Lentzner

Sounds like part of your problem is trying to shoot the shotgun like a rifle. That set up is designed to be fired with your head off the stock, both eyes open. You shoot more intuitively as opposed to a rifle since your trying to hit moving targets at relatively close range. A shotgun can be set up for rifle style shooting (slugs), but then you would have rifle styles sights. I can only imagine the contortions you were going through to try and sight down the barrel using the bead on the front. No wonder you were getting beat up. Matt

For reference: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib.../ch7.htm#tab7-2 emphasis above is mine Matt

I've heard that before, but how do you measure it? Since chimps use their arms for locomotion then I would imagine their arms would be stronger. Whereas a human's legs would likely be stronger than a chimps. They sure can't throw a rock as hard as a person can. You've got to compare to a fit human and not a desk jockey for it to be fair. Anyway, I never said that bear's were not immensely strong. Are you saying a bear's muscle tissue is somehow tougher than a horse's? Does a bear have some armoring on it's body of some sort that I'm unaware of? Horse hide is delicate, but OTOH arrows can penetrate a bears body deeply enough to kill it. A halberd has a spear head and is intended to be used as one. You use the axe head as the opportunity presents itself. Standing with the halberd held high for a stroke as the bear charges seems foolish to me. That kind of makes my point. A person with tools and ingenuity has huge advantages over beasts. Being attacked by a wild animal is a basic fear for humans. I think this colors a lot of people's opinion of the prowess of a bear. If you are able to keep you wits about you and fight intelligently then you can at least give yourself a fighting chance. Although, I'm not volunteering... Matt

I agree that large bears are likely harder to chop than a person, but I was talking halberds. The are skulls from Towton that are literally split top to bottom by halberds. I don't think a bear or pig will stand up to that in spite of a thicker body or skull. Maybe not a top to bottom split, but deadly enough. Using your halberd with the extra reach could allow you to wound a leg that slows the bear down enough to cut him up at your leisure. Please keep in mind the squared/cubed law also. A bear that is eight times your weight will only be 4 times as strong. A fit man will have a much better power to weight ratio even if his top speed is slower. That is, he'll be more manueverable. Also 0.5" nicked aorta is equally bad for a man or a bear in spite of the bears size. The bear may take a little longer to bleed out, but his body's ability to clot that hole is essentially no better than a persons. It's not like the bear's platelets are 8 times bigger also. Everyone seems to have a story of bear getting killed by a supposedly unlikely means. Is it really so unlikely then? The tiger has the means to negate your reach advantage by leaping on you. You would likely lose to either of these animals if you got into a wrestling match. Tigers are far more dangerous to people than bears are and still routinely prey on people. Enraged hippos are even more dangerous, but that's another thread. Regards, Matt P.S. Windlass crossbows are a waste. They were designed to be used against plate armor. Bears are just meat. A lighter weight crossbow or bow would give you just as good results and possibly allow for follow-on shots.

With regards to the value of fragmenting bullets: I feel I need to point this out once again that there's a definite price to pay for these large wound channels. 1. Reduced ability to hit vital organs. You need at least 12" of penetration in tissue to reliably hit vital organs. That's why these bb bag bullets are so crappy. They fragment on impact, and while making a ghastly looking wound, do not reach the organs. I'm even a bit skeptical of expanding bullets for handguns. Looking at the gel shots of expanding bullets from handguns, the 12" required penetration is often not achieved. The current 5.56mm out of a 20" barrel looks like a good compromise - more fragmentation may be worse. CNS hits (the only true stoppers) don't require fragmentation and may actually be hindered by bullets that fragment too well and can't compromise the spinal column or don't penetrate deeply enough to hit it. Even the best fragmenters will allow an enemy a few seconds of action before they bleed out. Those are the seconds that matter so in some ways the large wound channel doesn't help as much as you might think. 2. In a military context, penetration is a valuable commodity. Being able to turn someone's cover into concealment is nothing to sneeze at. This is more useful than large wound channels. Having both of course is the best situation. With body armor becoming more common in the future this penetration will be even more important. AFAICT the 7.62mm Bloc cannot penetrate US body armor at any range. This has severely marginalized this weapon (not that I'm complaining) and given a huge advantage to friendly forces. Regards, Matt

Adding sights to the cannon and muskets would be an improvement. Nothing fancy as the guns themselves were not too accurate. A simple leaf site would be adequate. Matt

Okay, it just seems like more powerful rounds are used to compensate for piss poor shooting. Ken, I know you know that shot placement is what it's all about. The Israeli revenge operators (for Munich) used .22 shorts and killed people dead by emptying two magazines into the body. The most important factor (according to Fackler - and he is the only one I trust) is that the bullet can travel 12" in flesh to reliably hit the organs. I have a 9mm 92F. I knew it, it fits my hand well, and I can shoot the 10 ring out of a sillouette with it. The durability issues are not relevant to the amount of wear my weapon will take. The Colt .45 is too small for my large hands and feels nose heavy to me. Only 7 shots. Obviously a lot of people really like it and I don't fault them for it. It's a fine weapon. If I do have to shoot somebody (God forbid) it will be two in the body and one tap to the head. I could do that in about 1.5 seconds with my Beretta. I suppose shooting someone once with a 357 would look better in the inevitable trial; I guess I'll take my chances. I think a .45 or 9mm shot to the head will make a person pretty equally dead. Regards, Matt

I'm not seeing how these bears are so super tough. Guys armed with stone age tools killed short faced bears which were far larger than any bears around today. I have personally witnessed a large (550 lbs IIRC) blackie killed dead with two arrows. The second was actually just for insurance. The first arrow punctured both lungs. He climbed out of the tree he was in (going for someone's food) and died. Some guy at Netsword went to the abbatoir and had at it with a sword vs. a cow carcass. He was able to sever limbs. Supposedly a Dane axe could decapitate a warhorse in a single stroke. Bears are just meat like you and I. Just more of it. Plus, I have heard their bodies are actually pretty soft. Now tigers are another story. But you'd never see it coming. Matt

AFAICT, the reason people aren't happy with the SAWs is because they are worn out. Kind of a catch 22. When I was in, the SAWs were pretty new and they shot great. My only complaint was that they were a PITA to clean and the magazine feed plain didn't work. Minor gripes IMO. In a way the whole concept is bogus. Yes the SAW is heavy when loaded with a 200 rnd ammo box. 200 rounds of 5.56 is heavy. Any new gee whiz weapon firing 5.56 is going to be heavy when you put the box on. Going with a larger round will be even heavier. Why you couldn't use a 100 round box to make the weapon handier is beyond me. Honestly, I don't see the point. Until you can go with a bullpup caseless rifle I don't see any tiny improvement you can get staying with brass cartridges and conventionally arranged weapons being worth the trouble. The M16 with a standard barrel is world class already. Just say "no" to short barrels! Caseless would be a real improvement in ammo carry capacity, plus allowing a sealed action that would be much more resistant to outside contamination. Bullpup gives you the advantage of a compact rifle with a full length barrel. I know there are issues with both of these design elements, but I can't believe they are insurmountable. American ingenuity should prevail. If not, then German engineering should be good enough. Matt

Shortsword is a bad idea IMHO. The last thing you want to do is get into a wrestling match with the bear. Better to get a reach advantage and use your agility to keep the distance. If the bear manages to knock you down and get on top, armor isn't going to help much - just delaying the inevitable. I think a halberd or bill would make short work of even a large bear. An open helmet and a mail hauberk would be good enough protection against claw swipes without weighing one down too much. Plus an arming sword and a dagger in case things go pear shaped. If the bear advances on all fours then spilt his skull with the axe blade. If he rears up then thrust to the upper body going for the lungs and heart - he won't be able to reach you. Keep circling so he can't line you up for a charge. In closing, men with tools are much more formidable. Matt

When did the 9mm get the reputation of being a wimpy round? There was a time when it was considered pretty hard hitting. Isn't that where the Browning High Power gets it's name? Matt

A spear is a better weapon period. The advantage a sword has is that it can be carried on the hip while keeping your hands free (much like a pistol). Matt

I was talking more about self defense as opposed to hunting. If you're hunting you'd be taking a longer shot and hopefully aiming for vitals. You're surprising the bear and you want to kill to be as humane as possible. OTOH, if the bear surprises you I would think fumbling around with some kind of hand cannon could be fatal. I think I could get off 2-3 shots with a 9mm for every one from a .44 mag. Where's the tipping point? Regards, Matt

At what point does your rate of fire decrease to the point that a smaller bullet hitting more times is better? If I, with my 9mm and some other guy with a giant handgun are confronted by a bear at close range I should be able to get off many more shots that the other guy. (That's really a question. The biggest handgun I've fired was a .357 and I thought it was pretty rough.) Wounding is more about shot placement than anything else. More shots means more chances to hit something important. I think a 9mm FMJ should still have the needed penetration to hit critical organs - even on a very large bear. Matt

David, There is no contradiction because, even though you are seeing both characteristics of light you are seeing them in different contexts. Heisenberg says that if you know the position of the particle then you cannot know it's wavelength, and vice versa. Basically, you can't observe it without changing it. Knowing the position is knowing where it was. You were seeing the pattern made as a group without knowing the individual particulate properties. I too had the WTF during the double slit experiment. My professor told us a story about someone observing the wave effect with electrons. So they decided to release one electron at a time and using a coil to detect the electrical field, determine which slit the electron passed though. Once they did this, no more diffraction pattern. I am still trying to get my head around that one. As far as being a physics whiz, I'm with you. Solid C average as an undergrad with no desire to continue. Once things got too tiny to see, I was hopelessly lost. Matt