Carrying hiking - Page 4

BlueTrain · June 14, 2011, 09:47 AM

What sort of weapons do you suppose Stevenson and Modestine carried?

MLeake · June 14, 2011, 03:54 PM

Nordeste, our bears run a wide range of size.

Adult black bears can run as small as 150lbs in Florida (most animals in Florida are smaller than their other US counterparts, I'm not really sure why) to the record weight of around 800lbs in North Carolina. Most black bears are more like 300-400lbs, though, and can be found all over the US.

Brown bears and grizzly are bigger. I believe a good average for those is more in the 500-600lbs range.

Polar bears, though they are only likely to be found in a small part of one US state, can reach 1500lbs.

So, aside from the Florida bears, most US bears will require a round capable of penetrating a heavily muscled, heavy-boned creature, with a skull ideally shaped for deflecting bullets.

A round that combines good velocity with a bullet that is both heavy and constructed for penetration is the way to go.

Nordeste · June 14, 2011, 04:32 PM

MLeake, thank you. I've watched some Discovery and National Geographic Channel documentaries about bear attacks in the US and Canada. Browns, Grizzlies, may attack driven by their territorial instinct, but polar bear see you as prey (same happens in countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway) and people in those areas carry rifles. A fact that totally concurs with your explanations.

If it was me, with that in mind, I'd go for the biggest round possible.

PS: I think I'd wet my pants if I ever found a bear the size you say

... in the wild.

cracked91 · June 14, 2011, 07:37 PM

I think their may have been misconceptions about the "trail ninja" label.

I define a trail ninja as one who totes a full size AR or AK (or similar weapon) + at least one sidearm, on a popular 3-5 mile roundtrip trail (as in the kind mom and dad take the kids to on a saturday) here in our national forest. These kinds are generally between 18 and 25 years old (not always, and I am in that age group, so noone get riled up). The kind who have more weight in ammo in their bags then water. You get the idea. (Though that description would be the absolute extreme)

Now someone who were to tote a Marlin 336 levergun on a 12 mile overnight/roundtrip that I could not see a legitimate use for unless it was their only gun, I would not call a trail ninja (just inexperienced).

I do not condemn those who may carry a long gun on or off trail that they may have a legitimate use for. Nor do I think it stupid. But anyone can play the hypothetical game long enough to load themselves up with a hundred pounds of stuff they "need".

As has already been stated. Anyone who has actually hiked 15-20 miles in day can very quickly see the gigantic flaw in carrying a long gun if you don't really need it.

langenc · June 14, 2011, 08:09 PM

In some places if you have a long gun, you are considered to be hunting. If it isn't hunting season, then you are poaching the king's deer. The whole thing is problematic. Firearms were originally banned from Shenandoah Park for exactly that reason: people were hunting illegally in the park. copiedfrom first page..

Typical knee jerk reaction. I often wondered why the same logic dont apply to the interstates-there are speeders so close em down and not allow speeding.

AZAK · June 14, 2011, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Brown bears and grizzly are bigger. I believe a good average for those is more in the 500-600lbs range.

Brown bears seem to me to be a bit larger than that here; if we are talking adult bruins, more like 700-1,700 lbs. range.

"In Alaska and Canada, average weight can be 900 pounds for males."
http://arktofile.net/pages/bear_brown.html

Did you notice that "Northern" average is close to half a ton?

And the upper end is close to a full ton?

BlueTrain · June 15, 2011, 07:20 AM

Speeding is allowed?

No, it's not a knee jerk reaction. It is the law. But some places people who obey the law are considered to be fools or jerks. Or so it would seem.

TailGator · June 15, 2011, 08:55 AM

If I recall my taxonomy correctly, polar bears are so closely related to grizzlies that some zoologists consider them subspecies rather than fully separate species (although that is a minority opinion).

If they live up to their reputation for being extremely dangerous animals, apparently white does not always signify innocence and purity.

C0untZer0 · June 15, 2011, 09:15 AM

A nice clip of a woman getting mauled by a polar bear at the zoo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wGbCNDw-m0

The lesson here is that if you are going to go hiking close to the bear cages, bring your 10mm carbine with you.

MLeake · June 15, 2011, 10:57 AM

AZAK, I was going off an article about conflict between polar bears and grizzlies as the polar ice shifts.

The article indicated the polar bears were significantly larger, but the grizzlies were more numerous and sneakier.

An adult polar bear, according to the article, should easily kill an adult grizzly, but the adult grizzlies normally targeted immature polar bears.

Not sure how accurate the article was, and your numbers may well be closer.

In any case, the things are much larger than I'd want to deal with. Luckily for me, I don't live where they are. (Or unluckily, in a way, as Montana and Alaska are gorgeous... but then I'd have to buy a .460 or .500 S&W, etc)

AZAK · June 15, 2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

(Or unluckily, in a way, as Montana and Alaska are gorgeous... but then I'd have to buy a .460 or .500 S&W, etc)

I knew there was a reason that I lived in both places for over a decade each, aside from the fact that I can shoot 24 hours a day during the summer up here - no stars and all; and I still am up here!

Why don't you come North for a visit, then you would "have to" buy that big revolver!

Good reading on Alaska bears, Alaska Bear Tales by Larry Kaniut; shameless plug for a friend (actually his books make for good reading!)

June 14, 2011, 09:47 AM	#76
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	What sort of weapons do you suppose Stevenson and Modestine carried? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

June 15, 2011, 07:20 AM	#82
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Speeding is allowed? No, it's not a knee jerk reaction. It is the law. But some places people who obey the law are considered to be fools or jerks. Or so it would seem. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

June 14, 2011, 03:54 PM	#77
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Nordeste, our bears run a wide range of size. Adult black bears can run as small as 150lbs in Florida (most animals in Florida are smaller than their other US counterparts, I'm not really sure why) to the record weight of around 800lbs in North Carolina. Most black bears are more like 300-400lbs, though, and can be found all over the US. Brown bears and grizzly are bigger. I believe a good average for those is more in the 500-600lbs range. Polar bears, though they are only likely to be found in a small part of one US state, can reach 1500lbs. So, aside from the Florida bears, most US bears will require a round capable of penetrating a heavily muscled, heavy-boned creature, with a skull ideally shaped for deflecting bullets. A round that combines good velocity with a bullet that is both heavy and constructed for penetration is the way to go.

June 14, 2011, 04:32 PM	#78
Nordeste Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2011 Location: Asturias, Spain Posts: 328	MLeake, thank you. I've watched some Discovery and National Geographic Channel documentaries about bear attacks in the US and Canada. Browns, Grizzlies, may attack driven by their territorial instinct, but polar bear see you as prey (same happens in countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway) and people in those areas carry rifles. A fact that totally concurs with your explanations. If it was me, with that in mind, I'd go for the biggest round possible. PS: I think I'd wet my pants if I ever found a bear the size you say ... in the wild.

June 14, 2011, 07:37 PM	#79
cracked91 Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Posts: 385	I think their may have been misconceptions about the "trail ninja" label. I define a trail ninja as one who totes a full size AR or AK (or similar weapon) + at least one sidearm, on a popular 3-5 mile roundtrip trail (as in the kind mom and dad take the kids to on a saturday) here in our national forest. These kinds are generally between 18 and 25 years old (not always, and I am in that age group, so noone get riled up). The kind who have more weight in ammo in their bags then water. You get the idea. (Though that description would be the absolute extreme) Now someone who were to tote a Marlin 336 levergun on a 12 mile overnight/roundtrip that I could not see a legitimate use for unless it was their only gun, I would not call a trail ninja (just inexperienced). I do not condemn those who may carry a long gun on or off trail that they may have a legitimate use for. Nor do I think it stupid. But anyone can play the hypothetical game long enough to load themselves up with a hundred pounds of stuff they "need". As has already been stated. Anyone who has actually hiked 15-20 miles in day can very quickly see the gigantic flaw in carrying a long gun if you don't really need it.

June 14, 2011, 08:09 PM	#80
langenc Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2007 Location: Montmorency Co, MI Posts: 1,551	In some places if you have a long gun, you are considered to be hunting. If it isn't hunting season, then you are poaching the king's deer. The whole thing is problematic. Firearms were originally banned from Shenandoah Park for exactly that reason: people were hunting illegally in the park. copiedfrom first page.. Typical knee jerk reaction. I often wondered why the same logic dont apply to the interstates-there are speeders so close em down and not allow speeding.

June 15, 2011, 08:55 AM	#83
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	If I recall my taxonomy correctly, polar bears are so closely related to grizzlies that some zoologists consider them subspecies rather than fully separate species (although that is a minority opinion). If they live up to their reputation for being extremely dangerous animals, apparently white does not always signify innocence and purity.

June 15, 2011, 09:15 AM	#84
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	A nice clip of a woman getting mauled by a polar bear at the zoo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wGbCNDw-m0 The lesson here is that if you are going to go hiking close to the bear cages, bring your 10mm carbine with you.

June 15, 2011, 10:57 AM	#85
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	AZAK, I was going off an article about conflict between polar bears and grizzlies as the polar ice shifts. The article indicated the polar bears were significantly larger, but the grizzlies were more numerous and sneakier. An adult polar bear, according to the article, should easily kill an adult grizzly, but the adult grizzlies normally targeted immature polar bears. Not sure how accurate the article was, and your numbers may well be closer. In any case, the things are much larger than I'd want to deal with. Luckily for me, I don't live where they are. (Or unluckily, in a way, as Montana and Alaska are gorgeous... but then I'd have to buy a .460 or .500 S&W, etc)