Will a flintlock stop a bear?

[R.M.]

I've been told by a wilderness handgun instructor, to save the last shot for up close. So close that the barrel is in full contact with the bear's body. The massive amount of gas produced will fill, and destroy the bears inards.

 

[Robby]

Karwelis, Good luck on your hunt! I think seeing that beautiful country would be a success in itself.
Robby

 

[BadHorse]

Karwelis, Good luck on your hunt! I think seeing that beautiful country would be a success in itself.
Robby

thanx, im really looking forward to it!

 

[Zoar]

Interesting concept--fill the bear's body with gas and lead. huh.

Anyway just to be clear here is the original post---

"You are a deer hunter. I know there are extenuating circumstances involved but say you are surprised at close range and you have a .54 cal, or so, flintlock in your hands, are you lunch?"

The premise is clear, you are NOT hunting grizzly bear but rather one surprises you and charges you at CLOSE RANGE and all you have is your flintlock.

 

[shootemup]

You know, I've given this question a lot of thought, and I've come to the conclusion that no, you are most likely NOT lunch.

Most guys hunt early and late, so you're PROBABLY either breakfast or supper. :hmm:

 

[Robby]

:shocked2: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[rabjr]

You know, I've given this question a lot of thought, and I've come to the conclusion that no, you are most likely NOT lunch.

Most guys hunt early and late, so you're PROBABLY either breakfast or supper. :hmm:

Actually far to many guys walk out for a lunch break, which helps those of us who sit tight all day.....so yes many could be lunch. :wink:

 

[larry wv]

Im puttin a .54 maxie in its head at point blank range. And would like to jump sideways if im not spinning to much in you know what. :redface: I hope the bear will die and will only get a snack where I was standing. Thats my plan and I hope I can stick to it. :grin: Larry

 

[nkbj]

After reading the last half a brazillian replies I still think Rich Pierce had the right idea about the Brown Bess. But I'd use the bayonet to skewer the rabbit wired to the trigger.

 

[BadHorse]

Im puttin a .54 maxie in its head at point blank range. And would like to jump sideways if im not spinning to much in you know what. :redface: I hope the bear will die and will only get a snack where I was standing. Thats my plan and I hope I can stick to it. :grin: Larry

dont any of you ever double check things before your write? you dont shoot these bears in the damned head! unless your goal is to die.

 

[peter hawbaker]

Ok, I tried my best to keep out of the fray till now. Just can't take it any more. Double check what before writing ? Your whimsical account of the noble and great Wyoming grizzly poachers ? A grizzlys skull is NOT bulletproof, it is just fractions of an inch of bone over the brain like any other skull. If a fellow had but one shot to stop a grizzly at spitting distance, coming right at him, a head shot would have as good or better as chance as ANY shot at instantly stopping the bear. Sure, things can go wrong, the brain is a rather small target in the skull, bullets or balls could deflect, etc. But, a shot anywhere else on a bear coming at you head on would have more things going against it for a one shot instant stop. If a bear is looking right at you, a shot right to the nose provides an easy pathway to the brain, right up the nasal and sinus cavity. Very little resistance. A bit lower, and the shot will go right in the mouth with a very good chance of doing some serious damage. If the bear has his head down, a shot to the top of the skull has a pretty good chance of hitting brain, or if back a bit, the spine. To STOP a bear instantly, a CNS hit is required. The brain is the largest target in the CNS.

Grizzlies are not the mythical bulletproof creatures some believe them to be, I have first hand knowledge of them being killed with .223s here in rural Alaska. A bit small for my tastes, but it has been done, sometimes with one shot. Many natives hunt them with 30-30s. They are nothing to trifle with, and can be extremely tenacious, but are not bulletproof.

So, the hypothetical hunter with his flintlock being charged by a grizzly? His chances are not the best, as anyone here would probably agree. He is already having a very bad day, with the odds stacked heavily against him. However, at ranges measured in feet or inches, a head shot would have as good or better of chance as any shot of instantly stopping the bear and preventing death or serious bodily harm. There are accounts of grizzlies dropped with a .22 lr to the head.

So put me squarely in the "shove the muzzle in the nose" camp, I would take my chances with that, regardless of the advice of the Wyoming bear poachers.

 

[ebiggs1]

The hunter in the story (TV program), that started this all, was armed with a 12 ga slug gun.

He was unsuccessful in stopping the griz. Not making any meaningful comment, but clarifying the facts.

 

[larry wv]

Im shooting it in the HEAD I don't give a RATS BEHIND what YOU think...You give people POOR advice.. You will be the Grizz meal with your bright ideas.. And yes I can read... Larry

 

[gearheart]

From the Lewis and Clark journals,it can be seen that even they concluded that a head shot was the only way to bring a grizzly to a timely end. Still it is no wonder that a well equipped mountain man carried pistol(s) and a big knife in case further negotiation might be required.

 

[RickD]

Seems the self proclaimed grizzly expert may not be right after all..Imagine that..I`ll go with first hand knowledge what roklok says..Also Dueck

 

[BadHorse]

Ok, I tried my best to keep out of the fray till now. Just can't take it any more. Double check what before writing ? Your whimsical account of the noble and great Wyoming grizzly poachers ? A grizzlys skull is NOT bulletproof, it is just fractions of an inch of bone over the brain like any other skull. If a fellow had but one shot to stop a grizzly at spitting distance, coming right at him, a head shot would have as good or better as chance as ANY shot at instantly stopping the bear. Sure, things can go wrong, the brain is a rather small target in the skull, bullets or balls could deflect, etc. But, a shot anywhere else on a bear coming at you head on would have more things going against it for a one shot instant stop. If a bear is looking right at you, a shot right to the nose provides an easy pathway to the brain, right up the nasal and sinus cavity. Very little resistance. A bit lower, and the shot will go right in the mouth with a very good chance of doing some serious damage. If the bear has his head down, a shot to the top of the skull has a pretty good chance of hitting brain, or if back a bit, the spine. To STOP a bear instantly, a CNS hit is required. The brain is the largest target in the CNS.

Grizzlies are not the mythical bulletproof creatures some believe them to be, I have first hand knowledge of them being killed with .223s here in rural Alaska. A bit small for my tastes, but it has been done, sometimes with one shot. Many natives hunt them with 30-30s. They are nothing to trifle with, and can be extremely tenacious, but are not bulletproof.

So, the hypothetical hunter with his flintlock being charged by a grizzly? His chances are not the best, as anyone here would probably agree. He is already having a very bad day, with the odds stacked heavily against him. However, at ranges measured in feet or inches, a head shot would have as good or better of chance as any shot of instantly stopping the bear and preventing death or serious bodily harm. There are accounts of grizzlies dropped with a .22 lr to the head.

So put me squarely in the "shove the muzzle in the nose" camp, I would take my chances with that, regardless of the advice of the Wyoming bear poachers.

once again, classic responding before checking facts. my first post here recounted an article in "National Rifleman" you know the NRA magazine, maybe you have heard of them? one of their writers was on a bear hunt and put 6 hot loaded hunting rounds from a .357 in to the face of a bear close range, pissed the bear off and gave him a headache. that was in my first post here. now if you all want to call them liars well go ahead, i believe them.
next, i have never condoned poaching, and this is the second time in this thread i have had to say this! there are legal circumstances to which you can shoot grizz. like having to defend your self, or if your a Native American. and once again the subject strayed from the initial aspects of how to hunt grizz to bashing me with the legalities of hunting grizz.

im not going into the legalities of how the bear was taken by the people i know, but i will say this, it was legal. the reason you feel the need to go on and on about me approving of poaching (which i dont) is because my first had experience doesnt agree with what you want to believe.once again, this thread has been about "what if".

ok i can believe a .223 can take one down, and i agree way to small a caliber for me. the 22lr, well i dont know, but could happen. how many of you are gonna jump this guy because he suggests such small calibers? isnt this also against what you want to believe? i mean you have been having so much fun so far being ignorant bullies.

 

[hanshi]

Okay, okay, guys. There's only one way to decide this issue once and for all. And while it would bring an end to this interesting thread, it could also start another one up.

Here's how to do it. We'll divide into two teams. Let's call them team 1 and team 2 (brilliant). For purposes of statistical significance, each team will have 5 members each; all will carry .54 or larger bore flint guns. All ten scientists will seek to venture into the bush and provoke close range grizzly attacks. Team 1 will shoot for the head and team 2 will shoot, well, some other anatomical region. The determination of who is correct-in terms of head shot vs not head shot-will be decided by the team that has the largest number of surviving members. :grin: Can't argue with the results. Statistics rule! :thumbsup:

 

[sniper68]

 

[BadHorse]

Okay, okay, guys. There's only one way to decide this issue once and for all. And while it would bring an end to this interesting thread, it could also start another one up.

Here's how to do it. We'll divide into two teams. Let's call them team 1 and team 2 (brilliant). For purposes of statistical significance, each team will have 5 members each; all will carry .54 or larger bore flint guns. All ten scientists will seek to venture into the bush and provoke close range grizzly attacks. Team 1 will shoot for the head and team 2 will shoot, well, some other anatomical region. The determination of who is correct-in terms of head shot vs not head shot-will be decided by the team that has the largest number of surviving members. :grin: Can't argue with the results. Statistics rule! :thumbsup:

Hanshi old friend i love your idea! i volunteer for team 2

 

[RickD]

Excuse me but below you clearly state you didnt ask how they were taken but now say you do know how and it was legal..You really need to stick to one story..Also you say the bears were hunted
RickD Said:These are your words "just because it aint legal dont mean they didnt hunt it! like i said, i brought grizz claws home with me "..Looks to me like your saying the bears were poached and the claws removed and now you have the claws..Seems a tad illegal to me..Also on the eagle feathers I do hope you have the paper work for them



i never said they were poached, and no i dint ask the circumstances under which they were taken. and yes i have my paper work for my Shoshone back ground

Edited by karwelis on 05-17-10 12:37 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.