Concealed weapon or not: The bush and animal protection
- Thread starter Win 38-55
- Start date
redbeard870
Regular
Definitely an interesting topic.
I have worked in the bush quite a bit in the past, but only recently acquired handguns and haven't had any reason to apply for wilderness carry.
One piece of advice that always stuck with me was to have a nice sharp, pointy and long knife within easy reach.If you end up in a situation where you are attacked by a bear or a cougar and don't have a chance to get your firearm, you may still be able to put the knife into the ribcage. I guess if you had a handgun on your hip that would work too!
I have worked in the bush quite a bit in the past, but only recently acquired handguns and haven't had any reason to apply for wilderness carry.
One piece of advice that always stuck with me was to have a nice sharp, pointy and long knife within easy reach.If you end up in a situation where you are attacked by a bear or a cougar and don't have a chance to get your firearm, you may still be able to put the knife into the ribcage. I guess if you had a handgun on your hip that would work too!
Good advise, i carry a 8 inch razor sharp bowie its so sharp it will shave arms hairs off with ease you can do alot with a knife.
Also a bridgeport fast Draw rig is and interesting idea.
I prefer the gun in my hand myself but with that rig you wont drop it dont know how good you could place a shot tho once your on the ground. even just the gunfire alone can be enough to save you getting a mauling again better to have it than not.
I have antique Colt Bisley Flat top target with a good cylinder in it it shoots the 45 acp P loads no problem there over 1000 fps but its one rare tho strong gun.
All the bisleys used the better steel in there frames even the antique ones.
It can shoot 1100 FPS 250 gr SWC Elmer keith 2400 Loads in 45 schofields to (it has 3 diffrent cylinders) but to be 100% honest i like the 800 to 900 Fps loads better myself as i can get off more shots more on target with the less recoil loads. Good shot placement and a cool head with any handgun is gona help in a bad situation.
So even tho i could have the higher veloictys i prefer and use the 800 to 900 fps loadings that alot of antique guns can reach.
Last edited:
All right, Sharp '63, enough is enough. We get it already: You don't think handguns - especially BP ones - are of any use whatsoever for wilderness protection. So don't carry one.
For myself, I can't help noticing that there are any number of reported cases (stretching back into the 1700s) of people who have been attacked by bears and have fought them off and/or killed them with hunting knives - in one case in the 1990s that I remember, an angler killed a bear with a filleting knife.
So there is absolutely no reason to think a pistol bullet won't work, even if it comes from an "antique". And that would be true even if there weren't ALSO numerous reported cases of wilderness types fending off various critters with pistols...
Plus one reported in John Lachuk's Gun Digest Book of the .22 about a wilderness guide who killed a charging young grizzly with a lever action rifle -- a .22WMR rifle, that is.
(Note: If "antique" pistols are as useless as you claim, I wonder why the Mountain Men invariably carried a .45 to .75 calibre single- or double-barrelled percussion muzzleloading pistol in their belt... They just liked toting the extra weight perhaps?)
FWIW, I personally know one guy who killed an attacking black bear with a 6-shot .25ACP Basque pocket pistol. Not anybody's first choice for 'bear defence', but it was the gun he had so it was the gun he was carrying out berry-picking when he got cornered in an old gravel pit...
(And no, you won't find a report of this particular incident in the news anywhere, on account of the fact that not only did he not have a "wilderness ATC", the pistol itself wasn't registered. RPAL was not an issue as this happened back in the FAC days. So he left the dead bear where it fell and didn't report the incident; though if the body was found and analyzed, I suppose that particular province's DNR might have a 'bear autopsy report' somewhere in its archives noting a bear with .25 pistol slugs in it.)
So kindly do us all a favour and take your "a .45 Schofield is a worthless pea shooter" crap and stick it in an appropriate receptacle. I for one am completely and totally sick of hearing it.
Last edited:
Noble words Screwtape, 38-55, VViking, etc.. I carry my .44 special useless good for nothing in cat country for just the same reason, I also like my knives. Just in case. After all some of us hit the bush. well maybe not all of us, right sharp? Oh and I've seen Griz in the bush, been tracked by both Griz and Cats, as well as seen and avoided pissed off Moose, so I can safely tell you that you're full of it, if you think that being a boy scout, when it comes to covering yourself off in the wilderness is not smart.
Well, I'm not sure what Sharp '63s point is. It seems that he is insisting that we all need to be fatalistic quitters if we are attacked in the bush by a bear or cougar. Nobody is saying it is going to be a cakewalk. Nobody is denying that he has a good chance of dying. As far as I've been able to figure out, my #### is good for only two things and defending myself against a bear attack is not one of those two things. Therefore, I would rather have something a little more suited to causing harm to the bear. I have read every bear attack account I could over the past 45 years. There is even an entire book in the Winnipeg library that lays out the results of research into bear attacks over the past 150 years. In a lot of cases, the person does have the use of their hands, so they might as well fill their hands with a 45 Schofield than merely grabbing bear fur. I was raised on a beef farm in Manitoba and have put down various animals up to thousand pound, several year old steers. One thing that always amazed me is how such a large animal drops instantly with a single tiny bullet in the brain. I found a bear skull in the bush once and examined it. I was surprised at how much weakly constructed it was in comparison with a steers, which are equipped to grow horns and use them.
Sharps '63, to help me understand your point, what would you have recommended a person do with their antique pistol in the following actual account of an attack that occurred in BC. Two women were hiking in a remote region when they were attacked by a Grizz. While the bear was mauling the one woman, the other woman emptied her entire can of bear spray at point blank into the bear's face, nose and eyes. We are talking a range of a few inches, just to be clear. The woman states that the bear never even noticed the can of bear spray. Both woman got badly mauled but both survived and were able to stagger out for help. Now help me understand your point, Sharps '63. Are you saying that if the woman had a 45 Schofield in her hand instead of that useless can of bear spray, that she should just throw it away, lay down, and await her turn to get mauled? Are you saying that if the woman had pointed that 45 Schofield into the ear of the Grizz and pulled the trigger that the bullet probably would have bounced off the bears skull so she she might as well just throw her antique pistol away? I have put big animals down with a shot in the brain, I have examined a bear's skull and found that they don't appear to have super powers, I have shot a lot of 45 Schofield slugs into various solid targets and found that they have more than enough momentum to blow through the side of a bear's skull and well into the brain, and I have had quite a few encounters with bears in the wilderness, three of which were quite dicey, so I know they happen. So what is your point? Lay down and die? If I am portaging a 60 pound canoe on my head and a 50 pound pack on my back, it needs two hands. The wife and kids are all carrying their loads and sometimes it takes two or three trips. The rifle is not always loaded and in someone's hand on these occasions. So what is your advice? Is it to not have a 45 Schofield on my belt, a 60 pound canoe on my head and a 50 pound pack on my back? Is it to always carry a loaded rifle in one hand and get someone else to do all the work? Are you saying to forget about trying to use an antique pistol as a last resort because .....?
Sharps '63, to help me understand your point, what would you have recommended a person do with their antique pistol in the following actual account of an attack that occurred in BC. Two women were hiking in a remote region when they were attacked by a Grizz. While the bear was mauling the one woman, the other woman emptied her entire can of bear spray at point blank into the bear's face, nose and eyes. We are talking a range of a few inches, just to be clear. The woman states that the bear never even noticed the can of bear spray. Both woman got badly mauled but both survived and were able to stagger out for help. Now help me understand your point, Sharps '63. Are you saying that if the woman had a 45 Schofield in her hand instead of that useless can of bear spray, that she should just throw it away, lay down, and await her turn to get mauled? Are you saying that if the woman had pointed that 45 Schofield into the ear of the Grizz and pulled the trigger that the bullet probably would have bounced off the bears skull so she she might as well just throw her antique pistol away? I have put big animals down with a shot in the brain, I have examined a bear's skull and found that they don't appear to have super powers, I have shot a lot of 45 Schofield slugs into various solid targets and found that they have more than enough momentum to blow through the side of a bear's skull and well into the brain, and I have had quite a few encounters with bears in the wilderness, three of which were quite dicey, so I know they happen. So what is your point? Lay down and die? If I am portaging a 60 pound canoe on my head and a 50 pound pack on my back, it needs two hands. The wife and kids are all carrying their loads and sometimes it takes two or three trips. The rifle is not always loaded and in someone's hand on these occasions. So what is your advice? Is it to not have a 45 Schofield on my belt, a 60 pound canoe on my head and a 50 pound pack on my back? Is it to always carry a loaded rifle in one hand and get someone else to do all the work? Are you saying to forget about trying to use an antique pistol as a last resort because .....?
Last edited:
Actually, we are on the same side. I just want to inject a little reality into the discussion. I'm not offering any advice nor do I particularly care what any individual does with regard to packing iron - legally or otherwise.
With 12 years military service, having been an IPSC Black Badge instructor, a current CAS RO and a life time hunter, I have a fair idea of my capabilities (and those of others) with a variety of weapons in scenarios where a heightened adrenalin rush is normal. But that is competition; fun and games.
In none of these are we fighting for our lives, are not fatigued, burdened with a pack (or canoe) and are usually well rehearsed for the particular stage or set up. Nor are we being surprised by a swift, overwhelming attack by a powerful creature bent on killing us. There is a difference.
No one has yet taken me up on my test - being tackled by a 250 lb person who beats on you while you are fumbling for whatever weapon you have on you, be it a gun, spray or knife. Said attacking person will not have sharp claws or a set of teeth ripping into your flesh.
Bear spray? Useful, but not really something you want to bet your life on. Getting it in your hand and hitting the intended target being the problem. Same applies to a pistol.
Being armed with anything beats the opposite, but there is a danger of false confidence in both the weapon and one's ability to use it in extreme circumstances. I get the impression from some posters that they believe they can and will survive a charge by a determined bear by virtue of the 'antique' pistol on their belts. Unless you're very lucky, the odds favour the bear.
A couple of forestry worker pals take part in an annual qualification course that includes a 'charging bear' target on a track. They invite the local CO's as well. From 25 yds, it advances at speed on the shooter holding a shotgun loaded with slugs at 'Port Arms'. They say it is an unnerving experience. Most get off two shots max (they may or may not hit the target) or manage to short stroke their gun before the target is right in their faces.
Being mentally prepared, adrenalin pumping and knowing it's just a game notwithstanding, most candidates 'lose' and the bear 'wins'. These are men that spend their lives in the bush, are experienced gun handlers and shoot in various gun sports - trap, Cowboy Action, etc. One told me that he felt his CAS SxS shotgun (he is also an accomplished trap shooter) would have been the ideal gun with two quick shots and no likelihood of a jam. After that ..... ?
So, does that explain where I'm coming from? I've got 'antique' pistols and any number of modern handguns I would like to carry both in the bush and on the street. I feel reasonably confident in my abilities to use them. However, I am under no illusion that shooting well in an IPSC or CAS event makes me a 'gun fighter' with movie level ability to drop an attacking bear.
If we put as much time and energy into lobbying for CCW laws, we'd be doing society a favour.
With 12 years military service, having been an IPSC Black Badge instructor, a current CAS RO and a life time hunter, I have a fair idea of my capabilities (and those of others) with a variety of weapons in scenarios where a heightened adrenalin rush is normal. But that is competition; fun and games.
In none of these are we fighting for our lives, are not fatigued, burdened with a pack (or canoe) and are usually well rehearsed for the particular stage or set up. Nor are we being surprised by a swift, overwhelming attack by a powerful creature bent on killing us. There is a difference.
No one has yet taken me up on my test - being tackled by a 250 lb person who beats on you while you are fumbling for whatever weapon you have on you, be it a gun, spray or knife. Said attacking person will not have sharp claws or a set of teeth ripping into your flesh.
Bear spray? Useful, but not really something you want to bet your life on. Getting it in your hand and hitting the intended target being the problem. Same applies to a pistol.
Being armed with anything beats the opposite, but there is a danger of false confidence in both the weapon and one's ability to use it in extreme circumstances. I get the impression from some posters that they believe they can and will survive a charge by a determined bear by virtue of the 'antique' pistol on their belts. Unless you're very lucky, the odds favour the bear.
A couple of forestry worker pals take part in an annual qualification course that includes a 'charging bear' target on a track. They invite the local CO's as well. From 25 yds, it advances at speed on the shooter holding a shotgun loaded with slugs at 'Port Arms'. They say it is an unnerving experience. Most get off two shots max (they may or may not hit the target) or manage to short stroke their gun before the target is right in their faces.
Being mentally prepared, adrenalin pumping and knowing it's just a game notwithstanding, most candidates 'lose' and the bear 'wins'. These are men that spend their lives in the bush, are experienced gun handlers and shoot in various gun sports - trap, Cowboy Action, etc. One told me that he felt his CAS SxS shotgun (he is also an accomplished trap shooter) would have been the ideal gun with two quick shots and no likelihood of a jam. After that ..... ?
So, does that explain where I'm coming from? I've got 'antique' pistols and any number of modern handguns I would like to carry both in the bush and on the street. I feel reasonably confident in my abilities to use them. However, I am under no illusion that shooting well in an IPSC or CAS event makes me a 'gun fighter' with movie level ability to drop an attacking bear.
If we put as much time and energy into lobbying for CCW laws, we'd be doing society a favour.
Having been involved in martial arts, mainly Jujitsu as well as teaching arrest and control techniques for a number of years, I'll gladly take you up on your offer Sharps, I'm a little out of shape, but I think I could pull it off.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
This is certainly an interesting thread as others have mentioned before me. I don't feel I have much else really constructive to add, so I'll just sit back now & read your posts folks. Some of you have very interesting things to say.
Cheers
Cheers
Good for you. Glad to hear it. So set up a scenario for a surprise 'bear attack' and prove it.
Agreed. So let's make a case for that. How would you feel about a competency test to prove that you can handle an adequate handgun? You do realize that this will necessitate another level of licencing and class of gun owners? We already have the 12(6) (and other) status, making some gun owners unique.
Be sue to post the video. Which ever way it goes, it proves that YOU can pull this off in a controlled situation.
We already have wilderness atc, but they will not let us common folk have it.
So we have our antiques for target shooting that can also double as a form
self defence IF the needs arises. Win lose or draw,better to have a fighting
chance than whistling in the wind.
So we have our antiques for target shooting that can also double as a form
self defence IF the needs arises. Win lose or draw,better to have a fighting
chance than whistling in the wind.
The cfo already use a competency range test for people who want a wilderness atc but you have to be employed and working in the bush to qualify.Ordinary people don't qualify.
I read Sharps '63s most recent post giving clarification on what his point is and I would have to say that he is pretty much right about the challenges of facing a real, honest to goodness attack. The odds of getting mangled or killed are very high, but an antique pistol on the belt might drop those odds by a few percentage points. Some fellows might turn to jello and pee their pants, but a lot will keep a level head in spite of the massive adrenalin charge. I thoroughly agree that fake practices do not prepare a fellow for the real thing. I have had three adrenalin-charged incidents with bears including one face to face on a path in the bush with a stringer of Jackfish in my hand and another surprise face to face, eyeball to eyeball staring contest at dusk in the bush at a distance of 2 feet. and know what a charge of adrenalin feels like but I also know that I was able to stay level headed and stay in control of myself. I have spent quite a few years in the chute with 300 to 1,000 pound steers, bulls, heifers and cows and know what it is like to have a 500 pound animal go berserk in a very confined space and how to keep my head and figure out what to do to save my skin and do it in a second or two. I don't think I'm any different from a lot of folks, judging from reading various bear attacks; a lot of people are able to keep their heads. So, bottom line, Sharps '63 is right in what he wrote in his most recent post, but in an emergency situation, I'll do whatever I can to improve the odds, even if it is only by one percentage point, and an antique pistol like a 45 Schofield seems better than nothing at all.
Thinking about this, the closest thing I have experienced to a real life tussle with a big, berserk animal happened about 42 years ago. Dad and I were fixing a pole fence in the spring. He was inside the fence and I was outside. A stray dog from who knows where wandered into the large corral where there were just over 100 cows, many of which had calves. One of the cows, a Charlois weighing at least 700 pounds charged the blistering dog, which ran between my dad's legs and out of the corral. The cow, unfortunately, had lost its senses by this time and rammed my dad into the muck and started stomping on him with its front hooves. I had nothing but my bare hands, but I cleared the fence and tackled its head, wrapping my arms around its eyes thinking that if I could keep its eyes covered, I might distract it long enough for dad to get out of the corral. Dad started to crawl to the log fence, about 10 feet away, but the cow threw me off and nailed my dad again and stomped on his back with her front hooves. I tackled her head again, doing everything in my strength to try and hold or distract her long enough for my dad to get to safety. This time he made it, albeit with a splintered vertebra and a number of other lessor injuries. The cow finally threw me off her head and I backed up for the fence and got through safely myself. The whole incident probably took about 30 seconds, although I lost all track of time in the adrenalin of the emergency.
Now here are a couple points to make. First, by the second time it was stomping my dad in the muck I knew it was a life and death situation and every fraction of a second counts. I was as pumped with adrenalin as I ever have been but still remained calm enough to realize that all I could do was to cover its eyes and keep them covered as best I could if I wanted to distract it. Second, there was no way I could manhandle a 700+ pound berserk Charlois cow, but I was also very aware I needed to stay on my feet or I was toast. Finally, and here is my major point, if I had a Schofield on my belt at the time, I may have tackled the cow's head the first time instead of using a gun in an effort to save the animal, but when it threw me off and started stomping dad the second time, I know I was entirely capable of drawing a 45 Schofield, placing the muzzle almost against her head and firing a slug into her brain and doing it in less than one second .... but I didn't have a 45 Schofield on my belt and my dad was badly injured and laid up for a month and suffered for about 10 years after.
I don't think I'm a whole lot different from a lot of folks, judging from what I have read of bear attacks. A lot of folks do not turn to jello; they do not pee their pants. Instead, they are thinking a million miles a second trying to figure out a solution to the problem. At the end of the day, I certainly grant Sharps '63s point that the chances are slim, etc. But if a 45 Schofield on the belt improves the odds by even half of a percentage point of me, or my wife, or my child being able to survive, I'll take the 45 Schofield on the belt without a second's hesitation.
Thinking about this, the closest thing I have experienced to a real life tussle with a big, berserk animal happened about 42 years ago. Dad and I were fixing a pole fence in the spring. He was inside the fence and I was outside. A stray dog from who knows where wandered into the large corral where there were just over 100 cows, many of which had calves. One of the cows, a Charlois weighing at least 700 pounds charged the blistering dog, which ran between my dad's legs and out of the corral. The cow, unfortunately, had lost its senses by this time and rammed my dad into the muck and started stomping on him with its front hooves. I had nothing but my bare hands, but I cleared the fence and tackled its head, wrapping my arms around its eyes thinking that if I could keep its eyes covered, I might distract it long enough for dad to get out of the corral. Dad started to crawl to the log fence, about 10 feet away, but the cow threw me off and nailed my dad again and stomped on his back with her front hooves. I tackled her head again, doing everything in my strength to try and hold or distract her long enough for my dad to get to safety. This time he made it, albeit with a splintered vertebra and a number of other lessor injuries. The cow finally threw me off her head and I backed up for the fence and got through safely myself. The whole incident probably took about 30 seconds, although I lost all track of time in the adrenalin of the emergency.
Now here are a couple points to make. First, by the second time it was stomping my dad in the muck I knew it was a life and death situation and every fraction of a second counts. I was as pumped with adrenalin as I ever have been but still remained calm enough to realize that all I could do was to cover its eyes and keep them covered as best I could if I wanted to distract it. Second, there was no way I could manhandle a 700+ pound berserk Charlois cow, but I was also very aware I needed to stay on my feet or I was toast. Finally, and here is my major point, if I had a Schofield on my belt at the time, I may have tackled the cow's head the first time instead of using a gun in an effort to save the animal, but when it threw me off and started stomping dad the second time, I know I was entirely capable of drawing a 45 Schofield, placing the muzzle almost against her head and firing a slug into her brain and doing it in less than one second .... but I didn't have a 45 Schofield on my belt and my dad was badly injured and laid up for a month and suffered for about 10 years after.
I don't think I'm a whole lot different from a lot of folks, judging from what I have read of bear attacks. A lot of folks do not turn to jello; they do not pee their pants. Instead, they are thinking a million miles a second trying to figure out a solution to the problem. At the end of the day, I certainly grant Sharps '63s point that the chances are slim, etc. But if a 45 Schofield on the belt improves the odds by even half of a percentage point of me, or my wife, or my child being able to survive, I'll take the 45 Schofield on the belt without a second's hesitation.
