More evidence of weak security at GA airports

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Skylune's" posting system)
I'm wrong - you are right George! I brought a Cessna 182 to New Mexico
from Anchorage and was required to carry a firearm but it could not be a
handgun (because of Canadian laws).

Yes, Canada has some really idiotic firearms laws. I think they are even
dumber than NY state. And that takes real effort!"

Absolutely true. In NY, only criminals now have access to firearms.
Canada
should restrict firearms purchases only in the province of Quebec. Those
of
French extraction have proven that they are incapable of using a gun
properly.

This is what your posts look like S-Loon. You are mixing your post with
the
previous post - like I have just done [Montblack here].


If you tell people what newsreader you are using they might be able to
help
you get it configured correctly.


Apparently, Mr. Loon is unaware of the newsreader concept. He posts via
some web-site that leeches off this news group.

Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:09:47 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

In fact, the people I was hanging with in AK all had handguns. And they
weren't 22 caliber pea shooters either.

I would have thought a shotgun with alternating slugs and heavy-grade shot
would be more effective than any handgun.

While that is true, a shotgun can be inconvenient to carry in a small
plane that is already loaded to the gills with everything else. Plus,
you can't wear it around your waist while flying, and as the saying
goes, there is survival gear, which you carry on your person, and
camping gear, which is everything else in the airplane. A heavy caliber
revolver might stop a bear if you shoot it in the forelegs.

I knew a guy who claimed he carried a .45 ACP Derringer in Alaska,
which made me wonder: if he fired it, would it hurt him more than it
hurt the bear?

On 8 Nov 2005 22:36:35 -0800, "cjcampbell"
wrote:


Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:09:47 -0500, "Skylune"
wrote:

In fact, the people I was hanging with in AK all had handguns. And they
weren't 22 caliber pea shooters either.

I would have thought a shotgun with alternating slugs and heavy-grade shot
would be more effective than any handgun.

While that is true, a shotgun can be inconvenient to carry in a small
plane that is already loaded to the gills with everything else. Plus,
you can't wear it around your waist while flying, and as the saying
goes, there is survival gear, which you carry on your person, and
camping gear, which is everything else in the airplane. A heavy caliber
revolver might stop a bear if you shoot it in the forelegs.

I knew a guy who claimed he carried a .45 ACP Derringer in Alaska,
which made me wonder: if he fired it, would it hurt him more than it
hurt the bear?

Many years ago when I was a gun runner, I carried a little ultralight
5 shot 38 with hollow base wad cutters loaded backwards and the powder
equivalent of ++P loads. I could cover it with one hand and my hands
are not large. Shooting that thing with any ++P load hurt! I think
throwing that big 45 slug out of a derringer would be far worse.

Quite some years back (actually a lot of years back like the mid 70's)
I was doing quite a bit of competitive trap shooting. One of our
members (Saginaw Gun Club) went hunting up in Alaska. They were
headed up the side of a mountain on one of those trails where it's
mountain on ones side and... well...nothing but wind on the other.
Coming around a bend the met a bear headed the other way who didn't
take kindly to intruders in his territory blocking his trail.

Jim was carrying a 44 Mag (I don't know the make). He had a chance to
get off one shot as the bear reared up to take him off the horse. By
pure luck it took the bear right in the eye at just the right angle.
It made the Boon and Crocket record books at something like #3 as I
recall.

However the horse did not take kindly to either the bear or a 44
magnum being fired next to its ear. All including the horse survived.
Well, with the exception of the bear and I think Jim ended up with a
broken arm.

He said he had only hoped to get a bear, let alone one in the record
books and had no desire to get up so close and personal to one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

cjcampbell wrote:

I knew a guy who claimed he carried a .45 ACP Derringer in Alaska,
which made me wonder: if he fired it, would it hurt him more than it
hurt the bear?

I met a man once who had one of these things. He called it "Baby Doll." He said
it didn't kick badly at all; not very accurate, though. He was about 6' and 190.
A guy my size might have a different opinion of how it kicked. As far as
accuracy goes, I owned a .22 with a 1" barrel once. At 25', it threw the slug
about 6" in some random direction from the point of aim. I think a derringer is
likely to be worse.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

George Patterson wrote:

cjcampbell wrote:

I knew a guy who claimed he carried a .45 ACP Derringer in Alaska,
which made me wonder: if he fired it, would it hurt him more than it
hurt the bear?


I met a man once who had one of these things. He called it "Baby Doll."
He said it didn't kick badly at all; not very accurate, though. He was
about 6' and 190. A guy my size might have a different opinion of how it
kicked. As far as accuracy goes, I owned a .22 with a 1" barrel once. At
25', it threw the slug about 6" in some random direction from the point
of aim. I think a derringer is likely to be worse.

Derringer's aren't designed for shooting 25'.

Most poker tables are only 6' or so in diameter. :-)

Also, accuracy isn't a function solely of barrel length. A
short-barreled gun can be fairly accurate and some with long barrels are
terrible.


Matt