Old West weapons

[Uncle Bob]

9x19mm, 9mm Luger, 9mm Parabellum all used interchangably in the US

Standard ammo is loaded to the old specs to avoid blowing-up antiques. Ammo for modern guns is sold as "+P"

 

[BlackBat242]

All right, it is now official...

on this forum, Bob IS our Uncle!!!!

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Here in Alaska some Native Americans use a .22 cal. rim fire to hunt grizzlies. They shoot them in the lung and wait for the bear to bleed to death. The bear thinks it was stung by a wasp or hornet and ignores the pain. The sound of the small caliber weapon will not carry as far or seem as close.

*snip*


.

I always seemed to think that bears were pretty much impervious to bee stings due to their thick fur and skin, hence their ability to procure honey in the wild, and during raids on apiaries so readily.


I suspect that the natives are spinning a bit of a yarn to justify rather inhumanely killing these wonderful creatures by using cheap small caliber rounds!!

Again, just my 2 creds worth!

 

[aramis]

Actually, small caliber rounds are the native standard... usually .223 (5.56 Nato). An M16 can be used to take a bear... if you are patient.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Actually, small caliber rounds are the native standard... usually .223 (5.56 Nato). An M16 can be used to take a bear... if you are patient.

This I don't doubt....my concern with the previous post was the comment .22rim fire....which to me sounds like a standard .22 Long Rifle load ,and not something like the rounds used in the M16......maybe I've got it wrong though.......are the .223 NATO rounds rimfire???? All the Full Bore pistol rounds I fired were centre fire...all the small bore ones were rim fire....

 

[BlackBat242]

The .223 round from the M-16 is indeed a center-fire round, and the .22LR is a rimfire.

Here is a comparison between the rounds:

.22LR: 40 grain bullet @ 1,138 feet per second

5.56mm (M-16): 55 grain bullet @ 3,240 fps

.223 Remington (civilian version of 5.56mm): 40-90 grain bullets @ 3,700 - 2,900 fps

left-223 Remington; middle 30-30 Winchester; right .308 Nato

.22LR

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

The .223 round from the M-16 is indeed a center-fire round, and the .22LR is a rimfire.

Here is a comparison between the rounds:

.22LR: 40 grain bullet @ 1,138 feet per second

5.56mm (M-16): 55 grain bullet @ 3,240 fps

.223 Remington (civilian version of 5.56mm): 40-90 grain bullets @ 3,700 - 2,900 fps

left-223 Remington; middle 30-30 Winchester; right .308 Nato

.22LR

Cool pics - thanks for posting them!!

I have a shed load of .38 Special and 9mm brass in the house - all fired by my own fair hand!!! I had every intention of gettign my FAC and reloading them......but due to the ban on handguns in the UK following the Dunblane shootings, it never came to pass!

 

[shadowdragon]

Here in Alaska some Native Americans use a .22 cal. rim fire to hunt grizzlies. They shoot them in the lung and wait for the bear to bleed to death. The bear thinks it was stung by a wasp or hornet and ignores the pain. The sound of the small caliber weapon will not carry as far or seem as close.

i was under the impression that the .22 was carried to shoot the other hunter in the foot- i don't have to outrun the bear- i just have to outrun you......

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

i was under the impression that the .22 was carried to shoot the other hunter in the foot- i don't have to outrun the bear- i just have to outrun you......

:rofl: .......like it!!!!

 

[aramis]

Truth is, yes, some polar & kodiak bears have been taken with .22LR by the patience method. Shoot it in the lung, and let it exsanguinate &/or drown.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Truth is, yes, some polar & kodiak bears have been taken with .22LR by the patience method. Shoot it in the lung, and let it exsanguinate &/or drown.

Sad.......

 

[aramis]

Sad.......

Bear is good eating. Most natives eat what they kill.

 

[far-trader]

Bear is good eating.

Really? I trust you to know and not be fibbing, it's just I've heard it's greasy and tough. Never had the chance to try it but would. I've liked all game meat I have tried, better than tame meat imo across the board, but I'm the odd one in the family that way. More for me

My the topics do drift at times

 

[Major B]

I think bear meat has the reputation for being tough because many people overcook it due to concerns about the bear's diet making the meat suspect.

I grew up in Juneau, AK and I've had some tough and some that was great - depends on how it is prepared.

 

[aramis]

Really? I trust you to know and not be fibbing, it's just I've heard it's greasy and tough. Never had the chance to try it but would. I've liked all game meat I have tried, better than tame meat imo across the board, but I'm the odd one in the family that way. More for me

My the topics do drift at times

And it is generally a nice thing that drift (within reason) isn't squashed.

Bear's flavor varies by what it has been eating. It's strongly gamy, but also tangy.

If the bear has been eating mostly berries, it tends to taste sweet. If it has been eating fish, it tends to be more fishy.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Bear is good eating. Most natives eat what they kill.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a meat eater too! It's just the thought of a slow painful death due to asphyxia/drowning as opposed to spending a couple of dollars more to decisively and humanely do the job in one fell swoop seems sad to me.

It is good to know that the animal doesn't go to waste though - but sometimes I just don't concur that the ends justify the means! Like I said just my 2 creds worth!

 

[BlackBat242]

Agreed.

I am definitely an omnivore, and my family (and I) have been hunters for many generations.

It has always been the desired goal to have a "clean kill"... the target killed instantly with one shot. No suffering, no bleeding out. Those are called "botched shots" and are definitely disapproved of.

 

[aramis]

I look at it this way: Death by blood loss (exsanguination) should be fairly painless. A shot that bleeds out without the bear noticing is obviously not terribly painful.

Only if it suffocates in its own blood is it likely in any discomfort.

Unlike a "botched shot" on a deer, etc., the bear need not even be chased in many of these kills; the bear continues what it was doing until it passes out. That is the best situation for the hunter and the bear.

It is a highly efficient way of killing for food.

Bow hunting, BTW, is often going to result in slow exsanguination shots. But it is highly efficient, and extremely cost effective.

 

[Jetrock]

Wow, this is turning into a "stereotypical gun misconceptions" thread.

19th century revolvers came in all sizes, including some very compact ones. Keep in mind that .22 Long Rifle has been around since 1887, and that was a more-powerful version of the .22 Short cartridge which dates back to the 1850s. Plus, those original .22 cartridges were pushed by black powder. These were the 19th century equivalent of a body pistol, either revolvers or the classic two-shot derringer (although derringers were chambered in bigger calibers too): the weapon you'd find in the vest pocket of a gambler, or a prostitute's garter. Intermediate calibers were also common.

19th century metallurgy was also not as advanced as today's, so guns may have been bigger because you needed more metal to stop things from exploding. This also means that putting modern ammunition in a vintage gun is generally not a safe idea, even if it fits. Things can explode.

You see huge dragoon pistols and such in movies because they look cool, but that isn't what everyone used.

Anyhow, it seems like the OP was thinking more along the lines of simply getting stats for a Tech Level 4 revolver. I'd use the corresponding Traveller stats, -1 to hit, -1 to damage, add .25 kg to weight.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

Wow, this is turning into a "stereotypical gun misconceptions" thread.

19th century revolvers came in all sizes, including some very compact ones. Keep in mind that .22 Long Rifle has been around since 1887, and that was a more-powerful version of the .22 Short cartridge which dates back to the 1850s. Plus, those original .22 cartridges were pushed by black powder. These were the 19th century equivalent of a body pistol, either revolvers or the classic two-shot derringer (although derringers were chambered in bigger calibers too): the weapon you'd find in the vest pocket of a gambler, or a prostitute's garter. Intermediate calibers were also common.

19th century metallurgy was also not as advanced as today's, so guns may have been bigger because you needed more metal to stop things from exploding. This also means that putting modern ammunition in a vintage gun is generally not a safe idea, even if it fits. Things can explode.

You see huge dragoon pistols and such in movies because they look cool, but that isn't what everyone used.

Anyhow, it seems like the OP was thinking more along the lines of simply getting stats for a Tech Level 4 revolver. I'd use the corresponding Traveller stats, -1 to hit, -1 to damage, add .25 kg to weight.

Think you're right on one count - we have hijacked the thread significantly!!!

Not sure about the 'stereotypical gun misconceptions' comment...YMMV though!o: