Posted on 07/31/2013 5:41:45 PM PDT by Kip Russell
Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. Failing that caliber. Failing that lots of shots on target. To wit: “The hiker, who has not been identified by Alaska State Troopers, had set out from the Rainbow trail head at Milepost 108 of the highway Sunday morning, said Tom Crockett, a park ranger. He was near the first Turnagain Arm viewpoint, about a half-mile up the trail toward McHugh Creek, when he spotted the bear . . . The man called, “Hey, bear,” hoping not to startle the animal, he said. The bear turned and charged, the hiker later told rangers. The man fired the AK-74 he was carrying . . .
The bear stopped after the first volley of shots, and then charged again. The man fired once more. That time the bear folded into a ball, rolling and running downhill and thudding to a stop in a clump of birch trees about 100 yards from the trail.
newsminer.com reckons the hiker needed 13 shots to take down the 500 – 600 pound bear. Like I said.
“I have heard stories about .44 magnum rounds at point black range ricocheting off the skull of a grizzly bear too.”
If you have ever had the opportunity to examine a bear skull up close and from all angles, (my brother has several) it is clear why there is a reputation of bullets ricocheting off of the skull. If you from dead on between the eyes and up, it is a very oblique angle on the skull, and pretty tough bone as well. Shooting them up the nose follows a channel directly to the brain. Front on to the eye has a good chance of missing the brain to either side.
Sig 556 in 7.62x39 is basically an Ak47 action and bolt with accuracy equal or better than AR. I wonder if they are going to come up with the 5.45. AKs are expensive lately, better off with the Sig for $100 more or so.
I understand fire and maneuver, and the advantages of being able to carry and shoot more ammo, but one of the consistent post-Vietnam complaints about the M-16 was the lack of knock-down power of the 5.56 round compared to the 7.62 round of the AK-47. I'm sure the soviets had plenty of direct battlefield intel about the performance of the M-16; so I'm just surprised that they switched to a similarly-sized round after seeing the results of the American weapon for nearly 10 years. Either their analysis of the effectiveness of the 5.56 round was very different from the loud American criticisms, or they just ignored 10 years of direct observation. It's a puzzlement to me.
I don’t even know what an FAL weighs but it always struck me as a trim little rifle. The HK-91 looks like it would weigh more to me but like I said, I don’t know for sure.
I owned an FN M-1949 in 7mm Mauser for a few years. I actually ordered it through the mail from J.C. Penney. Imagine that! It was pretty stocky looking and very similar in operation to the FAL except it had a wood stock and stripped differently.
I don’t recall the weight bothering me at all.
The 7.62x54r of the Mosin is a notorious “disemboweler”.
Now that sweet Sig is close enough to be called AK47 variant. More in common with it than the Vz58 for sure. It is what an AK should be.
http://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/catalog/product/556R-hero-detail.jpg
I have a latter-day Browning Model 1886 in 45-70 and ammo with the plastic tip safe for tubular magazines.
I don’t live in bear country but would that be adequate if I did?
I was told that NVA and VC officers carried the M-16 when they could get one.
Most of the problems with the M-16 wasn't its ballistic performance, but the problems with reliablility caused by the army switching to ball powder from IMR, as directly required by the inventor. The ball powder had significant amounts of calcium that deposited in gas tube, just about impossible to get out, causing the jamming problems.
The fact is, the felt recoil with the M-16 is so low compared to the Garand or M-14, you could probably get two aimed shots into a target in the same amount of time as for the larger calibers. I wonder if that had an effect on perception of “knockdown” power.
The FAL and the HKs both weigh in around 9 lbs, dry.
I know. I thought it would just scare him off. I felt very bad about it. I will never do that again. I prayed for forgiveness.
Thanks.
With well-trained troops, that's not as much of an issue; American infantry is far deadlier than they were 40 years ago, in part due to more accurate fire.
https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Snipers-Rule-1-22-2012.asp
Currently, about ten percent of American infantry are trained and equipped as snipers. Commanders have found that filling the battlefield with two man (spotter and shooter) sniper teams not only provides more intelligence, but also a lot of precision firepower. Snipers are better at finding the enemy, and killing them with a minimum of noise and fuss. New rifle sights (both day and night types) have made all infantry capable of accurate, single shot, fire. With the emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down, and the tendency of the enemy to use civilians as human shields, lots of snipers, or infantrymen who can take an accurate shot at typical battle ranges (under 100 meters), are the best way to win without killing a lot of civilians.
"Spray and pray" is what our enemies do, now. While it never hurts to have more ammo, round for round aimed fire is far more effective, making the ability to carry hundreds of rounds less important.
An article in ‘Guns’ showed a cut-away Soviet 5.45 bullet. The lead core was designed to do just that. They were impressed with the tumbling characteristic of our M-16 round.
The same author wrote, if there was a way for the Russians to make bullets from concrete, they would have done it!
*Gun writer Patrick Sweeney maybe.
I have a Nagant that I sporterized by taking 3” off the barrel, composite stock and a Burris 2 and 3/4 scope on a scout mount. With 200 gr. soft points it kicks like a MF’r but I wouldn’t hesitate to take it where I might encounter critters with big teeth and nasty attitudes.
I love my ‘Bulgy’ AK 74. It as dependable and durable as a AK 47. Mine only jammed once and it was fixed by merely loading the magazines with 29 rounds instead of the full 30. It never has jammed since. It’s fairly accurate and it’s high velocity round carries a good punch. It light enough my wife can carry it and she can easily handle the recoil. The ammo when you can get it is cheap enough you can afford to actually take it out and shoot it. This is from an article on Cheaper than Dirt:
The Soviets took the 5.56 NATO and improved upon it by making it even more inclined to yaw. The construction of the 5.45×39 bullet features a steel core with a copper jacket and lead-plugged tail. The jacket forms an air space above the penetrator at the nose, making the round lighter and faster still. This, combined with the lead plug in the tail, made the round very tail heavy and incredibly unstable in soft tissue. Even upon impact the air-gap in the nose remains intact, causing the bullet to violently yaw sideways and rapidly break apart as it passes through tissue. The 5.45 also has a very high cross-sectional density giving it an excellent ballistic co-efficient and hence, aerodynamic stability. The increased cross-sectional density also makes the bullet much better at penetrating kevlar and other body armor than the older 7.62×39 ammunition.
First battle-tested in the Soviet war in Afghanistan – one of the most brutal and bloody wars of our time and certainly one of the most inhospitable of environments to field troops and material – the AK-74 proved it’s merit. Afghans who came up against the AK-74 in the Afghan-Soviet war dubbed the 5.45×39 round the “poison bullet” due to the wound-causing capability of the round. There were rumours that the round might violate the Geneva Convention. Though, since the round was not an explosive, poisoned, or a hollow point round, the greivances were never found to have merit. Similar complaints were made when the 5.56 NATO round was introduced, though neither cartridge was ever found to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Yeah, that’s what I have heard-go for the nose if it’s head on as is likely if it’s charging you. I have also heard that jammed into its mouth is appropriate when it’s right on top of you trying to turn you into lunch and breaking its front shoulder(s) first and foremost is most preferable. Doubt I’ll ever have to worry about it; although, I have been considering a black bear hunt for a while.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
