Close range polar bear rifle

There must be something seriously wrong with me. I can look at a beautifully executed rifle like that and immediately think of things I would change on it. A big bore rifle must have a barrel band front sight base, and an aperture rear sight should be mated with a rectangular post front rather than a bead. There should be a second front sling attachment on the radius of the fore-end, and I prefer a gorgeous wood stock not have an ebony fore-end tip; it seems to end the flow of the wood too abruptly. Although a certain amount of drop at the comb is necessary for the optimum use of iron sights, it also increases the recoil sensation which is no little thing with a .50 caliber hunting rifle; and that one appears to be excessive. Man, I'm sure glad I didn't spend $30K+ on that one!

Now Chuck, think about spending a month out on the land with that rifle, exposing it day after day to bad weather, bug dope from your hands eating at the finish, bumps on rock outcrops, spruce or pine sap making it sticky and tacky, sand blowing in the action . . . could you do it? And if you could would the wear it received make it appear more attractive or would it just look like another beat up wilderness rifle?
 
I understand where you are coming from. But believe me when I say that rifle was built first for function. Gene Simillion and D'Arcy Echols (who are both serious hunters) have developed an epoxy finish that is tough as nails. Gene for the longest time took one stock he beat up to the shower with him for weeks and could not make that finish fail. Phil Shoemaker has said this about the maker, D'Arcy Echols: "When you are talking "best", it has nothing to do with price. You are either talking aesthetics - which is subjective - or performance and reliability.
In the latter catagory I would place my vote for absolute best for D'Arcy Echols.
D'Arcy is not slouch in aesthetics either but Lon Paul, Joe Smithson, Gene Simillion, Reto Bueller, Ralph Martini, Duane Wiebe, Larry Amrine and a number of other top end builders make fantastic, world class rifles."

Phil has packed one of his rifles under conditions you describe above.

Beautiful form can have beautiful function.
 
Here are some more of the 505. Yea I'd pack it.:D

web0534.jpg

web0526.jpg

web0501.jpg

web0492.jpg

web20517.jpg
 
I know this has nothing to do with the polar bear thread but I could look at custom rifle pics like these all day long. If one has ever tried to duplicate this kind of quality themselves there would be a serious appreciation for this kind of quality. Thanks for posting Chuck. For what it is worth the .505 gibbs is good enough for polar bear.
 
I take it that you are saying this is jest.

No really, some people here are using prohibited guns, mags, no PALs (90% + of the people don't have one I'd guess), no observation of transport or storage regs, kids hunting alone... still, people are not killing each other with guns. According to Wendy we should all be dead by now. :rolleyes:
 
What the hell kind of bear-defense thread is this, anyhow? No strongly-held opinions from downtown Toronto gun-owners who only shoot their guns three or four times a year? No mention of laser-sighted KelTec RFB's or 12-gauge shotguns tarted up to look like overgrown AR15's? No learned dissertations from guys who have only shot two red squirrels and a barn cat in their entire lives? What's wrong with this thread???

Seriously, this is a great read, with a lot of well-reasoned discussion by guys who are worth listening to. Very interesting and informative.
 
What the hell kind of bear-defense thread is this, anyhow? No strongly-held opinions from downtown Toronto gun-owners who only shoot their guns three or four times a year? No mention of laser-sighted KelTec RFB's or 12-gauge shotguns tarted up to look like overgrown AR15's? No learned dissertations from guys who have only shot two red squirrels and a barn cat in their entire lives? What's wrong with this thread???

Seriously, this is a great read, with a lot of well-reasoned discussion by guys who are worth listening to. Very interesting and informative.

Polar bears are hardcore. They need time to come up with a proper rig to show off and reflecting the hardcoreness of the situation a polar bear will land you in. :p

As an update to my earlier comments in this thread I picked up a Puma in 454 casull on my last rotation out to be my new field gun(5lbs!!!!). Still need to work up a proper load for it and get a heavier bullet mold as all I have is a 300gr FP. The point of bringing this up is if using this gun DO NOT USE COMMERCIAL BULLETS. They are designed to expand at low velocities from a handgun and hitting a bear at high velocities from a max charge in a rifle will disintegrate a normal pistol bullet(even 454 specific ones). Hard cast heavy bullets only. In a pinch swift A-frames can be used but expect the bullet to shed the front half.
 
This is my camp gun for bears......any kind of bear.....458wm with 350 or 500 gr bullets. We call em "Bubba" The 350's have 5000 fp muzzle energy and if his heads in my tent....its gonna put a heck of a "dent" in em :) Powder coated for durability, Hi Vis sights for fast acquisition in low or flash light conditions, safety modified for positive thumb feel. When you only get time for one shot.... its gotta count.

The largest polar bear hide I ever measured was 12"2" from nose tip to tail tip....look at your standard 8' wall to put that in perspective :)

DSC013593.JPG

458WMsights1.JPG

DSC013702.JPG
 
It sure sounds like that rifle and it's bolt had not been completely degreased and the firing pin was slowed down too much by oil/dirt in the firing pin channel to detonate the primer on the first strike.

If it was faulty ammo, the chance of 4 consecutive defective primers is pretty remote.

Norway polar bear attack: failings that left Horatio Chapple at bear's mercy
Organisers of the expedition on which a British schoolboy was killed by a polar bear had a gun which failed to fire four times and had not assigned a night watchman, police have disclosed

Horatio Chapple, an aspiring medical student, was killed by the bear which was later shot and hauled away by rescuers in Svalbard, Norway
By James Orr, Tromso and Richard Alleyne in Longyearbyen8:56PM BST 07 Aug 2011
Horatio Chapple, 17, a pupil at Eton, was mauled to death by the 39-stone bear which entered the expedition’s campsite on the Norwegian Arctic island of Svalbard early in the morning.
An explosive trip wire designed to scare off approaching animals failed to trigger and without a watchman there was no second line of defence.
Mike Reid, the 29-year-old expedition leader, desperately tried to shoot the animal after it attacked the tent where people were sleeping, explained Superintendent Arild Lyssand . But each time he pulled the trigger the rifle failed to go off. His fellow guide Andy Ruck, 27, tried to fire a flare gun, but that failed too.
Moments later, having fatally hurt Horatio, the bear turned its attention to Mr Reid, severely injuring him. It then returned to the tent where it attacked one other teenager before chasing down a third, who had tried to escape. Mr Reid picked up a round off the ground which had failed to fire and reloaded. He then shot the bear in the head and killed it.
Superintendent Lyssand said: “The 29 year-old picked up the rifle and pulled the trigger but the gun didn’t fire. Why did this happen?


“The gunman fired again but again it didn’t go off. He fired all four bullets in the magazine but none went off. We need to look at the routines of this British company to see that they were in order.”

An autopsy on the polar bear has shown that it had a “very thin layer” of fat and an empty stomach – suggesting it was driven to attack by hunger. Investigators have now questioned all but one, severely injured, survivor of the tragedy.
The expedition was organised by the British Schools Exploring Society (BSES), which was camped on the Von Post glacier near Longyearbyen, 600 miles north of the Norwegian mainland. Eighty 16 to 23 year-olds were on the trip, which was planned to last until August 28, but has now been cut sort.
On Thursday night, 13 of them set up camp, including a perimeter trip wire, on barren ground following a 25-mile trek. But at 7.30 the following morning they were woken when the male bear ripped open one of the tents. Mr Reid and Andy Ruck, 27, sustained severe head injuries as they tried to defend Horatio.
Scott Bennell-Smith, 17, from Cornwall, suffered a broken jaw and smashed teeth, and Patrick Flinders, 16, of Jersey, was clawed across the face.
Expedition leaders are advised that camps should be protected either by trip wires, lookouts thought the night or guard dogs. However, it emerged yesterday that the camp had operated without an overnight lookout or guard dog.
Expeditions commonly use trip wires attached to small incendiary devices.
Regular trekkers said the wires should be attached to wooden posts driven into the ground and revealed that they must be set up correctly to ensure the device detonates when tripped, but cannot be activated by a gust of wind.
A spokesman for the governor of Svalbard said that the trip wire appeared not to have been detonated. A group of Swiss walkers ending a two day trek, said they would not trust a tripwire: “We prefer to have someone permanently on watch and rotate them over the night.”
Andy Rouse, a wildlife photographer with experience of the region, said that groups needed to be “armed to the teeth” to counter any possible threat. But it was reported that the bear may have been shot with an old Mauser hunting rifle. The German made, bolt-action weapons are common on the island, locals said.
Two of the injured left University Hospital in Tromso yesterday to fly home on separate air ambulances. One was scheduled to land in Exeter, while the other was bound for Southampton. Two other injured expedition members were due to fly home today. Their injuries are understood to include 6in cuts, claw marks and one serious bite to the arm.
Horatio’s parents were preparing to return with their son’s body.
David Chapple, 49, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Salisbury NHS Foundation, and Olivia, a doctor at the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals, flew to Tromso to make the necessary arrangements.
A statement from them said: “We, as Horatio’s family, appreciate how supportive and compassionate the Norwegian people have been to us during this extremely painful time.
“We would like to thank the British Ambassador and her staff and everyone at the British Schools Exploring Society for their incredible support and help.”
Lieut Gen Peter Pearson, executive director of the British Schools Exploring Society, said that expeditions would go on. “We have been coming here for 40 years and we have never experienced anything like this,” he said.
Peter Bennell-Smith, Scott’s father, said: “It will never leave me to think how close Scott came to being killed that day.
“I am so sorry for the loss of his new friend and fellow adventurer, Horatio; it is every parent’s worst nightmare.”
 
It sure sounds like that rifle and it's bolt had not been completely degreased and the firing pin was slowed down too much by oil/dirt in the firing pin channel to detonate the primer on the first strike.

If it was faulty ammo, the chance of 4 consecutive defective primers is pretty remote.

I think you're probly right. Things get dirty and gungy while out on the land and it never hurts to clean stuff religiously. Mechanical failure is also a problem. One remote camp I was in was issued three Win 1200s and two of them turned out to be broken when it was time for firearms training.

Companies also seem to pay zero attention to ammo, and the employees who purchase the stuff seem to think that anything will work right, because it's a gun! We always stuffed our shotguns with Win or Federal Foster slugs and/or buck shot. When a problem bear was problematic, the gun of last resort was a .303, not a shotgun. Now that I know a bit more I think the foster slugs still might work but I wouldn't waste time with buck shot.

One thing I noticed with a fair few 'visitors' working in the north is that that some of them hate guns and are deathly afraid of them. Sure they'll do the safety training. They grit their teeth and get through it. But when it comes to maintaining or carrying them or handling them safely afterward, avoidance behaviour takes over and they tend to shirk responsibility. But sometimes the same people will turn around and Liberally castigate people who do all the checks and maintenance, or sign one out when warranted, as being some sort of untrustworthy gun nut. You're not supposed to like guns.

They're fine to sling barrels of fuel, run chainsaws, ATVs, snowmobiles, zodiacs in arctic waters, remember helicopter safety, bear spray around helicopters, etc etc. But when it comes to making sure a rifle or shotgun is safe or in proper working order, or ensuring that it is unloaded before they put it away when camp demobes, a few incredibly smart people turn into total idiots. I've even witnessed a couple people emotionally lose it when they saw or heard a shotgun.

If you don't like guns and don't want to carry one, fine (I still wonder about company liability if someone who declines gets mauled or killed when working alone - this is a PPE issue right?), but don't think it gives you a free pass on safe handling when you're required to handle one as part of the job, or an excuse to whig out on people who do so in order to attend to their own safety.

If this comes off as righteous indignation, it's not meant to. It's genuine frustration.

:rolleyes: :bangHead:
 
I've seen plenty of guns that refused to fire in the cold because they were gummed up with a combination of grease and crud. Ammunition, especially shotgun ammunition that is exposed to the elements on a daily basis becomes so corroded it won't chamber after a month or so of wet weather. I've seen magazine followers that were stuck fast to the magazine tubes with rust and mag springs that were rust welded to the followers. Why is it that some people will give better care to an axe or canoe paddle than to the gun that will save their lives? It just isn’t that difficult to keep a gun in serviceable condition while in the field.
 
It sure sounds like that rifle and it's bolt had not been completely degreased and the firing pin was slowed down too much by oil/dirt in the firing pin channel to detonate the primer on the first strike.

If it was faulty ammo, the chance of 4 consecutive defective primers is pretty remote.

Or maybe the safety was on. LOTS of things can go wrong in situations like that.
 
Or maybe the safety was on. LOTS of things can go wrong in situations like that.

Easy to make that mistake under pressure. I hope that they eventually make public the nature of the rifle's failure to fire.

It can even happen to people who should be immune to it. I had a close call in the dark early one morning which needed to be resolved with gunfire. My habit is to carry the gun with the magazine full, the chamber empty, and the safety ignored. When the dust settled from that little fray, I slung my 590 and headed home thinking little more about the gun. I get home and unsling only to find the chamber loaded??!!! Although I didn't feel overwhelmed by the pressure at the time of the incident, apparently it was enough to prevent me from clearing the chamber prior to slinging the gun. Clearing the chamber after shooting, then topping off the magazine is essentially a muscle memory action requiring little conscious thought, but the incident got in the way of that.

It will be interesting to see where they decide to lay the blame. IMHO there's plenty to go around. The primary blame for the failure should be laid at the feet of British society who no longer recognizes the need for the private ownership of weapons of any kind, thus there no longer exists a culture which promotes the mindset of survival through violence; at least not outside of the military. No gun culture exists to provide the opportunity for an individual to learn about and train for dangerous wildlife encounters. By the time you're there its too late to learn the basics, and as those folks found out, having a rifle in hand is not the same as being armed. At least the fellow who attempted to shoot but couldn't, won't have to live with the guilt of killing the youngster he was attempting to save had the rifle fired and the bullet passed through. Perhaps in the future they will hire an expert to provide camp security. More likely though the incident will be considered an anomaly and the lessons ignored.
 
Last edited:
Adrenaline can do funny things, even to the experienced.

A good field (especially in the middle of camp at 3 AM) practice is after the animal is confirmed dead, immediately order each armed person to point their muzzle in a safe direction, clear their chamber, leave the action open, reload magazines. It's commonsense but that can go when your adrenaline is high.
 
This is my camp gun for bears......any kind of bear.....458wm with 350 or 500 gr bullets. We call em "Bubba" The 350's have 5000 fp muzzle energy and if his heads in my tent....its gonna put a heck of a "dent" in em :) Powder coated for durability, Hi Vis sights for fast acquisition in low or flash light conditions, safety modified for positive thumb feel. When you only get time for one shot.... its gotta count.
Those #1s are nice rifles, but I wonder their value as a rifle for protection. I'd think a well built M98 with open sights and a couple more shots on tap would be a better choice.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom