PDA

View Full Version : Another bear gun question



DocGP
09-26-2009, 02:00 PM
Didn't want to hi-jack the thread, but someone listed an FAL as one they timed as a bear gun. What is the feeling of a 308 semi as a bear gun? I would think it would be eminently better than most any pistol with the proper bullet selection (heck with fmj's also). So what is the feeling? Would multiple fast access 308 be better than, say, a 45/70 lever? a 12ga pump with slugs?

Doc

elmbow
09-26-2009, 04:06 PM
M-60 or BAR, a do-rag and wife beater would give the bruin visual warning.

Koop
09-26-2009, 06:18 PM
M60? BAR? I can see you're with the "Go Rambo or go home" kinda crowd. :D

I've got the FNAR, which is the tactical looking version of the hunting BAR in 308. It should be fine as a hunting semiauto for a lefty shooter like me, assuming I can find any magazines for it other than the one it came with.

elmbow
09-26-2009, 06:49 PM
M60? BAR? I can see you're with the "Go Rambo or go home" kinda crowd. :D

I've got the FNAR, which is the tactical looking version of the hunting BAR in 308. It should be fine as a hunting semiauto for a lefty shooter like me, assuming I can find any magazines for it other than the one it came with.

Actually Koop, I was referring to the 1918 version, a real man's bear hunting rifle if ever there was one, it's what Mama Boyle carries in her new stealth bear suit. The M-60 will do in a pinch, I just don't understand why they had to shorten the cartridge?? Makes me feel a tad undergunned in the Alaska thickets.

Koop
09-27-2009, 12:59 PM
Doc, I'll try and take a stab at giving you a halfway serious answer. If my gleaning of the experts on this forum is correct, your semi-auto .308, shotgun, or 45/70 would all be excellent choices for handling a bruin bent on your destruction.

The one you should pick is the one which allows you to recover from the recoil quickly enough to place accurate follow-up shots. Good ammo with quick, well placed shots should save you from Mr. Bear.

Elmbow, I thought you were talking about the good old original BAR. Given the choice between the two, though, I'd pick an M-60A4. That last revision of the M-60 is supposed to just about eliminate all the gripes the grunts had about that weapon. It came a little late, though. Practically no U.S. units use M-60's anymore, and they generally deploy the 240B instead.

While I appreciate the 30.06, .308 seems to do the job just fine.

moho
09-27-2009, 02:40 PM
In the '80s, working a lot in interior AK, I briefly considered a G3 carbine variant with a telescoping stock. It was cool, but also heavy and bulky and expensive. And the threat profile that might require that sort of firepower was far more fantasy than reality. Weight and bulk get pretty real if you're carrying anything around all day, every day while working in a cloud of bugs. Also, with experience, situational awareness and perhaps spray, a firearm is far more likely to be just a last resort if you've screwed up.

For dangerous animals, experience favors bullets with more mass and/or energy than the .308 and Guide Guns, folding stock shotguns, and even large handguns often do the job while being lighter and more compact than a battle rifle. So while I'm sure a FAL or similar semi- could be effective for big bears, (AKs are used to poach elephants) with the other options and circumstances, they just never seemed very practical. Never seen a pro field worker or guide packing anything of that type.

elmbow
09-27-2009, 10:11 PM
Doc, I'll try and take a stab at giving you a halfway serious answer. If my gleaning of the experts on this forum is correct, your semi-auto .308, shotgun, or 45/70 would all be excellent choices for handling a bruin bent on your destruction.

The one you should pick is the one which allows you to recover from the recoil quickly enough to place accurate follow-up shots. Good ammo with quick, well placed shots should save you from Mr. Bear.

Elmbow, I thought you were talking about the good old original BAR. Given the choice between the two, though, I'd pick an M-60A4. That last revision of the M-60 is supposed to just about eliminate all the gripes the grunts had about that weapon. It came a little late, though. Practically no U.S. units use M-60's anymore, and they generally deploy the 240B instead.

While I appreciate the 30.06, .308 seems to do the job just fine.

Ya, go figure, as bad as the .308 is in a suppressive fire situation, they replaced it with a weapon that shoots Mickey Mouse rounds, Who's in charge at Big Green anyways?

Doc, sorry for the levity, All them .308 battle rifles are way too heavy, now a 7600 or "sporting" BAR would surely be adequate for your purposes, but I think most folks just don't trust 'em. Man up and do the right thing, a lever 45-70 lobbing lead weights big enough to anchor a frigate.

Steelworker
09-27-2009, 10:23 PM
DSArms Tactical Carbine with lightweight barrel is like 8.25 lbs. About the same as my '06. Short, easy to carry and very controllable too.

You'll have to try mine sometime elmbow. Not full auto, but with the gas regulator you can pretty much set it up for any 308 load.

kutenay
09-27-2009, 10:49 PM
In the '80s, working a lot in interior AK, I briefly considered a G3 carbine variant with a telescoping stock. It was cool, but also heavy and bulky and expensive. And the threat profile that might require that sort of firepower was far more fantasy than reality. Weight and bulk get pretty real if you're carrying anything around all day, every day while working in a cloud of bugs. Also, with experience, situational awareness and perhaps spray, a firearm is far more likely to be just a last resort if you've screwed up.

For dangerous animals, experience favors bullets with more mass and/or energy than the .308 and Guide Guns, folding stock shotguns, and even large handguns often do the job while being lighter and more compact than a battle rifle. So while I'm sure a FAL or similar semi- could be effective for big bears, (AKs are used to poach elephants) with the other options and circumstances, they just never seemed very practical. Never seen a pro field worker or guide packing anything of that type.

Yup, after years of working in the bush here in B.C., I totally agree and I hate packing a gun unless I have to when working.

I just got a neat and almost "perfect" bear gun. It is a early '50s P-64 Mod. 70, Std. in .30-06 and the chamber and bore were ruined by rusting. My buddy took it to Jim Dubell who re-bored it to 9.3 cal. and then he had a 9.3x62 chamber cut and the bbl. chopped to 20".

He re-installed the front ramp and thus had a P-64 "carbine" model in the 9.3. He then hollowed and trimmed a Boyd's lam. JRS handle, installed Burris Zees on QRWs, opened to 8/40 and with the center milled to see the rear sight.

It wears a Leupy 4xMHD shotgun scope, parallax re-adjusted to 150yds. and it handles and balances beautifully at about 7.5 lbs; the Decelerator red pad looks good and works well and the spray grit covered, epoxy finished stock does not move in wet weather.

This will throw 286 NPs at 2350 and that is about as good as it gets for Grizzlies and smaller Bruins. I like it for backpacking and much prefer it to my Redhawk .44 for adequate defence in a fight with a bear.

I used to have a FAL, now "prohibited" here in Canada, but, it was too heavy for bush work and not my idea of a bear buster.

Robbie
09-28-2009, 06:37 AM
FWIW which is not much,we used M14's on the ice for our polar bear defnse.Not because any thought was giving to what weapon is best that is what we carried on board. We also had shotguns(870's) but no slugs so decided the M14 being the better choice. Didn't see any bears. A 308 is better than ahandgun I would think. Take care Robbie

elmbow
09-28-2009, 10:31 AM
DSArms Tactical Carbine with lightweight barrel is like 8.25 lbs. About the same as my '06. Short, easy to carry and very controllable too.

You'll have to try mine sometime elmbow. Not full auto, but with the gas regulator you can pretty much set it up for any 308 load.

Sounds sweet SW. I got rid of the AR10 because of its weight and I have become a fan of the FAL in my old age.

evanhill
09-28-2009, 10:53 AM
I included the FAL data not because I thought it was a great choice, but just because it provided good comparison with a military rifle. For me it illustrated that lever guns are very very fast. Until it's time to reload (not relevant for a woods gun), you're not giving up very much to an autoloader in terms of fast accurate hits.

Marlin levergun in 45/70 or comparable with red dot sight is a very good combination of power, packability, and speed.

Bolt guns run a little slower, but are still faster than you might think.

Steelworker
09-28-2009, 09:06 PM
Well, elmbow, maybe we need to get together so you can put a few rounds down range...discuss a few ideas in detail too.

Evan, I'm faster with either FAL than with my 94 Trapper in 44 Mag. By a lot. The Trapper is a lot easier to tote simply due to the design -- it's like a glorified yard stick. Actually, my wife has a Trapper in 45 Colt and I believe it would be superior to the 44 if using some of Tim Sundles' 45 Colt loads. I've often told her if we ever backpack on Alaska, it's what she should carry (she's only 5'1" and won't carry anything even approaching the weight of my Remington 700 '06.). She asked me if I thought it would really work with Tim's loads and I said, "No, but it will make you feel better having it around, just like a pacifier doesn't really do anything for a baby, but it seems to keep it happy. Then again, it might."

Truthfully, I have to say of all the suggestions, I like Kutenay's the best. I'd just get a CZ 550 FS in 9.3x62, load it with 286 NP's, or whatever Kutenay recommends, and be done with it. However, my second choice may very well be the FAL -- depends on where I am and the local laws. I would think BH 308 180 gr. Accutips would give the desired penetration, while still expanding adequately. Snipers use them to get through intermediate obstacles and still have the penetration/accuracy/expansion to get the job done. When compared to a 9.3x62 and remembering the speed of the attack of the grizzlies in the videos Anthracitic loned me, I figure I'll get one shot off before it's all over me. If, and that's a big if, the shot is in the right place, it should get the job done. At least maybe turn it. With the FAL, I figure in the same time frame I can get three accurate shots off. Which will work better? Beats me.

Gee, I've only seen two griz in my entire life and both of those on the same day in Glacier National Park. Who am I to be saying anything on this subject??!!!! :)

Why don't we have a meaningful discussion on something more mundane, but far more realistic to most of us -- like what do you do when you're out in the mountains and a lightning storm catches up to you? (I asked a senior NCO from 5th SF Group about this and he gave me a very interesting and funny answer.)

elmbow
09-28-2009, 09:29 PM
Well, elmbow, maybe we need to get together so you can put a few rounds down range...discuss a few ideas in detail too.

Evan, I'm faster with either FAL than with my 94 Trapper in 44 Mag. By a lot. The Trapper is a lot easier to tote simply due to the design -- it's like a glorified yard stick. Actually, my wife has a Trapper in 45 Colt and I believe it would be superior to the 44 if using some of Tim Sundles' 45 Colt loads. I've often told her if we ever backpack on Alaska, it's what she should carry (she's only 5'1" and won't carry anything even approaching the weight of my Remington 700 '06.). She asked me if I thought it would really work with Tim's loads and I said, "No, but it will make you feel better having it around, just like a pacifier doesn't really do anything for a baby, but it seems to keep it happy. Then again, it might."

Truthfully, I have to say of all the suggestions, I like Kutenay's the best. I'd just get a CZ 550 FS in 9.3x62, load it with 286 NP's, or whatever Kutenay recommends, and be done with it. However, my second choice may very well be the FAL -- depends on where I am and the local laws. I would think BH 308 180 gr. Accutips would give the desired penetration, while still expanding adequately. Snipers use them to get through intermediate obstacles and still have the penetration/accuracy/expansion to get the job done. When compared to a 9.3x62 and remembering the speed of the attack of the grizzlies in the videos Anthracitic loned me, I figure I'll get one shot off before it's all over me. If, and that's a big if, the shot is in the right place, it should get the job done. At least maybe turn it. With the FAL, I figure in the same time frame I can get three accurate shots off. Which will work better? Beats me.

Gee, I've only seen two griz in my entire life and both of those on the same day in Glacier National Park. Who am I to be saying anything on this subject??!!!! :)

Why don't we have a meaningful discussion on something more mundane, but far more realistic to most of us -- like what do you do when you're out in the mountains and a lightning storm catches up to you? (I asked a senior NCO from 5th SF Group about this and he gave me a very interesting and funny answer.)

A 22" small ring commercial Mauser in 9.3x62 gets my vote too as THE best "one gun" for AK and Canadian NW. I like the heck out of that cartridge, just not much use for one down here in the desert. I spent a few months here 'n there with 5th group. I'd be interested in that NCO's response to your question. PM me if it's R rated.

Steelworker
09-28-2009, 10:31 PM
Not R rated. When I first asked him he drew a blank look, thought for a few seconds and then said, "Give me some time to think about that." Now he was both HALO qualified (I asked him if he was scared on is first HALO jump and he said he had too many things to think about to make sure he did it right to think about being scared. The 5th Group JAG Captain next to him just looked at me and rolled his eyes --he had to do plain old static line jumps just to be a JAG lawyer with 5th group and it scared him to death.) and spent time down in Florida teaching the scuba stuff. Not a big guy, not real muscular and a great sense of humor. Anyway, I'm getting off track. He thinks about the lightning question for awhile and comes over to me and says with a big grin, "You know what, I'm not really sure what I'd do, but I know one thing, whatever weapon I'm carrying is getting thrown as far I can throw it -- I don't need any lightning rods near me!" He added that he didn't remember it being covered in his training at any time. Not that it hadn't, he just couldn't remember ever getting it.

PM sent -- need some advice.

elmbow
09-29-2009, 12:43 AM
I don't recollect it was ever covered in any of mine and I'm sure I was never counseled on tossing my weapon. My sweetheart interned with the JAG at Ft. Lewis back in the early 80's. Am I ever grateful she chose a civilian career, can you imagine being given orders at home and work by your wife?

kutenay
09-29-2009, 10:51 PM
A 22" small ring commercial Mauser in 9.3x62 gets my vote too as THE best "one gun" for AK and Canadian NW. I like the heck out of that cartridge, just not much use for one down here in the desert. I spent a few months here 'n there with 5th group. I'd be interested in that NCO's response to your question. PM me if it's R rated.

I do not agree with this, based on owning several "smallring" Mauser-type rifles, including HVAs and 5-6 Brno 21/22 rifles, the best of the type, by far.

The problem is not a lack of strength, I would bet major coin that the Brno ZG-47 and 21/22 actions are the strongest sporting crf actions ever built and they are so superior to anything else that comparison is a waste of time; I understand that Granite Mountain is bringing out a 21/22 clone at a mere $3000.00 USD...AND, guys like Ralf Martini and Duane Weibe have both recently told me that they consider these about as good as it gets, while D'arcy Echols told a mutual friend much the same thing...and these guys KNOW their schit!

The issue is with the magazine dimensions of the 21/22 actions in particular, these were factory cut and chambered for the 57mm Mauser cartridges with only a VERY few being produced in 7x64 and 8x60, both VERY tapered cases with equal or SMALLER case-bottom dimensions than the 57mm cases. This is why you cannot re-chamber a 22H with it's 23.6" bbl to a 7x64 and must go to a .280Rem. to utilize both the longer tube and longer than Mauser 98 mag.

The Bock case, like the "Swede" of 1894, uses a LARGER case bottom and thus the rounds can bind in the 21/22 mag. and it takes a damm good and pricey smith to correctly adjust this plus the factory feed rails. After several costly experiments, I will no longer use an action for any chambering on a case different from that which it was factory built for. One recent pita concerned a pristine 1933 "Postal" Obie action I salvaged and sold a friend whe nthe two of them cleaned out my stash of P-64, Obie and Brno actions...and helped me pay for my 8-man tipi, ect. The 'smith who built a .338-06 on this for my buddy, against my advice, totally bleeped the action and it has taken major bux and hassle for Ralf to fix it and build a .375Ruger on it.

So, IF, you decide that a short, crf, 9.3x62 is in your future and I totally agree that this is THE best working gun for northern and western Canada in bear country, a Mauser 98, CZ-550, Brno ZKK, or, if you are lucky and know what to look for, a Brno ZG-47 action is THE way to go. A good FN is also an excellent, available and inexpensive option and what I would choose for a working rifle as they come "scope ready" and parts for them are everywhere.

With the "smallrings", stick with the .270W, .30-06, or, my favourite, the .280Rem. and even a .25-06, a fine choice on the very light HVA action. I just got a HVA 1640 in 8mm Mauser in trade for an old B&L 4000 scope and two old receiver sights, the metal is almost new and the stock is rather beat, but, Jim Wisner found his very last 3-pos. safety for the HVA and sent it to me last July, so, I am planning a Bansner re-stock, the Wisner safety and since this is the highly desirable Euro model with the 23.6" tube, I expect 200 NPs out of WW brass full of H-4350 to give me 2700 at the "sharp end" and that will do the business on any bear or anything else I can out-smart in the tules.

HTH, I hate typing, but, wanted to try to prevent someone making some of the mistakes I have in 45 years of buying an building rifles...and I STILL ain't got the PERFECT one! :)

elmbow
09-30-2009, 12:23 AM
Wow, good info Kute. I just made an attempt at installing a Timney Ultralight trigger on my HVA 270 Win and discovered it would require removing entirely too much of the trigger guard metal and so I sent it back to Brownells and re-installed the original trigger. They advertise it as fitting Husky's but I now know they mean pre-1600 series 98's. I used a Bansner mauser stock on it and it was a ton of extra work to get it to fit and it doesn't look real great although it is functionally good to go. There are downsides to the HVA's when it comes to alterations. The local gun shop here just took in a sporterized Springfield '06 and it's as nice a job as I've ever seen. gorgeous wood, bedding, bluing, jeweling and an aftermarket trigger I don't recognize but it works. worst I can say about it is the magazine follower is original and there are no iron sights on it. It's on consignment for $400. I'm thinking it would be a great candidate for (another) whelen project .

Take-a-knee
10-08-2009, 10:14 PM
In the '80s, working a lot in interior AK, I briefly considered a G3 carbine variant with a telescoping stock. It was cool, but also heavy and bulky and expensive. And the threat profile that might require that sort of firepower was far more fantasy than reality. Weight and bulk get pretty real if you're carrying anything around all day, every day while working in a cloud of bugs. Also, with experience, situational awareness and perhaps spray, a firearm is far more likely to be just a last resort if you've screwed up.

For dangerous animals, experience favors bullets with more mass and/or energy than the .308 and Guide Guns, folding stock shotguns, and even large handguns often do the job while being lighter and more compact than a battle rifle. So while I'm sure a FAL or similar semi- could be effective for big bears, (AKs are used to poach elephants) with the other options and circumstances, they just never seemed very practical. Never seen a pro field worker or guide packing anything of that type.

I have an FAL. In bear country I'd much prefer a Guide Gun in 45/70.

Jesse Jaymes
10-09-2009, 08:24 AM
I mentioned in the original thread- the M1A.

What is not to like in a 16" barreled M1A?? At least 20 rounds at your disposal, super short overall package. 8.3lbs. Tritium sights and muzzle break from the factory. Break actually keeps muzzle from rising and sight picture pretty close to original through firing.

Load it to the gills with 165 Partitions or TSXs and rock on....

Battle proven action/feeding/reliability. No need to stroke a lever and reload. Maintain the cheek well and sight picture and burn powder till the threat is gone.

Maybe the Guide Gun a better overall choice, but I don't see a Springfield SOCOM 16 too far behind, if at all. YMMV

Actually have had 2 Guide Guns. Found the recoil to be nothing short of brutal with anything more than 300 grn Remington loads. I think it would be very hard to load a GG to the gills with "Bear Stompers" and have any kind of time/accuracy. Just my opinion

Take-a-knee
10-09-2009, 01:04 PM
I mentioned in the original thread- the M1A.

What is not to like in a 16" barreled M1A?? At least 20 rounds at your disposal, super short overall package. 8.3lbs. Tritium sights and muzzle break from the factory. Break actually keeps muzzle from rising and sight picture pretty close to original through firing.

Load it to the gills with 165 Partitions or TSXs and rock on....

Battle proven action/feeding/reliability. No need to stroke a lever and reload. Maintain the cheek well and sight picture and burn powder till the threat is gone.

Maybe the Guide Gun a better overall choice, but I don't see a Springfield SOCOM 16 too far behind, if at all. YMMV

Actually have had 2 Guide Guns. Found the recoil to be nothing short of brutal with anything more than 300 grn Remington loads. I think it would be very hard to load a GG to the gills with "Bear Stompers" and have any kind of time/accuracy. Just my opinion

I'd go with the FAL over a M1A anyday. The M1A's gas system is set up for 150gr bullets, shoot heavier stuff through it and you'll likely have problems. The FAL's gas regulator lets you shoot anything that'll feed. 220 Corelokts or something similar. I never cared for the M14 family of weapons, they are much too "receptive" to dirt with their open action.

evanhill
10-09-2009, 01:23 PM
Lot's of differing opinions on the M1A, plenty of them educated. When asked his opinion on the SOCOM 16 my brother used to have, Larry Vickers (http://vickerstactical.com/about-larry-vickers-2/about-larry-vickers/) simply said "get rid of it". That's where the used to have part comes in.

scothill
10-09-2009, 02:56 PM
Lot's of differing opinions on the M1A, plenty of them educated. When asked his opinion on the SOCOM 16 my brother used to have, Larry Vickers (http://vickerstactical.com/about-larry-vickers-2/about-larry-vickers/) simply said "get rid of it". That's where the used to have part comes in.

I will clarify by saying that his view of a fullsize milspec M14 style in basic rack grade configuration was very different.

Take-a-knee
10-09-2009, 03:46 PM
Lot's of differing opinions on the M1A, plenty of them educated. When asked his opinion on the SOCOM 16 my brother used to have, Larry Vickers (http://vickerstactical.com/about-larry-vickers-2/about-larry-vickers/) simply said "get rid of it". That's where the used to have part comes in.

A friend of mine was in the same 5th Group company with Vickers many years ago. Vickers had a match grade FAL (a very expensive rifle then for a buck sergeant) back in those days. Vickers has always been partial to the FAL.