US Air Force survival gun? [Archive]

Les Matheson

April 21st 04, 01:52 AM

They don't put any weapons in survival kits these days. Crew members carry
their weapons on them.

--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

<Greasy Rider @ invalid.com> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
> etched the phosphur particles on my screen with the following:
>
> >The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
> >M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
> >
> >Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
> >
> >I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
> >into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
> >possible.
>
> I bought one at the last fall's gun show. A neat weapon, very light
> and accurate. I added a sling and optional .410 shell holder. Don't
> have any idea what the USAF uses today but this one was a winner.
>
> In my day ('55-59) all we carried was a Smith .38.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/2004

DavidG35

April 21st 04, 07:00 AM

The AF stopped packing AR-7s in their kits many moons ago (I packed them)
the question should be for where you are back packing what are the
threats/needs for a weapon? if you want it just for "in case" just get an
inexpensive .38 to strap on your hip and get some incendiaries rounds for
it. If theres an actual possible threat as far as animals then go with the
appropriate shotgun since you would not be shooting too far and it
eliminates the problem nicely, even if you miss!
Thats my 2 cents,
GMAN

"Bruce W.1" > wrote in message
news:X6ihc.28292$fq4.11829@lakeread05...
> The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
> M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
>
> Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
>
> I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
> into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
> possible.
>
> Thanks for your help.

Bruce W.1

April 21st 04, 05:36 PM

DavidG35 wrote:
> The AF stopped packing AR-7s in their kits many moons ago (I packed them)
> the question should be for where you are back packing what are the
> threats/needs for a weapon? if you want it just for "in case" just get an
> inexpensive .38 to strap on your hip and get some incendiaries rounds for
> it. If theres an actual possible threat as far as animals then go with the
> appropriate shotgun since you would not be shooting too far and it
> eliminates the problem nicely, even if you miss!
> Thats my 2 cents,
> GMAN
>
================================================== ========

I was just hoping that the AF had made progress on survival guns. That
does not seem to be the case.

Ideally, my backpacking survival gun would be an over/under 12 ga.
shotgun (for bear defense) and 22 LR (for shooting birds for food). And
it would be made of titanium and composites for light weight. Of course
this weapon does not exist, was just hoping.

Yes the AR-7 was also used by the AF.

I would not want to have to use a Baretta 9mm for survival. But that
seems to be what our AF is stuck with. Maybe the whole notion of having
to survive in the wild is a thing of the past, what with GPS, satellite
beacons and all.

SteveM8597

April 21st 04, 06:48 PM

>Ideally, my backpacking survival gun would be an over/under 12 ga.
>shotgun (for bear defense) and 22 LR (for shooting birds for food). And
>it would be made of titanium and composites for light weight. Of course
>this weapon does not exist, was just hoping.
>
>Yes the AR-7 was also used by the AF.
>
>I would not want to have to use a Baretta 9mm for survival. But that
>seems to be what our AF is stuck with. Maybe the whole notion of having
>to survive in the wild is a thing of the past, what with GPS, satellite
>beacons and all.
>
>

Having a firearm for a survival situation is a bit of an anachronism, combat or
peacetime. I am not aware of one ever having been successfully used in either.
Weight alone would preclude carrying enough firepower to hold off a charging
bear and nothing short of a .50 cal would be enough firepower to hold off an
enemy patrol ot even angry natives with pitchforks for very long. I liked to
think of the .38 I caried as a signalling device and carried a pack of tracers
for that purpose.

B2431

April 21st 04, 09:16 PM

>From: (SteveM8597)

>
>Having a firearm for a survival situation is a bit of an anachronism, combat
>or
>peacetime. I am not aware of one ever having been successfully used in
>either.
> Weight alone would preclude carrying enough firepower to hold off a charging
>bear and nothing short of a .50 cal would be enough firepower to hold off an
>enemy patrol ot even angry natives with pitchforks for very long. I liked to
>think of the .38 I caried as a signalling device and carried a pack of
>tracers
>for that purpose.

I disagree, having a sidearm in a survival situation is handy for making sure
you don't have to share your resources with strangers.

I carry a 357 magnum when backpacking since I am always alone and I have met
strange people in the woods. Bird or rabbit shot ammunition for the 357 can be
used for taking small game.

Overall a good knife makes a better survival tool if you know basic survival
methods. You can use it to skin the animal you caught with your figure 4
deadfall, snare etc. The knife should have a heavy enough blade to chop wood
with. It's also good for tapping a badguy on the head with. A good bowie can
split a skull. Don't leave your whet stone at home.

A flare gun would be better than tracers for signalling.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

SteveM8597

April 21st 04, 09:48 PM

>>
>>Having a firearm for a survival situation is a bit of an anachronism, combat
>>or
>>peacetime. I am not aware of one ever having been successfully used in
>>either.
>> Weight alone would preclude carrying enough firepower to hold off a
>charging
>>bear and nothing short of a .50 cal would be enough firepower to hold off an
>>enemy patrol ot even angry natives with pitchforks for very long. I liked to
>>think of the .38 I caried as a signalling device and carried a pack of
>>tracers
>>for that purpose.
>
>I disagree, having a sidearm in a survival situation is handy for making sure
>you don't have to share your resources with strangers.
>
>I carry a 357 magnum when backpacking since I am always alone and I have met
>strange people in the woods. Bird or rabbit shot ammunition for the 357 can
>be
>used for taking small game.
>
>Overall a good knife makes a better survival tool if you know basic survival
>methods. You can use it to skin the animal you caught with your figure 4
>deadfall, snare etc. The knife should have a heavy enough blade to chop wood
>with. It's also good for tapping a badguy on the head with. A good bowie can
>split a skull. Don't leave your whet stone at home.
>
>A flare gun would be better than tracers for signalling.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly country but
not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
survival situation, just common sense.

I also had a flare gun, flares, three radios. I figures I needed when I was
flying and the standard issue GI survival knife. I figured signalling gear,
having a useful tool like the knife, and water were far more necessary than
defensive weapons. So far as food, the survival instructors tought that you
really didn't need to eat for a couploe of weeks but did need water fairly soon
so I neverplanned to do any hunting. Plenty of veggies, bugs and tree bark to
eat until I got picked up. Besides, cooking meat requires a fire. Since I am
a fisherman I figured I could catch fish if I really needed meat on any kind of
a survival experience.

Alan Minyard

April 21st 04, 09:55 PM

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" > wrote:

>The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
>M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
>
>Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
>
>I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
>into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
>possible.
>
>Thanks for your help.

Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).

Al Minyard

Harry Andreas

April 21st 04, 10:01 PM

In article <Dqxhc.33883$fq4.8309@lakeread05>, "Bruce W.1"
> wrote:

> DavidG35 wrote:
> > The AF stopped packing AR-7s in their kits many moons ago (I packed them)
> > the question should be for where you are back packing what are the
> > threats/needs for a weapon? if you want it just for "in case" just get an
> > inexpensive .38 to strap on your hip and get some incendiaries rounds for
> > it. If theres an actual possible threat as far as animals then go with the
> > appropriate shotgun since you would not be shooting too far and it
> > eliminates the problem nicely, even if you miss!
> > Thats my 2 cents,
> > GMAN
> >
> ================================================== ========
>
> I was just hoping that the AF had made progress on survival guns. That
> does not seem to be the case.
>
> Ideally, my backpacking survival gun would be an over/under 12 ga.
> shotgun (for bear defense) and 22 LR (for shooting birds for food). And
> it would be made of titanium and composites for light weight. Of course
> this weapon does not exist, was just hoping.

Titanium would be hideously expensive for a survival weapon,
especially as applied to moving parts in a gun.
And the light weight would create eye-tearing recoil.
Any bear defense load would generate too much recoil.

> Yes the AR-7 was also used by the AF.
>
> I would not want to have to use a Baretta 9mm for survival. But that
> seems to be what our AF is stuck with. Maybe the whole notion of having
> to survive in the wild is a thing of the past, what with GPS, satellite
> beacons and all.

AFAIK, aircrews use the M11 which is a Sig compact.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas

April 21st 04, 10:05 PM

In article >,
(SteveM8597) wrote:

> I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
> not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
> in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
> survival situation, just common sense.

Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.

> I also had a flare gun, flares, three radios. I figures I needed when I was
> flying and the standard issue GI survival knife. I figured signalling gear,
> having a useful tool like the knife, and water were far more necessary than
> defensive weapons. So far as food, the survival instructors tought that you
> really didn't need to eat for a couploe of weeks but did need water
fairly soon
> so I neverplanned to do any hunting. Plenty of veggies, bugs and tree bark to
> eat until I got picked up. Besides, cooking meat requires a fire. Since I am
> a fisherman I figured I could catch fish if I really needed meat on any
kind of
> a survival experience.

Sounds like a good plan.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Ragnar

April 21st 04, 10:20 PM

"Bruce W.1" > wrote in message
news:Dqxhc.33883$fq4.8309@lakeread05...
>
> I would not want to have to use a Baretta 9mm for survival. But that
> seems to be what our AF is stuck with. Maybe the whole notion of having
> to survive in the wild is a thing of the past, what with GPS, satellite
> beacons and all.

Times have changed. "Surviving" off the land isn't really emphasized all
that much anymore. Its about evading and getting rescued. Any survival
issues are generally assumed to be short term in nature.

Ragnar

April 21st 04, 10:22 PM

"SteveM8597" > wrote in message
...
> I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
country but
> not in state and national parks where they are illegal.

Yes, the bears and wild two-legged animals will no doubt respect the law as
you do.

Bob McKellar

April 21st 04, 11:41 PM

Harry Andreas wrote:

> In article >,
> (SteveM8597) wrote:
>
> > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
> country but
> > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
> > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
> > survival situation, just common sense.
>
> Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
> also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.
>

So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

Bob McKellar

Harry Andreas

April 22nd 04, 12:25 AM

In article >, Bob McKellar
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (SteveM8597) wrote:
> >
> > > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
> > country but
> > > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
situation
> > > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
> > > survival situation, just common sense.
> >
> > Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
> > also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.
> >
>
> So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?
>
> Bob McKellar

LOL.
But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be able
to reach out and touch the cat.
I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Bob McKellar

April 22nd 04, 12:38 AM

Harry Andreas wrote:

> In article >, Bob McKellar
> > wrote:
>
> > Harry Andreas wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > (SteveM8597) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
> > > country but
> > > > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
> situation
> > > > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
> consider a
> > > > survival situation, just common sense.
> > >
> > > Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
> > > also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.
> > >
> >
> > So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?
> >
> > Bob McKellar
>
> LOL.
> But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
> personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be able
> to reach out and touch the cat.
> I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice for shooting
a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick to be
easily penetrated.

It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.

Bob McKellar

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 12:44 AM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob McKellar
> > wrote:
>
> > Harry Andreas wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > (SteveM8597) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
> > > country but
> > > > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
> situation
> > > > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
> consider a
> > > > survival situation, just common sense.
> > >
> > > Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray,
although I've
> > > also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.
> > >
> >
> > So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?
> >
> > Bob McKellar
>
> LOL.
> But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
> personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be
able
> to reach out and touch the cat.
> I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against humans in
the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage pump
with a slug barrel when I went fishing by myself in Alaska (on the Kenai and
close-by streams)--and of course the only bear I saw was the stuffed one
standing in the airport building at Fairbanks when I flew in. Pepper spray
is bettter than nothing, but I remember camping in the park in the Smoky's a
few years back and a ranger stopping by our campsite to warn us of a rogue
black bear that they were trying to catch (they had one of those neat
galvanized pipe traps near the hike-in only campsite) in the area. He said
that it had ransacked the campsite a few days earlier and one of the campers
hit it with pepper spray in the face without seriously discouraging it, so
the guaranteed-quality of capsiacin aginst a Grizzly is somewhat suspect. A
good handgun, where it is allowed, would be my preference over the spray,
and the caliber is sort of dependent upon the shooter's ability--the favored
round for poachers going after black bears is still the .22 (albeit in rifle
form), last I heard, and I know of one case where a camper killed a black
that had attacked him with a .22 pistol. Though I'd rather have a .40 S&W or
better in Grizzly country if I had to leave the shotgun behind (saying
something about my confidence, or lack thereof, in my own short-iron
shooting ability).

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 12:57 AM

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Harry Andreas wrote:
>
> > In article >, Bob McKellar
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Harry Andreas wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (SteveM8597) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in
grizzly
> > > > country but
> > > > > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear
the
> > situation
> > > > > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
> > consider a
> > > > > survival situation, just common sense.
> > > >
> > > > Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray,
although I've
> > > > also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?
> > >
> > > Bob McKellar
> >
> > LOL.
> > But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
> > personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to
be able
> > to reach out and touch the cat.
> > I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.
> >
> > --
> > Harry Andreas
> > Engineering raconteur
>
> I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice
for shooting
> a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick
to be
> easily penetrated.
>
> It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.

Aiming for the shoulder with a handgun is more likely to just **** him off,
and if he is close it is probably a wasted effort--a bear has a pretty slow
cardio-pulmonary rate, so a shoulder-into-chest cavity shot (which requires
a lot of penetration capability against a big bear) is likely to leave you
still facing him up-close-and-personal, even if he is destined to die to few
minutes later. A lot of critters have thick skulls--hogs among them, and my
daddy used a .22 *short* to dispatch a few of them on the farm. I'd prefer
to just avoid the critter, but if forced to, I think I'd have to go for the
head shot if he is getting close enough to me to really have to change the
britches. If you don't kill him, you can still KO his butt--dear ol' Dad
once dropped a doe with a headshot using a .30-30 (with a 170 grain load, to
boot) from no more than about seventy yards. Went down flatter than a
pancake without twitching a muscle. It laid there a few seconds, then as he
was getting ready to walk down to it it jumped back up, shook her head a
couple of times, and bounded off like she was good as new, though a bit
wobbly. Figured the round glanced off her skull.

Brooks

>
> Bob McKellar
>
>

Jim Yanik

April 22nd 04, 01:31 AM

(Harry Andreas) wrote in
:

> Titanium would be hideously expensive for a survival weapon,
> especially as applied to moving parts in a gun.
> And the light weight would create eye-tearing recoil.
> Any bear defense load would generate too much recoil.

Smith & Wesson makes a titanium/scandium .357 Magnum revolver,and the
recoil I'm told is hard,but still useable.
They may also make a .44Mag model,I'm not sure.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Stephen Harding

April 22nd 04, 01:33 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against humans in
> the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
> widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage pump

Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
was an exceptional event!

I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
winter naps.

Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
are *everywhere* around here now days!

SMH

Les Matheson

April 22nd 04, 02:25 AM

Nope, aircrews use the M9 Beretta. Some SOF aircrews carry the short
version of the M-16.

--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Dqxhc.33883$fq4.8309@lakeread05>, "Bruce W.1"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> AFAIK, aircrews use the M11 which is a Sig compact.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 4/20/2004

Mary Shafer

April 22nd 04, 03:08 AM

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:38:41 -0400, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

> I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice for shooting
> a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick to be
> easily penetrated.

BOAC and the successor portion of BA used to carry a long gun* in the
survival pack, until about ten years ago. This was for shooting polar
bears after ditching in the Far North. Flight attendants were taught
never to let anyone eat the liver, as it has so much vitamin A it's
toxic to humans.

*I can't remember if it was a rifle or a carbine.

> It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.

"Some"? Only "some"? Surely you jest.

On another note, I'm getting tired of the vitriolic political
disputatiousness on Usenet already and it's a long time to November.
Particularly the nasty attack stuff. It's unoriginal, it's tedious,
and it's irritating. It also says more about the attacker than the
attacked. Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable people
avoiding unreasonable topics in inappropriate places? Has anyone ever
changed their mind because of such an attack (well, except about the
manners and morals of the attacker)?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[email protected]

April 22nd 04, 03:19 AM

"DavidG35" > wrote:

>The AF stopped packing AR-7s in their kits many moons ago (I packed them)
>the question should be for where you are back packing what are the
>threats/needs for a weapon? if you want it just for "in case" just get an
>inexpensive .38 to strap on your hip and get some incendiaries rounds for
>it. If theres an actual possible threat as far as animals then go with the
>appropriate shotgun since you would not be shooting too far and it
>eliminates the problem nicely, even if you miss!
>Thats my 2 cents,
>GMAN
>
Did you boys hear about the grizzly that someone shot in,
Alaska(?) I think?...bugger weighed around 1800 pounds. Supposed
to be the biggest Grizzly in the world. Had eaten two guys before
someone shot it with a 7(?)MM rifle. I have horrible pix
--

-Gord.

B2431

April 22nd 04, 04:31 AM

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>> But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
>> personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to be
>able
>> to reach out and touch the cat.

The problem is too many people carry sprays rated for humans. If memory serves
California has a law that limits the strength of the spray and requires
training before purchase.

I personally don't carry such a thing and use common sense around bears. Brown
bears are a bit laid back to the point of being lazy. Just look at a berry
patch one has raided. They leave quite a lot of berries and move on to where
they are easier to reach.

One safe thing to assume about any bear: if they are in your campsite at night
be prepared to fight. I hang my food at least 20 feet up and as far out on a
limb as is possible. I do this in a tree 10 - 15 yards upwind. Yes, full grown
bears can climb trees.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 04:36 AM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against
humans in
> > the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
> > widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage
pump
>
> Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
> the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
> when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

Huh? *Fatalities* due to black bear attacks are somewhat rare, but the
attacks sure are not. Note:

"In late May, a black bear preyed upon hiker Glenda Ann Bradley about 10
miles outside Gatlinburg, Tenn. It was the first recorded black bear
fatality in the history of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Then,
early in July, Canadian biathlete Mary Beth Miller was killed by a black
bear outside Quebec City. After that, human-bear conflicts made news all
summer: Black bears clawed or bit four Boy Scouts in July at the Philmont
Scout
Ranch in northeastern New Mexico..."Conflict is increasing all over," said
Gary Shelton, who has studied
bears for 35 years and written two books considered to be the seminal works
on bear aggression. "What's happening is bear attacks are taking place where
they haven't before, there's a higher level of fatalities, and there are
more deadly attacks by black bears...." Shelton, meanwhile, is preparing a
paper for the International Bear
Association conference next May that details his theory: Black bears, in
certain circumstances, will indeed prey on humans. "There's going to be a
slow, steady increase of predatory black bear attacks that will catch bear
managers off guard," he said." ( www.bears.org/pipermail/bearfolks/
2000-October/000447.html )

I can see where you might have the idea that the black bear is a rather
docile and non-threatening species; I thought pretty much the same when my
dad passed on the bit about more black bear attacks than Grizzly attacks,
something he had seen on a TV documentary. A Google will disabuse you of
that belief--there have been black bear attack fatalities here in the US (I
ran across mention of a documented case in Colorado, where the bear took a
timberman out of his cabin, killed him, and fed on him, and another in New
Mexico, where an elderly woman was similarly attacked and killed in her
cabin, so there are two documented fatalities right there to add to the
above mentioned Gatlinburg case, and the Quebec incident you mention below).
Checking into this, I also found that there appears to be a growing body of
experts who say that the previously taught action for handling a Grizzly
attack (curl into a ball and play dead) may be bad-wrong; the
punch-in-the-nose might be a better defense. Similarly, I noted that one
fellow indicated that properly used pepper spray is effective about 75% of
the time--leaving you wondering what the hell you do if you are in that
unlucky 25% where it does not work.

>
> I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
> around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
> was an exceptional event!

Not exceptional as far as being an attack, nor is it truly exceptional as
being a fatality due to black bear attack. From perusing the chatter from
apparently knowledgable folks regarding this matter, it appears that in
British Columbia black bear attacks and fatalities have actually outnumbered
Grizzly incidents.

>
> I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
> bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
> winter naps.
>
> Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
> ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
> dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
> local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
> skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
> are *everywhere* around here now days!

There have been a lot of documented attacks against domestic animals. The
bears have apparently begun increasing their population in our area (between
D.C. and Richmond), but I have yet to see one around here myself. My parents
live up in the Shenandoah Valley, and I have encountered both sign and the
actual critters themselves up that way; walking up the trail beside a creek
I was going to fish, I once kicked one out of the brush and watched him
scurry away--it was so comical I had to laugh outloud. He was running as
hard as he could while repeatedly looking back at me with this obviously
terrified look about him, trying to see if I was going to chase him. Danged
thing took off up the side of the ridge (a pretty steep one) and I swear he
was accelerating the whole time. Made me realize if I ever did encounter one
who was testy that outrunning him is *not* an option.

Brooks

>
>
> SMH
>

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 04:48 AM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "DavidG35" > wrote:
>
> >The AF stopped packing AR-7s in their kits many moons ago (I packed them)
> >the question should be for where you are back packing what are the
> >threats/needs for a weapon? if you want it just for "in case" just get an
> >inexpensive .38 to strap on your hip and get some incendiaries rounds for
> >it. If theres an actual possible threat as far as animals then go with
the
> >appropriate shotgun since you would not be shooting too far and it
> >eliminates the problem nicely, even if you miss!
> >Thats my 2 cents,
> >GMAN
> >
> Did you boys hear about the grizzly that someone shot in,
> Alaska(?) I think?...bugger weighed around 1800 pounds. Supposed
> to be the biggest Grizzly in the world. Had eaten two guys before
> someone shot it with a 7(?)MM rifle. I have horrible pix

If it was a 7mm, it was probably a 7mm Remington Magnum round. And those
fellers do get big, don't they? When I went to Alaska, my first stop was to
visit a buddy stationed at Wainright flying UH-1V medevac helos. We talked
before I flew up there and I told him I was also going to be heading down to
the southern area to do some solo fishing. He vetoed my plan to bring my .45
along as my bear-persuader; I'll never forget his words: "Look, you need to
bring a *real* gun; I have seen grizzlies out here so big that I won't even
fly my Huey down near them..." So I took the 12 ga--and saw zero bears.
(But, to give you the Paul Harvey "rest of the story", the following year a
lady was killed hiking along a creek I had fished just outside Anchorage, so
taking a gun was not an unwise decision).

Brooks

> --
>
> -Gord.

Steve Hix

April 22nd 04, 04:56 AM

In article >,
Bob McKellar > wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (SteveM8597) wrote:
> >
> > > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
> > country but
> > > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
> > > situation
> > > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider
> > > a
> > > survival situation, just common sense.
> >
> > Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although
> > I've
> > also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.
>
> So, pepper spray doesn't work well on kids?

If it improves the taste of their food enough that they'll eat it
without complaining, then it works just fine.

Steve Hix

April 22nd 04, 05:00 AM

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> On another note, I'm getting tired of the vitriolic political
> disputatiousness on Usenet already and it's a long time to November.
> Particularly the nasty attack stuff. It's unoriginal, it's tedious,
> and it's irritating. It also says more about the attacker than the
> attacked. Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable people
> avoiding unreasonable topics in inappropriate places? Has anyone ever
> changed their mind because of such an attack (well, except about the
> manners and morals of the attacker)?

I'm just about this close to shutting off the computer until after
November. Make do with books, gardening, and weaving.

And then my kids send a flurry of email...almost makes up for the other
stuff.

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 05:11 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >> But seriously, pepper spray has limited range and is OK for your own
> >> personal protection. But if a cat threatens or grabs a kid you need to
be
> >able
> >> to reach out and touch the cat.

Uhmm...I did not say that. I believe that was Harry's posting.

>
> The problem is too many people carry sprays rated for humans. If memory
serves
> California has a law that limits the strength of the spray and requires
> training before purchase.

I have the full-stregth stuff, and I'd still rather have a gun. The number I
saw was a 75% effective rate against bears; better than nothing, but that
still leaves you holding an empty spray can while trying to figure out what
to do about that 25-percenter bearing (pun) down on you. I have not seen any
documented cases yet where someone armed with a gun, and who shot same-said
bear, was subsequently killed.

>
> I personally don't carry such a thing and use common sense around bears.
Brown
> bears are a bit laid back to the point of being lazy. Just look at a berry
> patch one has raided. They leave quite a lot of berries and move on to
where
> they are easier to reach.

The Alaskan brown can be quite nasty, from what I have heard.

>
> One safe thing to assume about any bear: if they are in your campsite at
night
> be prepared to fight. I hang my food at least 20 feet up and as far out on
a
> limb as is possible. I do this in a tree 10 - 15 yards upwind. Yes, full
grown
> bears can climb trees.

I used parachute cord to do that in the Great Smoky Mountain NP--and woke up
the next morning to find that field mice had shimmied up the tree, down the
cord, and into our food supply. Can't win for losin' sometimes.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Peter Stickney

April 22nd 04, 05:50 AM

In article >,
Stephen Harding > writes:
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against humans in
>> the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
>> widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage pump
>
> Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
> the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
> when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.
>
> I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
> around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
> was an exceptional event!
>
> I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
> bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
> winter naps.
>
> Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
> ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
> dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
> local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
> skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
> are *everywhere* around here now days!

I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
Charging Buick than anything else.
That being said, wo do have a lot of bear up here, these days. (IIRC,
the census figures put the bear population in New England at the
highest level since about 1600.
Hmm. given the number of bear sighting out to Durham, it could well
be that bears are attracted to Academic environments. I know Skunks
are - there's an area of UNH that's just loaded with them. And teh
City-raised kids learn pretty quickly that they all respond quite well
to "Here, Kitty!"
As it happens, I'll be meeting with some of teh Wildlife Studies folks
at UNH this weekend. I'll see what they think.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

robert arndt

April 22nd 04, 06:47 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" > wrote:
>
> >The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
> >M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
> >
> >Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
> >
> >I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
> >into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
> >possible.
> >
> >Thanks for your help.
>
> Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
> I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).
>
> Al Minyard

What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
utility!
The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
You would think they would do better than that.

Rob

B2431

April 22nd 04, 06:52 AM

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
<snip>
>
>I used parachute cord to do that in the Great Smoky Mountain NP--and woke up
>the next morning to find that field mice had shimmied up the tree, down the
>cord, and into our food supply. Can't win for losin' sometimes.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>

I once(only once) left my boots outside my tent and woke to the sound of a
rodent eating the leather.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 07:04 AM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
wrote:
> >
> > >The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
> > >M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
> > >
> > >Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
> > >
> > >I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
> > >into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
> > >possible.
> > >
> > >Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
> > I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
> Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
> combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
> flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
> utility!
> The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
> survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
> M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
> You would think they would do better than that.

Gee, and your Aryan Super Race still lost the war--who'd have thunk it?

Brooks

>
> Rob

Stephen Harding

April 22nd 04, 11:42 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> I was going to fish, I once kicked one out of the brush and watched him
> scurry away--it was so comical I had to laugh outloud. He was running as
> hard as he could while repeatedly looking back at me with this obviously
> terrified look about him, trying to see if I was going to chase him. Danged
> thing took off up the side of the ridge (a pretty steep one) and I swear he
> was accelerating the whole time. Made me realize if I ever did encounter one
> who was testy that outrunning him is *not* an option.

Well thanks for the update. Need to look into this more.

We've had several local "lectures" from state wildlife
biologists about the bears (which have become very frequent
visitors to most Northampton neighborhoods; they hit the
bird feeders and trash cans). They always emphasize the lack
of aggressiveness of the black bear (as opposed to the grizzly).

I think much of it has to do with the political thinking of
this area. Hunters are very bad (their trucks commonly have
sugar poured into gas tanks during deer season), as of course
guns (did you know a gun is "an instrument of violence"?).

There is the promotion of the idea that animals are our friends
and only humans are the real aggressive creatures. I think the
"gentle Bambi" side of wildlife is emphasized at the expense of
reality.

Needless to say, I have not been too concerned encountering
bears in the woods, but am quite convinced there is going to
be "an incident" in town some day as someone runs into a bear
who has become habituated to humans.

A couple years ago, I was visiting a friend at the edge of town
as a bear hit trash cans left out by an unthinking tenent. Myself,
with infuriated dog (on leash) and 6 other people stood and
watched this bear go through the trash cans not much more than
30 yards away. He totally ignored our presence, or the near
hysterical dog trying to commence a chase. *That* is potentially
a dangerous bear!

Guess it's time to walk a bit more softly (or perhaps more noisily)
over the trails now that I have some alternative info on the beast.

SMH

Stephen Harding

April 22nd 04, 11:51 AM

Peter Stickney wrote:

> Hmm. given the number of bear sighting out to Durham, it could well
> be that bears are attracted to Academic environments. I know Skunks
> are - there's an area of UNH that's just loaded with them. And teh
> City-raised kids learn pretty quickly that they all respond quite well
> to "Here, Kitty!"
> As it happens, I'll be meeting with some of teh Wildlife Studies folks
> at UNH this weekend. I'll see what they think.

My brother works as a cop at Amherst College and he's always
getting wildlife complaints over there. Get the skunk out of
the dining common; a fox was seen wandering around the library;
moose in a parking lot!

However one parents weekend, with the college attempting to
look its best (this is generally a well-to-do population),
he got a report that a red tailed hawk plucked a squirrel right
off the lawn in front of students and parents, carrying it
struggling away, most likely to become baby hawk food.

The parents and students wanted the police to do something about
it!

Since Amherst and my own fair town of Northampton are official
"No Nuke" zones, and there haven't been any nuclear events, even
with Westover RAFB not too distant, perhaps a "No Predation" zone
would be useful.

SMH

Ragnar

April 22nd 04, 12:09 PM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.

Rules for hiking in bear country:

1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a gun.
3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 02:06 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> I think much of it has to do with the political thinking of
> this area. Hunters are very bad (their trucks commonly have
> sugar poured into gas tanks during deer season), as of course
> guns (did you know a gun is "an instrument of violence"?).

Yeah, folks just don't seem to understand that predation is supposed to be a
natural process, and we have removed some of the predators from the chain;
unless hunters fill the void, you get population explosions in
not-so-comfortable places and attendant problems. ISTR Long Island, among
other northeastern communities, has been having a heck of a problem with
deer, but every time a regulated hunt or thinning program is proposed, the
PETA weenies come out of the woodwork. It would not be so bad if the
critters were *just* eating up folks ornamentals in their yards, but we are
experiencing fatalities; there have been at least two fatalities due to
hitting deer on the road in my local area over the past three or four years,
and about fifteen years ago I lost an uncle when an oncoming car hit a deer,
tossed it up into the air, and sent it through the windshield of the car he
was traveling in.

>
> There is the promotion of the idea that animals are our friends
> and only humans are the real aggressive creatures. I think the
> "gentle Bambi" side of wildlife is emphasized at the expense of
> reality.

Talk about Bambi...every year we have one or two accounts in the state of
*deer* attacking folks during the rutting season. Haven't heard of any
fatalities recently, but a couple of folks were pretty badly injured. Folks
always think "oh, how cute" and forget they are wild animals and can tear
you up pretty good.

>
> Needless to say, I have not been too concerned encountering
> bears in the woods, but am quite convinced there is going to
> be "an incident" in town some day as someone runs into a bear
> who has become habituated to humans.

Those are the ones to worry most about. I was always taught to stay away
from bears near any parks, and *all* sows and cubs. The first because of the
likelihood of them having lost their natural fear of us, the second because
they are extremely defensive of their young.

>
> A couple years ago, I was visiting a friend at the edge of town
> as a bear hit trash cans left out by an unthinking tenent. Myself,
> with infuriated dog (on leash) and 6 other people stood and
> watched this bear go through the trash cans not much more than
> 30 yards away. He totally ignored our presence, or the near
> hysterical dog trying to commence a chase. *That* is potentially
> a dangerous bear!
>
> Guess it's time to walk a bit more softly (or perhaps more noisily)
> over the trails now that I have some alternative info on the beast.

Interestingly, when looking for the bear attack statistics I ran across a
reference to those "bear bells" that some folks wear when hiking. Seems some
researchers tied some to a bush and jingled them as grizzlies strolled by,
and got absolutely *no* response from the bears, other than curiousity
(which is not the reaction I would want to engender in any grizzly I might
meet when fishing in Montana or Wyoming). The noise thing may be another
"doesn't really work, or works counter to the desired result" item, like
that "play dead when dealing with a grizzly" bit.

Brooks

>
>
> SMH
>

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 02:09 PM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Stephen Harding > writes:
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> >> The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against
humans in
> >> the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
> >> widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage
pump
> >
> > Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
> > the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
> > when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.
> >
> > I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
> > around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
> > was an exceptional event!
> >
> > I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
> > bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
> > winter naps.
> >
> > Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
> > ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
> > dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
> > local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
> > skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
> > are *everywhere* around here now days!
>
> I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.

Then you may want to reread what is available out there. A quick Google
should convince you that the black is no teddy bear; they have accounted for
a number of fatalities, and reportedly account for more attacks and
fatalities in BC than the also-present grizzlies.

> They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
> along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
> Charging Buick than anything else.
> That being said, wo do have a lot of bear up here, these days. (IIRC,
> the census figures put the bear population in New England at the
> highest level since about 1600.
> Hmm. given the number of bear sighting out to Durham, it could well
> be that bears are attracted to Academic environments. I know Skunks
> are - there's an area of UNH that's just loaded with them. And teh
> City-raised kids learn pretty quickly that they all respond quite well
> to "Here, Kitty!"
> As it happens, I'll be meeting with some of teh Wildlife Studies folks
> at UNH this weekend. I'll see what they think.

Ask them if any of them have read Shelton's book on the subject of black
bears and attacks.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Paul J. Adam

April 22nd 04, 02:12 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> I think much of it has to do with the political thinking of
> this area. Hunters are very bad (their trucks commonly have
> sugar poured into gas tanks during deer season), as of course
> guns (did you know a gun is "an instrument of violence"?).

Of course they are, they're designed to kill with. Doesn't mean they're
*bad*, but a firearm is primarily designed to blow holes in targets, and
those targets may be cute fluffy living creatures just as easily as
cardboard cutouts or metallic silhouettes.

> There is the promotion of the idea that animals are our friends
> and only humans are the real aggressive creatures. I think the
> "gentle Bambi" side of wildlife is emphasized at the expense of
> reality.

Ouch. Without hunting or some other means of culling, Bambi is going to
breed like mad, eat the pristine wilderness into a barren waste, and then
starve en masse (of course all that will probably be the fault of hunters,
the government, large corporations and/or Saddam Hussein rather than the
sentimental well-meaning treehuggers).

Okay, over-hunting is also very bad, as the passenger pigeon would tell you,
but while Nature usually works out a balance it can be quite messy for a few
generations while the scales swing.

--
Paul J. Adam

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 02:12 PM

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.
>
> Rules for hiking in bear country:
>
> 1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
> 2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a gun.
> 3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
> 4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.

Sounds like a variation of the old joke..."Run? Why? We can't outrun that
bear!" "Nope, but I figure I can outrun *you*!"

Brooks

>
>

Paul J. Adam

April 22nd 04, 02:12 PM

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
> Rules for hiking in bear country:
>
> 1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
> 2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a gun.
> 3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
> 4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.

I like :)

--
Paul J. Adam

Harry Andreas

April 22nd 04, 04:16 PM

In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:

> (Harry Andreas) wrote in
> :
>
>
>
> > Titanium would be hideously expensive for a survival weapon,
> > especially as applied to moving parts in a gun.
> > And the light weight would create eye-tearing recoil.
> > Any bear defense load would generate too much recoil.
>
> Smith & Wesson makes a titanium/scandium .357 Magnum revolver,and the
> recoil I'm told is hard,but still useable.
> They may also make a .44Mag model,I'm not sure.

I'm familiar with the S&W Titanium.

He was talking about a shotgun though, and a 12 Ga slug load
generates about 10X the specific impulse of a .357 load.
Ouch.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Alan Minyard

April 22nd 04, 04:23 PM

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:08:59 -0700, Mary Shafer > wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:38:41 -0400, Bob McKellar >
>wrote:
>
>
>> I took a Navy correspondence course on "Arctic Operations". The advice for shooting
>> a polar bear was to aim for the shoulder, since their skulls are too thick to be
>> easily penetrated.
>
>BOAC and the successor portion of BA used to carry a long gun* in the
>survival pack, until about ten years ago. This was for shooting polar
>bears after ditching in the Far North. Flight attendants were taught
>never to let anyone eat the liver, as it has so much vitamin A it's
>toxic to humans.
>
>*I can't remember if it was a rifle or a carbine.
>
>> It sorta reminded me of some of our regular posters around here.
>
>"Some"? Only "some"? Surely you jest.
>
>On another note, I'm getting tired of the vitriolic political
>disputatiousness on Usenet already and it's a long time to November.
>Particularly the nasty attack stuff. It's unoriginal, it's tedious,
>and it's irritating. It also says more about the attacker than the
>attacked. Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable people
>avoiding unreasonable topics in inappropriate places? Has anyone ever
>changed their mind because of such an attack (well, except about the
>manners and morals of the attacker)?
>
>Mary

I agree completely, and I will no longer participate in any thread that gets
into the political area.

Sorry about the recent past, I just got a little carried away!!

Al Minyard

Harry Andreas

April 22nd 04, 04:40 PM

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> If it was a 7mm, it was probably a 7mm Remington Magnum round. And those
> fellers do get big, don't they? When I went to Alaska, my first stop was to
> visit a buddy stationed at Wainright flying UH-1V medevac helos. We talked
> before I flew up there and I told him I was also going to be heading down to
> the southern area to do some solo fishing. He vetoed my plan to bring my .45
> along as my bear-persuader; I'll never forget his words: "Look, you need to
> bring a *real* gun; I have seen grizzlies out here so big that I won't even
> fly my Huey down near them..." So I took the 12 ga--and saw zero bears.
> (But, to give you the Paul Harvey "rest of the story", the following year a
> lady was killed hiking along a creek I had fished just outside Anchorage, so
> taking a gun was not an unwise decision).

Pepper spray and .357's are OK for the local mountains here.
If camping where there are for sure grizzlies, then it's hello Mr. 12 Ga.
1 round of #4 buck in the chamber (to get his attention, maybe scare him off)
followed by 5 rounds of Foster type slugs. None of that sabot stuff.
At short range, the full weight foster or brenneke slugs work better.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Kevin Brooks

April 22nd 04, 05:29 PM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > If it was a 7mm, it was probably a 7mm Remington Magnum round. And those
> > fellers do get big, don't they? When I went to Alaska, my first stop was
to
> > visit a buddy stationed at Wainright flying UH-1V medevac helos. We
talked
> > before I flew up there and I told him I was also going to be heading
down to
> > the southern area to do some solo fishing. He vetoed my plan to bring my
..45
> > along as my bear-persuader; I'll never forget his words: "Look, you need
to
> > bring a *real* gun; I have seen grizzlies out here so big that I won't
even
> > fly my Huey down near them..." So I took the 12 ga--and saw zero bears.
> > (But, to give you the Paul Harvey "rest of the story", the following
year a
> > lady was killed hiking along a creek I had fished just outside
Anchorage, so
> > taking a gun was not an unwise decision).
>
> Pepper spray and .357's are OK for the local mountains here.
> If camping where there are for sure grizzlies, then it's hello Mr. 12 Ga.
> 1 round of #4 buck in the chamber (to get his attention, maybe scare him
off)
> followed by 5 rounds of Foster type slugs. None of that sabot stuff.
> At short range, the full weight foster or brenneke slugs work better.

I just carried a full load of slugs--figured he'd be big enough that I
couldn't miss, so no need for buckshot, and the only running shot I was
worried about was him coming dead *at* me. Sold the gun after I got back
home, being as I had no need for a slug-barreled gun around here (don't do
any deer hunting anymore).

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

Alan Minyard

April 22nd 04, 05:56 PM

On 21 Apr 2004 22:47:01 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" > wrote:
>>
>> >The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
>> >M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
>> >
>> >Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
>> >
>> >I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
>> >into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
>> >possible.
>> >
>> >Thanks for your help.
>>
>> Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
>> I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
>Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
>combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
>flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
>utility!
>The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
>survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
>M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
>You would think they would do better than that.
>
>Rob

The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum. It also
weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.

Was it a nice drilling, sure. Was it an effective survival weapon?
Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was way too heavy, would
not fit in a survival kit, used ammunition unique in the German military,
etc. No one in their right mind would consider it any sort of military
weapon, much less a "survival" gun. Of course Goering was not in
his right mind :-)

Al Minyard

WaltBJ

April 22nd 04, 08:09 PM

One of my secondary duties was oversight of our Global Survival Kits
carried in our F102s. Since we sometimes crossed the northern US
border (even in winter - brrrr!) the contents had to meet some
stringent requirements. One of the pilots said all he needed was a
dime for a phone call. (Long time back!) I laughed and replied 'And if
you break a leg on landing in your chute at night?' Lots of empty
territory up there in the Northern spaces. We had the M6 - ISTR along
with a 50-round pack of 22 Hornet and a dozen 410 shells. The M6
wasn't as fancy as the LW gun but a) it worked well and b) the USAF
needed a LOT of them, roughly one per crew position, at a guess around
10,000. And it didn't weigh a dozen pounds as most drillings did (do).
Walt BJ

Tarver Engineering

April 22nd 04, 08:15 PM

B2431

April 22nd 04, 10:17 PM

>From: "Ragnar"

>
>Rules for hiking in bear country:
>
>1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
>2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a gun.
>3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
>4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.

The only drawback is next time you go camping You will have a harder time
taking a friend. I suggest taking a lawyer, draft dodger or child molester.No
jury would convict you.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431

April 22nd 04, 10:36 PM

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>

>What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
>Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
>combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
>flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
>utility!
>
>
>Rob

Let's see, you guys didn't issue 357 magnums during the war, better check again
on the pistol caliber. The piece in question was heavy and bulky and rarely
carried for those reasons.

Flare pistols launching grenades is a non starter even for you.

With all the crowing you have done in the NG about your superior weapons and SS
super brains you still LOST that war. Get over it.

>The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
>survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
>M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
>You would think they would do better than that.
>
>Rob

They may be ugly but they work, they are light and small enough to carry and
ARE carried. Given the choice of a heavy, bulky "super weapon" left behind or
one of those "ugly weapons" in my kit guess which one is more effective when
needed?

Tell you what, put on a flightsuit. How many pockets do you have? How much can
you carry? Now put on your survival vest and address the same questions. OK,
part of your bailout kit has all kinds of wonderful things, how much can you
put in the aforementioned pockets? Unless the kit bag makes a comfortable back
pack you will get rid of it if you have to go cross country. A basic rule of
thumb is it's better to wear what you need than carry it. You survival vest has
a holster for a pistol. How long will you carry that wonder weapon you
described?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Steve Hix

April 23rd 04, 02:43 AM

In article >,
Stephen Harding > wrote:
> My brother works as a cop at Amherst College and he's always
> getting wildlife complaints over there. Get the skunk out of
> the dining common; a fox was seen wandering around the library;
> moose in a parking lot!
>
> However one parents weekend, with the college attempting to
> look its best (this is generally a well-to-do population),
> he got a report that a red tailed hawk plucked a squirrel right
> off the lawn in front of students and parents, carrying it
> struggling away, most likely to become baby hawk food.
>
> The parents and students wanted the police to do something about
> it!

Figures.

> Since Amherst and my own fair town of Northampton are official
> "No Nuke" zones, and there haven't been any nuclear events, even
> with Westover RAFB not too distant, perhaps a "No Predation" zone
> would be useful.

It should work just about as well.

Mary Shafer

April 23rd 04, 07:17 AM

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:23:20 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:08:59 -0700, Mary Shafer > wrote:

> >On another note, I'm getting tired of the vitriolic political
> >disputatiousness on Usenet already and it's a long time to November.
> >Particularly the nasty attack stuff. It's unoriginal, it's tedious,
> >and it's irritating. It also says more about the attacker than the
> >attacked. Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable people
> >avoiding unreasonable topics in inappropriate places? Has anyone ever
> >changed their mind because of such an attack (well, except about the
> >manners and morals of the attacker)?
>
> I agree completely, and I will no longer participate in any thread that gets
> into the political area.
>
> Sorry about the recent past, I just got a little carried away!!

I think a big part of the problem is we all have opinions about these
topics. It's easy to fight fire with fire (or something--you know
what I mean) and slip into the same style that others are using. It's
contagious, I guess I'm trying to say.

Even when I sort of agree with some of the opinions, the style makes
me cranky and irritable. That's why I try not to post on these
topics. I'm not good at flaming people; I'm better at writing them
off as uninformed barbarians with limited vocabularies and stupid
ideas, justifying my ignoring them henceforth.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer

April 23rd 04, 07:26 AM

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:42:31 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

> There is the promotion of the idea that animals are our friends
> and only humans are the real aggressive creatures. I think the
> "gentle Bambi" side of wildlife is emphasized at the expense of
> reality.

Forget bears; I know someone whose cousin was killed by a mule deer.
Not in a collision between deer and car, but in a face-to-face
encounter. I suspect that more people are killed or injured in such
collisions with deer than are killed or injured by bears (black,
grizzly, and polar) every year.

The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

robert arndt

April 23rd 04, 07:35 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 21 Apr 2004 22:47:01 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
> >> >M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
> >> >
> >> >Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
> >> >
> >> >I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
> >> >into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
> >> >possible.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for your help.
> >>
> >> Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
> >> I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
> >Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
> >combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
> >flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
> >utility!
> >The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
> >survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
> >M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
> >You would think they would do better than that.
> >
> >Rob
>
> The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum.

The 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was equivalent in POWER to a .375 H&H
Magnum- ask any gun expert.

It also
> weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
> than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
> weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.

Which was superbly made and quite effective in stopping enemy
personnel and light armor.

> Was it a nice drilling, sure.

Krieghoff still makes outstanding Drillings for $2-5K!

Was it an effective survival weapon?

Not really, but it came in handy on the Russian front for killing.

> Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was way too heavy, would
> not fit in a survival kit, used ammunition unique in the German military,
> etc. No one in their right mind would consider it any sort of military
> weapon, much less a "survival" gun. Of course Goering was not in
> his right mind :-)
>
> Al Minyard

Rob

robert arndt

April 23rd 04, 07:35 AM

John Keeney

April 23rd 04, 07:45 AM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (SteveM8597) wrote:
>
> > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly
> country but
> > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the
situation
> > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would
consider a
> > survival situation, just common sense.
>
> Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although
I've
> also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.

I've lately been thinking hard about an Alaska trip and noted
bear gun recommendations from the National Park Service.
Here's what they have posted in one spot (note that guns
can't be carried in *some* of Alaska's national parks):

"If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are
more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry
firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate
weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may
be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke
the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be
salvaged and turned over to the authorities.

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have
been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may
be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle,
they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a
spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it."

robert arndt

April 23rd 04, 07:47 AM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> <snip>
>
> >What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
> >Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
> >combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
> >flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
> >utility!
> >
> >
> >Rob
>
> Let's see, you guys didn't issue 357 magnums during the war, better check again
> on the pistol caliber. The piece in question was heavy and bulky and rarely
> carried for those reasons.

As stated earlier in reply to Als post, the 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was
equivalent in POWER to a .375H&H Magnum! Check with a gun expert on
that.
>
> Flare pistols launching grenades is a non starter even for you.

You obviously don't know **** about the
Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole. 279,000 of them were issued
in WW2 and all the grenade ammo was used up for them. They were put to
good use and there long before the strap-on GLs we use today on our
rifles.
>
> With all the crowing you have done in the NG about your superior weapons and SS
> super brains you still LOST that war. Get over it.

**** off, will you? The US got the lion's share of advanced German
technology including all those funny "black project" triangles, discs,
and cylinders flying around using EM propulsion systems. Wright
Patterson had the German discs, MacDill AB did, and Area 51 did. No
alien reverse-engineering required... just a few thousand German
scientists and technicians from the SS Technical Branch
Einwickstellung IV, Peenemunde, AVA Gottingen, etc...
>
>
> >The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
> >survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
> >M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
> >You would think they would do better than that.
> >
> >Rob
>
> They may be ugly but they work, they are light and small enough to carry and
> ARE carried. Given the choice of a heavy, bulky "super weapon" left behind or
> one of those "ugly weapons" in my kit guess which one is more effective when
> needed?

Gee, I don't seem to recall ANY stories of success with that butt-ugly
M6. At least the German bomber crews used the Sauer Drillings in
combat on the Russian front as well as the 27mm
Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole. Case closed.
>
> Tell you what, put on a flightsuit. How many pockets do you have? How much can
> you carry? Now put on your survival vest and address the same questions. OK,
> part of your bailout kit has all kinds of wonderful things, how much can you
> put in the aforementioned pockets? Unless the kit bag makes a comfortable back
> pack you will get rid of it if you have to go cross country. A basic rule of
> thumb is it's better to wear what you need than carry it. You survival vest has
> a holster for a pistol. How long will you carry that wonder weapon you
> described?

Quite a few SF aircrews today carry the HK SOCOM pistol. I'd be
willing to bet they would carry the new HK MP-7 PDW if they could
procure one.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

John Keeney

April 23rd 04, 07:57 AM

John Keeney

April 23rd 04, 08:09 AM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>
> I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
> They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
> along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
> Charging Buick than anything else.

I believe a back country camper was killed in the Rocky Mountain
National Park last summer just before I was out there. Drug out
of his tent at night.

B2431

April 23rd 04, 10:50 AM

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
>> >Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
>> >combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
>> >flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
>> >utility!
>> >
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Let's see, you guys didn't issue 357 magnums during the war, better check
>again
>> on the pistol caliber. The piece in question was heavy and bulky and rarely
>> carried for those reasons.
>
>As stated earlier in reply to Als post, the 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was
>equivalent in POWER to a .375H&H Magnum! Check with a gun expert on
>that.
>>
>> Flare pistols launching grenades is a non starter even for you.
>
>You obviously don't know **** about the
>Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole. 279,000 of them were issued
>in WW2 and all the grenade ammo was used up for them. They were put to
>good use and there long before the strap-on GLs we use today on our
>rifles.

I know the Kampfpistole series and I know we were discussing aircrew survival
weapons for which it would be extremely impractical. I know they made a lot of
them and that the users rarely used the grenade round since it had very little
usable effect. I also know aircrews would not likely be issued grenades of any
type other than smoke. This leaves its only use to an aircrew would be as a
flare pistol. In which case it wouldn't be very high on anyone's list as
something you want to grab on the way out.

I also know it is possible to argue a point without the vulgarity.

Why do you even bring up "strap on GLs?" I assume you are referring to the
bloop tubes mounted under the M-16 series. What does it have to do with aircrew
survival weapons?

A survival weapon has to serve other purposes than killing the enemy.

>> With all the crowing you have done in the NG about your superior weapons
>and SS
>> super brains you still LOST that war. Get over it.
>
>**** off, will you? The US got the lion's share of advanced German
>technology including all those funny "black project" triangles, discs,
>and cylinders flying around using EM propulsion systems. Wright
>Patterson had the German discs, MacDill AB did, and Area 51 did. No
>alien reverse-engineering required... just a few thousand German
>scientists and technicians from the SS Technical Branch
>Einwickstellung IV, Peenemunde, AVA Gottingen, etc...

Please note you say we got all that stuff 60 years ago and not ONE of those
wonder weapons has been successfully fielded. The only response you have ever
made to this is "it's classified" as if you actually have had access and no one
else has. One of the many reasons you lost the war was because of the waste of
money and time spent on those dead end projects.

>>
>> >The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
>> >survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
>> >M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
>> >You would think they would do better than that.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> They may be ugly but they work, they are light and small enough to carry
>and
>> ARE carried. Given the choice of a heavy, bulky "super weapon" left behind
>or
>> one of those "ugly weapons" in my kit guess which one is more effective
>when
>> needed?
>
>Gee, I don't seem to recall ANY stories of success with that butt-ugly
>M6. At least the German bomber crews used the Sauer Drillings in
>combat on the Russian front as well as the 27mm
>Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole. Case closed.

Case closed? Where are your cites?

Please note the very limited ammunition issued for either "weapon" so what they
were doing was committing suicide.

>> Tell you what, put on a flightsuit. How many pockets do you have? How much
>can
>> you carry? Now put on your survival vest and address the same questions.
>OK,
>> part of your bailout kit has all kinds of wonderful things, how much can
>you
>> put in the aforementioned pockets? Unless the kit bag makes a comfortable
>back
>> pack you will get rid of it if you have to go cross country. A basic rule
>of
>> thumb is it's better to wear what you need than carry it. You survival vest
>has
>> a holster for a pistol. How long will you carry that wonder weapon you
>> described?
>
>Quite a few SF aircrews today carry the HK SOCOM pistol. I'd be
>willing to bet they would carry the new HK MP-7 PDW if they could
>procure one.

I was in spec ops and very few aircrewmen were in a position to need anything
besides a sidearm and we issued those people GAU-5s, M-16s and shotguns. How do
I know this? I was the guy issuing them in the 9th SOS.

As for submachineguns they are really nice for spraying bullets, but need quite
a bit of training to use. Many Spec Ops types would find them handy dandy, but
not aircrews.

Now, about your favourite song, Horst Wessel was a pimp, a bully and a street
thug who died in a common street brawl.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Paul J. Adam

April 23rd 04, 02:16 PM

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (B2431) wrote in message
>...
> > Let's see, you guys didn't issue 357 magnums during the war, better
check again
> > on the pistol caliber. The piece in question was heavy and bulky and
rarely
> > carried for those reasons.
>
> As stated earlier in reply to Als post, the 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was
> equivalent in POWER to a .375H&H Magnum! Check with a gun expert on
> that.

Seriously overdone for a survival gun. Are these escaping aircrew or elite
paratroopers?

> > Flare pistols launching grenades is a non starter even for you.
>
> You obviously don't know **** about the
> Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole.

Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea is
"not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all of 3
Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
actually improve your chances of living until rescue.

> 279,000 of them were issued
> in WW2 and all the grenade ammo was used up for them. They were put to
> good use and there long before the strap-on GLs we use today on our
> rifles.

And they were thoroughly predated by assorted "rifle grenades" that ranged
from the Heath Robinson to the rather practical.

> **** off, will you? The US got the lion's share of advanced German
> technology including all those funny "black project" triangles, discs,
> and cylinders flying around using EM propulsion systems.

Haven't seen a single one at an airshow.

> > They may be ugly but they work, they are light and small enough to carry
and
> > ARE carried. Given the choice of a heavy, bulky "super weapon" left
behind or
> > one of those "ugly weapons" in my kit guess which one is more effective
when
> > needed?
>
> Gee, I don't seem to recall ANY stories of success with that butt-ugly
> M6.

Have you looked?

> At least the German bomber crews used the Sauer Drillings in
> combat on the Russian front as well as the 27mm
> Leuchtpistole/Kampfpistole/Sturmpistole.

Why are bomber crews engaging in ground combat when they ought to be flying
bombers?

> > Tell you what, put on a flightsuit. How many pockets do you have? How
much can
> > you carry? Now put on your survival vest and address the same questions.
OK,
> > part of your bailout kit has all kinds of wonderful things, how much can
you
> > put in the aforementioned pockets? Unless the kit bag makes a
comfortable back
> > pack you will get rid of it if you have to go cross country. A basic
rule of
> > thumb is it's better to wear what you need than carry it. You survival
vest has
> > a holster for a pistol. How long will you carry that wonder weapon you
> > described?
>
> Quite a few SF aircrews today carry the HK SOCOM pistol.

Oh, you mean the Robocop Gun. Pray tell, what does it do that a Glock 21
doesn't?

> I'd be
> willing to bet they would carry the new HK MP-7 PDW if they could
> procure one.

Doesn't square with the aircrew I've talked to: but then they're only
actually flying the missions, what do *they* know?

I *have* heard of US aircrew drawing M16s and M4s as personal weapons for
high-risk ops, which makes a lot more sense, but then they seriously
considered the risk of being forced down somewhere very unfriendly.

If you need a combat weapon, take a combat weapon and accept the weight and
bulk. If you need a basic survival weapon, get something as light and
compact as possible. Don't haul a heavy, overpowered, break-action weapon
around and insist it's wonderful: it's too big to get out of an aircraft
with, too heavy to carry, too powerful for small game and too slow-firing
for a firefight.

--
Paul J. Adam

Kevin Brooks

April 23rd 04, 02:21 PM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
> > They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
> > along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
> > Charging Buick than anything else.
>
> I believe a back country camper was killed in the Rocky Mountain
> National Park last summer just before I was out there. Drug out
> of his tent at night.

Actually, from what I have read the case in Colorado did not involve a
camper; instead, it was apparently a logger/timberman who had a backcountry
cabin, from which he was drug, killed, and partially consumed. There was
also a similar case in New Mexico, where the victim was a 90 year old woman,
again in her cabin. Black bears are not necessarilly cuddly creatures.

Brooks

>
>

Peter Stickney

April 23rd 04, 02:26 PM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Stephen Harding > writes:
>> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ol' Black Bear actually accounts for many more attacks against
> humans in
>> >> the US than does the Grizzly, which makes sense being as they are more
>> >> widely distributed and have a larger population. I carried a 12 guage
> pump
>> >
>> > Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
>> > the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
>> > when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.
>> >
>> > I think the last I heard, a couple years ago a woman jogging
>> > around somewhere in Quebec was killed by a black bear. It
>> > was an exceptional event!
>> >
>> > I guess I should find out more. We've got *plenty* of black
>> > bears around here, and they're definitely done with their
>> > winter naps.
>> >
>> > Had my first encounter with one for this year just a few days
>> > ago. It growled at my dog, made a short charge towards the
>> > dog, and then took off. This would be my 5th encounter with
>> > local black bears in about 3 years, and usually, they just
>> > skeedadle as fast as possible when they see me. The critters
>> > are *everywhere* around here now days!
>>
>> I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
>
> Then you may want to reread what is available out there. A quick Google
> should convince you that the black is no teddy bear; they have accounted for
> a number of fatalities, and reportedly account for more attacks and
> fatalities in BC than the also-present grizzlies.

I'd be the last one to state that _any_ wild critter, be it a bear, of
any color, Coyote, Racoon, or even Field Mouse is a Cuddly Teddy Bear.
(Especially after sewing a friend's Coon Hound's ears back on after it
learned that Black Bears are Very Much Irritated by Coon Hounds
bouncing around them and bellowing. (It wasn't so much an attack as a
backhand cuff in the "Get Outta Here!" mode. It was still sufficient
to scalp the dog. (Didn't do any permanent damage though, 'cause it
hit him in hte head. The one thing you could be certain of was that
you couldn't induce detectable Brain Damage in Bounce the Coon Hound -
It's sort of like detectnig radiation from DU - sure, it's there, but
the background count is so high that you can't sort out just what the
cause is))
I don't doubt that there have been Black Bear attacks. We haven't had
any of any consequence in New Hampshire, of late. Given what I've
observed of bears in the woods. I'd be willing to wager that it's
more a question of the likelyhood of an encounter with a particular
species rather than a blanket statement that a Black Bear is as
agressive, or as prone to provocation, as a Grizzly.
I wouldn't dream of cornering either type - other than Humans, they're
at the toop of the food chain around here, and they didn't get there
by being slow, dull-witted vegetarians.

>
>> They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
>> along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
>> Charging Buick than anything else.
>> That being said, wo do have a lot of bear up here, these days. (IIRC,
>> the census figures put the bear population in New England at the
>> highest level since about 1600.
>> Hmm. given the number of bear sighting out to Durham, it could well
>> be that bears are attracted to Academic environments. I know Skunks
>> are - there's an area of UNH that's just loaded with them. And teh
>> City-raised kids learn pretty quickly that they all respond quite well
>> to "Here, Kitty!"
>> As it happens, I'll be meeting with some of teh Wildlife Studies folks
>> at UNH this weekend. I'll see what they think.
>
> Ask them if any of them have read Shelton's book on the subject of black
> bears and attacks.

I wouldn't doubt that they have - in fact, some of them may have
contributed or reviewed it.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney

April 23rd 04, 02:33 PM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I wouldn't try a handgun on a bear though. Too dicey.
>>
>> Rules for hiking in bear country:
>>
>> 1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
>> 2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a gun.
>> 3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
>> 4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.
>
> Sounds like a variation of the old joke..."Run? Why? We can't outrun that
> bear!" "Nope, but I figure I can outrun *you*!"

That's why I always carry a backup pair of Nikes (The shoes, not
the SAM) in my backpack. (I'm pretty quick for a middle-aged fat
man.)

Then too, there was the time I took my then-girlfriend up to the
family compund in Oxford Country, Maine (A good pick-up line was "I'm
going to Paris this weekend. Would you like to come along?" (Of
course Paris is right next to Norway, and just before Bryant Pond)
Anyway, it's up in the mountains, lots of trees & lakes & stuff.
And it was Bear Season. She had on a brown jacket, and wanted to take
a walk in the woods.
"Don't wear that jacket", I told her, "You'll get mistaken for a
Bear."
"Well, what if I wear one of the orange hats?"
"They'll mistake you for a Smart Bear."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Harry Andreas

April 23rd 04, 05:15 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> >What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
> >Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
> >combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
> >flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
> >utility!
> >The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
> >survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
> >M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
> >You would think they would do better than that.
> >
> >Rob
>
> The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum. It also
> weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
> than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
> weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.

He did say .375, not .357

> used ammunition unique in the German military,

The 9.3 X 74 is more like the .35 Whelen and is and was very popular all
across Europe for hunting. Not a military caliber, let alone unique.

BTW, the 9.3 X 74 in NOT a magnum caliber, but it is powerful and
has hefty recoil.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Stephen Harding

April 23rd 04, 06:42 PM

Mary Shafer wrote:

> The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
> nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
> closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
> looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
> there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
> vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.

Hyraxes? Elephants? Phaah!

Ever been to Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park in Colorado?

That's the site of my only "wildlife attack". A vicious and highly
aggressive pack of ground squirrels! The little buggers would come
right up under the picnic table at the campsite, and nip at your
toes.

The message was for us to get out so they could move in on the chips
and fritos for themselves.

Such a terrifying experience, I have never returned!

SMH

Stephen Harding

April 23rd 04, 06:59 PM

John Keeney wrote:

> I would think.
> A few years ago in The Smoky Mountains National Park I
> witnessed some fool approaching two bear cubs hand out
> stretched like he was offering a nut to a chipmunk. Momma
> bear charged him, he turned and ran (laughing like the idiot
> he was) and the three bears headed for the dense brush.

A very interesting overview of black bear dangers in the US
and Canada can be found at:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/bears/17275

Complete with some gory details on fatal attacks. Most
interesting is the depth of stupidity some people exhibit
in dealing with bears.

In summary, although black bears tend to be overall non-aggressive
and no special threat to humans, black bear aggressiveness
varies a good deal by region.

Bears of the eastern US are the most mild and timid of the
species, with heightened aggressiveness in south and central
north. Canadian bears in the western part of the country
can be dangerous, with the bears of non-coastal British
Columbia being more dangerous than grizzlies!

The real terror is the "predacious black bear", which
fortunately isn't especially common, although more likely
to be encountered in the wilds of BC. It will actually prey
on humans.

Speculation as to why the bears vary so much in aggression
varies, but perhaps northern conifers provide less vegetation
to feed on as in more southern climates (a US black bear is
more vegetarian than carnivore).

Also perhaps habituation to humans. The bears in the deep
wilderness of inner BC may not know what a human is, other
than a tastey looking treat that is exceptionally slow and
unaware and apparently rather stupid.

Interesting stuff, but I think I'm mostly safe from the bears
until my next visit to BC!

SMH

Mary Shafer

April 23rd 04, 07:22 PM

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:42:52 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
> > nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
> > closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
> > looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
> > there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
> > vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.
>
> Hyraxes? Elephants? Phaah!
>
> Ever been to Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park in Colorado?

Yes, I have been. Pretty, isn't it?

> That's the site of my only "wildlife attack". A vicious and highly
> aggressive pack of ground squirrels! The little buggers would come
> right up under the picnic table at the campsite, and nip at your
> toes.

Stellar jays in Yosemite are equally aggressive, taking food right out
of your hand. My father, who spent a fair amount of time in the
mountains of Utah and Colorado, always called jays camp robbers, as
they would take anything not nailed down (and at least try to take the
rest). I don't recall any direct attacks, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Cub Driver

April 23rd 04, 09:27 PM

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
wrote:

>I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
>into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
>possible.

Wasn't this the Armalite survival gun?

As I recall (vaguely: a friend bought one to kyak through the Arctic
Circle) it had an over-under barrel, with a .22 bullet and a 410
shotgun shell. It packed into its own stock.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

April 23rd 04, 09:32 PM

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:33:19 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
>the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
>when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.

We have black bears in southern New Hampshire. Perhaps one sighting a
year in this college town. To the best of my knowledge, no one has
ever been attacked by a bear in the past century.

Of course, if you go kidnapping bear cubs ...

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

B2431

April 23rd 04, 09:44 PM

>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 4/23/2004 3:27 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
>wrote:
>
>>I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
>>into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
>>possible.
>
>Wasn't this the Armalite survival gun?
>
>As I recall (vaguely: a friend bought one to kyak through the Arctic
>Circle) it had an over-under barrel, with a .22 bullet and a 410
>shotgun shell. It packed into its own stock.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
>The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
>Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org
>
>
>
>
>
>

B2431

April 23rd 04, 09:52 PM

>From: Cub Driver

>
>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
>wrote:
>
>>I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
>>into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
>>possible.
>
>Wasn't this the Armalite survival gun?
>
>As I recall (vaguely: a friend bought one to kyak through the Arctic
>Circle) it had an over-under barrel, with a .22 bullet and a 410
>shotgun shell. It packed into its own stock.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

You have two firearms mixed up. The Armalite AR-7 is the one that takes apart
and stores in its own stock. Mine is made by Charter arms and is in 22LR. If
memory serves the current maker is Henry.

James Bond used one in Goldfinger (I think)

The other one is the M-6 scout which had a .410 over a 22 hornet and folded in
half. The current maker is Springfield.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ron

April 23rd 04, 10:04 PM

>>Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
>>the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
>>when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.
>
>We have black bears in southern New Hampshire. Perhaps one sighting a
>year in this college town. To the best of my knowledge, no one has
>ever been attacked by a bear in the past century.
>
>Of course, if you go kidnapping bear cubs ...
>

Yes black bears are not aggressive animals, usually when there has been a bear
attack, its been not because of a bear problem, but a problem with humans
leaving out food or being in close proximity to a bear and her cub.

Many times I have encountered black bears, and have chased them out of
campsites. Unless they have been habituated to the point where they equate
humans and food nearby (not eating humans, but eating human food), they will
typically run away when they encounter someone.

On that note, the only time I have been charged by a black bear, was when I
encounted a black bear and her cub. The cub was curious and wanted to check me
out, while the mom was not too big on that idea, and tried to chase me away.

In order to add military aviation content, there was B-24 wreckage on a nearby
mountain... ;)

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

Ragnar

April 23rd 04, 11:08 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Ragnar"
>
> >
> >Rules for hiking in bear country:
> >
> >1. ALWAYS bring a friend.
> >2. ALWAYS carry a .22LR pistol. NOTE: don't tell friend you have a
gun.
> >3. When charged by a bear, shoot friend in leg.
> >4. RUN. You can't outrun a bear, but you can outrun your friend.
>
> The only drawback is next time you go camping You will have a harder time
> taking a friend. I suggest taking a lawyer, draft dodger or child
molester.No
> jury would convict you.

Good suggestion. The only drawback is that I might not even need to see a
bear in order to shoot them.

Alan Minyard

April 24th 04, 12:39 AM

On 22 Apr 2004 23:35:05 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On 21 Apr 2004 22:47:01 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The US Air Force used to put a gun in their pilot survival packs, the
>> >> >M-6 Scout. See: http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >Does anyone know what the Air Force uses today?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to take
>> >> >into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight as
>> >> >possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks for your help.
>> >>
>> >> Kel-Tech makes a nice 9mm or 40S&W (your choice) folding carbine.
>> >> I would guess that it weights about three pounds (unloaded).
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>> >What pieces of crap. In WW2 Luftwaffe air crews had the incredible
>> >Sauer Drilling that featured two shotgun barrels and a .375 mag rifle
>> >combined. Add to that the 27mm Leuchtpistole that also fired grenades,
>> >flares, sounding rounds, and Luftminen. Now that's firepower and
>> >utility!
>> >The US by comparison postwar had that ugly, ****ty M-6 scrap metal
>> >survival gun and now they carry either compact 9s/40s/45s/or various
>> >M-16 compact rifles depending on the crews and mission.
>> >You would think they would do better than that.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> The Sauer drilling had a 9.3X74R rifle barrel, not a .357 Magnum.
>
>The 9.3mmX74mmR cartridge was equivalent in POWER to a .375 H&H
>Magnum- ask any gun expert.

They have similar power levels, but the 9.3X74R is NOT a 375 Mag. Try
firing a 9.3X74R round in a 357 Mag, but stand very, very far away.
>
> It also
>> weighed about 15 pounds and could not be carried in aircraft other
>> than bombers. It was wooden stocked, commercially built, desperation
>> weapon issued to bomber crews on the Eastern front.
>
>Which was superbly made and quite effective in stopping enemy
>personnel and light armor.

And was a terrible survival weapon.
>
>> Was it a nice drilling, sure.
>
>Krieghoff still makes outstanding Drillings for $2-5K!
>
> Was it an effective survival weapon?
>
>Not really, but it came in handy on the Russian front for killing.
>
>> Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was way too heavy, would
>> not fit in a survival kit, used ammunition unique in the German military,
>> etc. No one in their right mind would consider it any sort of military
>> weapon, much less a "survival" gun. Of course Goering was not in
>> his right mind :-)
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Rob

Al Minyard

Jim Yanik

April 24th 04, 02:48 AM

Mary Shafer > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:42:52 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:
>
>> Mary Shafer wrote:
>>
>> > The closest I've ever come to being attacked by a wild animal is being
>> > nipped by a rock hyrax on Table Mountain, though. Hyraxes are the
>> > closest living relatives of elephants, not that you'd guess that by
>> > looking at either of them. Although now that I think about elephants,
>> > there was that one bull elephant who seriously considered charging our
>> > vehicle in Samburu (or was it Masai Mara?) a few years ago.
>>
>> Hyraxes? Elephants? Phaah!
>>
>> Ever been to Rocky Mountain Nat'l Park in Colorado?
>
> Yes, I have been. Pretty, isn't it?
>
>> That's the site of my only "wildlife attack". A vicious and highly
>> aggressive pack of ground squirrels! The little buggers would come
>> right up under the picnic table at the campsite, and nip at your
>> toes.
>
> Stellar jays in Yosemite are equally aggressive, taking food right out
> of your hand. My father, who spent a fair amount of time in the
> mountains of Utah and Colorado, always called jays camp robbers, as
> they would take anything not nailed down (and at least try to take the
> rest). I don't recall any direct attacks, though.
>
> Mary
>

Blue Springs Park in central Florida;a swimmer was attacked by a rabid
otter.Park is now closed to swimmers until they kill all the other otters.
(they all live in a communal burrow,and most likely have rabies,too.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik

April 24th 04, 02:50 AM

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: Cub Driver
>
>>
>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:11:54 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'd really like to know because I'm looking for a survival gun to
>>>take into the woods while backpacking. It must be as light in weight
>>>as possible.
>>
>>Wasn't this the Armalite survival gun?
>>
>>As I recall (vaguely: a friend bought one to kyak through the Arctic
>>Circle) it had an over-under barrel, with a .22 bullet and a 410
>>shotgun shell. It packed into its own stock.
>>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford
>>email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> You have two firearms mixed up. The Armalite AR-7 is the one that
> takes apart and stores in its own stock. Mine is made by Charter arms
> and is in 22LR. If memory serves the current maker is Henry.
>
> James Bond used one in Goldfinger (I think)

many people over in rec.guns claim that the Henry AR-7 is plagued with jams
and failure-to-feeds.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kevin Brooks

April 24th 04, 04:29 AM

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >>Are you certain of that? I've read quite consistently that
> >>the black bear is really very slow to attack a human, even
> >>when it has cubs. Attacks are extremely rare.
> >
> >We have black bears in southern New Hampshire. Perhaps one sighting a
> >year in this college town. To the best of my knowledge, no one has
> >ever been attacked by a bear in the past century.
> >
> >Of course, if you go kidnapping bear cubs ...
> >
>
> Yes black bears are not aggressive animals, usually when there has been a
bear
> attack, its been not because of a bear problem, but a problem with humans
> leaving out food or being in close proximity to a bear and her cub.
>
> Many times I have encountered black bears, and have chased them out of
> campsites. Unless they have been habituated to the point where they
equate
> humans and food nearby (not eating humans, but eating human food), they
will
> typically run away when they encounter someone.
>
> On that note, the only time I have been charged by a black bear, was when
I
> encounted a black bear and her cub. The cub was curious and wanted to
check me
> out, while the mom was not too big on that idea, and tried to chase me
away.

You folks need to update your bear knowledge. Yes, black bears have indeed
accounted for fatalities (read as multiple, not singular) here in the US,
and the last two I read about (one on CO, the other in NM) had *nothing* to
do with either camping or cubs, but instead were people attacked *inside
their homes* (a few hundred pounds of bear apparently not being strongly
challenged by either door or window). And from what I gather yes, the number
of black bear attacks is greater than the number of grizzly attacks; as I
said before, that is to be expected, given their much greater population and
dispersion, and their propensity to lose their natural fear of man when
exposed to folks like the average idiot who can't grasp the importance of
not feeding the critters in our parks, etc. Other commonly held bear beliefs
that are now being questioned are the utility of the "play dead" defense
against a grizzly attack and the usefulness of those idiotic "bear bells"
that some hikers wear. And yes, I too have encountered black bears, and have
yet to have a problem with any of them--but I sure as heck am not going to
underestimate their potential of being a hazard, either. Given that in BC,
which has both blacks and grizzlies, the black has accounted for both more
attacks and more fatalities, dismissing them as being an insignificant
threat would appear to be foolish.

Brooks

>
> In order to add military aviation content, there was B-24 wreckage on a
nearby
> mountain... ;)
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
> Silver City Tanker Base
>

B2431

April 24th 04, 05:07 AM

>From: Jim Yanik

>
(B2431) wrote in
:
>
<snip>

The Armalite AR-7 is the one that
>> takes apart and stores in its own stock. Mine is made by Charter arms
>> and is in 22LR. If memory serves the current maker is Henry.
>>
>> James Bond used one in Goldfinger (I think)
>
>
>
>many people over in rec.guns claim that the Henry AR-7 is plagued with jams
>and failure-to-feeds.
>
>--
>Jim Yanik
>jyanik-at-kua.net

The only problem I have with my Charter Arms AR-7 is the charging handle can
drop out and is easily lost while disassembly. I was hoping Henry's AR-7s were
as good as Charter Arm's.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Floyd L. Davidson

April 24th 04, 06:21 AM

"John Keeney" > wrote:
>"Harry Andreas" > wrote:
>> (SteveM8597) wrote:
>>
>> > I have carried a firearm a time or two while backpacking in grizzly country but
>> > not in state and national parks where they are illegal. I hear the situation
>> > in some of the CA parks is pretty bad, though. Not what I would consider a
>> > survival situation, just common sense.
>>
>> Best bet for bear and cougar defense is actually pepper spray, although I've
>> also carried a .357, especially when hiking with kids.

A .357 is great for shooting at your neighbor. It might be okay
for a cougar, though your chances of killing the kids is great
too. (Though a snub nosed .357 that you shoot into the air to
make noise might well be more effective than trying to shoot at
the animal with something that might kill it or the kids.)

>I've lately been thinking hard about an Alaska trip and noted
>bear gun recommendations from the National Park Service.
>Here's what they have posted in one spot (note that guns
>can't be carried in *some* of Alaska's national parks):

What you have quoted is *extremely* good advice.

>"If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are
>more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry
>firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.
>
>A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate
>weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may
>be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

People should pay particular attention to that statement. Any
time you see someone using a .44, or any other handgun, for bear
protection (with one exception which I'll explain farther down),
what you know is that they don't understand bears, but they do
like to show off.

>State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke
>the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be
>salvaged and turned over to the authorities.
>
>Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have
>been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may
>be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle,
>they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a
>spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it."

Which is to say... if you can be assured that all bears will
attack you running into the wind, then pepper spray is suitable.
Otherwise, not.

Note that there is one way to make bear protection with a pistol
work. This is quite handy and has many great side benefits, or
at least it potentially does depending on who you can get to go
traipsing around in bear country with you. You'll need to buy a
small .22 caliber pistol that is easy wear concealed in a manner
that allows easy access. You don't want *anyone* to know that
you have it.

Then you *only* go into bear country when you can implement the
"buddy system". Go with a buddy. And if a bear comes charging
out of the brush... pull out your .22, shoot your buddy in the
leg, and run like Hell.

That's the only way a pistol is going to save you, so why carry
around anything as heavy as a .44?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Fred the Red Shirt

April 24th 04, 06:59 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>
> Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea is
> "not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all of 3
> Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
> ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
> beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
> actually improve your chances of living until rescue.

Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
to do in order to survive?

WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war.

--

FF

Floyd L. Davidson

April 24th 04, 07:06 PM

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>>
>> Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea is
>> "not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all of 3
>> Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
>> ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
>> beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
>> actually improve your chances of living until rescue.
>
>Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
>to do in order to survive?
>
>WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
>enemy lines in time of war.

Not really. The "angry wildlife" he mentioned is just expanded
to include assholes standing on two legs and armed with
rifles...

"Escaping from an unflyable aircraft" doesn't mean launching a
full scale attack on the nearest military garrison just because
you are in the neighborhood and in a bad mood.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

B2431

April 24th 04, 09:27 PM

>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)

>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>>
>> Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea is
>> "not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all of 3
>> Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
>> ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
>> beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
>> actually improve your chances of living until rescue.
>
>Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
>to do in order to survive?
>
>WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
>enemy lines in time of war.
>
>--
>
>FF

Aircrews are taught escape and evasion(E&E). Unless you are Rambo with an
unlimited amount of ammunition an no need to eat or drink you will have almost
no chance of surviving or affecting the war if you take on the enemy. You can,
however E&E and see what information you can pick up on your way. That
information and your skills have more effect on the war than you getting killed
trying to take out an enemy or two. For one thing very few aircrewmen are
infantry qualfied, USMC excepted, and the bad guys probably are.

You are better off finding a way to make sure you are rescued and can survive
until you are.

In this sense the survival kit is essentially the same as what you would need
if you were lost in the words.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

WaltBJ

April 24th 04, 09:32 PM

Backpacking survival gun. For what reason? To get something to eat? A
Savage Model 24 rifle/shorgun over-under can be had in 22LR/20gauge,
on up to 30-30 over 12 gauge. Gives you one shot each barrel for
grizzly or brown bear. If you just want something to pot food, get a
22LR revolver and LEARN HOW to shoot it. Hint - buy a couple cartons
of 22 and find a coach. You'll learn much faster. If you're going into
grizzly/brown bear country - well, pack enough rifle. Here in the
Rockies our trouble is now mountain lions. They're not particularly
fazed by humans, either, and dine quite well on the poodles they find
around Boulder. BTW one of my friends runs a ranch in the Sierra
foothills and says they're having the same problem only there in Cal
shooting mountain lions is forbidden. Here in CO I carry my 357 Model
19 while up in the hills. (The 44M is too big and boisterous for good
double action shooting.)
Walt BJ

SteveM8597

April 24th 04, 11:45 PM

<<WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
enemy lines in time of war. >>

Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then, because
they are teaching people the wrong stuff.

John Keeney

April 25th 04, 06:52 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I haven't heard any credible stories of Black Bear attacks either.
> > > They're pretty willing to just go about their business and amble
> > > along. I think that the Bears (and us) face more danger from the
> > > Charging Buick than anything else.
> >
> > I believe a back country camper was killed in the Rocky Mountain
> > National Park last summer just before I was out there. Drug out
> > of his tent at night.
>
> Actually, from what I have read the case in Colorado did not involve a
> camper; instead, it was apparently a logger/timberman who had a
backcountry
> cabin, from which he was drug, killed, and partially consumed. There was
> also a similar case in New Mexico, where the victim was a 90 year old
woman,
> again in her cabin. Black bears are not necessarilly cuddly creatures.

OK, I just did a search for the story and it seems it wasn't a fatal attack.
Two people in separate tents were attacked but no fatalities.
I thought for a while there must have been another incident because
the area of the park they were attacked in didn't match the area I recalled
(Fern Lake Trail for the attack vs Wild Basin from memory), but it
seems the Wild Basin is where they finally killed the bear.

John Keeney

April 25th 04, 07:11 AM

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea
is
> > "not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all
of 3
> > Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
> > ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
> > beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
> > actually improve your chances of living until rescue.
>
> Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
> to do in order to survive?
>
> WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
> enemy lines in time of war.

A lone downed airman -or lone downed crew for that matter- isn't
in a position to get into fire fights: there's just no way they can have
brought enough fire power with them. Not getting captured means
stealth and recovery. Survival means not ****ing off the more heavily
armed people around you, water, shelter in bad weather and food.
In that order.
A good knife can be used stealthily in making shelter, some places
getting water and food. Perhaps a gun with subsonic ammo would
be sufficiently comforting and useful for small game in a long term
situation to be worth while.

SteveM8597

April 25th 04, 11:51 AM

>> > Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea
>is
>> > "not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all
>of 3
>> > Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
>> > ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
>> > beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
>> > actually improve your chances of living until rescue.
>>
>> Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
>> to do in order to survive?
>>
>> WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
>> enemy lines in time of war.
>
>A lone downed airman -or lone downed crew for that matter- isn't
>in a position to get into fire fights: there's just no way they can have
>brought enough fire power with them. Not getting captured means
>stealth and recovery. Survival means not ****ing off the more heavily
>armed people around you, water, shelter in bad weather and food.
>In that order.
>A good knife can be used stealthily in making shelter, some places
>getting water and food. Perhaps a gun with subsonic ammo would
>be sufficiently comforting and useful for small game in a long term
>situation to be worth while.
>

History has not borne out the need for firearms in a survival situation
following am aircraft downing so far as I am aware. Roger Locher survived on
the ground for 21 days in North Vietnam without using his sidearm and another
fellow survived in the Sierras for nearly three months after ejecting into a
snowbank in late winter, finding a cabin, then walking out after being given up
for dead. IN an area where there is lots of wilderness your main needs are
wate, signalling, and shelter for a long term situation, not protection from
critters..

robert arndt

April 25th 04, 05:38 PM

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: Jim Yanik
>
> >
> (B2431) wrote in
> :
> >
> <snip>
>
> The Armalite AR-7 is the one that
> >> takes apart and stores in its own stock. Mine is made by Charter arms
> >> and is in 22LR. If memory serves the current maker is Henry.
> >>
> >> James Bond used one in Goldfinger (I think)

No, it was used in "From Russia with Love".

> >many people over in rec.guns claim that the Henry AR-7 is plagued with jams
> >and failure-to-feeds.

True, true... just like the hinge pin problem on the M6. Guess US
manufacturers can't make precision guns the way the Germans do.
> >
> >--
> >Jim Yanik
> >jyanik-at-kua.net
>
> The only problem I have with my Charter Arms AR-7 is the charging handle can
> drop out and is easily lost while disassembly. I was hoping Henry's AR-7s were
> as good as Charter Arm's.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(can't wait for the Obituary that reads: Dan, U.S. Air Force,
expired)!

B2431

April 25th 04, 11:41 PM

>From: (robert arndt)

>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: Jim Yanik
>>
>> >
>> (B2431) wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> <snip>
>>
>> The Armalite AR-7 is the one that
>> >> takes apart and stores in its own stock. Mine is made by Charter arms
>> >> and is in 22LR. If memory serves the current maker is Henry.
>> >>
>> >> James Bond used one in Goldfinger (I think)
>
>No, it was used in "From Russia with Love".
>
>> >many people over in rec.guns claim that the Henry AR-7 is plagued with
>jams
>> >and failure-to-feeds.
>
>True, true... just like the hinge pin problem on the M6. Guess US
>manufacturers can't make precision guns the way the Germans do.

Despite your blatant anti American feelings several American companies are
capable of making precision firearmes and do.

>> >Jim Yanik
>> >jyanik-at-kua.net
>>
>> The only problem I have with my Charter Arms AR-7 is the charging handle
>can
>> drop out and is easily lost while disassembly. I was hoping Henry's AR-7s
>were
>> as good as Charter Arm's.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>(can't wait for the Obituary that reads: Dan, U.S. Air Force,
>expired)!

I guess if you can't wait you will have to find something else to occupy your
time. Someday I will die as will you. Perhaps you will out live me and perhaps
you won't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

robert arndt

April 26th 04, 04:25 AM

> Despite your blatant anti American feelings several American companies are
> capable of making precision firearmes and do.

First of all I don't have blatant Anti-American feelings. What I
object to is the unilateral dismissal of German technology in relation
to the majority of the weapon systems used by the US Armed Forces from
the late '40s to present.
I also can't stand "USA-Number-One" types that cannot learn from
history or from 9/11.
Right now, the US (lone Superpower), is getting its ass kicked in Iraq
by a bunch of armed thugs and Islamic zealots that can't stand the
democratization of Iraq. I support our troops and decision to invade
Iraq but I don't like the current Administrative policies that tie our
troops hands behind their backs in a Vietnam-like situation that makes
the war on terrorism all the more unpopular at home. You are older
than me so you should recognize that fact.
And you cannot ever call me un-American because I am a solid
conservative Republican that votes along party lines. President Bush
is MY President that I voted for and for whom I will vote AGAIN no
matter what happens. I also support the Israelis and have for over a
decade financially... so much for your fascist Nazi label of me.
I just like war history, military arms of all sorts, and especially
like Reich technology. This may shock the hell out of you but a lot of
AMERICANS like German technology and war history. All my friends do
and even my buddy in the SFs admits he wishes he had some of the
current German arms where he is at (somewhere in the Mideast).
I just make "jabs" at you guys because you give me a hard time. Do you
really think I care that much about a Luftwaffe Drilling as a survival
gun? I don't (although the Drillings by themselves are excellent
weapons).

> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >(can't wait for the Obituary that reads: Dan, U.S. Air Force,
> >expired)!
>
> I guess if you can't wait you will have to find something else to occupy your
> time. Someday I will die as will you. Perhaps you will out live me and perhaps
> you won't.

Relax Dan, it was only a joke... that's why I put the exclamation mark
at the end and not a period. It was a poke at your SIG. Gosh...

Rob
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

April 26th 04, 05:21 AM

>From: (robert arndt)

>And you cannot ever call me un-American because I am a solid
>conservative Republican that votes along party lines

You have made blatant anti American statements in this NG, you have practically
drooled over Nazi "achievements" in this NG etc, you have consistantly praiesed
all things German, when called upon by members of this NG to repudiate Nazi
atrocities you have never done so, you have done nothing but slam America. I
seriously doubt you are even a U.S. citizen.

I suggest you actually look at what's going on in Iraq, we are not getting our
butts kicked.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Floyd L. Davidson

April 26th 04, 05:42 AM

(robert arndt) wrote:
>... I am a solid
>conservative Republican that votes along party lines. President Bush
>is MY President that I voted for and for whom I will vote AGAIN no
>matter what happens.

My goodness, you are a total ****ing idiot.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

B2431

April 26th 04, 09:45 AM

>From: (Floyd L. Davidson)
>

(robert arndt) wrote:
>>... I am a solid
>>conservative Republican that votes along party lines. President Bush
>>is MY President that I voted for and for whom I will vote AGAIN no
>>matter what happens.
>
>My goodness, you are a total ****ing idiot.
>
>--
>Floyd L. Davidson

We established that a long time ago. He's in the same category as maron,
tarver, vox..etc.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Fred the Red Shirt

April 26th 04, 03:28 PM

(SteveM8597) wrote in message >...
> <<WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
> enemy lines in time of war. >>
>
>
> Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then, because
> they are teaching people the wrong stuff.

How so? Don't they teach both?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt

April 26th 04, 03:48 PM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > > Again, for survival after escaping from an unflyable aircraft? The idea
> is
> > > "not to die of exposure, hunger or angry wildlife", not "stand off all
> of 3
> > > Shock Army singlehandedly". Every ounce of grenades, heavy-calibre
> > > ammunition, et cetera you carry is an ounce less of food, water, radio
> > > beacon, spare batteries, flares, dye markers and other items that might
> > > actually improve your chances of living until rescue.
> >
> > Respectfully, doesn't that depend on what you are most likely to need
> > to do in order to survive?
> >
> > WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
> > enemy lines in time of war.
>
> A lone downed airman -or lone downed crew for that matter- isn't
> in a position to get into fire fights: there's just no way they can have
> brought enough fire power with them. Not getting captured means
> stealth and recovery. Survival means not ****ing off the more heavily
> armed people around you, water, shelter in bad weather and food.
> In that order.
>
> A good knife can be used stealthily in making shelter, some places
> getting water and food. Perhaps a gun with subsonic ammo would
> be sufficiently comforting and useful for small game in a long term
> situation to be worth while.

Which has some clear implications IRT guns. It would seem that
shooting game for food would be a bad idea as gunshots can attract
unwanted attention. OTOH, shooting a lone person who has spotted
you and is running to report your presence to the military is
probably worth the risk.

I would think that gathering plants and insects for food would
be highly prefereable to hunting game with a firearm. The
probability of success is higher and for the most part you can eat
as you gather, no need to gut, skin, dress or cook a grub or cattail
root.

In wartime, if you include a gun in the survival kit it seems it
ought to be the sort useful for shooting humans because it would
be inadvisable to shoot anything else.

When I was in High School we had a visit from a US Army Helicopter
pilot who had been shot down twice in Vietnam. He said that both
times when he was rescued he was running pretty hard to keep ahead
of the VC. Obviously he wasn't going to take time to hunt for
food, but a good rifle might have helped to keep the VC at a
distance.

In the wilderness, defending oneself against wild animals is pretty
much a non-issue unless you go out of your way to harrass a moose or
something. OTOH, in peacetime you will most likely be staying
near the crash site waiting for rescue so hunting is more practical.

--

FF

[email protected]

April 26th 04, 07:50 PM

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

(SteveM8597) wrote in message >...
>> <<WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
>> enemy lines in time of war. >>
>>
>>
>> Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then, because
>> they are teaching people the wrong stuff.
>
>How so? Don't they teach both?

I'm sure that they must...I've had numerous military 'survival
school' courses, Arctic, Winter-bush, Summer, Summer-bush,
Sea-survival. None of them even mentioned the Enemy (other than
panic is your enemy) :)
--

-Gord.

SteveM8597

April 26th 04, 10:21 PM

>> Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then,
because
>> they are teaching people the wrong stuff.

>How so? Don't they teach both?

One teachs escape and evasion the other teaches living off the land long enough
to get picked up, ie first aid, finding making shelter, finding food and water,
comunicating and signalling, and orienteering. There isn't much emphasis on
being the great white meat hunter, mostly just acknowledgement that you can do
things like snare or trap. The SERE training is how to keep from being caught
and if caught, how to conduct yourself and survive. I don't remember any
mention of the use of firearms in the four I went through, land, water, jungle,
and arctic.

I also was an avid backpacker and put survival on my trips in the Sierra,
Bitterroots, and Wind River in somewhat of a different category relative to
techniques and objectives..

Steve

Michael Wise

April 26th 04, 10:30 PM

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> >> <<WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
> >> enemy lines in time of war. >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then,
> >> because
> >> they are teaching people the wrong stuff.
> >
> >How so? Don't they teach both?
>
> I'm sure that they must...I've had numerous military 'survival
> school' courses, Arctic, Winter-bush, Summer, Summer-bush,
> Sea-survival. None of them even mentioned the Enemy (other than
> panic is your enemy) :)

In the USN all aircrew have to go through SERE. I'm sure the USAF
probably has something similar. At least when I was in, the mandatory
survival training (beyond extensive water survival training) was about
week in the Eglin AFB wilderness (no adversaries), a few days in the
desert (north of Calexico), and about a week in the semi-forested Warner
Springs (Calif) area training in survival in combat situations (the last
few days with "enemies."

There were also jungle survival (in the PI) and cold weather training
(in Washington), but those weren't mandatory. What was mandatory is that
all aircrews go through SERE; train to survive while evading as well as
spend time as a "prisoner."

--Mike

SteveM8597

April 26th 04, 10:31 PM

USAFland survival school consisted of 1 - 2 weeks in evasion, resistance, and
escape training, and a week total on wilderness survival techniques. The week
was spent in class and on a four day camp/trek experience The trek included
evading the "enemy" and spending time with . If you got captured, you
supposedly went back the the beginning of the trek and started over. The trek
was rigorous enough that people died from time to time. The "campout" was
mostly shelter building, familiarization with edible vegetation, and butchering
and cooking a white domestic bunny in the event you were able to trap or snare
some meat. The emphasis was on non firearm use because even if you had
firearms, you'r eventually run out of ammo.

The jungle and arctic schools also spent some time on edible veggies and
shelter. In my mind, the majority of time was focused on not getting caught
or lost, and conduct it you were caught, not living off the land.

Steve

>>> <<WILDERNESS survival in peacetime is different from survival behind
>>> enemy lines in time of war. >>
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone ought to tell the military survival school instructors, then,
>because
>>> they are teaching people the wrong stuff.
>>
>>How so? Don't they teach both?
>
>I'm sure that they must...I've had numerous military 'survival
>school' courses, Arctic, Winter-bush, Summer, Summer-bush,
>Sea-survival. None of them even mentioned the Enemy (other than
>panic is your enemy) :)
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>