site banner
JTarrou  1yr ago (text post)   3226 thread views

I'm a "gun guy", AMA

A couple people had expressed interest in this topic, and I have a bit of extra time for a couple days, so here goes:

Bona fides: I am a former infantry NCO and sniper, hunter, competitive shooter, reloader, hobby gunsmith, sometimes firearms trainer and currently work in a gun shop, mostly on the paperwork/compliance side. Back in the day, was a qualified expert with every standard small arm in the US inventory circa 2003 (M2, 4, 9, 16, 19, 249, 240B, 21, 24, 82 etc.), and today hang around the 75th percentile of USPSA classifications. I've shot Cap-and-Ball, Trap and Sporting Clays badly; Bullseye and PRS somewhat better and IDPA/USPSA/UML/Two-gun with some local success. Been active in the 2A community since the mid-90s, got my first instructor cert in high school, and have held a CPL for almost twenty years now.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert in every aspect of firearms, there's huge areas that escape my knowledge base, but if you've got questions I'll do my best to answer.

Technical questions

Gun control proposals for feasibility

Industry

Training

Wacky opinions

General geekery

Some competition links (not my own) just for the interested.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=U5IhsWamaLY&t=173

https://youtube.com/watch?v=93nEEINflXE

https://youtube.com/watch?v=utcky0zq10E

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xVh4CjbgK7s

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0IK2RUxVq3A

21
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am thinking about moving to Alaska. I do lots of outdoors stuff, and given how much wildlife there is in Alaska, safety from it, bears in particular, is a concern much larger than it is for me in lower 48.

Here is the question: do firearms offer higher degree of safety from bears than just bear spray in practice? If yes, which firearms would be an appropriate balance of effectiveness and practicality (size, weight, operational concerns etc)?

This is the best article I've seen on the subject:

Does Bear Spray Work?

The conclusion:

So what’s the conclusion here? To me, this isn’t an argument for or against guns or for or against bear spray. It’s an argument that, despite the presence of deterrents, dealing with an aggressive bear encounter does not involve any sure outcomes. Rather than beginning and ending the conversation with a false statement about bear spray’s efficacy, we should instead acknowledge that recreating safely in bear country requires training and knowledge—not dogma.

Not Alaska Fish and Game but I used to work for a state Fish and Wildlife service in a state with Brown bears and worked with people who worked in Alaska. The article echo's this but for real deal likely bear encounters the best thing is to not go alone. When expecting bear encounters the Alaska F&G guys I knew of would carry 12 gauges with slugs. They would simulate an attack on the range for new guys, your back is turned and a target comes at you at 30 mph. Goal is to spin around and get a kill shot; pretty much everyone dies without a fair amount of practice.

I've lived in alaska seasonally and fished there a couple times, and the received wisdom is: Any sub rifle gun is about the same. You will need to get wildly lucky to kill a bear mid attack with a handgun; but the noise and the sting will probably scare him off as well as anything.

Any hunting caliber will kill a bear, but again: if you are getting charged down by a bear, good luck.

The best defense in this case is paying attention and being mindful. You really, really don't want to surprise a brown bear.

This is a bit outside my expertise, there's a vid you may have seen here:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FDGM7QgxuWw

However, we know from police and defensive data that OC spray is limited against humans, who may be enraged or in altered states. I presume there's something similar with any animal. OC spray, even the heavy-duty bear stuff, is still just an irritant. A gun is sort of a trump card, works on everything. That said, there are no common handgun rounds that are reliable bear-stoppers, and if there were, you wouldn't want to shoot them.

Both these defensive items are compromises with the reality that a weapon capable of reliably downing a bear is probably going to be too big and heavy to carry on anything except a bear hunt. Also consider the fact that you probably don't want to kill a bear unless you absolutely have to. There will be reporting to do, game wardens to contact, a whole palaver.

Many people will tell you that the "correct" answer is a 10mm semi-auto or .44 mag revolver. Adding bear spray gives you a nonlethal option, and isn't that heavy. Personally, I'm not in bear country much, but the few times I have been, I just carried my normal 9mm EDC and spray. My philosophy is: better the tool you know best than a marginally "better" one on paper that you haven't trained as much with.

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I’d carry bear spray anyway, to save the bear’s life and myself a lot of hassle if possible. With respect to the firearm then, would you say that the difference between say 9mm and 10mm in terms of stopping power is less important than your familiarity and capability with the firearm? I imagine that if you try using something like .22, that would only tickle a bear, so is 9 mm already viable, or should I get myself a new higher caliber handgun for this purpose?

You might be interested to know that in 1953, the then world record grizzly bear was killed by 63 year old women with a single shot .22 held together with duct tape.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/bella-twin-the-22-used-to-take-the-1953-world-record-grizzly-and-more/

If you are in situations where angry brown bears are something you might reasonably encounter, basically any handgun is much less than you want.

We mostly have black bears in my parts, and while I don't normally worry about them at all, if there's some reason to worry a Winchester 30/30 carbine is what I take along. For grizzlies this is still a bit light (considerably better than a .44 mag though) and I think people in Alaska usually like short 12ga shotguns or 45/70 or similar.

Like I said, bears are usually something one can live with unarmed -- but there are parts of Alaska where this is probably not the case.

Cool place to move to though, is there a story?

would you say that the difference between say 9mm and 10mm in terms of stopping power is less important than your familiarity and capability with the firearm?

Yes.

is 9 mm already viable, or should I get myself a new higher caliber handgun for this purpose?

Yes.

Ok, kidding. Truth is, it depends on how you define "viable". There's also cost to consider, plus holsters, ammo, sights etc. My personal calculation is that if I were guiding bear hunts, or logging in the Yukon, I'd carry a 10mm. But I don't. It just isn't worth it to me to own a whole different gun for the limited amount of time I might be exposed to bear. Even if I lived in Alaska, I don't think I'd change unless I had a particular need to. If you know you're gonna meet a bear, you bring a slugged twelve gauge or you don't turn up.

I see. Thanks!

Visit in the winter before you move up there. A lot of people move to Alaska and regret it.

I did. I don’t plan to stay there forever, only for a few years, and then transition it to be a summer vacation destination.

Nice, that sounds awesome. I really loved it up there in summer.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats