maul more people than Grizzlies.

>>32749043
The vast majority of those studies are heavily flawed as any look at their samples will show. The last big one that came out counted as "gun failures" occasions where the person had a gun but didn't shoot, did not shoot until after the bear started mauling someone else, and where hunters were mauled while dressing animals and did not have their firearm on hand.

>>32750740
>This attitude is why Black Bears actually maul more people than Grizzlies.

that would be because black bears live in 100x more areas than grizzlies do

Grizzlies are more aggressive
period

Go read any documentation written by the Minnesota DNR

>>32749576
You know fucking nothing.

>>32749576
I absolutely don't believe an AR15 is enough for bear, but these retards would carry a pistol, soooooo

>>32750751
I would bet a legitimate study would show very few black bears attack people out of the blue. You probably have 98 percent who are attacked, faggot libs who feed them or run away making dying rabbit sounds.

>>32750782
An ar15 can also be chaimbered in 6.5 grendal or 25-45 sharps. I would totally feel fine in bear country with a 7.62x39. I would be totally fine with a 6.5 or hell, a 450 Bushmaster or 458 socom.

>>32750751
>>32750788
Gizzlies are far more aggressive, and everybody knows that Grizzlies are dangerous and steers clear of them. People treat Black Bears like cuddly non-threatening pacifists and are shocked when they eat some hiker in NJ.

Hey /k/ would you prefer to cuddle with a black bear or a grizzly bear?

Father and I want to do a certain hike in August, but it's in a National park with lots of bears in the area.
Just in case, what sort of pistol calibre can be trusted for anti-bear use? It's in a national park, so no long guns, but I intend to just CC something.

Does anyone here remember a thread from a few years back of a fucking moron who wanted to kill a bear with nothing but his knife and his muscles?

>>32750830
Right. My point stands. Their wild animals. We don't have grizzlies and for that I'm grateful.

I kind of feel like hikers these days don't fucking pay attention or listen when there /out.

>>32750869
Glock 20 in 10mm or S&W 29 revolvers in 44mag will do. bring bear spray though. ideally, I'd bring an AK (pistol).

>>32750869
Would they have a liberal breakdown if you carried owb?

>>32750295
>less than 1% difference except in the most gucci handloads
1% difference in what, retard? Velocity? Kinetic energy? I honestly dont know because your stupid assertion is false no matter what youre comparing.

>>32749674
With factory ammo they're so ridiculously close in energy and penetration that the faster cycling of a short action boltgun, significantly lower recoil, and/or the ready availability of affordable semi-auto .308's makes .308 the better choice.

With handloads the .30-06 gains enough over .308 (especially with 180gr and heavier bullets) to justify its usage.

>>32749725
There is literally nothing on this planet that a 12ga slug won't kill. People have killed elephants with it hundreds of times, and the last blue whale to get beached alive was dispatched with a 12ga and slugs (though it took several shots because the game warden was a fucking retard).

>>32749773
Minorly, and with significantly more recoil.

>>32750295
>you can make gucci 308 loads that do the same thing
you get that you can make gucci 30-06 loads too, right? you get that the extra powder capacity means that they will fly faster and have more energy, right?

>>32750910
Velocity when comparing loads using the same weight and brand of bullet (for example, 150gr Powerpoint vs. 150gr Powerpoint, or 165gr Fusion vs. 165gr Fusion). The gap is smaller on the lighter end of things (150 and 165gr bullets) and grows to about 3% with 180gr bullets where the significantly increased case capacity of the -06 outweighs the efficient design of the .308.

The tradeoff is the .30-06 kicks significantly more, having between 25% and 40% more free recoil (depending on load) when comparing rifles of the same weight.

With handloads in a modern rifle, .30-06 drastically outperforms handloaded .308 though. Due to the greater case capacity.

>>32747657
That custormer was a bear in disguise.

>>32749734
Bears have a massive ammount of bone between their eyes dingus.

>>32750985
Good thing rifle rounds are pretty good at penetrating bone then, huh?

>>32750966
Not much greater case capacity dude. It's an argument no one really cares about.

>>32750985
We aren't using muskets anymore shithead.

>>32751015
>Killing a bear with a musket
That's quite manly.

>>32750990
are you guys talking about black bears or brown bears? 5.56 is probably going to blow up on a brown bear forehead. idk about a black bear, seems iffy and inhumane. my uncle shot a black bear in the face once with a .22-250, but it hit him in the mouth/brain-stem.

>>32751006
>not much greater case capacity
.30-06 Springfield case capacity: 68gr H20
.308 Winchester case capacity: 56gr H20
Difference: 12gr H20, or 17.7%

That's pretty fucking significant.

>>32747657

A bear is very unlikely to attack you, anyway.

And if he does everyone with a firearm will try to kill him and pull the trigger, no matter what he says lol. Survival instinct.

>>32751006
>durr .308 outperforms .30-06
>it literally does not in any way except recoil and action length.
>durr doesnt matter, nobody cares

>>32751032
Grizzlies, browns, and polar bears. Any good bonded softpoint or monolithic hollowpoint .223/5.56 will penetrate the skull with no problem.

Don't shoot it with a fucking light-jacketed varmint bullet and you're golden.

People on the east coast hunt black bears with .223 and .300blk regularly, it's quite effective and humane. But then again, a "big" Carolinas black bear is gonna be like 250lbs.

File: Capture.png (61KB, 689x801px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 689x801px

>>32751006
>14.5 grains is not much
lol wat?

There's some serious fuddlore going on. Bullet technology has come a long way. If it's a 100 yard shot or under, with a bullet that's not frangible, it's penetrating the skull.

>>32751068
There's also something called efficiency ding dong. If you're dumping more powder to only achieve small gains...Wow, cool for you.

>>32751058
>Grizzlies, browns, and polar bears. Any good bonded softpoint or monolithic hollowpoint .223/5.56 will penetrate the skull with no problem.
>browns, and polar bears
except people that actually live near them and hunt them, don't carry anything less than a .338 Win Mag or 12ga. most hunting guides won't even take you without that bare minimum.

>>32750862
I know a black bear. Trevor. Funny guy. Would never guess he was gay.

>>32750966
>Velocity when comparing loads using the same weight and brand of bullet
Thats far larger than 1% a quick google search shows a 3.5% difference in velocity with 150 gr nosler tips

>>32751086
>moving the goalpost
lol, muh $0.03 more powder

>>32751094
Funny, my guide for my Kodiak Island bear hunt allowed anything 7mm-08 and up and I took a .300wm. He himself carried a Ruger GSR in .308.
>never even saw a legal bear, dammit

Bullet technology has come a long goddamn way in the last 30 years.

>>32750898
Given that he's Canadian and probably in a Canadian National park, he would probably get arrested.

>>32751111
Dude that adds up fast if you actually shoot.

>>32751096
inb4 underrated post

>>32750740
Fair, but I'd rather take bear spray than nothing, still. It seems like a sensible rec, considering lower training requirement. You may be a natural but many can't even shoot a fucking bear at 10 feet.

>>32751119
ikr, a hundred rounds adds up to a whole $3. fml, I should have bought a .308 instead. stupid me bought a cartridge that gave me the option tho. what was I thinking?

File: IMG_1626.jpg (58KB, 440x398px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 440x398px

>>32747657
You ever read that story where some dude in Alaska got charged by a Kodiak and killed it with his AK74? Had to shoot it like 13 iirc
>tfw never shoot a charging kodiak with glorious 7n6 13 times.
>mfw

>>32751165
Wouldn't you take that as capacity got the job done? I mean...The bear was killed. Good enough for me.

File: trap-card-2.jpg (55KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x600px

>>32751112
so not a 5.56?

>>32749576
You're retarded if you think a full mag of 5.56 isn't enough to kill a bear

You don't even need to be a good shot, if the bear is close enough to maul you, you can just magdump.

>>32751096
Wait, what kind of bear are you talking about?

>>32747657

They won't be missed.

>>32751106
Listed velocities on Winchester's website for 150gr Powerpoint loads:
>.30-06 2920
>.308 2820
That's 100fps, or a 0.4% difference.

Now for the 180gr loads (Winchester doesn't offer a 165gr .308 Powerpoint load)
.30-06: 2700
.308: 2620
That's a difference of 80fps, or a 0.3% difference.

All numbers found at http://www.winchester.com/Products/rifle-ammunition/Performance/Super-X-rifle/Pages/default.aspx

>>32750816
6.5 Grendel is a whole different beast with WAY higher sectional density
Sharps would be maybe marginally better
not really any better SD, but has an advantage in diameter/weight

>>32751193
Shall I link the episode of Yukon Men where the skinny autist kills a grizzly with a single hit from an AR at over 100 yards while shooting m193?

>>32751179
Thats exactly what i would take it as homie. I mean i would love to dump a shit ton of 5.45 into a charging bear.

>>32751236
do it fagit

>>32751196
I don't doubt that you /could/ kill a bear with an AR-15
but an AR-15 is quite far from being an ethical and human rifle for bear hunting, and woefully inadequate for bear defense

if you're going to carry a rifle, you can get a lever gun in an appropriate caliber for bear defense for the same price or less than an AR, or a 12ga pump shotgun for substantially less and have a much more effective bear defense firearm

or, for that matter, you could purchase a magnum revolver and have a more humane (hunting) and effective (defense) bear gun that's handier to carry

>>32751232
Great points. I was thinking of all the different uppers a guy could get and I wouldn't feel outgunned with an AR at all. The sharps has been getting my interest because shared casehead and overall length to keep muh mags but man...25 cal seems to be booking out of it. I wouldn't feel outgunned mag dumping that.

>>32751284
well, if you really wanted to do bear defense right with an AR, you wouldn't go for any of those calibers
you'd go for .458 SOCOM or .50 Beowulf, but that's hardly a standard AR-15

>>32751224
No, you idiot. 100fps is 4% of 2820 and 80 is 3% of 2620.

>>32751304
ah fuck, yeah it is. Sorry, haven't had to actually do math in years.

Anyway, all I argued was that the difference was quite minor.
>and grows to about 3% with 180gr bullets
I had it right the first time ><

File: image.jpg (82KB, 480x726px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 480x726px

>half this thread
pic related

>>32747657
Are they by chance into the voluntary human extinction movement?

>>32751302
I looked at the 50 blowcrittersanewasshole-wulf. Seems rad, but it might as well be as hard to justify as a 375 reaper. Lol.

The 458 is expensive but I could see getting one. Great bullet selection.

>>32751340
the problem I have, if you want a thumper like that, you'd realistically be better served by a lever gun in .45-70
way more ammo available, and more bullet selection

>>32750936
>the faster cycling of a short action boltgun,
Not using a semiauto .30-06 to completely eliminate this argument is just goofy. Just keep your thumb out of the action after the glorious ping and let that bear know why Krauts and Gooks with bolt guns lost WWII.

>>32751352
A lever gun isn't semi auto tho.

They use the exact same bullets.

>>32751358
>the prevalence of cheap and readily available .308 semi autos
How many semi-auto .30-06's are there? Cuz all I can think of are the Garand, the BAR Short Trac, and the HCAR. All of which are expensive (even rack-grade Garands are $1000+ now) and kinda rare.

>>32751374
Yeah but maybe he meant reloading components are cheaper?

>>32751374
.458 SOCOM does, .50 Beo does not
and no, a lever is semi- but it is quite fast

>>32747657
I'd consider it the same as carrying innacity, just with a different minimum range of engagement. maybe up from 21 feet to 25 yards, but I don't live in bear country so I wouldn't know

>>32751337
>it'll blow the deer up
I've been shooting for 3 decades and never once heard anyone say this in any other way than a joke

>>32751386
What part of "they use the exact same bullets" did you not understand?

Both use .458" bullets. The .458 SOCOM was specifically designed to use .45-70 appropriate bullets in the 300-500gr range, just like .45-70.

>>32751374
There's only one, as far as I'm concerned. US Rifle, CAL .30, M1.

>>32751267
Lots of people already have ARs. If you're hunting, obviously it's not optimal, and I would advise strongly against doing so because of the ethics. But if you have a lightweight AR that you want to take for bear protection, and you don't have another gun more optimal for it, then why not? It will kill a bear dead. Some people can't buy guns for every little niche need they have.

>>32751386
>>32751425
I meant already loaded ammo
as well as projectile choice for .45-70 vs .50 Beo

I am aware that .458 SOCOM uses .458" projectiles

now, is there a more constrictive max OAL for the SOCOM?
can it use projectiles as long as .45-70, or with the same ogives

>>32751463
Bullet choice for the .50beo has gotten a lot better, what with the .500mag coming out.

Yes, the .458 SOCOM has a very generous COAL, and can be loaded with anything from 180gr to 700gr+ (heaviest heavy-cast I've seen is 700gr, but it still leaves a little room) and still fit in the mag.

It feeds fine with flat point bullets so ogive is a nonissue for feeding.

>>32751463
.45-70 has a very slight edge over .458 for selection on factory ammo prevalence. I think it's like 6 companies vs. 4. They cost about the same, at around $1.70-$2 a round for factory.

There is a broader array of bullet weights available in factory .458 ammo, ranging from 225gr through 500gr vs. 325-450gr for .45-70.

>>32751416
Someone post the "I hunt with assault rifles." comic.

File: 4 bore.jpg (1MB, 1032x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1032x1200px

if you really wanted to kill the bear with no issue you'd get a overkill gun like a four bore

>>32751425
What part of chill out don't you understand? Lol

>>32751462
A fair critique.
Though I prefer .308 over AR for precisely all these reasons. Solves more problems dead in fewer shots, and if you need a rifle, you might as well go big or go home.

File: 500 NE.jpg (116KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x332px

>going innawoods with anything smaller than .500 Nigger Exterminator

>>32752198
This, who needs that shoulder anyway

File: 1475940225065.jpg (55KB, 366x374px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 366x374px

>>32747657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lCkFygaaQ

File: sa16.jpg (121KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 400x600px

>>32752258
.700 NE in case you really hate your shoulder

>>32748581
45-70, 44 mag, 357 mag, 30 carbine, 30-06, 308, 7.62x54.
No handguns.

Since y'all seem to be bear experts, let me ask a question.

I'm really thinking about heading northwest to work as a horseback trail guide, but I've only ever cowboyed and innawoodsed in places where black bears or cougars would be the biggest issue, and therfore am armed for that.

Would .35 Rem or 7.62x39 be a decent enough saddle gun up there?

>>32750740
The reason there are more black bear deaths are because
1. There are mor than them
2. People just run away rather than calling the bluff charges
Black bears are pussies. I've seen a few when I've been out hiking and as soon as they spotted me they take off. The only time to be worried is if it is late into their hibernation season and they are out or if their cubs are nearby.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 236x170px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 236x170px

>>32751551

>>32752348
Im not sure. I would want to kill a big bear dead fast to protect my horses. I know nothing about horses I would just assume it would be crippling in the middle of nowhere to have a bear kill your horse.

I like 35 Remington for close range. I just don't know...Like others have said...45-70 is the stand by. I have had my eye on getting a 375 Ruger. Maybe look at that.

>>32752433

Damn. That one guy was saying a .44 Mag rifle would do it.

Shit.

Always wanted a .45-70, I reckon.

any gun > no gun

gun you know well > gun you've never shot

and to the dude pathetically trying to argue
>muh .308 defies the laws of physics
go home

>>32752467
I have been halfway paying attention to this thread once people started arguing. A 44 mag from a 16 inch barrel is ok.

I guess dude, just look at price of ammo, what it puts out, is it hard to find, ect. One shitty thing about 35 Remington is it can be hard to find. Can be. Everyone seems to have 45-70. Between it and 44 mag, why wouldn't a guy pick 45-70? Plus it's affordable. If I get a 375 Ruger I'll be paying a lot per round. Ain't nothing a hot nasty 45-70 load can't fubar.

>>32752420

>I hunt with an m2 browning fiddy cal

>>32751337
why would a bullet be designed to wound? that's the stupidest shit I've ever heard, if your bullet is intended to hurt someone rather than kill them you've got a shitty bullet.

>>32752576
Fuddlore from Vietnam era. Why else move from a man's cartridge like the 7.62 NATO to a little mouse bullet fired from a gun made by Mattel.

>>32752531

This is true. It's about weight.

I know what you're about to say, that anybody with enough cajones can pack enough of any round, and being a weightlifter, I agree.

It's about space. A military habit that has rolled over into my outdoors ventures is to have enough ammo for a firefight at all times.

Some people carry the rounds in their gun and 1-2 full reloads, I'm the guy with the rounds in the gun, 4-5 reloads banded together and an extra box in my pack.

Doable with smaller rounds, gonna get tricky with a big bullet.

But I'll figure it out.

>>32752809
Then maybe an AR in 458 socom is what your needs require?

>>32752861

Do they make a good saddle scabbard for that? Because if they do, I can just use the lower off of my existing AR and we're gonna be in business.

File: l2ci.jpg (453KB, 535x800px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 535x800px

>>32750788
>You probably have 98 percent who are attacked, faggot libs who feed them or run away making dying rabbit sounds.
>making dying rabbit sounds

>>32747667
nice reading skills

>>32752391
I remember hiking through North Louisiana and stopping by a rock and having a nice fart. About 20ft away from behind a tree bolted a black bear really fast at an incredibly high speed in the opposite direction. They're cute little creatures, I'm surprised they aren't genetically disposed for some kind of heart condition.

>>32753097
Off the top of my head I'm not sure. I can't image in this day and age you can't find something or figure it out. So many people producing gear.

File: 46e9042342110816fd4342ad97f8f3e6.jpg (125KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 736x552px

>>32753470

Thanks for letting me bounce ideas off of you, my dude.

Have this.

>>32753916
That's classic. Thanks for sharing.

>>32748581
Hot 220gr hardcast is fine, especially in a 15+1 Glock variety.
If you """"" need"""""" more, a desert eagle chambered in anything standard (357, 44, 50) will do OK. Or literally anything that starts with .4 or higher in a revolver.
Rifles and shotguns are for good hunting shots and greater chances of one shot stops. If you want to be carrying one in relatively ready position for your whole outing, go ahead, but handguns are miles more practical.

I'd rather have faggots like that be mauled by a bear too, honestly. It's nice that there are some topics on which we can agree.

File: 1481297712033.jpg (20KB, 408x231px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 408x231px

>>32751336
> I had it right the first time ><
> ><

>>32749576
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/robert-farago/ak-hiker-kills-bear-with-ak-74/

If 5.45 can do it, then 5.56 can.

File: IMG_2164.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>32751374

>not just carrying a deagle brand deagle to deal with bears

>>32749011
I know who I'm raping next

>>32750869
Carry your Tok. You want lots of penetration to reach the heart/lungs (NEVER aim for the head on bear).

However bullet caliber shouldn't matter much if you're in the lower 48, and thus only deal with black bears. Black bears are just less aggressive, retarded, miniaturized brown bears; even 9mm is good enough for them.

>>32752268
isn't this fake? I thought they destroyed the tape

>>32748581
A 12 gauge slug is the ultimate bear medicine.

>>32756281

There are brown bear in the lower 48. You're a tardmeister.

If penetration is most important when dealing with bears, should I carry milsurp M80 ball or are softpoint .308 deer rounds better?

>>32751196
>Implying I won't magdump no matter the distance

>>32756842
Heavier bullets are better

>>32749011
My girlfriend said that the other night. I told her not to worry, that I'd do enough killing for the both of us. I think I upset her delicate constitution.

>>32752576
Because maybe I want to hurt the home intruder before I rape them, dumbass

I'm from a small (like 200 folks) town in the Canadian kootneys, I just want to say fuck bears
I killed them whenever I could

>>32756652
I recall reading an article by a problem bear hunter in Alaska awhile back where he mentions that he stopped carrying his .375 H&H in favor of a .416 Rigby despite the increased weight.

I think his quote was something along the lines of that with the Rigby he could see it physically breaking the bears down when he shot them.

>>32756652

Ever heard of this thing called sectional density?