Camping/Hiking Rifle

[two70]

I heard they wouldn't let him back in the zoo after this incident tho...

I'd like to know which zoo he found the cape buffalo in and why they had all three in the same paddock.

 

[rhino]

I'm pretty sure he was joking since it would be extremely difficult to find those three animals in one location let alone lined up carefully. Plus a 6.5 JDJ wouldn't be legal for 2 of the three animals mentioned. And of course the way to serious comment.

Ah, I did not read carefully. You are correct and I was wrong!

Apology to bstewrat3.

 

[Hohn]

I'm still trying to process how large must be the ego that insists that the many many people who have for many years hunted animals that can eat them have yet to discover the tremendous virtues of the AR15 for their application.

It's hard to imagine two scenarios more different than dangerous game defense and military combat. Close range vs standoff. 200lb human vs 800+ lb animal. Large numbers of opponents vs a single threat.

Here's something I try to remember: if you have have to resort to reciting your CV or experience, then you've lost. You've lost because the only argument you have left is "I'm smarter than you so I don't need to make a cogent point or argue actual merits." A good valid argument stands on its own accord, regardless of the person voicing it. Attack the person, lose the argument.

There are reliable AR15s of course there are. But who cares? A reliable wrong tool is still the wrong tool. And it's undeniable that a device with fewer moving parts has fewer opportunities for failure. Thus, a double rifle or other single shot (non-repeating) is the epitome of reliability. Perhaps this is why so many dangerous game guides still use them as they have for 120+years. Automatic loading is complexity. Complexity is reliability risk. Not always unacceptable risk, but a relative risk just the same. We might decide to accept the risk in return for some other benefit.

Like, say, access to more than two shots. Shooters have the annoying tendency to miss. It might be wise to plan for that.

I can either load the rifle myself or have the gun do it for me. Either option has its own risk. In one case, I'm depending on the adrenaline-dumped operator to cycle the weapon with some skill. In the latter, I'm depending on a mechanism.

I personally trust a mechanism more than a person if I've used the mechanism many times with success. People under duress are hardly the most reliable things.

That is the reason I'd recommend against a bolt gun. A bolt gun must still feed a round and extract a round, which are the main failure opportunities, and it must do so with an adrenaline-dumped human as the main operating input. Seems risky, no?

Is there a packable weapon that gives me more than two shots without the need to chamber and extract a round in order to give me a follow up shot?

Yes, and it is the kind that comes from Ruger and Smith and Wesson and has rotating cylinders keeping at least 5 rounds of powerful cartridges readily and reliably available.


Not only are revolvers well suited for this role because of the power of their cartridges and the avoidance of the need to chamber or extract, but because of the projectiles those cartridges fire.


The advantage of a 357 over a 10mm isn't muzzle energy, although a hot .357 can have more energy than the hottest 10mm. No, the advantage of the revolver is that it can use projectiles of MUCH higher sectional density that are suitable for the deep penetration required for successful defense against a large animal. The 10mm even in 200gr is limited to a SD about the same as 158 gr .357. Bullets heavier than 200gr in 10mm can't be pushed very fast. A .357 can push that same SD about 300fps faster. That's a LOT more effective penetration.

In the larger revolver calibers generally applicable to dangerous game (44 mag or larger) the SDs can be 150% or more of what an autoloading caliber can achieve. The limit to COAL for a magazine-fed firearm prevents the use of the most effective, high SD bullets. A 360 grain (!) hardcast bullet in a .45 revolver is a penetrating powerhouse. As is a 340gr bullet in .44.

African guides carry double rifles or bolt guns. Alaskan guides carry powerful revolvers (and usually a rifle too).

Perhaps someday they will become "Woke" enough to discover the virtues of the AR15, but the history suggests that it unlikely to occur very soon.

 

[NyleRN]

I'm still trying to process how large must be the ego that insists that the many many people who have for many years hunted animals that can eat them have yet to discover the tremendous virtues of the AR15 for their application.

It's hard to imagine two scenarios more different than dangerous game defense and military combat. Close range vs standoff. 200lb human vs 800+ lb animal. Large numbers of opponents vs a single threat.

Here's something I try to remember: if you have have to resort to reciting your CV or experience, then you've lost. You've lost because the only argument you have left is "I'm smarter than you so I don't need to make a cogent point or argue actual merits." A good valid argument stands on its own accord, regardless of the person voicing it. Attack the person, lose the argument.

There are reliable AR15s of course there are. But who cares? A reliable wrong tool is still the wrong tool. And it's undeniable that a device with fewer moving parts has fewer opportunities for failure. Thus, a double rifle or other single shot (non-repeating) is the epitome of reliability. Perhaps this is why so many dangerous game guides still use them as they have for 120+years. Automatic loading is complexity. Complexity is reliability risk. Not always unacceptable risk, but a relative risk just the same. We might decide to accept the risk in return for some other benefit.

Like, say, access to more than two shots. Shooters have the annoying tendency to miss. It might be wise to plan for that.

I can either load the rifle myself or have the gun do it for me. Either option has its own risk. In one case, I'm depending on the adrenaline-dumped operator to cycle the weapon with some skill. In the latter, I'm depending on a mechanism.

I personally trust a mechanism more than a person if I've used the mechanism many times with success. People under duress are hardly the most reliable things.

That is the reason I'd recommend against a bolt gun. A bolt gun must still feed a round and extract a round, which are the main failure opportunities, and it must do so with an adrenaline-dumped human as the main operating input. Seems risky, no?

Is there a packable weapon that gives me more than two shots without the need to chamber and extract a round in order to give me a follow up shot?

Yes, and it is the kind that comes from Ruger and Smith and Wesson and has rotating cylinders keeping at least 5 rounds of powerful cartridges readily and reliably available.


Not only are revolvers well suited for this role because of the power of their cartridges and the avoidance of the need to chamber or extract, but because of the projectiles those cartridges fire.


The advantage of a 357 over a 10mm isn't muzzle energy, although a hot .357 can have more energy than the hottest 10mm. No, the advantage of the revolver is that it can use projectiles of MUCH higher sectional density that are suitable for the deep penetration required for successful defense against a large animal. The 10mm even in 200gr is limited to a SD about the same as 158 gr .357. Bullets heavier than 200gr in 10mm can't be pushed very fast. A .357 can push that same SD about 300fps faster. That's a LOT more effective penetration.

In the larger revolver calibers generally applicable to dangerous game (44 mag or larger) the SDs can be 150% or more of what an autoloading caliber can achieve. The limit to COAL for a magazine-fed firearm prevents the use of the most effective, high SD bullets. A 360 grain (!) hardcast bullet in a .45 revolver is a penetrating powerhouse. As is a 340gr bullet in .44.

African guides carry double rifles or bolt guns. Alaskan guides carry powerful revolvers (and usually a rifle too).

Perhaps someday they will become "Woke" enough to discover the virtues of the AR15, but the history suggests that it unlikely to occur very soon.

Nuclear 357 loads out of a 6" may edge out nuclear 10s from a 6" barrel such as my G40 longslide. But 200gr doing 1200-1250 ain't no slouch. May be a toss up on recoil and the ability to recover from it. As with anything in a defensive situation shot placement is key. I feel comfortable with my G40 just about anywhere in the US with Underwood loads since I've yet to find a 357 that holds 16rds.

 

[Hawkeye]

Nuclear 357 loads out of a 6" may edge out nuclear 10s from a 6" barrel such as my G40 longslide. But 200gr doing 1200-1250 ain't no slouch. May be a toss up on recoil and the ability to recover from it. As with anything in a defensive situation shot placement is key. I feel comfortable with my G40 just about anywhere in the US with Underwood loads since I've yet to find a 357 that holds 16rds.

I prefer a LAAW rocket launcher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dbg326]

I prefer a LAAW rocket launcher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I second this. An AT4 if bigger bears are involved.

 

[HamYankee]

I've actually considered the Mossberg Shockwave for hiking and camping. Usually my Glock 26 is with me. But, I think a Shockwave would be a nice option for light hiking with a backpack. There's probably not a legitimate need to take a long shot with a 308, nor a likely need for a huge capacity magazine (use the space and weight wisely), and a Shockwave can handle anything from hunting small game, snakes (Southern Indiana), and larger mammals that could be considered a threat.