Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

PETA will have an Anti-Granny Rally.

Posted by Steve at January 8, 2008 04:51 PM

A .22's hardly a real gun. I'm as liberal as they come, and even I've got a .22 rifle (bolt action).

Posted by Ashley at January 8, 2008 06:10 PM

.22 vs Moutnain Lion.

=One Lucky Granny and one Unlucky Lion.

I am thinking about getting a 10mm Glock or a .357 revolver just for bear and mtn lion medicine and I only hike in the east.

I am glad granny is ok but if I were caught between something dangerous and all I had was my .22, I would quicly dump the mag running the trigger only to reset and throw the pistol at it and run like hell.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 8, 2008 06:39 PM

Get the .357 Mike,much greater ammo selection,from light .38 target loads for plinking & practice to heavy 180 gr hunting loads.
Can't always find 10mm ammo in small towns,but they'll always have a few boxes of .357.

Posted by Frantic Freddie at January 8, 2008 07:11 PM

Supply is a non-issue. If I commit to 10mm, I will find a good load and buy 1K from the same lot number. And I will always keep at least a 1K buffer.

Besides, I will reload for it too.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 8, 2008 08:34 PM

My pocket pistol is a Bulldog in DAO (.44sp). For serious carry, it's Para P-14 in .45 ACP (14 rounds)

Posted by at January 8, 2008 08:44 PM

I am thinking 10mm because .45 does not have enough penetration on big dangerous stuff to be reliable and I want more capacity than a .357.

A 10mm=a 41mag.

Sectional density + bullet construction = penetration.

I already have a 1911.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 8, 2008 08:50 PM

This is outrageous! This woman should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. She shot a rare, valuable endagnered mountain lion, which posed no threat whatsoever to her dog, mountain lions don't eat dogs, just to protect her pet? The pet could have been replaced, easily. There are always more dogs. Despite conservation efforts, and due to trigger happy gun-nuts like this one, the day may yet come when there will be no more mountain lions. I don't know, at least she was protecting another animal. Imagine how awful this would have been if she had been "protecting" a human being. That's always a convenient excuse for killing animals. Cougars are much more important, and far harder to replace than people. they desperately need protection from this sort of thing. Making an example of this woman would go a long way to help.

Posted by Michael at January 8, 2008 09:15 PM

I'm not sure if Michael is joking or not. In case he's not I'll point out that cougars aren't rare or endangered, they are listed as a "near threatened" species, which means they aren't currently threatened (this is one step above "least concern" status).

Also, whether mountain lions eat dogs or not is irrelevant to whether they are a threat to dogs. Neither Hippos nor Cape Buffalo eat humans and yet they are responsible for many, many human deaths and injuries every year.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at January 8, 2008 10:22 PM

I don't know much about guns, but I'm pretty sure that a .357 Magnum or a .45 is too much gun for the average ninety-year-old woman. If you must carry a gun, carry one that won't break your wrist when you fire it! Such a weapon would be pretty heavy to carry, too, for someone like that.

In any case, if you live somewhere where seriously dangerous wildlife roams then, sure, you probably need a gun. I don't know of too many cougars or bears roaming the Bronx, though. Admittedly, the local wildlife there can be pretty dangerous - maybe because they carry guns too? And often ones that are more potent than most legal carry-permit holders are likely to have, unless you have an SMG permit. Which, even in the USA, isn't that easy to get.

Hmmm... huge cars with huge, inefficient engines and guns as big as you can manage to carry. I wonder what that might be compensating for?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 9, 2008 02:55 AM

if you live somewhere where seriously dangerous wildlife roams then, sure, you probably need a gun. I don't know of too many cougars or bears roaming the Bronx, though.

I can think of one predator that regularly roams the concrete jungle of the Bronx, and everywhere else humans congregate...

Posted by Jason Bontrager at January 9, 2008 04:04 AM

I wonder what that might be compensating for?

When it comes to trite and idiotic amateur psychoanalysis, I wouldn't quit your day job, FC.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2008 05:04 AM

I don't know how the subject got on to twenty-two pistols, or any kind of pistol. The article clearly stated that she used a rifle.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2008 05:08 AM

FC "I don't know much about guns"

We've noticed.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 9, 2008 05:25 AM

"I wonder what that might be compensating for?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 9, 2008 02:55 AM"

Eurotrash arrogance and stupidity. Because we don't want to be confused with those eurotrash who do not understand a fear of weapons is a sign of a retarded sexuality as Freud put it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 9, 2008 07:02 AM

"I don't know much about guns,"

Yet your admittedly limited knowledge does not prohibit you from dispensing assinine advice.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 9, 2008 07:03 AM

In fairness to the mutinous Mr. Christian, he is right when he notes, "If you must carry a gun, carry one that won't break your wrist when you fire it!"

It's fun sometimes to be there when the stopped clock gets to be right, y'know?

Posted by McGehee at January 9, 2008 09:31 AM

Hm... on the other hand (wrist), has anyone ever broken their wrist with a handgun? I've heard bad things about automatic shotguns, but breaking your wrist using a gun not pointing towards you seems hard.

Oh, and the best gun in the world is the Llama 45! Heh.

Posted by David Summers at January 9, 2008 10:18 AM

From the article ..
Smith would like to get it mounted but doubts that she'll get it back.

Too bad - that would make a heckuva rug.

Posted by Brian at January 9, 2008 11:32 AM

There was no luck involved. It was simply a good shot, made by a good shot. Caliber is not an issue at short range, shot grouping is.

Posted by jjs at January 9, 2008 11:43 AM

To be honest, I don't understand the concern about large mammals in the US wild. I've routinely been near large animals like bear, wolves, bison, and probably cougars (never seen one, but I bet they saw me). The human animal has consistently been more dangerous. Common sense, proper storage of food (and stuff that smells like food), and traveling in groups really is sufficient. The problem with bringing a handgun or other weapon is twofold.

First, it's weight. At a glance, a handgun and some ammo is probably going to weigh around 2 pounds (or a kilogram). IMHO, the risk of large animal attacks is minute. You have to balance that small benefit against increased fatigue. For example, carrying that handgun one mile straight up would consume at least 3.5 kilocalories (not much but you might need that little bit later on). And there would be increased risk of injury (and worsening of injury you do receive) from sprains or falling.

Second, you assume some degree of responsibility and liability when you bring a gun. The usual matters that people who own guns should be familiar with. Some places it's illegal (especially national parks) so carrying a gun limits somewhat where you can go.

Having said that, if carrying a weapon allows you to feel much more comfortable and enjoy the wilderness better, then it's probably worth the pain. Just be aware it's not a substitute for responsible and prudent behavior around animals or people and you should be fine.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at January 9, 2008 12:30 PM

Hm... on the other hand (wrist), has anyone ever broken their wrist with a handgun?

Obviously we've been successful at getting everyone to follow Fletch's advice!

Posted by McGehee at January 9, 2008 01:19 PM

Karl,

Sometimes I hike alone or in small parties, I am in remote areas where self-rescue is not an option but a necessity. Designated wilderness areas for example. A call on 2 meter radio or a cell phone in the unlikely event of coverage will still take a minimum of hours if not a full day to respond.

As to the increased risk of injury, I do not want a simple broken ankle to render me below a pack of coyotes on the food chain. A firearm is also a potent signaling device in addition to a weapon.

"Just be aware it's not a substitute for responsible and prudent behavior around animals or people and you should be fine."

I do not know how much time you spend in the
woods Karl, but due to the nature of my work and my recreational choices, my exposure can be measured in years, not weeks or days. I do not mean to blow my own horn but I well understand how hostile nature can turn in a mere moment. Please don't presume to lecture down to me on subject matter that is a component of my paid compensation.

Liability? I know what the law does and does not allow. As to my liability to other hikers, it is far greater while I am driving to the trailhead in a motor vehicle than after I strap on my holster.

Weight? 2 pounds? WAAAHHH! WAAAAAAHHHHH! Somebody call a WAAAAAHHHHMMMMBBBBUUULLLLAAAANNNNNCCCEEE!

That is nothing. Carry an M-60 while under load for even 30 minutes and you will instantly see the triviality of those two pounds. It is like a feather duster in comparison. If I need to lose 2 pounds, I will lose it somewhere else.

Do you think Meredith Emerson might have benefitted from a firearm? Even her martial arts training were not enough to overcome the physical disparity with a middle-aged man.

As the saying goes: "God created men and Sam Colt made them equal."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/09/georgia.hiker/

"In fairness to the mutinous Mr. Christian, he is right when he notes, "If you must carry a gun, carry one that won't break your wrist when you fire it!"

It's fun sometimes to be there when the stopped clock gets to be right, y'know?"

Well, I would suggest you keep your fun in reserve for the day when it actually happens and not expend it on a trivial misperception.

Neither a .45 or the .357 that he was referrencing would break even Granny's wrist and with a good jolt of adreneline, she would probally not even feel it. Neither are monsters handgun calibers like the .454 Casull, .500 Smith and Wesson or even in the league of a .44 Magnum.

The .357 does not recoil badly in a non-compact pistol and the .45 in a 1911 is very moderate in recoil. The .45 is not a high-velocity cartridge.

F=MA

As Granny fired a rifle, even a .223 or a .243 rifle would have been infinitely preferable to a .22lr and she should have had little difficulty with the recoil of either.

"There was no luck involved. It was simply a good shot, made by a good shot. Caliber is not an issue at short range, shot grouping is."

You could not be more wrong. There was plenty of luck involved. I have witnessed deer hit multiple times with a .243 and still run away(surely to slowly bleed to death). Comparing the disparity of a .243 to a .22lr is like comparing a Redstone Rocket to a Saturn V. The point is not to necessairly kill, it is to stop it before it can harm you. If it mortally wounds you before eit bleeds to death a day later, would you still say the caliber was adequate?

What Granny did is something akin to the 'golden BB' effect.

The first cirteria to meet is sufficient penetration, the second is sufficient expansion. I.E. reach the boiler room and shred it.

Shot grouping is a function of marksmanship and mindset. At least as far as common handguns go.

If caliber is not an issue, you could use a bb gun.

There are two ways to stop a large animal. A CNS hit and damage to the cardiopulmonary system. In the case of the first, that is the brain and spine and you must have a caliber with sufficient ass to penetrate the bony enclosures and scramble those neurons for an instantaneous stop.

As to the second, the greater the damage, the quicker the bleed-out. When we are talking handguns, which do not approach the velocity effects of rifles, bigger is better. Amongst common handguns, only the 10mm and the .357 has wounding mechanisms that begin to approach those of modern high-velocity rifle rounds due to their relativly high velocity.

All common handgun calibers are a compromise. A handgun is a poor substitute for a long gun. To compromise it further by chosing a lesser caliber is foolish. In the context of this discussion, a .22lr behaves like a very low powerd handgun round, even when fired from a rifle. It no more becomes a rifle round than a 9mm fired from an MP-5 SMG becomes a rifle round.

The .22 long rifle cartridge has a less than 50% document one-shot stop rating on human animals, much less Adrenaline-pumped four-legged predators.

Go search out the research of Doctor Gary K Roberts, Commander USN. Doc Roberts is the foremost expert in the field of terminal ballistics. (Search under DocGKR as well) and study up on the science of wound ballistics and see just how iffy most handgun calibers are regarded in their terminal effectivness by those who have extensively researched the issue.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 9, 2008 05:19 PM

Interesting topic, it is apparent that laws banning self-defense cannot be justified objectively from the natural universe. Humans ARE animals and are NOT exempt from the "laws of the jungle". I fully accept Evolution by Natural Selection as the current best possible natural explanation for bio-diversity and I accept the reality of its implications. One just have to look at the various news sources to figure it out.

I think Steve was spot on when he said this:

I'm always amazed at the leftist hand wringer view of the world on this gun and violence issue. How is it that they're whole evolutionary vision is that man is evolved from animals. Then they turn right around and deny the animal in all of us. Especially young boys.

So was Jay Manifold:

This is where I note the irony that the most ardent social conservatives are more accepting of key elements of evolutionary psychology than their "reality-based" opponents.

Posted by Robert at January 9, 2008 06:08 PM

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

A question for Mr. Puckett: Is Dirty Harry's description accurate?

-- Curious

Posted by at January 9, 2008 09:27 PM

Wike, I see your point then. If you're traveling alone, the scenario you describe might be likely enough to warrant the effort. And your point about multiple uses for the gun is relevant as well. But I think my point about its weight still stands. Sure, it's just two pounds, but we're not talking about a lot of value here.

Even if you break your ankle and it takes them a day to find you, you aren't likely to have trouble from the wildlife. My take is a lot of people break body parts or otherwise cripple themselves in the woods, but there aren't a lot of animal attacks and most of those attacks come from stupid people getting too close to big animals.

Frankly, the most significant reason I see for carrying a gun in the woods is the same reason as one would carry a gun in civilization. The most dangerous animal remains human even when you're well away from most of them.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at January 10, 2008 03:41 AM

Karl, it is for both purposes.

I might also mention a co-worker of mine was treed overnight once by a pack of ferrel dogs. This was while fishing in the National Forest.

If you asked me what animal I fear most, it would be a pack of wild dogs, they are far bolder in multiples than as an individual. Kind of a mob mentality.

Anonymous Poster,

No, the .44 magnum is not the most powerful handgun in the world, not by a long shot, the .454 Casull and the .500 S@W dwarf it. It may have been when the movie was made.

BTW, Eastwood was actually holding a .41 magnum in his hand when that scene was made as the .44 model was in short supply at that time.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 10, 2008 06:04 AM

I actually don't want to know much about guns of any sort. I have better uses for my memory than technical details for which I will never have any use. I am extremely unlikely to join any military or police force, and I live in a country where handguns are illegal - although criminals sometimes carry them.

The point I made about "too much gun" remains, I think. If the gun is too heavy for you to hold steady or fire more than once in rapid succession (as the recoil makes it climb) then you would be better off with something smaller. It's probably better to get a hit with something that may not do the job than not to get a hit at all.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 10, 2008 10:25 AM

Easily solved Fletcher, just give her a Mateba Autorevolver which is very gentle for its size (litte perceived recoil and no flip, great power & accuracy) ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at January 10, 2008 12:29 PM

Or since she used a rifle, it is easy to provide her with a lightweigt rifle that will dwarf the power and penetraton of a .22lr and still have tame recoil.

Even a 9mm pistol caliber carbine like a Kel-Tec would be a huge improvement.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 10, 2008 03:09 PM

Post a comment