Close range polar bear rifle

PB gun

We have 2 house guns here , my wife has a Benelli M2 loaded with slugs with a speed bead on it, and we have a Marlin 45-70 with a Trigicon reflex sight on it. Both are fast and short enough to deal with anything tring to get into the house. Thats about as close as we get here,I also carry a 4" Redhawk when I work around the yard. I carry my Brno 602 in .458 Lott when I work in the field. We can have a bear encounter almost every day between July and freeze up usually mid to late Nov. Had 2 PB's in my yard today just wandering through.
As for a single shot rifle for defence not me not ever,Boomer carried a #1 in .416 Rigby for a while but changed to a bolt gun.

stay safe
pounder
 
While I liked the #1, if I had the opportunity to do it again, I'd pass. The issue I had with the safety bugged me, and the speed of the second shot with a bolt gun can't be matched with the falling block, even with rounds held between your fingers. The #1 is a great hunting rifle for those who appreciate it, but it leaves something to be desired as a protection gun.
 
That .505 Gibbs is no good for a bear gun, they would hear you cry every time you scratched or nicked it and know just where you are:p


A question for the Marlin 45-70 owners: I have experienced an issue with my 336 in the past. If you have one in the chamber and one in the mag and open the lever 1/2 way (to check or by accident) and try to close the lever, does yours jam?

Mine locks up solid , won't open, won't close. I have to remove the screw that holds the lever in and it is under pressure at this point and won't be done with a coin.

Just curious if this is just an issue with my rifle, a 336 issue or endemic to all marlin lever actions? It could be a bad situation in a desperate moment.
 
Looks like the Svalbard failure to fire on the first 4 rounds was user error.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olboy-savaged-polar-bear-COULD-prevented.html

Reid and fellow leader Andy Ruck, 27, had faced charges of negligence after reports that the rifle fired only after several attempts and tripwires that triggered flares failed to go off.
But Alfheim said the death was a result of 'a number of unfortunate circumstances'.
He said: 'Tripwire flares had been set up around the tent camp, and the group had two signal pens and a rifle. The equipment had been tested earlier, but the tripwire did not detonate when the bear entered the camp.
'A leader tried to fire a shot with the rifle, but did not succeed. When he managed to fire the rifle, the bear had already killed the 17-year-old, and wounded four others, amongst them himself.
'Technical studies have revealed that there were no malfunctions to the rifle, the cartridges or the tripwire flares.

'Instead, the accident was the result of a number of unfortunate circumstances that lead us to conclude that neither BSES nor any of the individuals involved should be charged with criminal negligence.'
Click to expand...
 
Hearing that those guys could be charged with negligence makes my blood run cold. What a bear does is up to the bear, not up to anyone present. Certainly there are no standards against which to measure their actions, so I don't get how a charge of negligence can be applied or fairly adjudicated. Had an inquest resulted in a call for standards for, and the certification of bear monitors, that would be the correct course of action.

As an aside, if the "technical studies" were not performed out on the sea ice while a polar bear tore someone to pieces in front of the technicians, the results of the studies don't mean much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom