Works the same with the .22, except you're supposed to aim for the knee.
From: Bob Sullivan
My boss in Wisconsin was an avid hunter and a good shot.
I always remember his comment was you were supposed
to shoot the bear in the shoulder first to slow him down.
Otherwise, you were lunch.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com
<knarftheria...@gmail.com> wrote:
Legalities aside, seems to me if you don't shoot to kill first shot, you're in
trouble. Wounding one will just piss him/her off.
Cheers,
frank
--- Original Message ---
From: kwal...@peoplepc.com
Sent: November 11, 2012 11/11/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Election Commentary
Many years ago, while planning my first visit to Alaska - a month long
backpack trip with my then 5 year old son & wife, centered around 2 weeks in
Denali National Park - I investigated having a weapon with me knowing full
well that we would be in Grizzly bear country.
Some of my findings -
A gun of any kind is not legally allowed in any U.S. National Park
You can't legally transport a gun thru Canada
You had better be a damm good marksman, with nerves of steel, if you expect
to immobilize a Grizz at close range with any hand held pistol/rifle.
Better to adhere to the known 'rules' about travel in bear country and not
be caught unaware.
We did have a great experience on our month long trip in Alaska, did see
many bears & ran into a guy in the park with a sawed off shotgun that he
kept slung over his shoulder who advised it was only to stun a bear if/when
he ran into one.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike wilson" <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Election Commentary
On 10/11/2012 16:12, mike wilson wrote:
On 10/11/2012 11:37, P. J. Alling wrote:
Unpleasant though in may be ya got to think about this stuff.
Have to agree with P.J. about this. There was an incident last year(?)
when a guy was walking no more than a mile or so from his house and was
attacked by an old, dying (of starvation) Grizzly. It may have been a
gummy bear but it was 6-800lbs of hungry omnivore determined to have an
easy meal. Only because he was carrying a particularly powerful handgun
(and managed a lucky hit with one of the three rounds he managed to
fire) did he survive. Humans are still the huntee in some parts of the
continent.
A link for those interested.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/31/man-kills-charging-bear-with-454-casull/
On 11/10/2012 1:08 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
Damn we?re a cheery bunch.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM, P. J. Alling
<webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
AK47 or the equivalent, unless it's fully automatic isn't good enough
for a
bear of any kind. Just not accurate enough, and the AR-15 derived
competition isn't powerful enough. Really only good against
varmints up to
200 pounds, with poor slope armor on their skulls.
On 11/8/2012 11:03 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
Don't forget that real men have an AK-47 or equivalent in the woods
with
them, no mere grizzly would be an issue.
stan
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Miserere <miser...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah John, Scandinavia is for girly men. I want to live poor and die
young, hopefully at the hands (paws?) of a grizzly bear in the woods
(where I'm forced to live because I can't afford a house and there is
no help from the government for scientists living below the poverty
line).
?M.
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
On 8 November 2012 14:02, John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
From: DagT
I can agree with you there, being relatively conservative by
Norwegians standards. One reason why republikanske are not very
popular around here is that they usually don't seam to know much
about the world outside the US. And in the previous election they
used Skandinavia as an example of a system they didn't want :-)
Just compare The US to Scandinavia ...
Scandinavia = Denmark; Finland; Norway; Sweden (Numbers from OECD):
Healthcare cost as percent of GDP:
US 17.4% - Denmark 11.5%; Finland 9.2%; Norway 9.2% Sweden 10%
Healthcare cost per capita:
US $7,960 - Denmark $4,348; Finland $3,226; Norway $5,352; Sweden
$3,722;
Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births before their first
birthday):
US 6.8 - Denmark 4.4; Finland 3.0; Norway 3.1; Sweden 2.4
Life expectancy at birth (Total Population):
US 78.7 - Denmark 79.3; Finland 80.2; Norway 81.2; Sweden 81.5
Life expectancy at age 65 (Males):
US 17.7 - Denmark 17.0; Finland 17.5; Norway 18.0; Sweden 18.2
Percentage of persons living with less than 50% of median
equivalised
household income:
US 17.3% - Denmark 6.1%; Finland 7.9%; Norway 7.8%; Sweden 8.4%
Easy to see why we wouldn't want anything like *THAT* for the U.S.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
