US Air Force survival gun?

From: (SteveM8597)



Having a firearm for a survival situation is a bit of an anachronism, combat
or
peacetime. I am not aware of one ever having been successfully used in
either.
Weight alone would preclude carrying enough firepower to hold off a charging
bear and nothing short of a .50 cal would be enough firepower to hold off an
enemy patrol ot even angry natives with pitchforks for very long. I liked to
think of the .38 I caried as a signalling device and carried a pack of
tracers
for that purpose.

I disagree, having a sidearm in a survival situation is handy for making sure
you don't have to share your resources with strangers.

I carry a 357 magnum when backpacking since I am always alone and I have met
strange people in the woods. Bird or rabbit shot ammunition for the 357 can be
used for taking small game.

Overall a good knife makes a better survival tool if you know basic survival
methods. You can use it to skin the animal you caught with your figure 4
deadfall, snare etc. The knife should have a heavy enough blade to chop wood
with. It's also good for tapping a badguy on the head with. A good bowie can
split a skull. Don't leave your whet stone at home.

A flare gun would be better than tracers for signalling.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Having a firearm for a survival situation is a bit of an anachronism, combat
or
peacetime. I am not aware of one ever having been successfully used in
either.
Weight alone would preclude carrying enough firepower to hold off a
charging
bear and nothing short of a .50 cal would be enough firepower to hold off an
enemy patrol ot even angry natives with pitchforks for very long. I liked to
think of the .38 I caried as a signalling device and carried a pack of
tracers
for that purpose.

I disagree, having a sidearm in a survival situation is handy for making sure
you don't have to share your resources with strangers.

I carry a 357 magnum when backpacking since I am always alone and I have met
strange people in the woods. Bird or rabbit shot ammunition for the 357 can
be
used for taking small game.

Overall a good knife makes a better survival tool if you know basic survival
methods. You can use it to skin the animal you caught with your figure 4
deadfall, snare etc. The knife should have a heavy enough blade to chop wood
with. It's also good for tapping a badguy on the head with. A good bowie can
split a skull. Don't leave your whet stone at home.

A flare gun would be better than tracers for signalling.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

I also had a flare gun, flares, three radios. I figures I needed when I was
flying and the standard issue GI survival knife. I figured signalling gear,
having a useful tool like the knife, and water were far more necessary than
defensive weapons. So far as food, the survival instructors tought that you
really didn't need to eat for a couploe of weeks but did need water fairly soon
so I neverplanned to do any hunting. Plenty of veggies, bugs and tree bark to
eat until I got picked up. Besides, cooking meat requires a fire. Since I am
a fisherman I figured I could catch fish if I really needed meat on any kind of
a survival experience.

In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.


I also had a flare gun, flares, three radios. I figures I needed when I was
flying and the standard issue GI survival knife. I figured signalling gear,
having a useful tool like the knife, and water were far more necessary than
defensive weapons. So far as food, the survival instructors tought that you
really didn't need to eat for a couploe of weeks but did need water
fairly soon
so I neverplanned to do any hunting. Plenty of veggies, bugs and tree bark to
eat until I got picked up. Besides, cooking meat requires a fire. Since I am
a fisherman I figured I could catch fish if I really needed meat on any
kind of
a survival experience.

Sounds like a good plan.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.


So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

Bob McKellar

In article , Bob McKellar
wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.


So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

Bob McKellar

LOL.
But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be able
to reach out and touch the cat.
I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article , Bob McKellar
wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.


So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

Bob McKellar

LOL.
But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be able
to reach out and touch the cat.
I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice for shooting
a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick to be
easily penetrated.

It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.

Bob McKellar

"Bob McKellar" wrote in message
...


Harry Andreas wrote:

In article , Bob McKellar
wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in
grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear
the
situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray,
although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.


So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

Bob McKellar

LOL.
But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to
be able
to reach out and touch the cat.
I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice
for shooting
a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick
to be
easily penetrated.

It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.

Aiming for the shoulder with a handgun is more likely to just **** him off,
and if he is close it is probably a wasted effort--a bear has a pretty slow
cardio-pulmonary rate, so a shoulder-into-chest cavity shot (which requires
a lot of penetration capability against a big bear) is likely to leave you
still facing him up-close-and-personal, even if he is destined to die to few
minutes later. A lot of critters have thick skulls--hogs among them, and my
daddy used a .22 *short* to dispatch a few of them on the farm. I'd prefer
to just avoid the critter, but if forced to, I think I'd have to go for the
head shot if he is getting close enough to me to really have to change the
britches. If you don't kill him, you can still KO his butt--dear ol' Dad
once dropped a doe with a headshot using a .30-30 (with a 170 grain load, to
boot) from no more than about seventy yards. Went down flatter than a
pancake without twitching a muscle. It laid there a few seconds, then as he
was getting ready to walk down to it it jumped back up, shook her head a
couple of times, and bounded off like she was good as new, though a bit
wobbly. Figured the round glanced off her skull.

Brooks


Bob McKellar

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:38:41 -0400, Bob McKellar
wrote:


I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice for shooting
a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick to be
easily penetrated.

BOAC and the successor portion of BA used to carry a long gun* in the
survival pack, until about ten years ago. This was for shooting polar
bears after ditching in the Far North. Flight attendants were taught
never to let anyone eat the liver, as it has so much vitamin A it's
toxic to humans.

*I can't remember if it was a rifle or a carbine.

It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.

"Some"? Only "some"? Surely you jest.

On another note, I'm getting tired of the vitriolic political
disputatiousness on Usenet already and it's a long time to November.
Particularly the nasty attack stuff. It's unoriginal, it's tedious,
and it's irritating. It also says more about the attacker than the
attacked. Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable people
avoiding unreasonable topics in inappropriate places? Has anyone ever
changed their mind because of such an attack (well, except about the
manners and morals of the attacker)?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob McKellar
wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray,
although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.


So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

Bob McKellar

LOL.
But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be
able
to reach out and touch the cat.
I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against humans in
the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage pump
with a slug barrel when I went fishing by myself in Alaska (on the Kenai and
close-by streams)--and of course the only bear I saw was the stuffed one
standing in the airport building at Fairbanks when I flew in. Pepper spray
is bettter than nothing, but I remember camping in the park in the Smoky's a
few years back and a ranger stopping by our campsite to warn us of a rogue
black bear that they were trying to catch (they had one of those neat
galvanized pipe traps near the hike-in only campsite) in the area. He said
that it had ransacked the campsite a few days earlier and one of the campers
hit it with pepper spray in the face without seriously discouraging it, so
the guaranteed-quality of capsiacin aginst a Grizzly is somewhat suspect. A
good handgun, where it is allowed, would be my preference over the spray,
and the caliber is sort of dependent upon the shooter's ability--the favored
round for poachers going after black bears is still the .22 (albeit in rifle
form), last I heard, and I know of one case where a camper killed a black
that had attacked him with a .22 pistol. Though I'd rather have a .40 S&W or
better in Grizzly country if I had to leave the shotgun behind (saying
something about my confidence, or lack thereof, in my own short-iron
shooting ability).

Brooks


--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Kevin Brooks wrote:

The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against humans in
the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage pump

Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
was an exceptional event!

I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
winter naps.

Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
are *everywhere* around here now days!


SMH